The K.F. Stone Weekly

"The Journey, Not the Arrival Matters"

   I wish I had a dollar for every Tom, Dick and Mary who told me -- with utter certainty -- that "President Obama is no friend of Israel," or that "Obama has thrown Israel under the bus."  If I did have that dollar-per-head, I would have easily more than enough gelt to purchase a couple of hundred trees through the Jewish National Fund.  For indeed, there are easily that many people who have bought into the canard that not only is Barack Obama bad for the State of Israel, he's "obviously and transparently on the side of the Palestinians."  

   In the immortal words of Mr. Pitt: "Stuff and nonsense!"

  Whenever I challenge a person, asking "what is the basis for your belief that President Obama is anti-Israel?" about the only tangible response I get is "Well, he has yet to visit Israel."  Frequently, this comment will be coupled with statements like: "Mitt Romney said that as president, his first trip abroad would be to Israel," or "When he was a candidate, Rick Perry said that one of his first trips would be to Israel."

   After hearing this "If Obama truly cared about Israel he would get his fanny there ASAP," dig more times than I care to count, I decided to do some heavy duty research on presidential travel over the past half century.  From John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama, America has had ten presidents.  Of these, five -- Kennedy, Johnson, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama -- traveled first to Canada; three -- Ford, Reagan and George W. Bush -- made their first presidential trips Mexico.

   On June 16, 1974, Richard Nixon became the first president to visit Israel. This particular foreign trip, which had begun a week earlier, included prior stops in Austria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, and concluded with one-day visits to Jordan and Portugal.  During his 24-hours in Jerusalem, Nixon met with then-President Ephraim Katzir and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.  (During his 6+ years in the White House, Nixon took 11 trips abroad; his visit to Israel came during his 9th trip.)

   Presidents Ford, Reagan and George H.W. Bush never visited Israel. President Carter made two trips to Israel, in December 1977 and March 1979.  To date, Bill Clinton has the all-time record for visits by an American president; during his eight years in the White House, he went no less than four times.  During his eight years in the White House, Clinton made 53 separate trips abroad, during which time he made 133 different stops. His initial journey to Israel -- October 27-28, 1994 -- came during his sixth trip abroad, slightly less than 22 months after having taken the oath of office.

   By comparison, President George W. Bush, who was inaugurated in January 2001, did not make his first visit to the Jewish State for more than seven years -- not until January 9, 2008. During his eight years in the White House, W took forty-six trips abroad, encompassing 140 stops.  This initial journey to Israel came on the 109th stop of his 39th foreign trip.  In doing my research, I did not find a single instance of anyone questioning George W. Bush's Israeli bona fides because he had yet to go to Jerusalem. 

   And yet, there are all those who see President Obama's not having visited Israel -- and he's only been in office for 38 months -- as somehow being proof that he is against the Jewish State.  Up until today -- when the president is in Korea for the "Nuclear Security Summit," President Obama has made 21 trips abroad, incorporating 44 separate stops.  And while he has been repeatedly pilloried for "all his visits to Arab countries," it is fascinating to note that during his first 38 months in office, he has spent precisely one day in Egypt and one day in Saudi Arabia.  But to listen to his detractors, one might conclude that he has spent so much time kowtowing to King Abdullah and the House of Saud that he has his own personal suite of rooms at the Tuwayq Palace in Riyadh.

  So far as the "If elected, my first foreign trip will be to Israel" crowd goes, they are engaging in nothing more than campaign rhetoric meant to shore up as many Jewish votes as possible.  As rhetoric, the promise is understandable; as policy, it is neither intelligent nor wise.  

   Why?

   An analogy might help: imagine that it's the night before the Superbowl, and you are your team's star quarterback.  You go out to dinner and low and behold, who do you see but your opposite number and several members of his team -- dining with the fellow who's going to be refereeing tomorrow's game!  Naturally, you wonder about how in the world that ref can be impartial or neutral; he's so chummy with the other team.  To announce up front that one's first presidential visit will be to Jerusalem is tantamount to having drinks and dinner with one team the night before the big game.  Any overture emanating from that administration; any call for talks between Israelis and Palestinians would likely fail before they even commenced; the latter would see the deck being stacked against them -- or to continue in terms of our analogy, to suspect that the coin toss is going to be rigged in favor of the opposition.

   Any foreign policy team that would advise a candidate to announce that if elected, his first foreign trip will be to Israel -- rather than Canada, Mexico, England or Belgium as the last 10 presidents have done -- is not worthy of their paychecks. They have staked their candidate to a promise he'd be smart not to keep -- if he's truly concerned about seeking a two-state solution.

   The fact that President Obama has yet to touch down at Ben Gurion Airport will continue to provide all the "proof" many need to back up their belief that he is not a friend to Israel.  Countering this falsity is not easy, for many Americans have suspected Barack Obama of anti-American, anti-Democratic, anti-Israel tendencies from the day he first won the Democratic nomination -- without a scintilla of substantiation.  George W. Bush did not arrive in Jerusalem until he had nearly completed two terms, and yet -- as noted above -- nobody raised a peep, no one thought to inquire if he -- who entertained Saudi princes at his ranch and was photographed kissing them -- was a friend or foe of the Jewish State. 

