The K.F. Stone Weekly

An Essay With Something For Everyone to Dislike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

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

Luddites and Dominionists -- Like the Rich -- Are Different From You and Me

According to Ernest Hemingway, he and fellow writer F. Scott Fitzgerald were jointly responsible for the following quaint quip:

Fitzgerald: "The rich are different than you and me."

Hemingway: "Yes, they have more money."

Truth to tell, it probably never occurred. To give Hemingway his due without having to call him an out-and-out liar, he likely conflated a quote from Fitzgerald's short story The Rich Boy (1926) and then ascribed it to the two of them. (The original quote began: "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them . . .") Well, regardless of the accuracy -- or lack thereof -- of Hemingway's recollection, Fitzgerald's quip is even truer today than it was 85 years ago: the very rich are decidedly different from you and me. As much as we may follow -- or know about -- the lifestyles of the rich and famous, how many of us can truly say we "hang" with billionaires? How many of us include in our circle people who own 6, 7 or 8 homes, a fleet of personal jets and have annual incomes reaching nine figures? Not too many, would be my guess. Heck, how many billionaires can we even identify? For every well-known billionaire Warren Buffet, Bill Gates or Donald Trump, there are a hundred Christopher Flowers, Leslie Alexanders, Tamir Sapirs and Stewart Rahrs -- folks who keep their Dassault Falcon 7X (price-tag: $41 million) or Gulfstream G550 ($59.9 million) flying beneath -- or above -- the radar.

Yes indeed, the truly outrageously wealthy are different from you and me.

The same can be said for political Luddites and Dominionists: people like Governors Rick Perry, Rick Scott and Sarah Palin, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, and just about every Republican currently running for president . . . they are very different from you and me.

How so?

Well, how many of you, my dear readers, include among your friends, families and acquaintances, people who believe that Darwin and Spencer were fabulists at best -- tools of Beelzebub at worst -- and that the universe is no more than 6,000 years old? How many of us know folks who contends that Global Warming, far from being the result of humankind's disastrous carbon footprint, is, in "reality" the "Will of God?" Then too, by a show of hands, how many have shared a meal with someone who ascribes to the theory that the Civil War was a God-ordained conflict between the army of Christ (i.e. the slave-holding South) and the Godless North? Or that that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are resolutely unconstitutional? (It is interesting to note, by the way, that alone among the GOP presidential nominees former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman has no problem with science. He recently stated for the record that he has no problem with the theory of Evolution, and agrees with scientific findings that global warming is manmade. He is currently being raked over the coals for his "double heresy.")

The people who hold these positions are the ones being referred to as "Luddites" and "Dominionists" -- people who are as different from you and me as are the mega-rich.

First, let us define terms:

Luddites: The Luddites were an early 19th century British movement that expressed their total disdain for -- and fear of -- all things modern by going about destroying textile machines. They saw these machines as the work of the Devil. After a two-year reign of terror and destruction (1811-1813), the British government held mass trials resulting in numerous death sentences and scores of "transportations" to penal colonies. Every since, the term luddite has been used to describe those opposed to the forces modernity and change. . .

. . . Like Perry, Scott, Bachmann, Palin, et al, who deny and deride the findings of science, preferring instead to take cues from the Bible. (n.b.: Despite being one of the most vehement anti-science Luddites when it comes to Evolution and Global Warming, it is fascinating to note that when Texas Governor Rick Perry underwent back surgery last month -- a spinal fusion and nerve decompression -- his doctors employed an experimental injection of his own stem cells -- a therapy that is not FDA-approved. Seems like shades of "Get the government out of my life . . . but keep your hands off my Social Security!")

We're going to be hearing/reading/seeing a lot of Governor Perry in the days and weeks ahead -- or until his "flavor-of-the-week" status takes a nosedive.

As head-scratching and disconcerting as all this neo-luddism may be, it takes a back seat to the far, far more dangerous political theology known as "Dominionism."

Dominionism: This refers to a theocratic strain of Christian fundamentalist theology which holds that certain Christians -- like Perry or Bachmann -- have a God-given right to rule all earthly institutions until the Second Coming of Jesus. Transmuted from pulpit to political platform, Dominionism is, in the words of writer Michelle Goldberg, ". . . more of a political phenomenon than a theological one." According to George Grant, an evangelical educator who used to an assistant to the late D. James Kennedy at Ft. Lauderdale's mammoth Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church ("Truth in Action Ministries"),"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice . . . it is dominion we are after. Not just equal time . . . World Conquest."

Dominionism derives from a small fringe sect called Christian Reconstructionism, founded in the 1960s by a Calvinist theologian named R.J. Rushdoony. Christian Reconstruction, according to journalist Goldberg, ". . . openly advocates replacing American law with the strictures of the Old Testament, replete with the death penalty for homosexuality, abortion, and even apostasy." Dominionism takes its name from the Biblical Book of Genesis (1:26-27) where God tells Adam to assume "dominion" over the animate and inanimate world. (Commenting on the key word v'yirdu -- either "exercise dominion" or "dominate"-- the great medievalist Rashi writes, "[If he is] meritorious, he has dominion over the beasts and cattle. [If he is] not meritorious [then] he becomes subjugated to them and the beast has dominion over him." According to Rushdoony, Francis Schaeffer (one of Rushdoony's chief disciples, and the godfather of the anti-abortion movement) and the Rev. Pat Robertson, "only those who are saved via baptism can claim again the rights given to Adam." And not just any Christian who might be baptized mind you, but only those who are baptized by the right sort of Christians . . . whoever they may be.

