The K.F. Stone Weekly

The Sky is Not Falling -- The Horizon is Rising

  This past Thursday (April 19, 2012), House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference -- an event that rarely rates more than a line or two in either the New York or Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, or even the San Francisco Chronicle. At one point during the press session -- which focused mainly on taxes, the so-called "Buffett Rule," and the Secret Service scandal in Columbia -- The former House Speaker made reference to Senate Bill 2219, the DISCLOSE Act.  This act, introduced by Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in the senate and Representative Chris Van Hollen in the House would " . . . amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities."  In speaking of the Whitehouse/Van Hollen proposal (which has 40 cosponsors in the Senate and more than 100 in the House), the former Speaker said:

On another subject, but related, yesterday House Administration Democrats held a forum on the need to create a new politics free of special interest money. I call it a forum because we were not allowed to call it a hearing because the Republicans will not allow a hearing on DISCLOSE. They did not allow the camera system of the room to be used to transmit the proceedings from the forum to the rest of the world. We think that this is about transparency, DISCLOSE. Stand by your ads. If you are so proud of what you are doing with your effective political action, then let the world know who is paying for this ad; not by the end of the year, or the end of the month, but by the end of the ad, in real time. We have to do it as candidates. They should have to do it as contributors.

   We have a clear agenda in this regard. DISCLOSE, reform the system, reducing the role of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to let secret, unlimited huge amounts of money flow into campaigns. I think one of the presenters yesterday said it was – that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that indeed is not an exaggeration. Our founders had an idea. It was called democracy. [They] said the elections are determined by the people, the voice, and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. The Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our founders' vision, and we want to reverse it.

   As noted above, Pelosi's comments went unreported by the nation's major media outlets.  Nonetheless, her 280-word comment was picked up by chatterboxes at Fox, who then proceeded to dice, slice and skewer.  So far as they -- and virtually all of their colleagues in the conservative media -- were concerned, Pelosi's support of the DISCLOSE Act was and is nothing short of a declaration of war on both the First Amendment and the United States of America.  "How dare Nancy Pelosi stand there and blatantly admit that she and her fellow Democrats are going to amend Constitution in order to overturn a Supreme Court decision?" the likes of Sean Hannaty, Dana Perino and Bob Beckel asked in mock abhorrence -- as if they haven't at one time or another pushed for overturning of the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution.   (These amendments, in order, guaranteed "Due Process," gave Congress the legal right to collect income taxes and permitted the direct election of U.S. Senators.)

   Call it an act of collective, selective amnesia.  When the right seeks to repeal the entire 20th century, it is an act of sheer patriotism -- a strengthening of liberty's beneficent embrace.  When Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues call for the repeal Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission  it is a sure sign that the sky is falling and a reborn Soviet Union is on the brink of swallowing America whole.

   Truth to tell, the SCOTUS Citizens United decision -- which declared that corporations, like people are guaranteed the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" --  has made it likely that America will one day be swallowed whole . . . but not by Communists, by Corporatists.  As a result of Citizens United, the wealthiest Americans can dump hundreds of millions of anonymous dollars into committees that will then back those office holders or candidates who will do their bidding -- regardless of how reckless or retrogressive their wishes may be. (See my October 29, 2010 article "Worse Than Dred Scott," which was published a few days after the Supreme Court's decision.)

   As a result of Citizens United, the will of the people has been replaced by "Gold's Law" -- namely, "He (or she) that's got the gold will make the law." 

   Don't believe that the will of the people is being buried?  A bit of anecdotal evidence:

• According to an ABCNEWS/Washington Post Poll, 57% of the American public say abortion should be legal "in all or most cases," and 54% continue to support the court's 1973 Roe v Wade decision.  And yet, legislatures in nearly every state have enacted draconian anti-abortion measures up to ans including a recently passed Arizona law which states that life begins two weeks BEFORE CONCEPTION.
• The Gallup Poll reports that for the first time in its tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe ". . . same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid with the same rights as traditional marriages."  And yet, both Congress and a majority of state legislatures are pushing for a "Defense of Marriage Act," which would declare that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
• According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, a whopping 65% of those polled are in favor of an overhaul of the U.S. health care system.  Of that 65%, nearly one-in-four did not believe that so-called "Obama Care" went far enough. And yet, everywhere one looks or listens, there are demands for a repeal of the president's "socialist" program.
• A recent CBS/New York Times poll reveals that 56% say they oppose cutting the pay or benefits of (largely unionized) public employees to reduce state budget deficits, and 60% percent oppose eliminating some collective bargaining rights for public employee unions, while just one in three Americans supports that idea.  Despite this, several state legislatures have voted to curb union rights, claiming that in large measure, the nation's economic doldrums are caused by unions.
• A poll conducted by Hart Research Associates found that nearly 8 ouf ot every ten voters (79%) support passage of a Constitutional amendment to overturn the
  Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people. This figure includes 42% who would definitely support it. Just 21% are opposed. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment. 
  

   And yet, there are those who are warning that the sky is falling.

   Well, I'm here to tell you that the sky is not falling; rather, the horizon is rising.  We are beginning to see the largely ignored majority band together and make their/our voices and desires heard.  Just ask Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is spending nearly every waking hour trying to keep from being recalled.  Just ask the folks of ALEC (see my July 30, 2011 article) who are underwriting so many of these issues; within the past two weeks, they have lost the financial backing of Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and MacDonalds.  Lastly, ask state legislators in Hawaii, Vermont, New Mexico and shortly Montana, as well as members of city councils across the country, who have all passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. 

   Finally, people are saying "Enough's enough! America is a nation built on the will of the people, not the wealth of the plutocrats."  For those interested in adding their voice to the "Overturn Citizens United" campaign, check out Free Speech For People.

  Let the Foxifiers warn that the sky is falling.  It will keep them too busy to realize that for the rest of us, the horizon is rising . . .

