#794:Superbowl LVIII: Commercials and Pigskins, Conspiracies and Politics

Ah, Superbowl Sunday! Chiefs vs Niners. Las Vegas Nevada’s Allegiant Stadium. Quarterbacks Brock Purdy (the very last pick of the 2022 NFL Draft) and Chief’s Patrick Mahomes (the 10th pick of the 2017 NFL Draft). Chief’s Tight End Travis Kelce and Niner Running Back Christian McCaffrey. The Taylor Swift/Kelce conspiracy. Singer/Dancer/Roller Skater Usher leading the halftime show. Country icon Reba McEntire singing the National Anthem and actor Daniel Durant signing the national anthem in an American Sign Language performance. Commercials, commercials, commercials.  And oh yes, 60 minutes of gigantic multi-millionaires over an oval pigskin  . . . 

If the above causes you to think that I am not a football fan . . . guess again.  Although I may not be thoroughly in to the NFL as I am MBL (Major League Baseball), professional football (minus the all that irresistible force/immoveable object stuff and the future chronic traumatic encephalopathy it will likely cause) is still pretty exciting to watch.  And heck, what California kid could resist rooting for the NIners - historically, the first professional sports team in the state?  (For the record, the first sports team in state history was the Los Angeles Angels, opened up shop way back in 1892 and played in the four-team California League.)

Even if you’re not a football fan, there are all those commercials. Already, a listing of what will likely be the most talked-about ads. First and foremost, a 30-second spot will cost the advertiser  $7 million. And this is minus all the production costs, which can run into the tens of millions. Some of the ads we should be on the lookout for are:

• Kris Jenner for Oreo

• Jenna Ortega for Doritos

• David and Victoria Beckham with the Friends cast for UberEats

• Ice Spice for Starry

• Chris Pratt for Pringles

• Arnold Schwarzenegger for State Farm

• Tom Brady for BetMGM

• Lionel Messi for Michelob Ultra

• Kate McKinnon (“Weird Barbie”) for Hellman’s Mayo and

• The Scorseses for Squarespace.

One concern that hasn’t a huge deal about running not one, but two spots is FCAS - the “Foundation to Combat Anti-Semitism.” During the pre-game show, FCAS will air the following 60 second spot:

The main ad features FCAS founder (and New England Patriots’ owner) Robert Kraft speaking  with Clarence B. Jones, attorney, and the former personal counsel, advisor, draft speech writer and close friend of Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. Jones is a scholar in residence at the Martin Luther King Jr. Institute at Stanford University.  (Jones, who turned 93 just about a month ago, is also the step father of American Actor Richard Schiff, best-known for playing Toby Ziegler on The West Wing.) This spot shows the precise moment when Mr. Kraft shared with Dr. Jones news that there was going to be a commercial aired during the Super Bowl on anti-Semitism:

As you can see, Dr. Jones’ response is quite emotional. Please also notice that, like Mr. Kraft, is wearing an iconic blue square “Stop Anti-Semitism” lapel pin, which is the symbol of FCAS. This ad comes at the perfect time; the one day in the year when more people watch television than any other. This means that along with ads for Oreos, UberEats and Doritos, men, women and children of all stripes will spend even a few seconds contemplating the sin known as anti-Semitism. It is needed now, more than ever.

Having watched a sneak preview of FCAS’s ads more than a half-dozen times, I am reminded of one of history’s greatest and most necessary of aphorisms . . . courtesy of a truly wise man named Hillel. For in the Jewish compendium called Pirke Avot (“The Ethics of the Sages”) Hillel states”

אִם אֵין אֲנִי לִי, מִי לִי. וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי. וְאִם לֹא עַכְשָׁיו, אֵימָתָי:

“eem ayn ahnee li, me li?  ukh’sh’ahnee l’ahtz-mi, mah ahnee?  v’eem lo ahkh-shav, ay-mah-tie?

Namely: “If I am not for myself, who shall be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”

Imagine that: a Super Bowl containing an eternal message to ponder . . .

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#968: Don't Know Much About History

Political campaigns - especially on the presidential level - are exercises in exhaustion; tense, highly-scripted affairs in which a single slip up, questionable facial expression or obvious misstatement can exact more damage than a 4th-quarter 15-yard penalty or a three-base throwing error in the bottom of the 9th with no outs. Those possessing robust political memories will easily recall that in the 1960 televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon, Richard Nixon’s sweaty upper-lip and generally wan appearance likely lost him the election; ever the showbiz professional, JFK had spent several days soaking up  rays in Hyannis Port and wearing professionally-applied stage makeup prior to the televised debate. By comparison, Nixon looked like a man running a fever.