These people -- the ones who are divinely commanded to dominate government and scale the heights of what they term the "Seven Mountains" of society (family, religion, arts and entertainment, media, government, education and business) until the Second Coming -- include, among others, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul and Rick Scott.

The emergence of Luddites and Dominionists in our political process is one that requires steadfast attention. They -- like the mega-wealthy -- may not be within our ken; may be far, from the reality of our daily lives; may even seem so incredibly outré as to be harmless -- but they are not. Yes, Luddites and Dominionists -- like the very rich -- are different from you and me. But just as the very rich are already exercising an ever-increasing and frightening influence over the nation's policies and politics (see my July 31 article, The U S of ALEC) so too are the Luddites and Dominionists -- many of whom, I am truly sorry to report, are being funded by the mega-wealthy.

America is fast reaching a dangerous crossroads; one in which we will choose a direction for our future; one in which we will choose whether to talk with, to listen to or to turn a deaf ear on, those who are very, very different from you and me.

To all the Luddites and Dominionists amongst us, I end this piece by giving you a verifiable quote from Ernest Hemingway's Men Without Women:

"Would you please, please, please, please, please, please, please stop talking . . .?"

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Skin in the Game

 

Of late, I've noticed what appears to be an increasing number of letters-to-the-editor in various papers written by members of the Baby Boom Generation. Many of them decry what they perceive as an almost total lack of energy, involvement -- even anger -- on the part of today's college students -- I call them "Generation Text".

"We were out there on the front lines protesting against the war in Vietnam, the killings at Kent State and American imperialism, and in support of things like the 18-year old vote and the Equal Rights Amendment," one writer noted. "What about the current crop of college students? Why aren't they out there protesting against this endless war in Afghanistan?"

"During the sixties," another letter writer stated, "we took over the administration buildings at Berkeley, Wisconsin and Columbia, and flocked to Washington D.C. by the hundreds of thousands. Today's college students just hang out in their dorm rooms tweeting one another . . ."

Indeed, why is this? Is it because the issues confronting us 40 years ago were so much more cut-and-dried, so relatively black-and-white? Is it because in those long gone pre-social networking days the only way we could express a commonality of concern was face-to-face? Or is it something else?

The answer, I believe, can best be understood by an expression many believe was first coined by mega-investor Warren Buffett: "Skin in the game." In Buffett's world, "skin in the game" refers to a situation in which high-ranking insiders use their own money to buy stock in the companies they run. The idea behind creating this situation was -- and is -- to ensure that corporations are managed by like-minded individuals who share a stake in the company. "Executives can talk all they want," Buffett said, "but the best vote of confidence is putting one's own money on the line just like outside investors." (Upon researching the expression, it is highly likely that Buffett was not its source. Back in September 2006, the late William Safire devoted an entire column to it, and found it to be both quite old and ultimately untraceable.)

Regardless of its origin, "skin in the game" is synonymous with "stake" or "self-interest." A major reason why Baby Boomers protested the war in Vietnam was that they had a stake in it; a stake called the draft, for which a high percentage were eligible. For "Generation Text," the terms "Selective Service" and "the draft" are as antiquated and unknown as ditto machines and party lines. Again, because it was in our self interest, Baby Boomers came out en masse to support passage of the Twenty-sixth Amendment; it was enacted in time to permit 18, 19, and 20 year olds to vote for the anti-war Senator George McGovern. (For all the good that did . . .) One wonders what sort of stake would get "Generation Text" to march, protest or volunteer.

Up until recently, a majority of Americans did not seem to see themselves as having any significant "skin in the game." We are a largely apolitical nation; witness our appallingly low voter turnout. Moreover, it has long been in the best interest of those who do have significant "skin in the game" -- i.e. multi-national corporations, their lobbyists and political puppets, a majority of millionaires and billionaires, much of the communications /entertainment industry -- to keep the public diverted, often by spoon-feeding us a diet of pap which although somewhat filling, lacks sufficient nourishment for what should be a robust citizenry. (I wrote about this phenomena precisely one year ago today in a piece entitled "An Illusion Worthy of David Copperfield." It is just as true -- if not more so -- today as it was 52 articles ago. )