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

A Whale of Two Pities

   So you tell me: who's more dangerous, divisive and delusional -- CNN contributor Hilary Rosen or U.S. Representative Allen West?  Based on their past declarations and history -- plus a judicious Google search -- I'd have to say Allen West by about twelve thousand furlongs.  For while Rosen's comment about Ann Romney (" . . . she's never worked a day in her life . . .") has become the political flashpoint of the week,  Representative West's statement that " . . . there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party" sounds and feels like the rebirth of McCarthyism.  I don't know about you, but when it comes to being dangerous, divisive and delusional, Rep. West wins this one hands down.

  When asked to recant and apologize for her comment, Ms. Rosen issued a statement in which she said, "I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance." Ms. Rosen (who herself has raised two children) also published a piece in The Huffington Post, which said in part, ". . . Let's be clear on one thing. I have no judgments about women who work outside the home vs. women who work in the home raising a family. I admire women who can stay home and raise their kids full-time. I even envy them sometimes. It is a wonderful luxury to have the choice. But let's stipulate that it is NOT a choice that most women have in America today."

   For those who at this point are crying out "But that's no apology!" guess again.  Even former first lady Barbara Bush commended Rosen's mea culpa, telling people ". . . forget it. Life is good. Women who stay home are wonderful, women who go to work are wonderful. Whatever." At a time when all sides of the media love playing "Gotcha!" the response to Hillary Rosen's verbal gaffe is far from unique. That she has been taken to the woodshed by both the stalwarts of the Right and members of her own party is hardly surprising.  Obama campaign chair David Axelrod told CNN's John King that Rosen's comments were "unfortunate," but quickly reminded him that ". . . she works for you (CNN), not for us . . ."

   

   While everyone in America now knows that Hilary Rosen accused Ann Romney of "never having worked a day in her life," few realize that this was only the first part of her statement.  For beginning with the very next sentence, Rosen added, "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why do we worry about their future."  In checking out numerous websites -- right, center and left -- dealing with the Rosen/Romney scrap, it is amazing how many people have felt the need to mention that Hilary Rosen is a lesbian, but that "this has nothing to do with how I feel about what she said."  Well, if it has "nothing to do with . . . what she said," why bring it up in the first place?  

   Lost in the current imbroglio is the fact that there is still more than a germ of truth in what Hilary Rosen said; people like Ann Romney cannot truly understand just how difficult it is for two-wage earner families to make ends meet.  For most American families raising children is something one does after eight -- or ten, or twelve -- hours of work.  Staying home with a sick child can mean a loss of income; taking time off to give birth can mean a loss of employment.

   Then there's Alan West.

 

   Where Hilary Rosen quickly gave in to demands that she apologize to both Ann Romney and the women of America, Allen West has remained unbowed, unapologetic and defiant; he truly believes that of the 193 Democrats in the House, more than 40% are members of the Communist Party.  When asked to comment on West's assertion, Libero Della Piana, a vice-chair of the Communist Party said, "I think it's an absurd way to cast a shadow over his colleagues. It's kind of a sad ploy."

   While it's a pity that Hilary Rosen's remark threw a rhetorical monkey wrench into an otherwise serious, much-needed political debate, it is an even greater pity that Rep. West should attempt to recycle and revive one of the darkest, most gruesome episodes in American history.  To be certain, there are some mighty big differences between the America of Martin Dies, Joe McCarthy, J. Parnell Thomas, and the John Birch Society than that of Allen West, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and the Koch brothers.  Back then, people got their news from journalists like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Howard K. Smith and Eric Severeid; today we've got a thousand-and-one cable entertainers, few of whom qualify for the title "newsman." In the McCarthy era, nearly 35% of the American labor force belonged to a union; today the percentage is not quite 12%.  Back in the day, the "international conspiracy" was made up of Jews, unions, Zionists, even plutocratic bankers, all puppets dangling on strings manipulated by Stalinist agents in Moscow, Hollywood, the Lower East Side and certain segments of Capitol Hill.  Today, all that has changed; the Soviet Union no longer exists, and thus can no longer act as puppet master.

   Or does it? Just three weeks ago Mitt Romney told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that " . . . Russia is, without question, our biggest geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world's worst actors."

 

   Representative West, who has been suggested as an "ideal running mate" for  Romney, would appear to agree with the former Massachusetts governor; Russia is still the enemy, Communism still the greatest source of evil. 

   West is of course well-known for making outrageous comments:

• “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat party."
• [Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is] "Vile, unprofessional and despicable . . . not a lady."
• “I am sick and tired of this class warfare, this Marxist demagogic rhetoric that is coming from the president of the United States. Barack Hussein Obama is nothing more than a low-level socialist agitator.”
• Speaking of Congressional Democrats: “Take your message of equality of achievement…You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”

   From where I sit, Allen West, like Joseph McCarthy, is divisive, delusional, and just plain dangerous.  Like McCarthy, he says things he knows are not true in order to garner public attention; in order to separate himself from the nameless pack.  Like McCarthy he has identified a segment of the American public that is beset with fear, loathing and resentment -- and announced that he can be counted on to be their champion.  And like McCarthy he is a master of political misdirection -- of creating conspiracies out of thin air.

   Hilary Rosen has apologized for her gaffe; her political compass will lead her back to a proper path. 

   Allen West, on the other hand, is a man without a compass . . . or a conscience. 
  

   It's a whale of a pity.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Coupon Clippers of the World Unite!

   Last Wednesday in my "All Politics All the Time" course at Florida International University, we spent a few minutes discussing Mitt Romney's tax return, which he had released just the day before.  Not surprisingly, most of students were well versed on how much

            Romney's Home in Deer Valley, UT

Governor Romney earned per year (roughly $20 million), the percentage he paid in taxes (approximately 15%) and the various sources of his vast wealth.

 

   In the midst of our conversation -- for which I had originally allotted no more than ten minutes -- one student asked, "If Romney gets elected, will he be the richest president in American history?"