   Yes, yes, I know, politics is not fair.  And to further prove it, one of these days, Barack Obama will arrive at Ben Gurion.  And at that time, the same people who are damning him for not having been there before, will accuse him of pandering to the American Jewish community -- even if he is not running for reelection.

    Although Barack Obama has yet to arrive in Jerusalem his journey in getting there is both sound and sincere. 

   And, as the late, great British political theorist/author/civil servant Leonard Woolf (Virginia's husband) once noted, "The journey, not the arrival matters . . ."     

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

A Canvas of Words -- A Portrait of Actions

   Without question the 2012 presidential election will be a referendum on the progress and efficacy of President Obama’s policies, versus his challenger’s promises and rhetoric. As well it should be.  The election will, to a great extent, turn on how voters answer several critical questions, chief among them being:

• Which candidate – and party – seems to have the best handle on how to create jobs in the short-run while retooling the American economy for the future?
• Which candidate -- and party – appears to best understand and relate to the needs and aspirations of America’s vast middle class?
• Which candidate – and party – will be best able to keep America safe from external threats, support our allies and keep our enemies in check?

   The questions are posed in a conditional sense, for one simply never knows which campaign promises will become policy. In the world of bare-knuckled political partisanship, there are far too many variables at play; translating rhetoric into reality is a Herculean task.  For the challenger in a presidential race, there is a canvas of words; for the incumbent, there is a portrait of action. While campaigning is, generally speaking, akin to playing a game of "Texas Hold-Um," governing is far more intricate -- like a game of chess. As the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once sagely noted, “We campaign in poetry but govern in prose.”  Or to put it a bit more prosaically, “actions speak louder than words.” 

   President Obama’s well-received speech before the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference a week ago Sunday was a unique convergence of poetry and prose – of words describing actions.  In his soaring 33-minute address, he noted that “. . . over the next several days, you will hear many fine words from elected officials describing their commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship. But,” he continued, “As you examine my commitment, you don’t just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds.”

    Indeed, actions do speak louder than words.  The close relationship between the Obama Administration and Israel is far more than a canvas of words; it is a portrait of action.  Since entering office in January 2009, President Obama has increased security funding for Israel three times; it is now at its highest level in history.  He has provided critical funds for the “Iron Dome” missile defense system which, he told Policy Conference attendees, “has intercepted rockets that might have hit homes and hospitals and schools . . .” The president further detailed how “When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them. When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to save them.”

  The president reminded the gathering how in September 2011, he “. . . stood before the United Nations General Assembly and reaffirmed that any lasting peace must acknowledge the fundamental legitimacy of Israel and its security concerns.  No American President,” he noted “has made such a clear statement about our support for Israel at the United Nations at such a difficult time. People usually give those speeches before audiences like this one -- not before the General Assembly.” The president drew laughter when he noted, “And I must say, there was not a lot of applause.”

   And yet, despite a welter of actions that mark this president and his administration as  true and unhesitating friends of Israel – of “having Israel’s back” -- there are many who continue accusing him of having “Thrown Israel under the bus,” and wondering aloud “If he’s such a great friend of Israel, why hasn’t he been there yet?” (It should be noted that President George W. Bush, did not make his first visit to Israel until January 9. 2008 – near the end of his second term, and the 39th of his 46 presidential trips abroad.  Presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush never visited the Jewish State.  President Bill Clinton, who visited Israel on four separate occasions, paid his first official visit on October 26, 1994, 21 months after taking office.) 

   There are so many statements and claims made by the president’s opponents which fly in the face of reality. And while it may be true that “all’s fair in love and war,” America’s relationship with Israel, the president noted in his AIPAC address, “is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics.”

   The one area where President Obama and his surrogates may well be faulted is in not detailing both clearly and precisely just how many positive actions they have undertaken on behalf of our friend and ally.  “If you want to know where my heart lies,” the president told AIPAC, “look no further than what I have done – to stand up for Israel.” 

The president’s opponents may have claim to a canvas of words, but he has a portrait – a portrait of tangible deeds.

 

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Forty-Five Pictures Might Be Worth Ten Million Votes

 Something quite a bit different this week .  . .

 With so much time, attention and ink being devoted to the retrograde lunacy and schoolyard caterwauling that is the Republican field, I thought it would be appropriate to devote a column -- in a few words and forty-five pictures -- to a class act: President Barack Obama.  It comes as no surprise that in the midst of debates and screaming headlines concerning such contrived "dog whistle" issues as contraception, transvaginal ultrasounds and personhood, we wonder "are there any adults left in the room?"  Actually there are.  And one of them is President Obama.  There is such a vast chasm in this country between those who can't find a single positive thing to say about our president and those who find him to be the embodiment of the American  Dream.  I must admit to being in the latter camp.

