The K.F. Stone Weekly

Clackity Clack, Clackity Clack

 

Audio Link to "Clackity Clack Clackity Clack"

 

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

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  The rarely-used adrenalizing klaxon of yesteryear has been replaced by a never-ending "headline crawler," which turns every cough into a catastrophe, every misstatement into a moment of truth.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

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

Clackity clack, clackity clack.

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

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

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

IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT!

WORSE THAN WATERGATE!

OBAMA'S WATERLOO!

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

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

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

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

Clackity clack, clackity clack . . .

 

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

 

Time to Exhale?

Audio Link to Time to Exhale

Even in death, longtime Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez remains pretty much what he was in life: a lightening rod of confliction and contradiction.  Without question, Chávez was revered by many -- if not most -- of his country's poor, who believed him to be their paternal champion against the entrenched rich and powerful. At the same time, he was reviled by many who considered him a corrupt autocratic clown.  Chávez was, to say the least, a man of contradictions. You either loved him or hated him.  (And if you were Raoul Castro, you did both.) 

Conflictions and contradictions?   Chávez was a secular socialist who  went out of his way to form an incongruous friendship with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of an Islamic theocracy.  Raised and educated in one of this hemisphere's most tolerant and civilized countries -- one that opened its doors to Jewish victims of the Holocaust -- Hugo Chávez became a strident enemy of the Jewish State, had his intelligence service (SEBIN) spy on the country's Jewish community, gave voice to the age-old  canard about a world-wide Zionist-Jewish conspiracy, and accused Israel of perpetrating a “new Holocaust” by using Nazi-like methods to kill Palestinians.  Lastly, the leader of a country possessing one of the world's largest supplies of oil,  Chávez pretty much bankrupted his economy while enriching himself -- reportedly to the tune of $1 billion or more.

I sincerely doubt that members of Venezuela's Jewish community -- whether residents or ex-pats now living abroad -- are shedding many tears over Chávez's passing.  The Venezuelan Jewish community -- which numbered about 20,000 when Hugo Chávez first became president, spent much of the past 14 years holding its collective breath. One simply never knew what Chávez and his government would do next.  As  the Jewish Telegraphic Agency's Uriel Heilman noted: "While Chavez never explicitly threatened the Jews of Venezuela, his frequent harassment and staunchly anti-Israel positions kept them continually on edge. Afraid to criticize their president, the Jewish community found itself in a predicament that took on a frightening resemblance to the one faced by Jews in another staunchly anti-Western, anti-Zionist country: Iran."

Throughout the last several years of his presidency, Chávez drew closer and closer to Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmajinedad.  The two sharply increased bilateral trade, inaugurated weekly flights between Caracas and Tehran, and frequently visited each other.  Not surprisingly, the closer and chummier Chávez got with Iran, the stronger, more strident his rhetoric became against Israel.  Venezuela severed relations with Israel in 2009, during the three-week Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.  In addition to severing diplomatic ties with the Jewish state and expelling the Israeli ambassador in Caracas, Chávez accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians. He also insisted that the Jews of Venezuela rebuke Israel for its actions.  

Beyond the hostile, anti-Israel rhetoric they were subjected to, the Jewish community also suffered through acts of violence. Anti-Semitic graffiti appeared in Caracas, equating the Jewish Star of David with the swastika. Broadcasters on state radio recommended the notorious anti-Semitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as an insightful read. Jewish institutions and houses of worship in Venezuela were attacked.  To his credit, Chávez never placed restrictions on Jews leaving Venezuela.  As such, during his 14-year presidency,  nearly one out of two Venezuelan Jews left the country.  Many "made aliyah" to Weston, Florida, a ten-minute drive from our home. Indeed, there are so many Venezuelans living there -- both Jewish and Gentile -- that the upscale Broward County municipality is frequently referred to as "Westonzuela."  And less than half-an-hour south, in Doral (where Tiger Woods is currently tearing up the back nine), one finds the largest Venezuelan ex-pat community in the world.

Now that Chávez is dead and, like Lenin and Mao about to become an eternal embalmed presence, two questions predominate:

1. Who will be the next president, and what changes, if any, will the country undergo as a result?
2. Will the tens of thousands of prosperous ex-pat Venezuelans living in South Florida and points north return home?

Vice President Nicolas Maduro is Hugo Chávez's hand-picked successor.  Speaking at Chávez's funeral this past Friday, Maduro delivered a speech that sounded far more like a campaign address than a eulogy. In his address, Maduro pledged eternal loyalty to the deceased president and vowed that the Chávez movement "will never be defeated."  From all indications, Nicolas Maduro is no Hugo Chávez.  Where Chávez was charismatic, bombastic and highly animated, Maduro is more of a monotone technocrat.  His election, although probable, is by no means a done deal.  Just last

Henrique Capriles Radonski

year, Hugo Chávez  and his United Socialist Party won reelection by 54%-45% over Miranda Governor Henrique Capriles Radonski, candidate of the center-right Justice First. It was by far the closest election of Chávez's career.  That recent campaign was notable for the amount of anti-Semitism it contained.