Then there was 1976, when incumbent POTUS Gerald R. Ford lost his race against Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter when he, Ford, flatly stated “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.” (Of course the Soviets did, in fact, occupy much of the region at the time.) Or the 2004 Dean Scream, in which former Vermont Governor Howard Dean emitted a high-volume, high-pitched scream of ebullience (complete with matching body language) while speaking before a group in Iowa.  That scream not only tossed his presidential aspirations on to the trash heap, but essentially brought his national political career to a crashing end.

               The “Dean Scream” (2004)

Indeed, running for political office is not an activity for sissies.  In theory - if not in actual practice - the requisite ingredients for success are knowledge and education; a modicum of grace, charisma; the ability to connect with least part of the electorate; indefatigable drive; the ability to think on one’s feet; and at least the appearance of compassion, humility and charm.  And oh yes, it occasionally helps to have both a platform and a message.  In today’s hyper cyber political world, the platform is, generally speaking, more important to Democrats than Republicans, and visa-versa when it comes to the message.  Unless, of course, one’s platform is an ad nauseum expression of who you or what you are against, while obnoxiously pinning meaningless labels – “Dangerous atheistic Leftists,” “Marxists,” “Socialists,” “Nazis,” or “Wannabe Dictators.” on the other. 

Up until a few days ago, it seemed as if former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley might be the only credible alternative to Donald Trump in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.  Not that she really stood a snowball’s chance in Hades of becoming the party’s nominee; just that she seemed like a a breath of fresh air when compared to the “Man of a Thousand Nasty Nicknames.”  Throughout the sans Trump Republican debates, she came off as poised, easily able to defend herself, reasonably knowledgeable about the issues, charismatic, and not  prone to stepping on her own tongue.  Of course she made it clear that she was a card-carrying conservative, but one with far more compassion and far less craziness than the “leader of the pack.”  Then came last week’s dumber-than-dirt gaff during a town hall forum in New Hampshire, when one of the members of the audience asked her what she believed caused the Civil War:

For those without access to the above YouTube capture, she began her answer with a seemingly humorous quip “Well, don’t come with an easy question.” Then, pausing and pacing the stage, she talked about the role of government, replying that it involved “basically how the government was going to run” and “the freedoms of what people could and couldn’t do”. She continued with a by-the-book state’s rights opinion: “I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are. And we will always stand by the fact that I think the government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people, “It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom.” At this point, the questioner said to Governor Haley: “In the year 2023, it’s astonishing to me that you answer that question without mentioning the word ‘slavery.” This prompted a retort from Haley. “What do you want me to say about slavery?” she asked. 

The next day (Thursday 12/28) amid wide reporting of her response and in apparent damage limitation mode, Haley said in a radio interview: “Of course the civil war was about slavery.”

According to the Washington Post, Haley told The Pulse of NH radio show: “I want to nip it in the bud. Yes, we know the Civil War was about slavery. But more than that, what’s the lesson in all this? That freedom matters. And individual rights and liberties matter for all people. That’s the blessing of America. That was a stain on America when we had slavery. But what we want is never relive it. Never let anyone take those freedoms away again.”

 My immediate response to Haley’s comments on “the role of government . . . and the rights of the people” was “Hey Nikki, you want government out of the lives of individuals . . . unless they are women wishing to control their own bodies, members of the LGBT+ community, impoverished individuals or families, anyone in need of assistance, or just generally poor.” This line of reasoning - or lack thereof - intends to say that being gay, poor, a woman who has been raped and a host of other things is a matter of free will. Sorry Nikki, that’s simply not the case.

                   Florida Governor Ron DeSantis

The only major Republican to slam Haley’s response to the question of whether slavery had anything to do with the Civil War was, not surprisingly, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who began 2023 as a rising star in the Republican firmament, and ended it running a distant third. DeSantis was quick to criticize Haley at a campaign stop in Iowa campaign stop Thursday morning, telling reporters that she, Haley, is "not a candidate that's ready for prime time. . . .The minute that she faces any kind of scrutiny, she tends to cave." DeSantis said. He then continued with: "I think that that's what you saw yesterday. Not that difficult to identify and acknowledge the role slavery played in the Civil War, and yet that seemed to be something that was really difficult."

The Florida governor, has been instrumental in radically altering how the Civil War, the eventual abolition of slavery and much American history is to be taught in the Sunshine State. Among his more unreconstructed lesson plans for Florida’s students is teaching that “in many instances, slaves developed skills which, in some instances[sic], could be applied for their personal benefit." Just the other day members of his overwhelmingly conservative legislature begun pushing legislation that will fine and punish local leaders for removing memorials to the Confederacy.