It would seem that perhaps -- just perhaps -- after witnessing that mind-numbing debt-ceiling-vs.-deficit-reduction-debacle on Capitol Hill, we -- average workaday Americans -- are beginning to figure out that we do have skin in the game; that it is in both our individual and collective (oy, such a term!) self interest to recognize how little respect we are being shown by our leaders, representatives and the folks who keep them in campaign gelt. When Standard & Poors downgrades our national credit rating and the financial markets rise and fall as precipitously as Six Flag's "Superman" roller coaster, it matters to each and every one of us -- not just to billionaire investors and titans of industry. When so many of our politicians put their partisan political interests way ahead of America's economic well-being, that is a nightmare that affects us all. When promises of "jobs, jobs, jobs" take a backseat to eviscerating labor unions, shutting down women's health centers, scuttling public education and turning a blind eye to America's crumbling infrastructure, that is a cynically orchestrated turn of events that calls for a united front; a front made up of everyday citizens who, for the first time in perhaps a generation, realize that we all have "skin in the game." When the 2012 presidential election looks like its going to be a replay of the Christian Crusades -- i.e. the "Forces of Light" versus "The Forces of Evil" -- that should get our attention. When our children are transported across dangerously creaky bridges to attend physically substandard schools that are dangerously underfunded, understaffed and overcrowded, that should make us awaken us from our doldrums. When we are told time and again that the "real" causes of our joblessness and economic stagnation are deficits, entitlements, high taxes and too much regulation, it is time to throw off the shackles of "Foxification" and begin acting in our best interest.

Although America is currently teetering on a precipice of contraction, our problems are not insoluble. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the three most important ingredients that go into any first-class recovery are courage, resolve and the ability to compromise. At present, we are lacking all three. But it is not just the fault of the people we elect, for after all, we are the ones who elected them in the first place! For too long, we have abnegated our responsibilities as citizens; given them over to men and women whose names, faces and agendas most Americans cannot identify. And then when they fail us, we complain. And we elect a new batch of men and women whose names, faces and agendas we cannot truly identify.

As if we did not have skin in the game.

But we all have a stake in this glorious compact called America . . . whether we know it or not.

When oh when will we start acting that way?

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

'A' Response to 'The' Response

Yesterday, August 6, 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry led a group at Houston's Reliant Stadium in what he billed as "The Response" -- a day of prayer and fasting for the United States. Perry, who organized the event not as a private citizen but as Texas
governor (using his office's prestige, official stationery and government website) called on Jesus to bless and guide the nation's military and political leaders and "those who cannot see the light in the midst of all the darkness."

Standing in front of an enormous televised image of himself on a Jumbotron that could be seen from one end of the air conditioned 71,000-seat stadium to the other, Perry began his comments by proclaiming, "Like all of you, I love this country deeply!" Interrupted by a roar of approval from the estimated 30,000 who had gathered -- many of whom had fallen to their knees in worshipful adoration -- Perry continued, "Indeed, the only thing you love more is the living Christ!" Addressing himself directly to God, the Texas governor then went on to say, "You are our only hope, and we stand before you today in awe of your power and in gratitude for your blessings, and humility for our sins. Father, our heart breaks for America . . ."

"The Response," whose $1 million-plus tab was underwritten by the Rev. Donald Wilmon's "American Family Association," (which the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as an "anti-gay hate group") included exhortations from evangelical ministers, music by Christian rock groups, a scriptural reading by Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (whose office had previously said he was on vacation in Houston and thus attending as a private citizen), and a taped greeting by Florida Governor Rick Scott. Perry had actually issued invitations to all forty-nine of his fellow governors; of these, 48 were no-shows.

One of the speakers, controversial TV evangelist John Hagee, lauded Governor Perry for having "had the courage today to call this time of fasting and prayer, just as Abraham Lincoln did in the darkest days of the Civil War." (Many will recall that in the 2008 presidential election, Republican nominee John McCain disavowed Hagee's endorsement after it became known that the San Antonio pastor had once said that Hitler was dispatched by God to force Jews "to come back to the land of Israel.") Although in the days and weeks leading up to "The Response" Governor Perry said he wanted "people of all faiths to attend," it was obvious that Christianity -- a fundamentalist brand of Christianity -- predominated the service. All prayers were given in the name of Jesus, and the musical performers sang of Christian themes of repentance and salvation.

Days prior to the event, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against Perry by a national group of atheists who argued that his participation in the rally in his official capacity as governor violated the First Amentment's requirement of separation of church and state. That did not stop various group from picketing outside the stadium.

Many -- myself included -- see Perry's gathering as a prelude to a presidential run. Perry and his political advisors are well aware that if he is to have any chance of capturing the Republican nomination -- or, short of that snagging the number two spot on the ticket -- he needs to maximize his Christian credentials; he must become the Christian values candidate, a position currently held by Michelle Bachmann. Well, as the old saw goes, "Be careful what you wish for, because it just may come true." With the Republican Party so deeply in thrall to its "Christian Values" wing, it is hard to imagine any but the most ardent, most vocal Christian receiving the nomination. But then, that nominee -- who would be viewed by millions as "God's candidate" -- would have to face tens of millions of voters who cannot and do not subscribe to a religious orthodoxy that seems to only embrace white evangelicals. Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, mainstream Protestants, social gospel Christians, Hispanics, African Americans and atheists aren't likely to support a candidate who gets up on the stump and speaks in the name of the Almighty. To tack to the political center -- away from some of the religious right's more intolerant stances -- would not only be difficult; it would, in the eyes of many, amount to religious heresy.

The U.S. Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3) states:

The senators and representatives before mentioned and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by an Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States."