Capriles (Radonski) is the Catholic grandson of Jewish Holocaust survivors.  During the campaign, Capriles was quoted saying that “my mother’s four grandparents were murdered in Treblinka,” and that his grandmother, who was in the Warsaw Ghetto “taught me not to hate anyone.”  In response, Chávez's United Socialist Party portrayed Capriles as a "Zionist agent," and claimed that "A Capriles victory will inevitably lead to Zionist infiltration." (It should be noted that Chávez's henchmen also accused the unmarried Capriles of being gay to boot.)

Word just in: Henrique Capriles Radonski has just announced that he will run for president in the upcoming April 14 election.

It remains to be seen if Nicolas Maduro -- or whoever would pull off an upset victory next month -- will seek, or be able to, change much in the political or economic life of Venezuela.  It is a very rich country with very poor people, the highest murder rate in the Western world and "friends" who tolerate her because she has one the one thing everyone wants and needs . . . oil.

As to whether the ex-pats will be returning to the land of their birth, only time will tell. For many, it will a time to exhale, to begin breathing and dreaming anew.  For many others -- and this includes those who have "made aliyah" to Westonzuela, I would imagine that they'll keep holding their breath . . . and living in a country where being a Hispanic Jew is both safe and wonderful.

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

The Adults in the Room

 

Audio Link to The Adults in the Room

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

©2013 Kurt F. Stone 

Exit Stage Right

 

Audio Link to Exit Stage Right

 

Last week's essay, A Time to Run and a Time to Stand, argued that one of the most nettlesome and systemic problems facing America is that our politicians are far more consumed with running for office than governing the nation. Proof of this political devolution abounds; from all the posturing on the "Fiscal Cliff" situation and the Michigan Legislature's move to enact "Right-to-Work" legislation, to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's breaking historic ground by actually filibustering his own bill. 

   Is it any wonder that so many pundits and political observers aver that the 2012 election changed nothing -- that we are in store for "more of the same?"

   I for one strongly disagree. 

   In doing a "post-game wrap-up" of the 2012 election, it seems clear -- at least to me -- that changes are visibly occurring, and most notably on the political right:

• Tea Party favorites Allen West (FL), Joe Walsh (IL), Frank Guinta (NH) Bobby Shilling (IL) and Todd Aiken (MO) are all out looking for new jobs.
• House Speaker John Boehner removed Tea Party favorites David Schweikert (R-AZ), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Walter Jones (NC) and Justin Amash (R-MI) from their plum committee assignments (Schweikert and Jones from Financial Services, Huelskamp and Amash from Budget).
  
• The future of FreedomWorks -- one of the largest and most influential Tea Party groups in the country, is uncertain now that its leader, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey has angrily departed his post.
•  Fox News programming chief Bill Shine has "benched" conservative gasbags Carl Rove and Dick Morris. From now on Fox producers will first have to ask for approval before either can appear on camera.
• South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, founder of the Senate Conservatives Fund and easily one of the upper chambers most right-wing -- and apparently least liked -- members, announced that he was resigning his seat in order to take over as president of the Heritage Foundation.  (As an aside, just yesterday, DeMint's new employer claimed that once fully implemented, Obamacare will cause medical bills for our pets to go through the ceiling!)

Despite a plethora of public well-wishes and "atta-boys" from his about to become former senate colleagues, DeMint's departure is hardly being mourned on the Hill.  ("He's the biggest douchebag in Washington," is how one congressional aide explained it to the Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, "and this is the douchebag capital of the world.") Never what one would term an "active legislator," DeMint spent the lion's share of his time on Capitol Hill trying to elect like-minded hard-right Republicans to the upper chamber. His "batting average" was less than .300.  Many of his colleagues hold him responsible for costing them control of the senate; over the past two election cycles DeMint threw his support and campaign dollars behind such extreme candidates as Delaware's Christine "I dabbled in witchcraft" O'Donnell, Nevada's Sharon "The 9/11 Hijackers came in through Canada" Angle, Missouri's Todd "Legitimate rape victims rarely get pregnant" Aiken and Indiana's Richard "A pregnancy stemming from rape is God's will" Mourdock. DeMint himself has evinced some pretty unique beliefs such as "An unmarried woman who is having sex with her boyfriend shouldn't be in the classroom," and "The bigger government gets, the smaller God gets."  Despite his many extreme positions and even more extreme statements, DeMint occupied one of the safest seats in the United States Senate, which says a lot about South Carolina.  Seems to me that the while the Palmetto State is probably too small to be an independent country, it is undoubtedly too large to be a mental institution . . .

In accepting the Heritage Foundation presidency, DeMint signals that if the Tea Party is going to have any success in shaping America's future, it will have to come from outside the two-party system. This past election is causing the Republican establishment to rethink and reassess what it's going to take to once again be  competitive on the national level.  From various actions taken over the past couple of weeks, it seems obvious that the GOP leadership has concluded that Tea Party extremism is not the way to go; that while bowing and scraping to their party's reactionary wing may win them eternal life, it won't win back the White House or the Senate.   

Unless and until the GOP establishment can groom new, less reactionary leadership, it will be a party with neither a compass nor a rudder.  And while Democrats may crow with delight at this turn of events -- the implosion of the "loyal opposition" -- some second thoughts are in order.  Ours is meant to be a two-party system.  Much of our progress as a nation is the product of two parties reaching compromises -- of creating  programs and policies which both sides can accept even when not totally in love. Simply stated, one cannot bargain or compromise with oneself; one needs opposition.