 What’s going on here? Do Nikki Haley, who grew up and was educated in South Carolina (the first state to secede from the Union), and Governor DeSantis, (who earned a degree in history from Yale in 2001), really know so little about American history (among other things)? If that is so, we have every right to assume their favorite song is Sam Cooke’s Wonderful World, which begins with the words:

Don't know much about History
Don't know much Biology
Don't know much about a Science book
Don't know much about the French I took

But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be 

 If so, than the “You” that Cooke’s lyrics are aimed would have to be the MAGA wing of the Republican Party.  

Outside of former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Representatives Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, about-to-become former Representative Ken Buck and about-to-become former Senator Mitt Romney, most of Donald Trump’s Cabinet and the founder, donors and members of the Lincoln Project, (who has already endorsed President Biden), few prominent, office-holding Republicans have spoken out - let alone found fault with - the putative head of their party.  And it’s not because Trump is, unbeknownst to the rest of us, a top-notch leader with a sound mind and a solid record of accomplishment . . . outside of passing the largest tax-cut for the hyper-wealthy American history.  No, for behind closed doors, the men and women who remain publicly silent, likely know precisely what kind of toxic political excrescence he really is.  By their silence they are putting an overwhelming amount of cowardice on display; seemingly preferring a "leader” who bills himself as "your retribution,” over a man like Joe Biden who, although far from perfect, at least has a fifty—year political track record of being on the side of the angels. 

What do all these poltroons of political mediocrity expect in exchange for their silence?  Getting reelected and then sitting on their fat derrieres doing virtually nothing for the nation for another two or four years?  Filling up their saddlebags for the day when they return to the private sector?  They are the shame of the nation, who collectively seek to prove that Sinclair Lewis was wrong: “It Can Happen Here.”  (Then too, perhaps the illusion to the Nobel Prize-winning Lewis is lost on them; they don’t know much about literature either.)    

                                                                           Don't know much about geography
                                                                           Don't know much trigonometry                         
                                                                           Don't know much about algebra
                                                                           Don't know what a slide rule is for

                                                                           But I do know one and one is two
                                                                        And if this one could be with you
                                                                   What a wonderful world this would be 
                                                                             (Written by: Herb Alpert, Lou Adler, Sam Cooke)

It’s a great song . . . when sung by Sam Cooke, but a horrifying reality when hummed by Trump’s legionnaires. 

 Copyright2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

#967: A Few Questions for Yeshua bar Yosef haNotzri (Jesus the Son of Joseph the Nazarite)

         Jesus of Nazareth - as he possibly looked 

First and foremost, Reb. Yeshua, please permit me to wish you a חג מולד שמח (chag molahd samayach) - Hebrew for “Merry Christmas.” I know that for some, it’s got to seem a bit we outré, perhaps even an act of chutzpah, for a rabbi to be addressing himself to Jesus, the son of Joseph, on December 25th. But that’s the way things go. Believe me, this blog is neither an attempt at effrontery, nor a diatribe against the religion (נַצְרוּת - natzrut - Hebrew for "Christianity) which bears your name.  And while we’re at it, please do pardon me for occasionally translating a Hebrew word or expression into English.  I am fully aware that as a lifelong Jew, your father, Yosef, would have taught you to pray in the Holy Tongue. But from what I’ve learned over the years, you like most Jews today, didn’t speak it: your lay tongue was either Aramaic or Koine Greek.  

Today, Christians all over the world celebrate your birthday, despite the fact that the precise date of your conception, let alone birth, are at best, mere guesswork.  Having annotated the Constantinople manuscript of seder olam rabbah (“The Great Order of the World” by the 2nd century tanna R. Yose ben Halafta) for my rabbinic thesis back in the late 1970s, I remember the great difficulties besieging ancient scholars on trying to figure out how old the world was, and to fix an historically accurate date for your birth.  The best they could settle on was not based on the Gregorian (i.e. January-December) calendar, aaand for a simple reason: that calendar did not go into popular usage until 1582 C.E. following the papal bull Inter gravissimas (Latin for “In the Gravest Concern”) issued by Pope Gregory XIII. In your time and place, you and your neighbors would have been using the Jewish calendar and as such, the date of your birth would have been, likely, the 5th or 6th of the month Cheshvan in the year 3756. 

The luach (the Jewish calendar) is a complicated hodge-podge wherein the years go according to the sun (solar) and the months by the moon (lunar). When held up against the utter consistency of Pope Gregory’s calendar, your birthday falls on a different day (and sometimes, different month) each year. In 2023, the 5th/6th of Cheshvan occurs on either December 20 or 21; next year it will be either the 6th or 7th of November.  Moreover, nowhere in the Christian Bible (which Christians refer to as the “New” Testament) is there a single reference or mention about observing Christmas on December 25; this would not come about for several centuries.    