   And so, without further ado, a "Thank You" to the man and the family who reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

   (Deep thanks to my friend and student Al Blake for bringing the following to my attention . . . )

 

Thanks Mr. President

For

. . . the "room lightening" smile:

 

 

 

 

For

The mind that always thinks:

 

 

For preventing a second Great Depression:

For the humor:

 

 

 

 

For bringing the number of women on the Supreme Court to 3:

 

For making the White House the "People's" house:

 

For 1.1 million jobs created in 2010 alone, more than the entire 8 years of George W. Bush:

 

For the love of people:

 

 

 

For the love of family:

 

 

 

 

For the First Lady:

 

 

 

For Health Care Reform:

 

 

For leaving the past behind:

 

 

For the world having respect for America again:

 

 

 

 

 

For quietly and calmly dealing with crisis after crisis, after crisis, after crisis, even if not being responsible for any of them:

 

For being so "cool":

For being fierce - when need be:

 

 

 

 

For having the intellect to be curious:

 

 

For the capacity to know that you are, as we are, imperfect:

 

For having the sense to not let it destroy you:

 

For the capacity to be compassionate:

 

 

For being an inspiration to so many:

 

 

For saving the auto industry and at least 1.4 million jobs:

For loving our troops:

 

 

For undertanding the horrible price of war:

 

For bringing 100,000 men and women back from Iraq:

 

For facing the most difficult and loneliest job in the world with grace, dignity, honesty and guts in spite of so many "Haters":

For being, in spite of all the hate, pettiness, racism, corruption and immaturity around, the most progressive and 'for the people' president in decades:
 
And simply for this:

 

For Being....................

"MR. PRESIDENT"!

 

 

When Good News is No News

  On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the economy added 243,000 jobs in January, which dropped the unemployment rate to 8.3% -- the lowest jobless rate since January 2009, the month Barak Obama took the oath of office.  Although certainly slower and weaker than the president and millions of un- and underemployed Americans would wish, there is no question but that the American economy is improving.  Indeed, over the past year, the economy has added nearly 2 million non-government  jobs; over the past 23 months that figure is 3.7 million. jobs

This represents the best 12 months in at least 5 years.  Buoyed by the good news, the Dow rose by slightly more than 200 points, ending the week at 12,862.23 -- a 77.4% rise since Barack Obama took the oath of office slightly more than 3 years ago.

 

  According to a broad array of data, the economy has been gaining strength for almost six months, offering some reason for hope that the effects of the deep financial crisis are finally starting to fade. Still, the economy will need several more years of strong job growth to return to anything resembling full health. And although many forecasters are growing more hopeful about this year, several factors — including Europe’s financial troubles and the turmoil in Iran — could change the situation quickly.  As such, in speaking about the economy this past Friday, the president essentially laid out the theme that will be at the center of his re-election campaign, reminding voters how bad an economy he inherited and hailing recent progress while being careful to add that there is still a long way to go. "The economy is growing stronger; the recovery is speeding up," the president said.  But he then quickly conceded: "These numbers will go up and down in the coming months."  

   In other words, despite the much-needed good news, the president neither crowed nor took a rhetorical victory lap.  He knows that while the path we're on is a good and solid one, it nonetheless contains many ruts, jags and potholes. Sounds pretty realistic to me; hopeful and cautiously optimistic.  There is much to be both proud and hopeful about:

• After more than a decade of job losses, American manufacturing has been creating jobs since December 2009.
• The American auto industry is back. GM is again No. 1 in the world; auto manufacturers are expected to add more than 100,000 new jobs in the next 2 years.
• American oil production is at its highest level in more than 8 years.
  

   To listen to the none-too-loyal opposition, none of the above is true; things are getting worse. For them, there is no good news. Or, to put it another way, "good news is no news." Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference, like many of his colleagues, essentially ignored the positive economic news. “Today is an indication of another failure of this president’s policies — 36 months in a row of 8 percent-plus unemployment,” he said. Speaker John Boehner said, "The American people are still asking,  'Where are the jobs?'"

According to Romney, Gingrich, Paul and Santorum, President Obama and his administration, far from leading the economy down the road to recovery, are lost at sea clinging to a deflated life raft.  According to them, the newest Labor Department figures are meaningless at best, suspect at worst. (Limbaugh and Hannaty both argued "The jobs report is corrupt."  Hannaty said the report ". . . has phony numbers all around it.")  Such a position places President Obama's potential challengers -- especially Gov. Romney -- in the position of ignoring statistical evidence and sounding the tocsin of angry, conspiratorial negativity . . . never a great strategy in a presidential campaign.  It also leaves voters wondering whether these guys are actually pulling for the economy to remain in the tank -- at least until they can take over.  If so, this is, to my way of thinking, ideological treason.

  Speaking at a campaign stop in Sparks, Nevada just a few hours before that state's caucus gatherings, Romney said, “This recovery has been slower than it should have been. People have been suffering for longer than they should have had to suffer. Will it get better? I think it’ll get better,” he added. “But this president has not helped the process. He’s hurt it.”  And despite making these comments in Nevada -- the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation (slightly above 13%), Romney's only "cure for what ails us" is -- like virtually every other Republican in America -- lower taxes and less regulation.  From day one, Romney has been proclaiming that as a businessman -- one who has "an intimate knowledge of the private sector" -- he "knows what it takes" to get America out of its economic doldrums.

  There is ample evidence that having "an intimate knowledge of the private sector" is no guarantee of succeeding in government. Take the last American president to come from the ranks of business: Hoover Hoover.  Need one say more?  Or Florida's current Governor, Rick Scott. Despite having experienced enough success in the private sector to pay for a campaign out of his own pocket, he has been an utter disaster as governor; running a for-profit business is one heck of a lot different than running a state.  Even Scott's fellow Republicans are turning against him.  (It should be noted that despite spending $73 million of his own money, Scott only managed to defeat Democrat Alex Sink by a razor-thin margin of 48.87%-47.72%).  One can also site the failed governorships of Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and John Corzine (D-NJ), two highly successful, fabulously wealthy men, which were more notable for their failures than successes.  The short and sweet of it is that running a business and running a government are two very different enterprises.  