Even as Senator DeMint is exiting stage right -- and getting a 500% salary bump in the process -- former Florida Governor Charlie Crist is entering stage left.  Crist, who was elected governor in 2006 as a Republican, ran unsuccessfully for the senate in 2010 as an independent, has become a Democrat in the last days of 2012.  Crist signed the papers changing his party affiliation during a Christmas reception at the White House. President Obama -- for whom Governor Crist campaigned tirelessly -- greeted the news with a fist bump.   

Crist stated that his reasons for switching parties included the Republican's move to the far right on a host of issues.  Sensing that the change signals Crist's desire to run against current Florida Governor Jim Scott in 2014 -- a reasonable assumption to be sure -- Republicans are already mounting a campaign of vilification against the nation's newest high-profile Democrat.  This tactic might actually backfire; it shows that state Republicans are concerned about what a Crist candidacy might mean for Scott's reelection chances.  And while many Democrats are wary of Crist's change of party -- remembering that not too long ago he was a fairly conservative Republican -- and see him as a political opportunist, he may well be the party's best chance for defeating the widely unpopular Scott.

(On a personal note, I first met Charlie Crist about a decade ago when he was still a state senator.  I was on the senate floor, having been invited to give the day's opening invocation.  Following the prayer, Senator Crist came up, thanked me, asked for my card, and said he hoped we would meet again.  Two days later I received a very nice hand-written note from him.  I remember thinking "I may not agree with the man, but he certainly knows how to build bridges.")

I wish both Senator DeMint and Governor Crist well in their new endeavors.  May the former enjoy becoming a millionaire and stay as far away from electoral politics as is humanly possible.  And may the latter be a happy productive Democrat for years to come. 

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

A Time to Run and A Time to Stand

 

Audio Link to A Time to Run And a Time to Stand

The Canterville Ghost, Oscar Wilde's earliest short story, tells the tale of an American family, the Otises, who purchase an old English country house -- Canterville Chase -- which they are told, is haunted . . . and indeed, it is.  Nothing the ghost does scares them, though the family's twin boys, (known as "Stars and Stripes") who enjoy heckling him, do manage to scare the ghost when they erect a fake apparition for him to find.  In describing Mrs. Otis, Wilde, dipping his pen into the epigrammist's inkwell, writes,

"She had a magnificent constitution, and a really wonderful amount of animal spirits.  Indeed, in many respects she was quite English, and was an excellent example of the fact that we have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language . . ."

Indeed, there are many differences in our shared language --  in matters of spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary and idiomatic expression.  A couple of examples:

• Words ending in or in American English end in our in the British version, such as color, colour, humor, humour, flavor, flavour etc.
• To a Brit, Saturday and Sunday are the weekEND, while to an American it is the WEEKend. 
  
• When a Brit refers to someone as "mean," it connotes a person who is tightfisted, not generous; to an American, it connotes one who is angry or bad-tempered.
  
• In America one drives a truck; in England, it is a lorry.
  
• Where a Brit would speak of something occurring "at the weekend," an American would use the preposition "on . . ." And most pertinent to this week's essay,
  
• Where in America political candidates run for office, in the UK, they stand. 

The difference between running and standing for office is much more than a peculiarity of grammar; it represents a world of difference in both campaigning and governance.  When one "runs," he or she is never in the same place from one moment to the next; as such, one tends to be cagey, evasive, and sophistical.  On the other hand, when one "stands," he or she is, relatively speaking, in the same spot or place today as yesterday and hopefully tomorrow; the tendency here is to be coherent, consistent, and comprehensible.  At the same time, there is a huge difference in the length time one spends "running" as opposed to "standing." In America we have devolved to the point where the entire nation is in perpetual campaign mode.  It is absolutely mind-boggling that less than a month after the conclusion of the 2012 presidential election -- which for some began nearly six years ago -- we are already speculating on -- and giving major air time to -- who the major party candidates will be in 2016.  On the Republican side, Florida Senator Marco Rubio has already visited Iowa; Governors Jindal and Christie have taken pains to make themselves more politically attractive by distancing themselves from Mitt Romney; as for the Democrats, Secretary of State Clinton has already been anointed the Democrat to beat.  In other words, we run so hard and for so long that we've forgotten the importance of standing -- of putting an end to campaign season and getting down to the nitty-gritty of governing.

In trying to make heads-or-tails of two issues currently capturing a great amount of media time -- the so-called "Fiscal Cliff" and the trials and tribulations of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice -- it is good to keep in mind the perpetua expeditionem modus -- the "perpetual campaign mode" -- referenced above.  If we were in the final days of an election cycle, perhaps we could understand why Democrats and Republicans are more concerned with who can score political points -- and who can receive political blame -- for either conquering or falling off that so-called "Fiscal Cliff."  (I employ the adjective "so-called" because to me, it is far more of a declivity than a cliff; far more fodder for political posturing than the harbinger of a fiscal apocalypse.)  But we are not in the waning days of a campaign cycle; we are supposed to be at the very beginning of a governance cycle; a time when the sharp elbows are supposed to have been packed away.  This is supposed to be the time when one camp recognizes the other camp's victory and mandate, thereby granting it its props -- its right to avow that the programs and positions it ran on should be the basis for policy.