   "That's a fascinating question," I answered slowly, doing a quick "Google search" in my head. "Although I'm not sure," I answered after a few seconds of silence, "al regel achat (Hebrew for while standing on one foot) I would have to say the answer is 'no'  -- Mitt Romney would not be our wealthiest president.  I think that distinction goes to George Washington, who in addition to being one of the tallest men in the nation (nearly 6'2"), was likely its richest as well."  My answer drew a few skeptical head

            Romney's Home in La Jolla, CA

wags -- about both his height and wealth. I promised the class that I would do some serious research and hopefully have an answer for them by our next class session.

 

 Another student challenged the class with a comment/question: "What does it all mean in the long-run?  Just because the man's super-rich does that mean he can't understand people who aren't?  Are we going to hold his wealth against him?"

   The student was bringing up an intriguing point which, in a time of gross economic disparity, will likely be a major issue lurking just beneath the surface should Governor Romney get the Republican nomination.  

   As a society, our fascination with the "lifestyles of the rich and famous" is somewhere between widespread and universal.  A quick survey of which magazines and tabloids are hawked at virtually every supermarket checkout line in America amply proves the point.  How many people who don't even know the name of the family living across the street can give you line and verse about how much famous people earn . . . or the price of their mansions or the "toys" they play?  We know so much about people we don't truly know as to become inured to real life.  We read or hear so much about other people's wealth that we can actually say of an athlete making $2 million a season that "he's a real bargain."  $2 million a bargain?  That's $38,461.53 a week!

   Sounds pretty outrageous when you break it down by the week -- or the game, at bat or even hour.  Consider the following:

• Kobe Bryant makes $307,853.66 per game -- if he plays all 82 games in a season.
• A-Rod makes $50,000 per at bat -- if he comes to the plate 600 per season.
• Tom Brady earns $825,507.50 per game, 16 games a season.
• In 2011, Lady Gaga earned $1,730,770 a week.
  
• Mitt Romney earns $2,285.00 an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
  

   Don't get me wrong, I am not denigrating anyone making a king's ransom; God bless 'em all I say.  But at the same time, you have to wonder if all that money might not create a wall of separation between some seriously wealthy people and the rest of us who don't have a 7 or 8 figure income.  Yes indeed, there certainly are very wealthy people who never forgot where they came from; who still have a deep and thorough understanding of what it means to be living on the edge.  Take former Representative Alan Grayson who, despite possessing a net worth somewhere north of $30,000,000.00 is one of the wild and woolliest progressives in America.  (Check out the essay on Alan in my book, The Jews of Capitol Hill)  Then there are Senators Frank Lautenberg and Herb Kohl, two multi-multi millionaires who are at the forefront of those arguing for higher taxes for the wealthy and against cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

   And then there's Mitt Romney.  The son of former Michigan Governor -- and American Motors CEO -- George Romney, Mitt wasn't exactly born into the middle class.  His father earned, on average, more than $300,000 a year during his peak years.

           Romney's Home in Belmont, MA

As such, Mitt and his 4 siblings were raised first in the upscale Detroit Palmer Woods neighborhood and then the even more tony Bloomfield Hills, where he prepped at the Cranbrook School.  And although Mitt Romney is, without question, a good, decent and charitable man -- he tithes his church -- he acts and sounds like a man who hasn't the slightest idea what it is like to worry over whether one will have enough money to pay the mortgage, health insurance and utility bill, or is barely able to cover the monthly minimum on their credit cards -- despite working two jobs.     

 

   A person who is truly in touch with the challenges of daily life would not say -- even as a joke -- "I should tell my story . . . I'm also unemployed," despite earning 54,795.00 a day off of his investments.  Who in the real world can blithely afford to challenge someone to a $10,000.00 bet -- as he did with Texas Governor Rick Perry?  Then there's Romney's off-the-cuff comment, "I get speakers fees from time to time, but not very much." (In this case, the "not very much" amounted to more than $350,000!)

   When a candidate like Mitt Romney -- who in his lifetime has gone from being privileged to richer-than-Croesus -- or Newt Gingrich -- who has gone from lower-middle-class to multimillionaire -- argues for lower taxes for the rich and against, say, collective bargaining rights for union workers, it smacks of being completely out of

           Romney's Home in Wolfboro, NH

 

touch. When a man like President Barack Obama -- the child of a mixed-race broken home -- who earned more than $5 million writing books -- argues in favor of the rich (which now includes him) paying "their fair share," one gets the sense of a person still in touch with real people living real lives, facing real challenges. With economic disparity looming as the subtext for the 2012 presidential election, one can't help but believe that Mitt Romney is going to be at a decided disadvantage.

   Now, as to the question of our wealthiest president: turns out I was correct.  According to a fascinating story published on the acclaimed website 24/7 Wall Street.com George Washington was, far and away, our wealthiest Commander in Chief.  The editors of 24/7 Wall Street estimate that Washington was worth -- in 2010 dollars -- somewhere in the neighborhood of $525 million.  Additionally, he made far, far more than subsequent presidents; his salary was 2% of the total U.S. budget in 1789!  Other truly wealthy chief executives include Thomas Jefferson ($212 million), James Madison ($100 million), Andrew Jackson ($119 million), Theodore Roosevelt ($125 million), Herbert Hoover ($70 million), and Lyndon Johnson ($98 million).  (Those wondering about JFK should know that had he lived, he stood to inherit more than $1 billion from his father.  Such, however, was not to be his fate . . .)

   As a society of voyeurs, we are, without question, addicted to the "lifestyles of the rich and famous." One hopes that when it comes to being a society of citizens and voters, we seek out those who, despite having earned -- or not -- great wealth, still have their fingers on the pulse of real people living real lives, facing real challenges.  