  It is in no way surprising that Mitt Romney, a man who made an unfathomable fortune in the private sector, should ask us to place our faith in the free market.  After all, from his perspective -- and that of most of his Republican colleagues -- this is whence all economic health and success emanates.  Their argument has long been that by lowering taxes for the wealthy, by cutting -- if not eliminating -- the tax on capital gains, it will permit business owners to expand their enterprises, thus increasing employment and thus strengthening the economy.  Over the past generation, this argument has gone by the name "supply-side" economics.  There is, I am sorry to say, no historic evidence for its ever having succeeded.  In order for "supply-side" to work, there must be a "demand-side" -- consumers -- who have the cash to buy what the wealthy are supplying.   

  One need not agree with "the free market is the salvation of us all" philosophy to understand how it could be quite appealing to many -- especially those who have been taught that "government is the problem, not the solution."  What is terribly difficult to comprehend however, is how people can take good news and spin it into being no news at all.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

 

A Keystone Comedy

This past week President Obama and the State Department rejected a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. What a perversely ironic name: "Keystone." For me, a child of Hollywood, that name conjures up images of anarchic Kops who jump up and down, run to and fro, and throw pies with gay abandon; all perfectly predictable, all in the service of that low-brow class of comedy known as "slapstick." If the issues involved in the current Keystone -- the pipeline -- weren't so deadly serious -- energy, ecology and employment -- it too could qualify as slapstick: anarchic, predictable and low-brow.

Except this Keystone isn't a silent flick; it's got a sound-track and special effects and everything.

And it's more of a tragicomedy . . .

For anyone who's been paying close attention to this ongoing tragicomedy, the State Department's rejection should come as no surprise; it is all part of an election-year scenario composed by the Republicans Caucus. From the moment late last month when Boehner & Company attached a provision to the payroll tax extension bill requiring the president to decide on the pipeline permit within 60 days, their intention was as obvious as the plotline of a Keystone Comedy: to hit Barack Obama and the Democrats with an election year pie in the face. Even before Republicans attached the provision, the White House had stated that it would need a minimum of another year in order to evaluate the various potential impacts of the pipelines. (For those not yet aware of what "fracking" -- hydraulic fracturing -- is, check out an article from The Guardian.) What has not been generally reported is that Nebraska and North Dakota -- two states that would be along the proposed pipeline route -- expressed severe reservations about the impact it might have on farmlands and aquifer. As a result, TransCanada -- the firm set to build the pipeline -- went back to the drawing board in order to create a new route. Both the president and the State Department have made it clear that they are willing to revisit this issue in the future, once TransCanada maps out a new route proposal. But to listen to the opposition, the denial is both eternal and unalterable.

Guess again.

From day one, most Republicans -- and a number of Democrats -- proclaimed that approving the Keystone XL was absolutely essential; both for the jobs it would create, and for the energy independence it would guarantee. With the Obama Administration's denial, Republicans can now breathlessly accuse the president of being callously unconcerned about either. "He is," more than one Fox commentator has complained, "anti-oil and anti-Capitalism."

How predictable.

Anti-oil? Anti-Capitalist? Really? In his statement on the decision, the president said his administration is looking at another proposed pipeline in the Midwest. Just last month, his administration made available 21 million acres - an area about the size of South Carolina - of offshore drilling sites in the Gulf of Mexico -- not precisely the action of a man or an administration that is "anti-oil." The lease auction attracted more than $337 million in high bids from oil companies.

Moreover, when the State Department issued its original negative report on the proposed Keystone-XL, it was marred by enough controvery and scandal to warrant an investigation by Foggy Bottom's inspector general.( Yes, that's right; the administration was investigating itself!) Last year, a Freedom of Information Act request by environmental groups revealed that a former Hillary Clinton campaign aide was working as a lobbyist for TransCanada, and that Cardno Entrix, a massive contracting firm and TransCanada client, was hired to prepare much of the original environmental assessment.

And the Teeheezels of the right still would have us believe that the administration is anti-oil!

What a predictable script.

In the run-up to Obama's permit denial, the entertainers at Fox, emoting from scripts written by TransCanada, claimed that the proposed $7 billion, 1,700-mile pipeline would create 12-15,000 jobs. Now that it has been put on hold, that number has magically grown to anywhere between 20,000 and 50,000 construction and manufacturing jobs as well as more than 120,000 indirect jobs. So far as I can tell, this is the only jobs program the Republicans have put forth since taking over Congress -- except for cutting taxes and regulations.

Want to talk about jobs?

A recent 40-page study published by the Cornell Global Labor Institute entitled Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL concludes that the job estimates put forward by TransCanada are "unsubstantiated." The folks at Cornell GLI found that "50% or more of the steel pipe, the main material input used for Keystone XL, will be manufactured outside the U.S." Another study concluded that at best, Keystone would create between 2,500 and 6,000 temporary construction positions. It follows that if the number of direct jobs -- and their economic impact -- are far less than TransCanada has claimed, that the number of indirect positions will also be far less.