But no; we are still running. President Obama puts an offer on the table; it includes $1.6 trillion in tax hikes for the wealthy, about $450 billion in cuts to Medicare and $50 billion in stimulus spending.  He knows full well that Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and the rest of the GOP leadership won't accept it; that's the way the game is played.  What he does expect is for them to make a counter-proposal . . . which they have not.  Both sides accuse the other of not being "serious," of playing politics with the nation's fiscal future. It seems that fixing the problem has become secondary to affixing blame for the fiasco which may well ensue.  Instead of standing and governing, they are running and playing politics.

Then there is the issue of Ambassador Rice.  Republican Senators McCain, Graham, Ayotte, Corker and Collins have all declared that in order to support Rice for Secretary of State (a post for which she has yet to be nominated) they will need more information about the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  They accuse her of "playing partisan politics" and "deliberately misleading" the American people during her appearances on Sunday morning talk shows as to what actually happened in Libya.  The fact that she -- like every other cabinet-level spokesperson in American history -- was limited to using only that which had been declassified is well understood by those attacking her. But from their comments, you would think that Ambassador Rice has ventured into a place where no administration functionary has ever gone before. Truth to tell, they had no problem when another cabinet-level woman named Rice (Condoleezza) mislead the House, Senate and American public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  These senators also know full well that the many as yet unanswered questions about the tragedy in Benghazi aren't susceptible to simple overnight answers.  And yet, they continue to pillory Ambassador Rice; not because it is in the best interest of the country or our foreign policy, but strictly out of a sense of political gamesmanship.  Some have even opined that they are doing everything in their power to make sure that Susan Rice won't be nominated for Secretary of State in the hopes that President Obama will turn to Massachusetts Senator John Kerry -- thereby opening up his seat and making it available for the return of Scott Brown.  And of course, making President Obama and the Democrats look bad is at the top of the agenda.  This is nothing more than creating issues for 2014 . . .  

When oh when does the campaign end and the governing begin?  

Towards the end of chapter V of The Canterville Ghost, the apparition tells young Miss Otis what, in its estimation, would be ideal:

To have no yesterday, and no to-morrow. To forget time, to forget life, to be at peace.

Then, almost as an afterthought, he tells her,

You can help me.

Back in the real world, what would be ideal is to let governance take precedence over politics.  By standing -- not running -- for just a little while into the future, perhaps we can help one another . . . and the country we love.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

 

 

If At First You Don't Succeed

 

Link to Audio of If At First You Don't Succeed

 

   Although there is a great deal of wisdom in the expression "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result," the simple fact is that no one knows to whom to attribute said wisdom.  Searching the Internet, one finds the quote ascribed to a crew of worthies ranging from Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain and Albert Einstein to the author of the "Twelve Step Program" and novelist Rita Mae Brown.  Whenever precise attribution eludes me, I fall back on Dorothy Parker's advice from A Pig's Eye View of Literature:

  ''If, with the literate, I am
Impelled to try an epigram,
I never seek to take the credit;
We all assume that Oscar said it.''

   Now, if continually doing the same thing, but expecting different results is Franklin's -- or Twain's or Einstein's or Oscar Wilde's -- notion of insanity, what should we call it when a group does the same thing over and over and over, each time meeting with negative results and knowingly expecting -- if not hoping for -- precisely the same results? 

   In two words: Congressional Republicans.

   This past week, the 241 members of that conservative marching and chowder society -- joined by 5 defecting Democrats -- voted for the 33rd time (!) in 18 months to repeal President Obama's signature Affordable Health Care Act (ACA).  Talk about an action begging for a definition! Since January 2011, when they first took back the House, Republicans have voted thirty-three times to repeal, defund or otherwise dramatically scale back what they derisively term "Obamacare." And each time they entered into the vote knowing full well that once their bill passed the House -- which it has 33 times -- there were precisely two chances that the Senate would ever concur: absolutely none and even less than that.   Moreover if, somehow the stars misaligned to such a strange degree that the measure actually passed the Senate as well, Congressional Republicans knew full well that President Obama would veto it -- thus playing into their hands.

   I for one wouldn't mind them voting 33 -- or even 133 -- times if they at least gave us an idea as to what they wanted to replace the ACA with.  I do mind, because they don't have a plan, and instead of creating jobs and saving the economy, they are spending upwards of a million dollars a day (what it costs to run Congress) on sound and fury signifying nothing.

   Apparently then, the House Republicans' mantra is "If at first you don't succeed, fail, fail, fail again and be damn glad about it." I don't know that Oscar Wilde -- or even H.P. Lovecraft for that matter -- could come up with a dead-on definition for such a pattern of activity.  But if they could, would it be "Hypocrisy?" "Disingenuousness?" "Cynicism?" "Faux-naïveté?"  Methinks the word has yet to be created, for these folks are, to employ a term rarely heard any more, sui generis.

   Of course, Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, McConnell and the rest don't expect the ACA to be overturned or defunded anytime soon . . . and that's just fine with them.  So far as they are concerned, these votes are mere stage-turns and plot twists in a drama whose dénouement won't be reached until the first Tuesday in November.  Illinois Republican (and Chief Deputy Whip) Peter Roskam underscored this reality when, just before last Wednesday's vote, he said "Here's the good news. The voters get the last word in November. Stay tuned."