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Ghoul For Scandal

  Forty-eight hours ago, shortly after Anthony Weiner's (presumably) final press conference, I received a rather snarky email from one of my most regressive readers. In part it read:

   "Hey 'Rabbi' (He generally puts that word in quotes, as if somehow the title I earned  a long time ago is a mark of reproof, denigration or just means that I should stick to the Bible and leave politics to people who live in the real world.) "I guess you're all upset because one of your guys was caught with his pants down.  I bet you won't write word one about Weiner because he's a liberal.  But if he were a Republican . . . that would be a different story.  You'd be all over it like flies on . . ."

   Needless to say, his email bugged me just a bit.  My initial thought: he was undoubtedly correct on his first point; I would definitely not be writing an essay about  the sad, stupid and precipitous downfall of Anthony Weiner.  And not because ". . . he's a liberal," but rather because it's simply not my style. I have never been a ghoul for scandal; have never felt that the peccadilloes of public people are truly worthy of comment.  After all, those whose sins -- generally sexual --  are made public already have enough hell to pay with God, their spouses, constituents, and conscience -- presuming they have one -- without me putting in my two cents.  Then too, although I did take several courses in abnormal psychology and pastoral counseling a long time ago, I am certainly not qualified to analyze the underlying cause(s) of Anthony Weiner's (or anyone else's) psycho-sexual proclivities.  Goodness knows there are tons of "instant shrinks" doing just that.   Suffice it to say that it could just be that the man is sick and in need of therapy.  Heck, if were an alcoholic, who had been caught driving while intoxicated, he would have kept his job -- even if he had at first lied and denied.  we would have merely said "Gee, it's too bad that he's an alcoholic; what a terrible disease.  Let's get him some help."

    And,  if all that were not reason enough to stay away from the issue of Anthony Weiner, there are enough members of the media acting as a collective ghoul for scandal, taking valuable time and attention away from issues that really, truly matter.  Quite frankly, I was dumbfounded that Democrats, who have shown such a notable lack of spine when it comes to health care, tax cuts for the rich and the rights of union workers, should have acted so loudly, quickly and decisively when it came to calling for Representative Weiner to resign his House seat.  For this they find the guts to act with dispatch . . .  

    Then there was the second part of my correspondent's accusation: "But if he were a Republican . . . that would be a different story . . ." Although I was 99% sure that he was dead wrong, I decided to do a word search through the 345 op-ed pieces I have published since The K.F. Stone Weekly first appeared back in February of 2005.  (Longtime readers will recall that back then, it was called Beating the Bushes.)  Using the names "Frank," "Gingrich," "Craig," "Vitter," "Ensign," "Spitzer," "Foley," "Schwarzenegger," "Sanford," "Edwards" "Lee," and "Weiner," as search parameters, I was able to reaffirm  what I suspected: that I have never written a single word about any of these  politicians, all of whom at one time or another have been spoltlighted by the collective ghoul for scandal.  (Oh yes, there was one reference to former Florida Representative Mark Foley: a piece about then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumfeld published on October 5, 2005 which carried the title Eureka!  Finally an Article That's Not About Mark Foley.  If I had joined in with the collective ghoul for scandal and written about many of the aforementioned sinners (Craig, Vitter, Sanford, Ensign) it would likely have focused on the chasmic gap between their public protestations as to what is and is not moral ("family values") and their private peccadilloes.  I likely would have noted that others  (such as Frank, Spitzer, Edwards and Weiner) had steadfastly avoided the moralizing preachiness of their more sanctimonious colleagues. But again, I chose not to; I've just never had the stomach nor felt the need to be a part of the collective ghoul for scandal.

   Predictably, when it is a Republican who gets caught between the cross-hairs (Vitter, Craig, Ensign or Sanford, par example) the talking heads at Fox are more or less mum while those at MSNBC form a backbiting claque even Sheridan's Lady Sneerwell might appreciate.  (If this illusion draws a blank, check out the following link.) Conversely, when it's a Democrat -- like Spitzer, Edwards, or Frank -- the opposite frequently occurs: conservatives sharpen their spears  while the more progressive members of the Fourth Estate are the ones downplaying the scandal.  In the case of Anthony Weiner, however, both camps have seen fit to comment and condemn -- but for different reasons.  For conservatives, the Weiner scandal is worse than those of Foley, Craig, Vitter, Ensign Sanford or Lee: when caught, the former compounded his psychopathy by lying; the latter manfully confessed to their sins, thereby laying the groundwork for redemption.   Progressives point out that while Weiner's sins -- unlike those of many of his colleagues -- involved only "sexting," as opposed to a real carnal act, he had become an embarrassment to his party, and thus had to go.  In other words, the scandal surrounding him, unless nipped in the bud, would likely come back to haunt Democrats in the 2012 election.  I wonder.  The public's memory is  short, its appetite for scandal great.  I would venture a guess that there will be several more opportunities for the collective ghoul for scandal to rear its ugly head between now and November 2012. 

   Let's be clear about one thing: Anthony Weiner -- and Anthony Weiner alone -- is responsible for his actions.  (Shakespeare's line "None but Antony should conquer Antony"comes to mind here.)  Why a dynamic public man with a boatload of talent, a bright future and a wife who could give Hedy Lamarr a run for her money should engage in such bizarre behavior is anyone's guess.  Fascinatingly, despite his precipitous fall from grace, when polled, nearly two-thirds of the voters in his New York City district wanted him to remain their representative.  So far as they were concerned, Weiner's actions -- although troubling -- couldn't erase all he'd done for them.  Despite all that has been revealed about his private life, to them, he's still the same Anthony Weiner: the guy who can wolf down more hot dogs than any 145 pounder you've ever met; the guy who rants, raves and shouts for those things he believes; the guy who now must find another path.  Don't be surprised if Anthony Weiner winds up with a spot on television one of these days.  After all, in his salad days, he thought he'd become a sports reporter.