And so, it is obvious that, de jure -- Constitutionally-speaking -- no governmental entity -- whether local, state or national -- can require a religious test for any office. However, what of the case when the "religious test" is de facto? When it is the public, and not the polity which is making the adherence to a set of religious scruples a requirement? This, I fear, is the reality that a large segment of the American public has willingly accepted. This reality is akin to taking a sacred, binding oath; a hand-on-the-Bible promise to only support candidates who publicly swear fealty to God, the Son of God, and God's "divinely revealed" political point of view.

For believers, such a reality would require one universally agreed-upon interpretation of Divine Will, of the very Word of God. This is incredibly dangerous, especially in a country that is home to virtually every religion on the face of earth. Just who, we must ask, is so cocksure of knowing precisely what God's Will entails as to hold it up as the standard for everyone else? Perry and people of his ilk are escorting America on the slippery slope that leads to religious intolerance -- a "God's Way or the Highway" mentality that tears at the very fabric of our society. One is reminded of Susan B. Anthony's statement: "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." To listen to the likes of Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, et al, God is:

• Against all taxes and any form of gun control;
• Against government lending a helping hand to the downtrodden or impoverished;
• Against the vast majority of people inhabiting the planet -- i.e. those who are not born again in Christ, let alone not Christian;
• Against women having the option of chosing to have or not have an abortion;
• Against liberals, progressives, moderates and those who still question.
• Against gays, lesbians and anyone who refuses to give the past a veto.

I wonder if Governor Perry ever read the words of Thomas Jefferson who warned, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."

Make no mistake about it; these are perilous times. For anyone to claim that they have the answer -- or The Response -- is proof positive of just how dangerous our days have become.

©2011 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

After the Rapture

  Well, now that the Rapture has once again been put on hold, it's back to business. This means we all must resume life as we know it on this ever more tightly-wound mortal coil. For many, the tasks of life go well beyond family, finance and frolic; for many it also includes those special issues, causes or affiliations to which we devote a goodly portion of our time and passion.  These can range from the fanatic allegiance to one's favorite sports team and the ethical treatment of animals, to raising of awareness and money for one's pet medical, political or social cause.  Many people devote their time, talent and energy to saving the earth; others wile away their free time shopping at the mall.

   The range of causes and issues to which people devote their time and passion is, quite simply, breathtaking. For every cause there is an organization -- or two or ten -- with their own website, mailing list and legion of supporters.  There is, as an example, a sizable subculture of folks actively engaged in the ethical treatment of animals.  Through groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) ALDF (Animal Legal Defense Fund) and GAP (The Great Ape Project) millions of people contribute tens -- even hundreds -- of millions of dollars for the purpose of saving seals, elephants and great apes from extinction to raising consciousness about the evils of  dog fighting, mink coats and vivisection.

  Santa Monica, California, is the headquarters of The PAW Project, an organization whose mission it is " . . . to  educate the public about the painful and crippling effects of feline declawing, to promote animal welfare through the abolition of the practice of declaw surgery, and to rehabilitate cats that have been declawed." As a result of PAW's advocacy, anti declawing (Onychectomy) ordinances have been enacted in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Beverly Hills, Culver City, Santa Monica and Burbank.  An absolute ban passed both houses of the California state Legislature (vetoed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) and was recently introduced in the New York state Legislature.  (It should be noted that declawing has long been illegal in Australia, Brazil, much of Europe and the United Kingdom.  The ban applies to both domestic and exotic felines.)

   While one can argue that making the declawing of tabby illegal is not the most pressing issue facing humanity, it is, nonetheless, worthy of attention.  Who but a heartless brute would want to subject the family pet to a procedure that may cause pain and suffering? Then again, there are those who would argue that cats are cats and that we, their masters and mistresses, have the God-given right to declaw them in order to save our own skin -- not to mention our chairs, couches and draperies. Whichever side one takes in this minor debate, hopefully it is agreed that this is neither a matter of political correctness nor an abridgement of constitutional safeguards.

   Unlike the pet issue of San Diego-based mgmbill.org: making the circumcision of any male under the age of 18 illegal.  

   This past week, the Los Angeles Times ran an article  on MGM Bill's successful campaign to get their proposed ordinance placed on the ballot in San Francisco in November.  The article, written by the Times' Martha Groves, detailed MGM Bill's new campaign to place a similar ordinance on the ballot in Santa Monica.  Their measure would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a boy in Santa Monica (or San Francisco) before he turned 18.  The maximum penalty would be a year in jail and a $1,000.00 fine.  According to terms of their proposal, circumcisions would be permitted "only for medical reasons, with no religious exemptions."

   What's going on here?

   According to Matthew Hess MGM Bill's founder and president:

   "Currently, girls are protected from genital mutilation by U.S. federal law, but boys are not. Although legal protection of only girls from circumcision would seem to violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the fact remains that it is still widely considered to be legal in this country to mutilate a boy's genitals in the name of social custom, hygiene, religion, or any other reason. This is true despite the well documented lifelong damage that male circumcision causes each of its victims. It's a practice we need to end now."