   Time and again, House and Senate Republicans argue that they are merely trying to enact the will of the American people. Time and again, Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell have proclaimed that "most Americans not only oppose this health care law – they support fully repealing it." (In matter of fact, the latest Washington Post poll shows that Americans are split right down the middle: 47% of those surveyed said they opposed the law and 47% said they supported it.) Then there is Majority Leader Cantor who, along with his Tea Party minions warns that the ACA, ". . . is making our economy worse, driving up costs, and making it harder for small businesses to hire."  And now, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, the GOP has taken to calling the ACA "the largest tax increase on the poor and the middle class in the history of this country." Rush Limbaugh, in what can only be termed a bout of steroidal hyperbole, called the ACA "The biggest tax increase in the history of the world."

   Wrong, wrong, wrong!  Although the ACA definitely does include new taxes (much of it on couples jointly filing on incomes of over $250,000 and healthcare providers themselves), it is by no means "the largest tax increase in the history of this country."  According to the federal Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan committee of Congress with a professional staff of economists, attorneys and accountants, ACA contains tax increase provisions that will, by 2019, amount to .49% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  For those policy wonks who care, this figure doesn't even make the top ten tax increases over the past 70 years.  According to an in-depth Treasury Department study conducted during the Bush Administration, the top ten tax increases look like this:

  1. Revenue Act of 1942: 5.04 percent of GDP;
  2. Revenue Act of 1961: 2.2 percent of GDP;
  3. Current Tax Payment Act of 1943: 1.13 percent of GDP;
  4. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;
  5. Excess Profits Tax of 1950: .97 percent of GDP;
  6. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;
  7. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: .8 percent of GDP;
  8: Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: .5 percent of GDP;

8: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; .5 percent of GDP;                                         

10. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990; .49 percent of GDP.

  By this point in time, all but the most case-hardened of partisans can see that Congressional Republicans have opted to put politics well ahead of policy; the needs, wants, desires and marching orders of their financial backers over those of the unemployed and uninsured; and above all, victory in November over virtually any and everything else.  While Republicans keep beating the drum of repeal, they, like millions of Americans, continue to benefit from those parts of the ACA which are already in effect -- like keeping children on their parents' policies until age 26 and not having to worry about pre-existing conditions. 

 All but lost in the tidal wave of rhetoric is a fascinating little factoid: if the ACA is not repealed, members of Congress and their staffs will forfeit their government-subsidized insurance coverage after they retire.  Unbeknownst to many, the ACA included an amendment sponsored by Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley that essentially insured that members of Congress live by the same rules as their constituents; it forced lawmakers and staff to get coverage through the insurance exchanges created by the healthcare law. (Heretofore, members of Congress and their staffs bought insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program -- FEHBP -- which allowed them to keep their policies after they retired.) Grassley said that without his amendment, Congress would be sending "a message to grassroots America . . . that health care reform is good enough for you, but not for us."  In other words, in addition to placing politics above policy and the needs and wishes of corporate America over those of the common clay, Republicans have now voted 33 times to  restore a benefit denied to all but members of the political elite. 

   If at first you don't succeed, fail, fail, fail again . . . and live to reap the rewards.

   What would Oscar Wilde call that?

   ©Kurt F. Stone

What Ever Happened to Shame?

 

   

 

Play Audio of What Ever Happened to Shame

 

This past June 29, Breitbart.com, the über-conservative website ran a lead article  with the screaming headline OBAMA CAMPAIGN CELEBRATES INDEPENDENCE DAY . . . WITH FUNDRAISER IN PARIS. In the piece's snarky opening paragraph, blogger Ben Shapiro wrote:

Apparently tiring of US soil as a source of campaign dollars, the Obama campaign is headed overseas -- with its celebrity friends in tow.  The European Obama campaign starts next week in Paris on July 4 with a reception organized by various fundraising heavy-hitters.  Independence Day fundraisers in Paris -- now that's a flag-waving campaign! 

After attacking the president for what he termed his "European-style healthcare plan" which "Americans . . . see as a massive net negative sucking our coffers dry," blogger Shapiro concluded that "[Paris] . . . may be the only place Obama can still find cheering throngs." 

Of course, it goes without saying that President and Mrs. Obama were absolutely not going to Paris for the 4th of July. 

Within hours of Shapiro posting his article, the Los Angeles Times ran a piece on the president's Independence Day schedule, which had been easily gleaned from the White House website: "On Wednesday, he will host the traditional Independence Day celebration for members of the military and their families. on the South Lawn of the White House.  And anyone who had cared to check out the White House website for July 4  could have read the president's remarks to the assembled picnic goers. 

Despite having been quickly shown for what it was -- a bald-faced lie -- Shapiro's story continued to have a life of its own.  Thousands of Breitbart.com readers continued to treat it as the gospel, dumping all over the president for going to Paris, "the cradle of Socialism," in order to raise campaign funds . . . and on the Fourth of July!  Moreover, the lie also got tweeted by the likes of Karl Rove and was afforded a place of honor on Sean Hannity's message board, where his devotees trashed Mr. Obama for nearly a week more.  Some, while admitting that "maybe" the president had not actually traveled to France, nonetheless accused him of "closing down Arlington and then the Vietnam Memorial to veterans on Memorial Day."  what these folks had done was replace a discredited lie with a new bald-faced -- and demonstrably untrue -- fib.  For orthodox Obama haters, the truth rarely has the power to conquer a lie.  As has been proven time and again, a certified copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate means nothing to those who persist in the belief that the man was born in Kenya . . . or Moscow or on Neptune.  