   And as for us -- the collective ghoul for scandal -- we would be far better served if we focused our attention on issues that truly affect our destiny as opposed to those which are, in the long run, " . . . full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

   ©2011 Kurt F. Stone

And Now, the Noise . . . er . . . the News

   Most of us are familiar with the old philosophical poser, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"  The riddle poses the fascinating question "Can something exist without being perceived?" To a philosopher -- which I am not -- the overarching question becomes "If no one is around to hear,  touch or smell the tree, can it truly be said to exist?"  All those who took Philosophy 101 will likely recall Lord Berkeley's "subjective idealism," which posited that "To be is to be perceived" -- e.g. without my perception, the tree -- and indeed, all corporeal reality -- lacks existence.  In other words, it is my perception that gives the tree its reality. 

   Great stuff -- provided one doesn't take it outside the classroom or the den.  For those who do -- who put down their cuppa tea and continue the conversation in the so-called "real world" -- don't be surprised if people in white coats come chasing after you brandishing butterfly nets . . .      

   Along the same lines, one might wax philosophically and ask, "Does the media's wall-to-wall coverage of Donald Trump's claim that Bill Ayers -- and not Barack Obama -- wrote the president's bestselling Dreams of My Fathers, make it news?"  Or, along the same lines, "If no media outlet reports on Ohio Congresswoman Jean Schmidt's outrageous claim that 'For every 33 women who walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic, 32 receive an abortion,' is that news?"

   As with the riddle about the falling tree, there is no hard, fast answer to the questions above; it all depends on one's philosophical -- or in this case, political -- bent.  Nonetheless, there are several serious questions being posed here; questions that  are certainly more than mere pleasant philosophical diversions.  To wit:

• Is there a line between reporting on -- as opposed to creating -- news?
• Is it the media's job to reflect -- or to help shape -- public opinion?
• Is there a difference between "news" and "noise?"   

   Prior to the advent of the Internet and the "implosion/explosion" of the Fourth Estate, American media -- largely radio and television -- conformed to guidelines set out in the Federal Communications Act of 1934.  This act created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulated the nation's media outlets and, after 1949, administered the "Fairness Doctrine."  This FCC policy, required that holders of broadcast licenses "to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner" that was, in the Commission's view, "honest, equitable and balanced."  The FCC abolished this doctrine in 1987; the original Federal Communications Act was emasculated by the deregulatory Telecommunications Act of 1996.  

   Under the Fairness Doctrine -- and before deregulation and the creation of the Internet -- most cities had their own local news outlets.  Radio and television stations from Caribou to Covina had people writing and reporting local news.  Networks were pretty much limited to the big three -- NBC, CBS and ABC -- along with their weaker sister, PBS.  On radio, Westinghouse Broadcasting operated 24-hour a day news radio stations in many major American cities, and had news bureaus in most international capitals. Then came the "implosion." Today, Westinghouse is a memory; NBC, CBS and ABC have far fewer journalists stationed abroad; most American cities get their news from the same sources.  

   The "explosion," of course was in the sheer number of media outlets on cable, broadband and the Internet. This explosion has created far greater competition for advertising dollars, which has in turn, has forced the industry to ratchet up the volume of its so-called reportage; where once there was news, now there is noise.

   Back in the early 1970s, I spent the better part of a year working for  the Westinghouse Broadcasting affiliate (KFWB) in Hollywood, California. ("You give us 22 minutes, we'll give you the world.")  In those days the newsroom staff easily numbered 35-40 -- writers, reporters, editors, engineers and on-air personalities. During my tenure, two news stories took up the lion's share of our time: Watergate and the Patty Hearst kidnapping.  My desk was right outside the teletype room where the constant clackity-clack of automatic 75-words-a-minute typing emanated from the AP, UPI and Reuters "A-wire" and "B-wire" machines.  (The former ran full-length newspaper-ready stories; the latter, a radio version commonly called "rip and read.") A couple of times a week a bell would go off in the teletype room, meaning that an "urgent" story was about to come through.  And once in a blue moon (I think it may have occurred twice) lights would go off; this was a "flash" -- a story of epic proportion, such as the resignation of the President of the United States.

   If KFWB were still in the 24-hour-a-day news business (it is now long gone), the bells and flashing lights would undoubtedly go off several times an hour.  For in today's media, all stories are breaking stories; all headlines scream; every news item is of earth-shattering importance.  In short, what once was "the news," has become "the noise." 

   Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that there is a vast difference between news and noise.  The former -- News -- is meant to illuminate, stimulate and educate; it is a daily archive of human history.  It is intended to inform; to increase awareness of the world in which we live; ultimately, to make of us better citizens.  When professionally well done, News does not require the microphone to be at pitched volume.  Just think of Edward R. Murrow, Eric Sevareid and Walter Cronkite.  Their relationship with viewers and listeners approached a sacred trust.  And from time to time, they even turned in a bit of a profit for their corporate bosses. 

   Noise, on the other hand, transforms the microphone into a bullhorn.  Unlike News, Noise is meant to sensationalize and to marginalize; to agitate and to create heroes and villains; to promote a partisan point of view.  It is a bare-knuckle fight to the finish where "victory" means profit, and the notion of sacred trust  as antiquated and outmoded as a pair of silk stockings.

   In an ideal world, the modern masters (and mistresses) of the microphone -- like their forbears of yesteryear -- would understand the difference between "News" and "Noise."  In an ideal world, they would recognize that not every crackpot deserves coverage, nor every zealot a headline. In an ideal world, they would know that their job is to report -- and not to create -- the News.

   But alas, this is not an ideal world.

   And that's the noise that's making news . . .

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Shame on All of Us

   Trying to keep up with -- let alone write about --  the various twists and turns in the saga of the Reverend Terry Jones and his on-again-off-again burning of the Quran hasn't been easy.  It's been akin to writing about a tennis or boxing match while it's still in progress.  Starting with a July 12 Tweet the Reverend Jones began proclaiming September 11th, as "International Burn a Koran (sic) Day."  Further, he announced that he and the 50 or so members of his Gainesville, Florida-based "Dove World Outreach Center" would burn 200 copies of the Quran and reported, the Talmud as well, on church grounds.  And for months, this proclamation drew scant attention from any media outside of perhaps, the Gainesville Sun. 