   Hess' contention that there is "well documented" proof about the "lifelong damage that male circumcision causes each of its victims" is, to say the least, medically challengeable.  In his 1891 treatise, "The History of Circumcision," Dr. Peter Charles Remondino (who, ironically, was city physician in San Diego -- Matthew Hess' hometown) urged his medical colleagues to use his text to ram the "four-and-a-half-foot gauge fact" of circumcision through a hesitant parent's "two-foot-gated understanding."  He went so far as to argue that "The Jewish race lives better because its members ritually remove the tissue from baby boys."  Dr. Remondino's ideas about circumcision lived on for several generations.  According to federal statistics, circumcision among newborn males grew from around 30% in 1932 to approximately 70% in 1971.  Starting in the 1970s however, the medical community began to question the medical benefits of circumcision.  By 2011, infant circumcision rates dropped to about 50%.  California is now among the states with the lowest: 21% of baby boys are circumcised in the Golden State.  

   Matthew Hess and his followers contend that circumcision is barbaric; that someone must stand up for the rights of the newborn and against parents who would willingly subject their sons to what they term "mutilation" ("MGM" stands for "Male Genital Mutilation").  They go so far as to claim that "Many men who are circumcised suffer the same psychological effects found in rape victims.  A sense of great loss and feelings of anger, distrust and grief . . ." There are literally dozens and dozens of groups pushing for legislation outlawing infant circumcision in the United States.  Already,  MGM Bill has proposed federal legislation and drafted bills for 46 state legislatures.   (The 4 states they have somehow missed are Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.)

    Jews Against Circumcision, one of the groups supporting MGM Bill's legislation, tells its members and acolytes they "need not be afraid of divine punishment," because "In the original version of the Torah, the book of J, circumcision is not even mentioned.  Fallible men devised circumcision as a means to curb masturbation." (The reference to "the book of J" comes from the "Documentary Hypothesis," a 19th century theory which holds that the Torah was derived independently from 4 originally independent, parallel and complete narratives which were subsequently combined into the current form by a series of editors or redactors.  This hypothesis, which is attributed to the German scholar Julius Welhausen, is today considered far more a scholastic novelty than a serious theory.)  Regardless of what "Jews Against Circumcision" claim, Genesis 17:10-12 is a clearly enunciated apodictic law . . .

   I for one find it utterly fascinating that San Francisco and Santa Monica -- two of my native state's most liberal and progressive communities -- would be in the forefront of the movement to disallow circumcision.  As progressives, the people of these two cities are, for the most part, strongly pro-choice; they rebel at the thought of government telling a woman what she may or may not do with her body.  In this case, however, there may well be a groundswell of support for giving government a say what may be done to that body.  To be certain, female circumcision should be outlawed; it has neither a religious nor a hygienic basis.  Rather, it is done in the name of female chastity.  In the case of males, there is both a 4,000 year religious history plus strong anecdotal evidence of medical advantage.  

   I have to believe that should either San Francisco or Santa Monica pass MGM Bill's proposed ordinance, it will be struck down by the California State Supreme Court. 

   I just hope they get to it before the next Rapture . . .

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Let There be (Florescent) Light

   Washington: Make no mistake about it: we are a nation of kvetchers -- of "groaners" and "complainers."  Throughout our history, we Americans have, generally speaking, been quick when it comes to complaining and warning that someone -- frequently the government -- is abridging our God-given freedoms; of encroaching on our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And whether the slight or abridgement or encroachment is real or imagined, we kvetch. But it's not really our fault; we cannot help it.  Kvetching is as much a part of our historic fabric or genetic makeup as mom, apple-pie, and the flag.  Our earliest roots were firmly planted in the soil of complaint -- witness the early outcry over taxes and tea -- and lovingly nurtured in the loam of eternal vigilance.  That is what you get when your country is created largely by lawyers -- folks whose ability to kvetch is both admired and measured in billable hours. 

   These councilors-at-law fashioned a system -- and purposefully so -- that provided just as many questions as answers.  It's almost as if in creating a new nation, they were also creating a new sub-species of humanity -- Quiritis Americani -- herein defined as "Members of an eternal, mythological debating society."  For nearly 235 years, we have been debating whether or not the government -- whether it be federal, state or municipal -- has the legal authority to delimit individual or collective rights.  Frequently, the debate begins with segments of the public kvetching about:

• The rights of gun owners versus public safety;
• The right to privacy versus national security;
• The right to free speech versus truth, dignity and common sense;
• The government's right to mandate versus business's right to market;
• The literal words of The Constitution versus how various judges interpret them;
• The individual's right to unfettered freedom versus the government's concern for the common weal.

     Frequently the kvetch -- and ensuing debate will involve the so-called "slippery slope" argument (argumentum lubrica clivi); namely, that if "A" is permitted to occur, then certainly "B through Z" cannot be far behind.  Two examples will suffice: 

• In the wake of January's mass-killing in Tucson, many calls went out for legislation reinstituting a ban on the sort of high-capacity (33-round) magazines employed by the alleged shooter. (n.b. Such magazines were illegal under terms of the 1994 assault weapons ban; that the law was permitted to expire during the first year of the George W. Bush administration.)  The National Rifle Association (NRA) came out flatly and firmly against reinstituting the magazine ban, arguing that "If the government can limit the sort of ammunition we purchase today, they can just as easily take away our weapons tomorrow." 
• In 2007, Congress overwhelmingly passed -- and then-President George W. Bush signed -- the "Energy Independence and Security Act," a bill that would subject incandescent light bulbs to strict efficiency standards beginning in 2012.  (n.b. What this means in practical terms is that within the next several years, the 100-watt incandescent bulb will become obsolete, replaced by far higher-efficient florescent or halogen bulbs.) During hearings on the then-proposed piece of legislation, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council testified that once the bill  was fully enacted, it would "save homeowners $100 to $200 a year in energy costs and cut power-plant pollution by 100 million tons, the equivalent of taking 17 million cars off the road."  Nonetheless, in late March 2008 then-Freshman Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) introduced what she called (I kid you not) the "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act."  In introducing her legislation, Bachmann said "the government has no business telling consumers what kind of light bulbs they can buy."  Further, Bachmann argued, "If the Democrats can hose up a light bulb bill, don't trust them with the country."