Slick innuendo, mendacious half-truths and outright lies are absolutely endemic in modern high-stakes politics; they are the fuel that fires a million screaming headlines and lights up the lowest common denominator.  And because this is the United States of America, even the biggest, nastiest whoppers fall under the protection of the First Amendment.  Now to be certain, there are some generally accepted prohibitions on free speech, such as: 

• Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre;
• Sedition (advocating force as a way to change government);
• Hate speech;
• Defamation (slander and/or libel);
• False or misleading advertising;
• Profanity on public airwaves, and
• Gag orders or publication bans in contracts, court cases and legal settlements.

Nowadays in the world of politics, it would seem that the telling of virtually any fiction, fable, falsehood or fabrication is acceptable; if you can create it, you can proclaim it.  For every lie that is told there are ears that will hear and mouths that will repeat. It seems that today, because the rewards of victory are so immense that no prevarication is punished.  And because there is so much lying and misrepresentation coming across the airwaves, in print and via electronic media, we have come to a point where nobody is believed . . . except the politicians you like. 

Historically, humanity possessed two censors for keeping mendacity to a public minimum: morality and shame.  For the person of even moderate faith, lying and bearing false witness have always been understood as immoral acts; just check the Biblical books of Exodus (20:13), Leviticus (19:11) and Deuteronomy (5:17).  For much of recorded history, people's words and deeds were, in large measure, shaped by a desire to live moral lives -- to be moral beings.  As such, spreading deliberate lies about others was understood to be both immoral and intolerable.  I for one find it terribly ironic that in the modern political arena, we hear as many protestations of faith and morality coming from the campaign stump as parishioners might in a church, a synagogue or a mosque.  Sadly, many of those flaunting their moral bona fides -- those who seek to blend religion and politics and to turn campaigns into crusades - are guilty of the sin of lying . . . over and over and over again.  Apparently, morality is no longer such an efficacious censor.

But what about that second censor . . . shame?  According to Paul Ekman, author of Telling Lies and one of the most brilliant psychologists of the past 50 years:

Shame is closely related to guilt, but there is a key qualitative difference.  No audience is needed for feelings of guilt; no one else need know, for the guilty person is his own judge.  Not so for shame.  The humiliation of shame requires disapproval or ridicule by others.  If no one ever learns of a misdeed there will be no shame, but there still  might be guilt.  Of course, there may be both.  The distinction between shame and guilt is very important, since these two emotions may tear a person in opposite directions.  The wish to relieve guilt may motivate a confession, but the wish to avoid the humiliation of shame may prevent it. 

In other words, we -- the great unwashed public -- are just as much to blame as the politicians, commentators and bloggers for all the untruths, misrepresentations and outright lies.  Why?  Because we have lost our ability to scream "SHAME!" at those who lie, to those whose deed is at odds with his creed -- in short, to those who talk the moral talk, but walk the mendacious walk.  We demand honesty from our leaders but countenance dishonesty from their challengers -- and visa versa. 

According to Dr. Ekman, unless and until we the people reconnect with that other great censor -- shame -- those seeking our trust and our votes will continue feeding us a steady diet of defamation, deception and dishonesty -- without feeling a moment's guilt or shame. 

"Shame," according to the great Salman Rushdie, "is like everything else; live with it for long enough and it becomes part of the furniture." 

To my way of thinking it's high time that we redecorate! 

©2012 Kurt F. Stone 

 

Beware of R.A.T.S.

  Happy to report that this past Thursday -- May 31 -- saw two patches of intelligent sunlight peeking through an otherwise depressing haze. And what is more, both "patches" were the product of a single source -- a source many believed to have burnt out years ago. 

   To what do we refer?

  First, to the federal appeals court in Boston, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], ruling that the federal statute violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian married couples to equal treatment under the law. Declaring that "tradition alone is not enough to justify disparate treatment of same-sex couples," the three-judge panel unanimously concluded that DOMA ". . . failed to pass constitutional muster . . . . Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.” Joining Judge Michael Boudin in the 28-page decision were the First Circuit's Chief Judge, Sandra Lynch, and Judge Juan Torruella.  In their ruling, the judges noted, "This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem [sic], but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA’s treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage . . . . DOMA does not explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage . . . . Moral disapproval alone cannot justify legislation discriminating on this basis.”

  The court's action sets the stage for a much-anticipated showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future. (n.b. Lest anyone argue that Thursday's decision was the product of a troika of über-liberal judges, it should be noted that Judge Boudin was appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, Judge Torruella by no less than Ronald Reagan in 1984, and Chief Judge Lynch by President Bill Clinton in 1995 as the replacement for Judge Stephen Bryer, who moved up to the United States Supreme Court.)

   The second "patch of intelligent light" broke through the depressing haze when a federal judge in Tallahassee ordered that the state of Florida stop enforcing part of its recently enacted elections law; a statute which Judge Robert Hinkle characterized as putting "harsh and impractical" restrictions on voter registration groups. The section Judge Hinkle struck down required groups conducting voter registration drives to turn in registration forms with 48 hours of collecting them (previously it had been 10 days) or suffer a $1,000-a-day fine. Attorneys for The League of Women Voters -- a party to the lawsuit -- said the requirement was so onerous that it had stopped holding voter registration drives in Florida for the first time in 72 years.  In his ruling, Judge Hinkle -- who was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1996 -- said the law and state regulations implementing it ". . . impose burdensome record-keeping and reporting requirements that serve little if any purpose, thus rendering them unconstitutional."