   That all changed about two weeks ago, when the media -- led by the New York Times and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann -- finally began shining a 50,000,000 watt spotlight on the Reverend, his life story, his lunacy and his apocalyptic vision.  Suddenly his name, face, and white "Village People" mustache were everywhere.  With but a few grains of magic media dust being sprinkled on him, Jones suddenly became as well-known as the U.S.D.A.'s Shirley Sherrod had been in July or the "New Black Panthers" and B.P.'s Tony ("I want my life back") Hayward had been way back in June.   

   And now, after just barely two weeks under the electron microscope, we know more about Terry Jones than we do our next door neighbor:

• He is a 58-year old former hotel manager who was a classmate of Rush Limbaugh's at Cape Central high school. (I for one see in this factoid proof positive that the good Lord has a phenemonal sense of humor.)
• Jones has been using his church as a front for a for-profit furniture company, and has actually had parishioners working upwards of 70 hours a week for no pay.  
• He was canned from a church he founded in Cologne, Germany for being too radical.
• Just five weeks ago, Jones published a book entitled Islam Is of the Devil, which as of a couple of hours ago, was #5,929 on Amazon's Bestseller Rank (not bad for a 176-page screed published by "Creation House," whose all-time best seller is singer Pat Boone's A New Song.)
• Over the past several days, Jones has been personally contacted by General David Petraeus and Secretary of Defense Gates, both of whom urged him not to go through with "International Burn A Koran Day."  Both men stressed what a deleterious effect Jones' planned book burning would likely have on American troops in Afghanistan.
• In addition to Petraeus and Gates, Jones has been publicly mentioned and admonished by President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Governor Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Pope Benedict, Angelina Jolie, NATO, Interpol, every country in the European Union as well as most every religious group in the civilized world. 
• The foreign ministries of Pakistan and Bahrain issued official denunciations, with Bahrain calling it a "shameful act which is incompatible with the principles of tolerance and coexistence."  The president of Indonesia, the world's most popularious Muslim nation, also sent a letter to President Obama asking him to stop the bonfire.  In Pakistan, about 200 lawyers and civil society members marched and burned a U.S. flag in the central Pakistani city of Multan, demanding that Washington halt the burning of the Muslim holy book.

   As of this morning, the Reverend Jones and his flock will not be burning the Quran -- "today or any other day."  At first, he claimed to have reached "an understanding" with both Florida-based Imam Muhammed Masri and New York-based Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf, the leader of what Jones and his followers have dubbed the "Ground Zero Mosque."  According to Jones, both Masri and Rauf had agreed to move the proposed mosque away from "Ground Zero."  Both men quickly denied that they had made any such promise.  Finally, Jones, accompanied by Texas-based evangelist Kilari Anand Paul gave unequivocal assurances that he would not set any Qurans on fire. 

   All of the above has played out on the front pages of the nation's -- indeed the world's -- press, and has been the lead story on both network and cable news broadcasts for at least the past week. No wonder the Reverend's book sales are soaring.  We've debated whether or not Jones has the legal right to burn the Quran in public (yes), but if so, does this mean he should do it.  We've wondered aloud what sort of a face Jones and his followers are giving Christianity in the eys of the non-Christian world. Won't his actions, many argue, provide fodder for people around the world to claim that all Christians are anti-Muslim bigots, in much the same way that many claim that the horror of 9-11 proves that all Muslims are terrorists? 

   All this over one intolerant, bigoted religious fanatic with a book to sell and the utter certainty that he has been anointed to do battle against the forces of evil.  When we -- the media, and media-addicted public -- put someone like Terry Jones under our 24-hour a day electron microscope, an anonymous nobody is turned into an international celebrity; the flea becomes a Tyrannosaurus Rex; the scribbler becomes a best-selling author.   

   How utterly amazing. 

   How utterly depressing. 

   Shame on all of us, for as sure as God made little green apples, we are all to blame. 

    A year from today -- on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 -- there will undoubtedly be sidebar pieces about Terry Jones; articles which ask "Whatever Became of Him?" "Where is he now?" and "Do You Remember . . .?"  By then, he will likely have sold his church's 20 acre plot for a lot of money, sold a ton of books, and returned to being a deservedly anonymous bigot.  And we -- the public and the press -- we will yet be creating new instant celebrities -- people who a generation or two ago would have lived what Thoreau called "lives of quiet desperation."

©2010 Kurt F. Stone     

Chalk Talk

   On July 18, an ex-felon named Byron Williams was pulled over by the CHP (California Highway Patrol)  while driving on I-580 in Northern California.  Apparently intoxicated, heavily armed, attired in body armor and wielding "a-high powered hunting rifle, a pistol and a shotgun," Williams opened fire at the officers as they approached his vehicle.  Within minutes, eight more officers arrived.  What then ensued was a five to eight-minute shootout in which an estimated 60 rounds were fired and at least two officers were injured by flying glass.  Suffering multiple gunshot wounds himself, Williams was eventually subdued, arrested and then hospitalized.

   Williams reportedly told investigators that "his intention was to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco and killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU."  According to Williams' mother, her son "watched the news on television and was upset by the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items."  

   Not surprisingly, this story did not make it into the New York Times, Washington Post or Ft. Laud. Sun Sentinel.  It was obviously deemed a story of only passing local interest for folks in the Bay Area. I learned about it in an email I received from   
Drummond Pike an old and dear college friend, who is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Tides Foundation.  Drummond and I were thick as thieves back in the late '60s at the University of California's Adlai Stevenson College, where we engaged in a lot of campus (read: anti-war) politics. Drummond is, without question, the most engaged idealist I've ever known.  At the same time, he is a total political animal; he knows how to get things done.