    Welcome to the slippery slope, a gentling-cresting hill in the land of kvetch where one is compelled to ask, "How many members of Congress does it take to screw in a light bulb?"

    Bachmann's legislation mandated a study of the health risks associated with the newer spiral shaped energy-efficient florescent bulbs that many of us are already using in our homes.  At the time, Bachmann argued that the florescent bulbs were far more polluting than their incandescent cousins, due to what she termed their "dangerously high levels of mercury." (n.b.   When asked how her stand squared with those who claimed that phasing out 100-watt incandescent bulbs could have a positive effect on global warming, Bachmann called such concerns "voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax."

   Not to be outdone,  Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Texas Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) just introduced  S 395 and H.R. 921, known as the "Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (BULB), which would effectively cancel the earlier (2007) act.  In addition to employing Bachmann's argument that florescent bulbs release dangerous amounts of mercury, Enzi contended that "Government doesn't need to be in the business of telling people what light bulb they have to use.  If left alone, the best bulb will win its rightful standing in the marketplace."  (n.b. The 2007 law does not ban traditional incandescent light bulbs. Instead it requires new bulbs to use 25 to 30 percent less energy beginning in 2012. The rules call for further improvements in efficiency by 2014. The new standards have already taken effect in California.) 

   One is simply amazed that at a time when our attention should be riveted on such topics as revolution in the Middle East, deficits at home and an ever-increasing number of creatures facing extinction every week, there are those who can still find time to kvetch that the government's supposed mandate on the future of incandescent light bulbs is yet another nail in the coffin of American liberty.  To listen to the carping and kvetching of Bachman, Enzi, Bachmann et al, one would that saving some energy , reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources and even eliminating some pollution in the air (all of which this change in light bulbs will potentially do) is the equivalent of Uncle Joe Stalin regulating what crops were grown back in the 1930s and 1940s. 

   I think I can understand how and why libertarians are be concerned about the federal government's involvement in energy policy vis-a-vis light bulbs.  They simply view -- and are deeply chary of -- the federal government's encroaching on any area of daily life as a diminution of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  But on the other hand, does not the government have the right and the power to safeguard the economic -- not alone the physical -- wellbeing of the nation?  Time and again throughout our history, the government has stepped in to do the latter -- whether it be in the area of food inspection, mine safety or clean air.  That's its job; to leave food safety, mine safety, clean air -- or in this case, light bulbs -- in the hands of industry and industry alone, is akin to putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse . . .

   Should we be surprised that folks are kvetching over light bulbs when there's also a lot of caterwauling over Mrs. Obama's campaign against childhood obesity?

   What other choice does a nation of kvetchers have . . . ?

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Mouseland Revisited

   Tommy Douglas (1904-1986), the founder of Canada's New Democratic Party,  served as Premiere of Saskatchewan from 1944 to 1961.  Called "the most influential  politician never to be elected Prime Minister," Douglas was the fellow who  introduced universal public healthcare to Canada.  In 2004, he was voted number one in the Canadian Broadcast Corporation's "The Greatest Canadian" contest.  And if all this were not enough to secure his position in the pantheon of immortals, he was also the maternal grandfather of actor Keifer Sutherland.

    Not bad for a Scottish immigrant who started out life as a Baptist minister.

   For many non-Canadians -- myself included -- Tommy Douglas is best known for a 578-word fable /parable called "Mouseland."  Originally told by a member of the Canadian House of Commons named Clarence Gillis (1895-1960) Mouseland tells the tale of a society made up overwhelmingly of mice who, against all reason, vote for black cats to be their leaders.  Needless to say, these cats do what is best for their species at the expense of the mice who, nonetheless, continue voting them into office.  Inevitably, the mice become greatly dissatisfied with the black cats; they have mandated the speed at which mice may travel, and have ordained that all mouse holes must have round entrances sufficiently large to permit a cat's paw entry.  So what do the mice do?  In the very next election, they vote in a government made up of white cats who, once in power, decree that from now on, all mouse hole entryways shall be square, thus large enough to permit cats to put both paws inside.  When finally it dawns on one mouse that mice -- not cats -- should run their government, he is accused of being a Bolshevik and imprisoned.  However, the parable ends with the words, "You can lock up a mouse or a man, but you can't lock up an idea."