Another line in the script goes, "The oil carried by the Keystone XL will go a long way towards weaning America off of foreign oil -- something the president obviously could care less about!" Here again, there's a bit of a problem with reality . . . and reportage. It turns out that the United States, for the first time in 62 years, is a net exporter of petroleum products. According to data released in late November of 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration -- and reported by that notorious Socialist rag The Wall Street Journal -- "The U.S. exported 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first nine months of 2011, while it imported 689.4 million barrels." As recently as 2005, we imported nearly 900 million more barrels of petroleum than we exported. The last time we were a net exporter of oil, gas cost 26 cents a gallon, the price of a first-class stamp was 3 cents, and a typical house cost $13,500.

This bit of good news has gone largely unreported. The question is why. I suspect it is because the lion's share of oil that would flow through the Keystone XL would be exported overseas . . . which does a lot for corporate profits but precious little for energy independence.

It has been loudly suggested that President Obama canceled the Keystone XL pipeline as "an election-year gesture of good will to his most ardent supporters on the Left." While it is true that environmentally-conscious Americans are gleeful that at least for now the pipeline and the dangers of fracking have been put on the shelf, not all of the president's "most ardent supporters" are happy. For in putting the Keystone XL on hold, President Obama has earned a ton of enmity from organized labor -- a key group he will need if he is to be reelected. Labor believes that the president's action is short-sighted; that it kills unionized jobs. I don't think anyone's crystal ball is powerful enough to see whether or not jobs produced by the pipeline project would be unionized.

One thing I do know that in denying TransCanada their permit, President Obama has done precisely what the Republicans set him up to do; he has faithfully acted out the script they wrote for him. The president and his advisers are wise enough to know that in denying the Keystone permit, he was setting himself up to have a political pie thrown his way.

The question now is, how good are his reflexes . . . ?

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

   Without question, for most American voters, the 2012 presidential election will hinge on the central, interlocking issues of jobs and the economy.  Among the questions voters will asking are:

• Which candidate -- and which party --  comes across as being best tuned in to the plight of the more than 14 million unemployed Americans?
• Which candidate -- and which party -- appears to have the best/better handle on how to create jobs in the short-run while retooling the American economy for the future?
• Which candidate -- and which party -- seems to have a greater allegiance to the American Middle Class than to the country's elite?
• Which candidate -- and which party -- expresses the greater amount of seriousness and the lesser amount of mere finger-wagging?

   The fact that all four of these questions are expressed conditionally is purely purposive; one simply never knows for certain which campaign promises stand a chance of becoming reality.  As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan sagely noted, "We campaign in poetry but govern in prose . . ."

   For other, so-called "values voters," the 2012 election will hinge more specifically on moral issues such as abortion, gay marriage, evolution-vs.-creationism, and the role of religion in public life.  Even at this early juncture, it is clear that most Republican candidates are both proud and comfortable being identified as members of "the party of God."  What this means to imply about the Democrats by comparison, I will leave to the individual imagination . . .  

   For many American Jewish voters, the central issue is, quite understandably, Israel -- specifically, which candidate -- and which party -- is and will be that tiny nation-state's more steadfast friend and defender. 

   Almost from his first appearance on the national political stage back in 2004, Barack Obama has been accused of being anything but a "friend of Israel."  He has been accused in many quarters of favoring Palestinians over Israelis and kowtowing to his "Muslim brothers," while being severely scored for visiting many Muslim capitals without having set foot in Jerusalem.  And, according to Israel's legion of Christian Evangelical allies, if left to his "own devices," Barack Obama will be the death of the Jewish State.  One hears these contentions from the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannaty, and Pastor John Hagee, the Founder and National Chair of "Christians United For Israel." (It should be noted that Hagee, who believes with every fibre of his being that supporting Israel -- "The Holy Land" -- is part and parcel of God's agenda leading to the Apocalypse, also believes that Hitler was a "Half-Breed Jew," that Nazi persecution was a "divine plan" to lead Jews to form the modern state of Israel, and historically, the Jews have brought persecution upon themselves by being disobedient to God.  "Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of antisemitism (sic) that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come . . . it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people.") 

   Contemplating all the above, I am reminded of a universal truth most of us learned as wee sprat: "Actions speak louder than words."

   In the case of President Obama and Israel, yes, I would feel quite a bit better if he had flown Air Force One to Israel, taken a picture praying at the Western Wall, visited Yad va-Shem and eaten shawarma in Rechavia or St. Peter's Fish in Akko.  However, for whatever reason, as president, he has yet to go.  All he has to do is say the word and I will be delighted to pick up the tab for his flight and take him on a tour of my old haunts in and around the Hebrew University.

   Despite his not having yet visited Israel during his presidency, the fact remains that Barack Obama is, despite what the naysayers loudly proclaim, a steadfast friend and defender of the Jewish State. 

   Has he agreed with every one of her actions since taking office?  No. 

   Has he had occasion to disagree with Prime Minister Netanyahu?  Absolutely.

   Has he worked behind the scenes to assist the Jewish State?  Yes.

   Actions speak louder than words.

   Need proof?