  Another part of the voter law which passed both Houses of the Republican-dominated Florida State Legislature by overwhelming majorities, required that groups running voter registration drives provide the state with the names, street and email addresses of every officer or volunteer who solicits and collects applications. According to the law, said registration agents are required to sign a form that acknowledges their understanding that it would be a felony -- subject to a five-year prison term -- to submit applications that include false information -- even if they don’t know or have any reason to believe the information is false.  In his ruling, Judge Hinkle wrote: “Requiring a volunteer not only to sign such a statement, but to swear to it, could have no purpose other than to discourage voluntary participation in legitimate, indeed constitutionally protected, activities.”

   The Florida law, which is part of a wave of what critics called "voter suppression laws" backed by Republicans and enacted in 15 states within the past year, is now under review by both the Department of Justice and federal judges in Washington, D.C.  It will be their job to test its compliance with both the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.  Even as this op-ed is being written, the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections has advised the counties to stop the mandated purge of suspected non-citizens from the state's voter rolls.  Florida Governor Rick Scott mandated the purge in response to what he and his advisors claim to be "an explosion" in voter fraud."  This voter purge -- like the 48-hour requirement and registrar compliance laws -- is also undergoing careful legal scrutiny by the U.S. Department of Justice.  As with many egregious pieces of legislation being enacted around the country, it is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem.

   As noted above, both of these patches of intelligent sunlight emanate from the same source: the courts . . . Which leads us to a brief discussion about the utter importance of the upcoming 2012 election, especially as it concerns "R.A.T.S."  namely:

Roberts,

 Alito,

             Thomas and

           Scalia

  In theory -- and increasingly, in practice -- the one area where a president can exercise influence over the country long after his term of office has expired, is in his appointments to the federal bench.  As an example, the Supreme Court that bedeviled President Franklin D. Roosevelt -- and declared much of his New Deal to be unconstitutional, especially in  Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States and United States v. Butler -- contained not a single Roosevelt appointee; that court included one Taft nominee (Willis Van Devanter) two Wilsonians (Louis Brandeis and James C. McReynolds) two from Harding (George Sutherland and Pierce Butler), one from Coolidge (Harlan Fiske Stone) and three Hooverites (Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Benjamin Cardozo and Owen Roberts).  In other words, seven of nine members of a court exercising a life-and-death veto over critical New Deal legislation had been appointed by presidents whose political and judicial philosophy was the bi-polar opposite of FDR's.  By the same token, FDR would go on to appoint 8 members of the Supreme Court -- more than any president save George Washington.  Three of FDR's most notable appointees -- Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, and William O. Douglas -- would be among that body's most liberal jurors.  Two, Douglas and Stanley Foreman Reed, would continue to serve as retired justices until 1980 -- fully 35 years after Roosevelt's death.

   Talk about exercising influence beyond one's term of office -- or in this instance, the grave!

   Today, America has one of the most -- if not the most conservative Supreme Courts in that institution's 223 year history.  According to a 2008 academic paper by Professor William M. Landes and Judge Richard A. Posner entitled "Rational Judicial Behavior: A Statistical Study," of the 41 men and two women who served on the Supreme Court in the seventy years between 1937 and 2006, five of the ten most conservative are currently on the bench: Thomas (#1), Scalia (#3), Roberts (#4), Alito (#5) and Kennedy (#10).  Conversely of the ten most liberal justices during that period, only one -- Ruth Bader Ginsberg (#9) is currently on the court. (The most liberal was Justice Elana Kagan's old boss, Justice Thurgood Marshall.)

   For the past several years, most critical issues coming before SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) have been decided by a 5-4 vote, with Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia being reliably conservative, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter (replaced by Sotomayor and Kagan) reliably liberal and Kennedy the so-called "swing vote."  Looking at the calendar, one might surmise that Justices Ginsburg (79 years old), Scalia and Kennedy (both 76), and Breyer (74) could well retire within the next 4 years.  By comparison, those who will likely be on the bench for the next 10 to, say 30 years, are Thomas (64), Alito (62), Sotomayor (58) Roberts (57) and Kagan (52). In other words, the future philosophical balance of SCOTUS -- not to mention that of our multi-tiered federal judiciary -- will likely be in the hands of either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney starting January 20, 2013.

  Will our courts be overseen for the next quarter century or more by men and women -- like R.A.T.S. -- who believe that the Constitution is a static document based on so-called "Framers' Intent," or by those who hold that it is both fluid and evolving?  

   The question is this: Do we wish to entrust issues and questions of personal liberty -- who we marry, whether we have control of our own bodies, what role religion plays in secular society, do some people have more rights than others, is your vote more sacred than mine, etc. -- to those who want the past to rule, or to those who understand the past as having a vote but not a veto? 

   It all comes down to a vote that will ultimately give one man the power to continue shaping American history long after he has left office.

   Let the sun shine!