   Drummond graduated a year before me, became a  Fellow at the Eagleton Institute of Politics (Rutgers University), went to work for a Washington, D.C. advocacy group called the "Center for Community Change," (yes Drummond, I do remember Ralph Caprio!) and eventually went back home to "The City" (S.F.) and created the Tides Foundation. (I became an Eagleton Fellow the year after Drummond, then went to work for Westinghouse Broadcasting, and eventually went off to rabbinic school.)

   Few people are aware of the Tides Foundation, despite the fact that its has been engaged in truly important work for a long time.  For more than 30 years, its mission has been "Working with people . . . to make the world a better place."  Over the years, Tides has "partner[ed] with philanthropists, foundations, activists and organizations across the country and across the globe to promote economic justice,  robust democratic processes, and the opportunity to live in a healthy and  sustainable environment where human rights are preserved and protected."  For those of us who were privileged to know and work with Drummond back in college, it comes as no surprise what he has been doing all these years; he  has always been the sort of person who could not sit idly by without doing everything in his power to make the world a better, most just and equitable place.  In creating the Tides Foundation, Drummond found a way of making his ideals real. 

   So how did it happen that Bryon Williams -- an obviously unstable ex-con -- came to be aware of the Tides Foundation in the first place?  And what in the world made him believe it was essential to "kill people of importance" at Tides (and the ACLU) if America was to be delivered from the hands of the far-left?

   In two words: "Glenn Beck."

   According to a Nexus search undertaken by Media Matters for America, since his television program premiered on Fox back on January 19, 2009, Beck  -- and Beck alone -- has brought up the Tides Foundation no fewer than 31 times.   Moreover, the same Nexis search showed that during this same year-and-a-half period, Tides was not mentioned even once on any ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC or PBS newscast. 

     And precisely what is it that Beck had to say about Tides and Drummond Pike while working his by now infamous chalk board?  Why that Tides and its subsidiary groups are at the epicenter of the left-wing revolution against America; that it is peopled with members of the "Weather Underground" and are indoctrinating children to believe all sorts of wicked things, including that Capitalism is evil.  In this latter case, Beck told his viewers, "Our Children are being indoctrinated and it must be exposed.  It must end because history has shown us where it can lead.  Kids in elementary schools are being taught about cross-dressing, that they shouldn't listen to their parents all the time because their parents don't always know what's best.  They're taught that capitalism is evil. (2/5/10). During another broadcast (2/20/09), Beck demanded of his viewers, "How could you possibly sit on the sidelines when we keep seeing the indoctrination attempts on our children?   The anti-Capitalist "Story of Stuff" that we showed you this video [sic].  Its made by Tides.  This audience knows who Tides is." (N.B. "The Story of Stuff" is a delightful series hosted by Allegheny College that teaches and sensitizes children about things like recycling, clean air, clean water and . . . peace.  Its videos are currently available in 11 languages ranging from English, French and German to Arabic, Hebrew, Mandarin and Thai.)   Moreover, Beck has described Tides as "A major source of revenue for some of the the most extreme groups on the left." [5/21/09; 5/13/09]  

   (Media Matters for America has the full listing of all 31 times that Beck has discussed the Tides Foundation on his television program.

   Should it then come as a total surprise when a fellow like Bryon Williams -- disturbed though he may be -- decides that he must personally do something about Tides and its leadership?  After all, hasn't he been told time and again that it/they are largely responsible for much of what ails America?  That they are a malevolent cancer infecting our very society?  What do chatterboxes like Beck expect devotees like Williams to do?  To sit back and say, "Boy, that was entertaining!"  Or, "Gee, that fellow Pike's another Joe Stalin; I hope to G-d that the Lord will take care of him while I go get a beer!" 

   Beck and his colleagues will tell you that they bear virtually no responsibility for the actions of their devotees; that their words and "news stories" should not be viewed as provocations. They are nothing more, nothing less than the exercise of their First Amendment right to free speech.  Indeed, on his July 29 program, Beck stated in mock disbelief, "So I expose the Tides Foundation and show you what it is, and I am now responsible for terrorist attacks."  At the same time, Beck has been finding it increasingly necessary to balance his violent rhetoric with warnings against violence.  The question then becomes, if, as he claims, he bears no responsibility for the possible violent actions of his viewers/listeners, why then does he feel the need to tell them not to engage in violence?   

   There are an awful lot of chatterboxes walking the same path as Glenn Beck; men and women who attach disclaimers to all the violent rhetoric they spew.  Perhaps they should consider the following:

If you have to disclaim, perhaps you shouldn't declaim.  

©2010 Kurt F. Stone

Facts Be Damned

The great Irish orator and political philosopher Edmund Burke (1729-1797), who at one time occupied a lofty perch in the pantheon of conservative gods, once noted that, "Facts are to the mind what food is to the body." And, for at least ten generations, Burke's bon mot was as obvious, as unquestionable, as the law of gravity or the superiority of Johnny Bench over Joe Pignatano. Moreover, Burke's truism found favor in the sight of people across the entire political and intellectual spectrum.

But this is no longer the case -- at least for some people.

For far too many of those who identify themselves as "conservative" -- and for whom Edmund Burke is as unknown as Roger Connor (he's the fellow who held the home run record before Babe Ruth) -- the word "fact" is frequently preceded by either "so-called" or "alleged." For many, Burke's dictum has been replaced with the words of the late Indiana Representative Earl Landgrebe who, during the Watergate debacle uttered the famous line, "Don't confuse me with facts, I have a closed mind."

Landegrebe (1916-1986), the only Republican to continue believing in Richard Nixon's innocence even after the latter's resignation, had no way of knowing that he was, in a sense, rewriting the rulebook for future generations of neocons, radcons and Tea Party enthusiasts. For by today's standards, facts, far from being akin to food for the body, have become more like stumbling blocks on the paths to redemption.