   Just the other day, protesters attacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo, knocking down a 12-foot concrete wall that had been built several days earlier to protect the embassy, which is near the top floor of a 21-story residential building in the upscale Dokki area.  As a result of the peril, Israel was forced to airlift the ambassador and nearly all the diplomatic staff.  Describing the step-by-step evacuation to the Israeli people once the ambassador and his staff were safely home, Prime Minister Netanyahu had special words of thanks for President Obama, Defense Secretary Panetta and Dennis Ross, the president's Middle East advisor on the National Security Council:

   I would like to express my gratitude to the President of the United States, Barack Obama.  I asked for his help.  This was a decisive and fateful moment.  He said, 'I will do everything I can.'  and so he did. He used every considerable means and influence of the United States to help us.  We owe him a special measure of gratitude.  This attests to the strong alliance between Israel and the United States.  This alliance between Israel and the United States is especially important in these times of political storms and upheavals in the Middle East."

   Actions speak louder than words.

• Almost immediately upon taking the oath of office in January 2009, the Obama Administration restored Israel's diminished Qualitative Military Edge (QME); on July 28, 2011, Defense Secretary Panetta and Secretary of State Clinton announced that the administration was prepared to further expand Israel's QME.
• President Obama led the funding effort for the Iron Dome missile defense system.  Iron Dome, which is capable of defending against both long- and short-range missiles and rockets, has already paid dividends.  P.M. Netanyahu has repeatedly expressed public thanks to the president for the role he played in funding this critical defense system.
• The president has consistently and vocally opposed the Palestinians' plans to unilaterally declare a state through the United Nations: "No vote at the UN will ever create an independent Palestinian state, and the United States will stand up against efforts to single out Israel at the UN or in any international forum.  Israel's legitimacy  is not a matter for debate . . ." (May 22, 2011)
• Alan Solow, former Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations President flatly stated, "President Obama has worked hard to mobilize support for Israel, has led the movement to impose strong international sanctions against Iran and has continuously supported, in word and deed, Israel's rights as a Jewish state.  There have been no policies actually implemented by the Administration, as opposed to those which have been rumored, that have been anything other than supportive of Israel." (July 22, 2011)    
  

     Despite this welter of demonstrable fact, there will still be those who firmly believe that President Barack Obama is the worst thing that ever happened to Israel.  For those who will persist in this belief, I heartily recommend that they stop listening to the words Rush, Glenn, Sean, Newt and Eric, and begin paying attention to the actions of President Obama.  

     You can challenge him on the economy.

     You can question whether he is as theocratic as Perry, Bachmann or the rest of the GOP's amen corner.

      Just don't question whether he's a friend or foe when it comes to Israel.

      The record is clear.

      Actions speak louder than words.

  ©2011 Kurt F. Stone

The Speech President Obama OUGHT TO Deliver This Week

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Shame on us all!

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Closing Planned Parenthood Centers does not create jobs. 

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

   Closing national parks does not create jobs.

   Cutting spending alone does not create jobs.

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

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

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

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

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

   Period.

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

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

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

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Let 'em Call You Pisher . . .

   Back in the 1950s when he was Senate Majority Leader -- serving under a Republican president -- Lyndon Johnson used to get things done by employing  an intimidating technique known as "The Johnson Treatment."  "The Treatment" consisted of LBJ summoning a senator to his office just after lunch -- a lunch at which he had eaten a hamburger smeared with onions,  consumed a scotch or two, and topped it off  with several cigarettes.  LBJ would then approach the arriving senator, get "up close and personal," and, while blowing a bit of rancid air his direction, "explain" why he was going to vote a particular way.  9 times out of 10, Johnson got  what he wanted. Another variation of "The Treatment" involved LBJ summoning a member of  the Democratic caucus over to him on the floor, and showing the senator the "final outcome" of a vote that was going to be taking place the next day.  In essence, what the Majority Leader was doing was informing the member how he was going to vote. 

    Period.

   Did Lyndon Johnson care what anyone thought about him or what names he was called? Apparently not; LBJ's skin  seems to have been made of 15-gauge steel.  More importantly, the man definitely knew where he stood, what he believed in, and was a master of elevating politics to the level of principle -- even when he was dead wrong.  And as history records, as president, Lyndon Johnson was easily able to go beyond mere arm-twisting.  When necessary, he got what he wanted through artifice and outright  dishonesty; witness his lethal slight-of-hand in getting the U.S. Senate (98-2) and the House (416-0) to  pass the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, thus handing him a blank check for Southeast Asia.

   In comparison to our most recent presidents -- whose first instinct before embarking on a major project or issue is to check with their pollsters -- LBJ's "damn the torpedoes full steam ahead" style of leadership seems as incomprehensible as Chaucerian English ("A good wif was ther of besid Bathe/But she was somedel deef, and that was scathe" -- namely, "There was a housewife come from Bath, or near/Who - sad to say - was deaf in either ear").  

   Which brings us to President Barack Obama, who, like Chaucer's Wife of Bath has become "somedel deef" . . . or even worse, "blynd."

   How so?

   For nearly three years, Barack Obama's most ardent supporters have defended him against all comers, such as:

• Those who accuse him of being a foreign born Muslim with an anti-American agenda;
• Those who claim that he is the most dangerous left-wing Socialist ever to occupy the White House;
• Those who charge him with being anti-business, anti-gun, and anti-family values, and
  
• Those who rebuke him for being an anti-Semite who hates Israel, feels a close kinship with the Palestinians, and wants to destroy the Jewish State. 