©2012 Kurt F. Stone  

To Believe or Not to Believe

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

PRE-Occupied

   The Occupy Wall Street wave seems to have struck a raw nerve among the "1%" and their cheerleaders.  Why else would they be characterizing the so-called "99%" of being an "unruly mob" made up of "Communists," and "anti-Semites," who "haven't found jobs" because of their "tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks?" Reading, watching or listening to the comments of such conservative stalwarts as Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol Maybeth Hicks and the Emergency Committee For Israel (created by the Weekly Standard's Mr. Kristol) is to get the eerie feeling that Yogi Berra called "deja vu all over again" -- a return to the late 1960s/early 1970s when the "New Left" was tarred with pretty much the same noxious brush.  Back then, we were accused of being "atheistic Communists" who should "take a bath, get a haircut, get a job" and "go back to Russia where you belong."  

   40 years ago, the issues causing so many to march and to gather were war, peace, and economic justice; not so terribly dissimilar from that which undergirds the current wave of angry young Americans.  Back then, we were accused of being spoiled brats; unpatriotic misfits who should "love it or leave it."  And, truth to tell, many of us were rather spoiled; tuition was low, rent was cheap, gas cost about 35¢ a gallon and  CEOs were paid nearly 30 times more than an average worker.  Today's wave is faced with a far more difficult world; one in which debt is endemic, the cost of living is stratospheric and a CEO is now making more than 450 times that of an average worker.  40 years ago, despite protests, the future seemed like a limitless horizon; today, the deck is stacked against most.  Back then, the political process was still viewed as a viable avenue for progressive change; today, utter distrust of that process is a given -- by both the left and the right.  And by that, we refer to the Occupy Wall Street wave and the Tea Party movement.

   Both sides are stimulated by anger at a system which seems to exist only for the sake of its financial backers. Both sides are furious that the will of the people has been completely usurped by the wallet of the powerful.  And yet, there are a couple of fascinating differences:

• In comparison to the Tea Party, the OWS folks are far more diverse.  A typical OWS gathering includes people of all ages, colors, religions (or lack thereof) and political philosophies.  Although there are undoubtedly some members of religious and ethnic minorities within the Tea Party ranks, the movement gives the impression of being overwhelmingly white and Christian.
• The structure (or again, lack thereof) of OWS is such that it all but defies cooptation.  It is difficult to imagine OWS endorsing insurgent candidates, let being taken over by the Democratic Party in the way that the Tea Party now controls the G.O.P.'s far-right flank.
• In their speeches, arguments and exhortations, Tea Party luminaries aim for the gut; their platform can be embroidered on a tea towel -- "Lower taxes, less regulation, more freedom."  OWS speakers, by comparison aim far more often for the head; their platform -- the  "99% Declaration" (some of which is highly debatable and overly naive) -- reads more like a treatise than a series of slogans.  (I wrote about this left-right dichotomy back in April 2010 in a piece entitled "Head and Heart").  Additionally, for what it's worth, to me, OWS speakers sound more articulate . . .

   When the Tea Party movement first came to the public's attention back in 2008-9, they were accused of being  a racist faction filled with people who were against abortion, birth-control, public education and the teaching of Evolution; brandished weapons and believed President Obama was a foreign-born Muslim; and supported a whole host of far, far right loony-tune ideas.  Immediately -- and understandably -- there was a cacophonous roar from the folks at Fox, the Washington Times and the G.O.P. itself, who screamed "How dare you characterize an entire movement because of the beliefs of a mere handful?  They do not represent what the Tea Party movement is all about! And besides, what ever happened to free speech?"

   Seems to me that in proclaiming the Occupy Wall Street wave to both anti-Semitic and anti-Israel, people like Bill Kristol, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin  and the "Emergency Committee for Israel" -- among many others -- are doing precisely that which they hated having done to their side: characterizing an entire movement or wave because of the actions or statements of a handful.  The expression "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" comes to mind.  Without question, there are people on the left who are pro-Palestinian; some of them are attending OWS gatherings.  And yes, we have seen photos of people holding up anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist signs at OWS rallies. Investigating these claims of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel sentiments, the Anti Defamation League found them to be highly overstated and not worthy of further comment . . . to which they were accused of being a "mere arm of the Obama White House."  Talk about chutzpah . . .

   In truth, a sizeable percentage of the OSW wave is Jewish.  There were actually well-attended services on Yom Kippur and a haimesche succah in the park, where Jews, Christians and Muslims came by for some shade, a snack and a singalong.

   Just about everyone accusing the OWS wave of being in thrall to the anti-Semites has quoted the same L.A. protester -- a woman named Patricia McAllister: "I think that the Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government . . . they need to be run out of this country."  Or they have noted that on the American Nazi Party website, ". . . leader Rocky Suhayda has voiced support for Occupy Wall St. and asked 'Who hold the wealth and power in this country?  The Judeo-Capitalists . . .'"  

  It's all so terribly familiar.  Back in the 60s and early 70s, the Establishment press first attacked the New Left for being dirty, bearded, pot-smoking hedonists.  Then they labeled them "Communists,"  "Socialists," and "Anarchists" (as if the terms were synonymous) and warned that unless stopped, they would attempt to take over the United States by violent means.  Those of us who were part of the New Left felt a measure of vindication; that in pointing out a series of injustices within the American political system -- and in pushing for peace and greater economic justice -- we had hit a raw nerve.  Perhaps the same can be said of the Occupy Wall Street wave; that they too have hit a raw nerve by repeatedly pointing out some very difficult truths.

   More power to you!

©2011 Kurt F. Stone