   If ever a retelling of "Mouseland" were needed, that time would be now.  For like Tommy Douglas' Canadian constituency some 70-odd years ago (he originally told the tale back in ca. 1940) America is a land of mice, far too many of whom willingly cede their destiny and future well-being to cats.  In Douglas' parable, those shaping the murine world were black, white or spotted felines.  In our present circumstance, the cats are all fat -- or at least serve those who are.  How else to account for all those members of the middle- and lower-middle class who:

• Happily support an extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%?  or
  
• Go along with that bit of specious reasoning which contents that denying unions collective bargaining rights will somehow balance a budget or diminish a deficit?  or
  
• Buy into the discredited economic theory that placing more pre-tax (or post-demise) dollars in the hands of the wealthy will ultimately benefit the poor?  or
  
• That the answer to nearly every problem or challenge we face is a combination of lower taxes and fewer regulations? or
• That there is no inconsistency between clamoring for "jobs, jobs, jobs" and then defunding public education? or 
• That the single-best way to face the challenges of the future is to arm ourselves with the solutions of the past?

   Over the past couple of weeks, the "cats" have become increasingly brazen in their campaign against we, the "mice."  We have seen this campaign at its worst and most obvious in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and now Rhode Island, where gubernatorial and legislative cats are feasting on the brittle bones of such public sector mice as teachers, firefighters, police officers and municipal employees.  In response, tens of thousands have flocked to their respective state capitals demanding to have their rights respected and their voices heard.  In Wisconsin, the 14 Democratic state senators have removed themselves to Illinois, where they are safely beyond the reach of Governor Walker.  Without their presence in Madison, there can be no legislative quorum.  And without a quorum, there can be no vote on the governor's proposal taking collective bargaining rights away from public employees' unions -- a hard-fought right which has been in place for the better part of a century.

   Make no mistake about it: all sentient "mice" understand that we are in the throes of a fiscal crisis; that this crisis extends from Washington, D.C. to the various state capitals, county seats and city halls.  We are all perfectly aware that our country, most of our states, counties and municipalities are running deficits, and that intelligent, high-mindedly courageous leadership, backing intelligent, high-mindedly courageous -- dare we say imaginative? -- proposals and programs must be the wave of the future.  For many intelligent mice -- and some cats as well -- our current fiscal mess bespeaks the need to rethink, refashion and retool for a practical future that will not look much like the present and certainly nothing like the past. 

   For others -- both murine and feline alike -- the current state of affairs presents nothing so much as an opportunity to settle old scores; to rethink, refashion and retool for a political future that will look much like the past -- a past where unions were all but nonexistent, income, corporate and inheritance taxes were miniscule, the words "government" and "regulation" never appeared in the same sentence, and the entire federal bureaucracy could fit comfortably into Ebbets Field -- if it were still standing.

   On a slightly more hopeful note, there appears to be a growing number of "mice" who are beginning to realize just what the "cats" are up to: settling old political scores.  And it's not necessarily that we, the rodents, are becoming smarter or politically more savvy.  Rather, it is likely due to the very brazenness with which the felines have been going about their business.  Breaking unions has nothing -- we repeat, nothing -- to do with balancing budgets or decreasing debts.  What it does have everything to do with is taking away both a source of funding and a vast cadre of volunteers from the Democrats.  The cats have their Koch brothers; and up until now, the mice have had their unions.

   Likewise, defunding Planned Parenthood, OSHA or National Public Radio (to name but three) has less to do with the nuts-and-bolts of fiscal austerity than it does with furthering a pro-life, pro-deregulation, and anti-progressive political platform.  Still, one cannot blame them; cats have to do what cats have to do. 

   In Tommy Douglas' parable, one mouse has the vision, the courage, to ask "Why do we continue to elect a government of cats?  Why don't we elect a government of mice?" 

   "Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik.  Lock him up!"

    Permit me to conclude with my own "cats-and-mice" suggestion:

    If we are to fix a system which up until now has put the future welfare  of "mice" into the hands of "cats" -- a species whose primary allegiance is to their financial backers and underwriters --   we must completely rethink, refashion and retool the manner in which we elect our leaders.

   Repeat after me:

 "PUBLIC FINANCING"  

   MEEEEOW!!

©2011 Kurt F. Stone

Andy Hardy Gets a Hickey

  This month, Turner Classic Movies has been showing a ton of Andy Hardy movies.  Starring the ever-young Mickey Rooney, the series deals with the lives of the  Andy, his father, the gruff but wise Judge Hardy (Lewis Stone -- no relative), mother (Fay
Holden), older sister Marian (Cecilia Parker), and girlfriend Polly Benedict (Ann Rutherford), who all live in  the fictional , All-American town of Carvel, Idaho. (N.B. Throughout the 20-odd films in the series -- which finally ended in 1958 -- Andy was paired with such  relative unknowns as Judy Garland, Lana Turner, Kathleen Grayson and Esther Williams.)

   Generally understood to be movie mogul Louis B. Mayer's idealized vision of his adopted country, the series centers around the relationship between Andy and his father, as the teenager goes through such angst-filled issues as dating, making the team and facing the most basic realities of life.   As with most MGM movies of the day, everything turns out just fine; Andy heeds his father's sage counsel and is thereby able to look to the future with optimism and understanding. 