   For nearly three years, we have defended President Obama; we have hoped and prayed that he would be a transformational leader. We managed to find progress  in, applaud or rationalize:

• A bailout of Wall Street and the banks that did not include a mandate that they become partners in improving the nation's economy for everyone -- and not just themselves; 
  
• The "Affordable Healthcare Act" -- which the GOP continues to derisively refer to as "socialized medicine" and "Obamacare" -- despite it not containing the public mandate he had spoken of time and again during the 2008 campaign; 
  
• An end to "Don't Ask Don't Tell," in the American military even while he is "evolving" on the issue of gay marriage. 
  
• The assassination of Osama bin Laden even though as of last month Guantanamo continues to hold more than 170 detainees.
• Keeping the government up and running by agreeing to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the very wealthy -- tax cuts which he had pledged to eliminate.
  
• Continually seeking to find common ground with a Republican leadership  that has stated for the record that their number one priority is making him a one-term president.

   And now, President Obama is seeking to find a compromise -- some balance between spending cuts and revenue enhancements -- that will permit Congress to raise the federal debt ceiling.  The Republican leadership has steadfastly refused to accept a single dime of increased revenue; they are more fearful of "Ayatollah" Grover Norquist and his "Americans for Tax Reform" than they are desirous of keeping the American economy up and running.  Despite this -- and despite a long laundry list of issues on which the GOP has refused to budge even so much as a single centimeter -- the president is still seeking a compromise while urging both sides to "leave their ultimata outside the door."

   Fat chance.

   And now comes word that the president has suggested that entitlements like Social Security and Medicare need to be looked at as part of a compromise.  From a Democratic point of view, this is rank heresy, for these are the two most lustrous jewels in the Democratic diadem.  The president's initial proposal called for a mix of 85% spending cuts and a mere 15% in revenue enhancements.  (This equation has a far  higher percentage of spending cuts than  found in the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform -- "Simpson-Bowles" -- Report of December 2010.)  And yet, despite calling for a mere 15% in increased revenues, the Republicans have dug in their heels and said NO NEW TAXES!  As a result, it would appear that once again, President Obama is going seek to be the reasonable one in the room; the one who is going to do whatever is necessary to find common ground -- even if it means making society's most vulnerable pay for it.  

   How much longer can we, the president's progressive partisans, remain silent?  How much more "reasonableness" can we abide before crying out g'nug shoyn! Gnug p'shoresdik! ("Enough already! Enough compromising!")?  Its not that we're suddenly going to go turn our backs, go out and throw our support behind Romney, Pawlenty or Bachmann.  Goodness knows, even though President Obama's "reasonableness" carries the hallmarks of one who is somdel deef and blynd, the alternative is far, far worse.  If nothing else, there are going to be two seats opening up on the Supreme Court (Ginsberg and Bryer) in the year or two; it would be even more of a disaster were a Republican were to be responsible for filling one or both of those positions.

   As much as we may have disagreed with and disparaged President Lyndon Johnson back in the 60s, ("Hey, Hey LBJ: How many kids did 'ya kill today?") we can perhaps appreciate his ability to get people to do what he wanted.  Perhaps Barack Obama should take a page or two from the Johnson playbook.  Admittedly, Johnson's was an era with a lot less hardcore partisanship than we face today. Nonetheless, sticking to one's guns, going over the heads of Congress directly to the public and not taking "no" for an answer can result in some pretty forward-looking achievements.

   President Obama has already been called every name in the book, and been charged with just about every sin short of human sacrifice.  From this point out, what should he care?  As dear old Dad use to impart: "What's the worst they can say about you?  That you're a pisher?  Let 'em call you pisher . . . what do you care?"

    Dear President Obama: you're never going to get the Republican vote.  Many independents wouldn't cross the street for you.  A lot of young folks are getting terminally turned off to politics.  Please, please be aware that you're in danger of putting out the fire amongst your progressive base. You need us -- and we need you. Quite being so damned reasonable!  Use a bit of the "Johnson treatment!"

    Let 'em call you pisher . . .

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Skill Baby Skill

   You've got to wonder if Barack Obama would have run for president if he'd known, say, back in June of 2007, precisely how much would be on his plate in June of 2010?  I mean, who runs for president thinking, "I can't wait to deal with high unemployment and a flaccid economy. I can't wait to deal with a growing arch-conservative movement that sees the federal government as the enemy of the people; going through the nation's worst environmental disaster while Iran thumbs its nose at the civilized world, Israel commits P.R. hari-kari, and North and South Korea are back to rattling sabers at one another.  Not to mention that Greece has gone bankrupt,  the men and women of Fox News want to nail my hide to the wall and a hefty percentage of the American people are convinced I'm a committed Socialist.  And all this for a paltry $400,000 a year!  Hell's bells, it takes Alex Rodriguez all of eight at bats to make that!!"

   You get the picture.  I cannot imagine any president -- whether he or she be Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton . . . Franklin D. Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln for that matter . . . being able to succeed with all that is going on in the country and around the world.  What makes things so much more difficult for the president today -- as opposed to in days of yore -- is that he is attempting to lead people who may well be unleadable; folks who are looking for simple answers and solutions to unbelievably complex questions and challenges. 