Three examples should suffice:

• Death Panels: During the prolonged health care debate, Sarah Palin and others of her political stripe warned that the proposed legislation included a provision for so-called "death panels." If enacted, they warned time and time again, the government would be able to mandate -- and even terminate -- the lives of elderly and infirm Americans as a means of saving money. This was and is, of course, utter twaddle. What Palin and the chatterboxes used as their point of departure, was a provision in the legislation which would permit physicians -- who regularly do discuss end-of-life options with patients and families of patients in extremis (which is, after all, part of a compassionate physician's job) -- to charge Medicare for their time and expertise. Period. Somehow, this became transmuted into the neocon's fear-inducing rant over "death panels." Time and time again, experts -- including actual Republican members of the United States Congress and fact checking websites like Snopes.com and FactCheck.org -- explained the truth about the proposal; about its inherent benignity. In a rational world, this should have taken care of things. After all, "Facts are to the mind what food is to the body." But no, it did not "take care of things. " As recently as July 8 of this year, Rush Limbaugh, in discussing his opposition President Obama's decision to bypass the Senate in appointing Dr. Donald Berwick as head of Medicare and Medicaid services, said confirmation hearings would "lead to the country knowing that death panels are back." Check out the Internet: there are still lots and lots of people warning us about death panels.
• Headless Corpses in Arizona: Throughout the entire "illegal immigrant" debate, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has made some pretty outrageous statements -- not the least of which is claiming that Phoenix is now the world's number two kidnapping capital. Recently, she upped the stakes by announcing on a local television newscast, "Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert either buried or just lying out there that have been beheaded." The Washington Post's Dana Milbank investigated Brewer's claims for a recent article going so far as to check with medical examiners and state police officials in all of Arizona's border counties. His findings? "There's not a follicle of evidence to support Brewer's claim." In his article, Milbank went into exhaustive detail, proving that far from being a haven for violence, Arizona has actually seen a diminution in the number of murders, robberies and assaults over the past 20 years. This should have cleared things up, right? Wrong. Among those commenting on Milbank's exemplary reporting, we find: "Still no proven facts; only lies for Dana Milbank and his lackey handlers"; "Over 2,000 comments and none have proven that anything Dana Milbank has spouted is truth;" and "Dana Milbank lies!"
• L'Affair Sherrod: The past couple of days, all eyes have been on "L'Affaire Sherrod," the harrowing tale of Shirley Sherrod, the USDA official who was asked to resign her post after it was "revealed" that she was a "reverse racist." Because the facts of this story are both well-known and recent, we will not go into them again. Suffice it to say, it all began with an article/video on über-conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart's Blog, "BigGovernment.com," in which he ran a highly-edited video clip purporting to show Sherrod admitting to being a racist. Despite the fact that the full video has now been released and the facts known; despite the fact that the white folks she supposedly mistreated have publicly come to her defense; despite the fact the president has personally apologized, and Sherrod has been offered a new (and better) job with USDA; there are still a lot of people who believe with every fiber of their being that she -- along with the administration she serves -- is a dyed-in-the-wool white-hating racist. (Please recall that it was Breitbart who also began the entire stink over ACORN by running a highly-edited video purporting to show a pimp and prostitute being granted assistance by the community group. It was later proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the video was doctored and that the entire situation was a put-up job. Nonetheless, people continued to bring up the event as proof that Barack Obama supports prostitution . . . )

In other words, for many people nowadays, facts have little -- if indeed, any -- impact upon beliefs. It is a kind of disconnect that I for one find hard to understand. But this disconnect is real, and well documented . . . and now the subject of academic inquiry. In a forthcoming edition of The Journal of Political Behavior, Brendan Nyhan, the Robert Woods Johnson Scholar in Public Health Policy at the University of Michigan and Jason Reifler, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University, will release their long-anticipated paper, When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Nyhan and Reifler conducted four experiments in which subjects read "mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician or a misleading claim and a correction." Although their research methodology is about what one would expect -- dry as dust -- their conclusions are utterly fascinating. To wit, "Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the target group." They also documented "several instances" of what they term a "backfire effect," in which "corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question."

Among the issues Nyhan and Reifler used in their study was the matter of the Bush Administration's misleading claim that Iraq possessed "Weapons of Mass Destruction," (WMDs), thus necessitating the U.S.-led invasion. When members of the control group -- most of whom believed the Bush Administration's initial claim -- was given incontrovertible proof that no such weapons existed, a high percentage, rather than change their mind about the invasion, attacked the source of the facts as being either wrong or politically motivated.

Nyhan and Reifler conclude ". . . authoritative statements of fact are not reflective of how citizens typically receive information. Instead, people typically receive corrective information within "objective" news reporting pitting two sides of an argument against each another, which is significantly more ambiguous than receiving a correct answer from an omniscient source. In such cases, citizens are likely to resist arguments and evidence contradicting their opinions . . ."

We see this sort of thing on an almost daily basis. When a Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Paul Krugman or Barney Frank -- to name but four -- attempt to clarify a misperception or misconception by offering provable facts, their messages will be frequently drowned out in a cacophony of condemnation; the argument will be made that their "so-called facts" should not be heeded because they are either "gay," "liberal," anti-American," or whatever ad hominem the other side can come up with. In other words, if you can't disprove the fact, denigrate he or she who delivers the fact.

Does this mean that we should stop trying to enlighten people by providing them with facts? Certainly not. But what it does mean is that the road is far steeper and pot-hole afflicted than it used to be. Perhaps better than spending our days attempting to teach facts to those who find no inconsistency believing the unbelievable and demonstrably disprovable, we would be wiser working with those who like Mr. Burke, still believe that facts are to the mind what a great meal is to the body.

Bon appetit!

Buen provecho!

Kalí óreksi!

B'tay avon!

Es gezunterheit!

©2010 Kurt F. Stone

Ad Captandum Vulgus

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

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

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

    M-O-T-I-V-E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

A New Definition of Chutzpah

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

  That will be one person too many.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

 

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