   In comparison to modern times, Andy Hardy's America is wonderfully benign.  The kids of Carvel, Idaho didn't need to worry about Global Warming, AIDS, "gangstas," or a society that places greedy consumerism ahead of good citizenship.  Andy and his friends never have to concern themselves with the possibility of being iced or outed; hell, they never even get a hickey. 

      Viewed from a distance of 70 years -- and understanding that Andy, Judge Hardy, Polly and Carvel, Idaho are all fictional -- things just seem to have worked a lot better then than they do now.  Andy and his friends were all reasonably literate and engaged; they had social consciences and seemed capable of heeding the voice of experience.  And the local high school they attended, although supporting a world of sports, hijinks and petty romance, was nonetheless a place where learning and inculcation were going on in abundance. 

   Yes, "Andy Hardy" is both fictional and idealized; but then again, fiction -- even at its treacly best -- is at least a pale shadow of reality.   Compare the  schoolboy world of Andy and his friends in Carvel with the educational reality made public just this week.  In  its "Program for International Student Assessment" (PISA) the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development assessed the knowledge and skills of an average 15-year old in the  34 principal industrialized countries of the world.  Among PISA's findings we learn that American youngsters rank:

• 14th in reading (Shanghai, Korea. Finland, and Hong Kong are ranked 1-4).
• 17th in science (Shanghai, Finland, Hong Kong and Japan are ranked 1-4).
• 25th in math (Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong and Korea are ranked 1-4). 

   In asking the obvious question -- "Why do American students lag so far behind places like Poland, Thailand and New Zealand?" --  no two people seem to have the same answer, point fingers at the same target, or suggest the same possible remedies:Some claim that the test is unfairly balanced, because unlike the United States, which has a heterogeneous population, places like Shanghai, Hong Kong, Finland and Japan are, largely speaking, culturally homogeneous.  

• Some aver that the problem is with the school calendar; that America has a far shorter school year than most industrialized countries.  (This is true; our school year is still based upon the needs of a largely late-19th, earl -20th century agricultural society in which families needed their children available over the summer months for farming).
• Many see teachers' unions as the basic culprit, for they make it impossible to remove "unqualified teachers" out of the classroom.  They embrace market-oriented reform strategies - -performance pay and retention based not upon tenure but strictly upon the results of standardized tests like Florida's "FCAT."
• Then again, when questioned, many feel that students in countries like China and Korea score so high precisely because they have gotten rid of standardized tests and rote learning, and have dramatically raised the pay of classroom teachers.
• "Nonsense," others respond.  "American teachers receive the highest pay in the world -- and it's only for working ten months a year!"
• The "solution," some proclaim is to provide vouchers so that parents can choose to send their children to either charter or private schools -- thereby gutting the very  system of American public education that served us so well for so long.
• Many Republicans and Tea Party acolytes believe that the first issue on the agenda is abolishing the federal Department of Education and replacing it with local, parental control of local schools.
• Others, like former Washington, D.C. schools Chief Michelle Rhee contend that reducing the number of highly paid administrators and holding principals accountable will go a long way towards solving the problem.
• Still others stress the absolute need to dismantle "No Child Left Behind" -- which the Obama Administration supports -- and replacing it with a new, bolder approach to education.  What these folks have in mind is an approach which would combine universal child access to healthcare, early childhood education and the extension of learning opportunities into the summer with what they call an "opportunity to learn" agenda, defined as one which "reduces inequities in funding among schools and helping schools create conditions conducive to learning and healthy child development."  
  

   There is no telling what will happen to educational policy come January, when Republicans find themselves in charge of the House and in much greater numbers in the Senate.  There is no such thing as a single GOP strategy for dealing with the problems and issues besetting American public education.  Some want to abolish "No Child Left Behind," which they regard as an overreach of federal authority.  Others want to gut public education by providing vouchers.  And then there are those who simply bewail the fact that "Johnny can't read" because we've strayed too far from Carvel, Idaho.

   In the final analysis, the reasons why "Johnny" -- not to mention "Sarah," "Pedro," and "Solange" -- can't read, write, do math or understand science, but that "Ahmed," "Soon-Li," and "Lars" can, has as much to do with parents and social values as it does with the schools themselves.  Unlike the good folks of Carvel, Idaho -- or Helsinki, Nanking, Seoul or Osaka for that matter --  we don't hold teachers in terribly high regard.  We tend to pay them occasional lip service rather than a substantial wage.  Consider that it takes an average classroom teacher here in Broward County, Florida an entire year to earn what Miami Heat forward Lebron James earns every 12 minutes.  And, I can tell you that as a teacher/professor who is married to a teacher who is in turn the sister, sister-in-law and aunt of teachers/professors, what we do in the classroom is one heck of a lot more far-reaching and consequential than what Mr. James does on the basketball court. 

   If America is ever to get back to the level of economic and inspirational leadership we once proudly occupied, it will require far, far more than stimulus packages, tax-cuts for the wealthy or fervent prayers for a return to innocent days of Andy Hardy and Carvel, Idaho.  It will require a top-to-bottom reassessment and revamping of an America that has lost its way; one which gladly offers all the "Andys" and "Pollys" products to consume even as it fails to teach them how to tabulate the charges.

©2010 Kurt F. Stone