    Unlike many, I still have faith in President Obama; faith that he can use the skills the good Lord gave him to begin effecting both amelioration and change.  However, if he is to do this, it will take not just skill on his part; it will also require faith, courage, imagination and a measure of chutzpah on ours.  For far too long, far too many Americans have acted as if citizenship's primary requirement was complaining, not acting; of demanding, not dreaming.  And while it is still true that "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step," we tend to lose interest after taking whatever that initial step may be.

   As mentioned above, now is the time for a bit of faith, courage, imagination, and a measure of chutzpah.  With your kind permission, I would like to indulge for the nonce in the latter two . . .

   To my mind, the most daunting challenge facing America today -- even beyond the economy and joblessness -- is the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  For not only is it an economic catastrophe of epic, epic proportions, and the worst man-made environmental disaster in the history of this nation -- perhaps this planet; it is also an act of ultimate immorality.  We have utterly failed in that divinely ordained mission to be shepherds and stewards of the earth: "Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves!  Should not the shepherds also take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock." [Ezekiel [34:2-4] 

   This disaster is overwhelming; so far it has defied all technological remedies.  It is also an ongoing political disaster for the president.  "Why hasn't he done more?"  people ask.  "Doesn't he care?"  Each day tens of thousands of gallons of oil despoil the gulf.  Best estimates are that the oil will continue to flow until at least August.  With each passing day, the political fallout also continues to gush.

  All of this has of course led to calls for a radical change in the nation's -- if not the world's reliance on oil.  The president spoke briefly about this from the Oval Office last night.  Although he did not propose anything concrete, he did allow that we must commit ourselves to breaking our addiction to oil.  Many have opined that where they had hoped for the president to "hit a grand slam" with his speech, it was merely a "bunt single." For many, the man simply cannot succeed no matter what he says or does.

   At the same time, the president is being accused of "throwing Israel under the bus"; of showing greater favor and concern for the Arabs than the Jewish State.  "Why," many ask, "has he not gone to Israel?"  The fact that he has not yet been to Jerusalem, these folks claim, is proof positive that he harbors a not-so-secret dislike for Israel.  

   I for one strongly disagree.  The Obama Administration has done plenty with and for the security of the Jewish State.  And while the fact that he has yet to go to Jerusalem is indeed lamentable, I think I understand why.  As much as he may want to go -- and soon -- what would he say?  To merely restate the obvious -- that Israel and the United States are inextricably bound together by bonds of history, democracy and legacy -- would sound rather hollow.

   Here comes an idea: one that I hope combines the sort of imagination and chutzpah I mentioned above.  I believe that there is a possible solution to our need for energy independence to be found in Israel.  I also believe that Israel's so-called "P.R. problem" may find a bit of amelioration in working to free America from it's addiction to oil.

   "How's that?" you ask.  As the punch line to an old joke began, "Vell I'll tell 'ya . . ."

   There is no country on earth that is farther ahead in the alternate energy field than Israel.  In fact, no country is father ahead in most forms of technology than the tiny Jewish State.  Israel is the first country to actively promote zero-emission electric cars.  They have already prepared their infrastructure for mass marketing such vehicles.  Already, "Better Place," an Israeli company, is marketing lithium-ion batteries to power the cars and the infrastructure to refresh or replace them.  One battery permits cars to travel 125 miles between charges.  "Better Place" is currently installing parking meter-like plugs on city streets and constructing service stations along highways to replace the batteries.

   SolarPower, Ltd., an Israeli solar power integrator, has already built a 50-kilowatt rooftop solar power system in Kiyat Gan, Israel.  Solel Solar Systems, Ltd., helped design a solar energy plant in Las Vegas that uses 190,000 curved parabolic mirrors.  The mirrors concentrate desert sunlight to 750 degrees Fahrenheit, which heats synthetic oil inside tubes that, in turn, create steam and drive a turbine that produces enough electricity to power nearly 50,000 homes. 

   Israel is also a world leader in creating biofuels from algae, energy from ocean waves, and the use of Thorium in place of Uranium.  (Thorium-232, which the United States Government experimented with during World War II is a naturally-occurring radioactive metal.  It decays very slowly; it's half-life is about three times the age of the earth.  A piece of Thorium the size of a ping pong ball can release enough energy to provide an individual with a lifetime supply of energy.  Unlike Uranium, it is incapable of being used in weapons, and exists in great and cheap abundance.  The United States alone has more than 400,000 tons of the stuff, roughly 15% of all the Thorium on earth.) 

   So, I can imagine President Obama going to Jerusalem and, standing with Prime Minister Netanyahu, announcing that the United States is going to be signing innumerable contracts with various Israeli companies to begin the process of turning America into a nation fueled by solar, geothermal, wave, biomass and Thorium energy.  If I were the president, I would use that skill he has communicating to say something like, "We are going to plug into the mainframe known as Israel in order to change the course of history.  In so doing, we look forward to not only weaning ourselves from non-renewable sources of energy, but to creating millions of new jobs in new clean industries that can lead to billions and billions of dollars of new exports.  Together, we can lead the world into a clean energy future that potentially can benefit every man, woman and child on this planet, and bring us all just a little closer together. . ."

   Yes, I know, the above is both a tall and idealistic order, to be certain.  But I have to believe that this is precisely what Barack Obama signed on for: a supreme challenge that calls for faith, imagination, chutzpah and "skill baby skill."

©2010 Kurt F. Stone