During a long life of study and reflection, I have managed to make my way through the Christian Bible from cover to cover - sometimes in Aramaic, sometimes in Latin or Greek, and always in both English and Hebrew.  In this way I could discover and compare for myself the similarities of theme, narrative structure and worldview with the Hebrew Bible (in Hebrew, the תנ"ך [Tamakh], in English, the “Old” Testament).  It has also permitted me to see the vast differences between the 2 holy texts.

Among the greatest - and most obvious - similarities are the two tomes’ stress on moral action: on feeding the hungry and freeing the captive, of not doing unto others that which we would never want done to ourselves (that’s the decidedly Jewish take) and doing justice, loving mercy and living our lives with humility. It never ceases to amaze - and deeply trouble - me how so many self-identified “Christian Nationalists,” people who firmly believe that the Holocaust never happened (but nonetheless should once again be carried out), seek to do it in your name.  Or that those who push for the dismemberment of programs that feed the starving, heal the sick or provide shelter to the homeless, are justifying their civic cruelty and Dickensian hardheartedness in your name - by referring to themselves as “G-d fearing Christians.”  I guess they have never read or contemplated your words: “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.” 

Among the greatest - and again, most obvious - differences between the two testaments are how the two texts deal with the universality of the differing religious traditions.  in Judaism, there is next to nothing said about going out and converting other people to the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Oh yes, we do have a complete set of laws and guidelines for bringing people into the fold . . . for those who of their own free will seek to convert.  Our feeling has long been that Judaism is the best religion there is .  . . for Jews.  On the contrary - and as I have come to understand it - going out and bringing new converts into the fold vis-à-vis many approaches to Christianity is akin to a mitzvah - a religious commandment.  As Jews, we have studiously avoided spending our time growing our religion.

Another great difference between Judaism and Christianity is that, in the main, we are far more devoted to the deed, rather than the creed. We don’t follow G-d’s commandments for the sake of gaining eternal life; we follow them because it is the right thing to do.

For as long as I can remember, I have wondered how it is that many Christians - of many different approaches, sects and stripes - could carry out horrific acts of hatred, murder, mayhem and torture in yourname; you, Yeshu bar Yosef haNotzri, who lived virtually every minute of your life as a Jew. “Don’t they know?” I can still hear in my 6- or 8-year-old voice “that Jesus was a Jew?’” It always troubled me that every painting or representation of Jesus I ever saw (which is actually against strict Jewish law) portrayed you as a blond, blue-eyed Aryan . . . looking ever so much like Max Von Sydow, Jeffrey Hunter, Victor Garber (who is both Jewish and gay) and Willem Dafoe. 

Today, I wonder how many people would opt not to sit next to a person on an airplane if he looked like the picture at the beginning of this essay.  (That computer-generated photo is An image of Jesus created by Richard Neave, a former forensic artist from the University of Manchester, using forensic investigation methods and archaeological evidence.)

Leet’s face it: the historic Yeshu bar Yosef looked a lot darker than, say, Joaquin Phoenix, who hails from a Hungarian-Jewish family and played You in 2018’s Mary Madelene.  Racism and anti-Semitism are rife in our age, and much of it is being done in your name.  And herein lies my question.

Dear Yeshu: what in the how do you cope with a diabolical neo-Nazi like the 25-year old Nick Fuentes, who vows to dish out the “death penalty” for Jewish people if Donald Trump is re-elected.    This is the same Nick Fuentes who not so long ago dined at Mar-a-Lago with “Ye” (rapper Kanye West) and received plaudits from the putative Republican nominee for presidency in 2024. My question here is how are we supposed to convince those who really, truly believe they are your most fervent followers that seeking to destroy the Jewish people means that they wish to destroy you?  How can you or your modern-day disciples come to understand that they are spending so many of their waking hours organizing and urging against the very principles of love, tolerance and acceptance upon which you preached. You never asked anyone to deify you, but to merely follow your teachings. Indeed, how can we help you to safeguard your people from destruction?

Fortunately, there is a group called Evangelicals for Democracy, which works tirelessly to communicate the fact that: “As evangelicals, we believe that protecting democracy is being obedient to Jesus’ commandment to “love our neighbor as ourselves.” Therefore, we believe that every person in our society has an equal voice and representation in their governance. We also believe that access to democracy is undercut by “Christian nationalism,” which confuses the Gospel with the American state and promotes identity politics.” They are doing their best to spread this noxious concept of identity politics and push the likes of Nick Fuentes, Paul Gosar and Marjorie Taylor Green and their trolls off the highway of American politics.

 Dear Yeshu bar Yosef: We neither have to accept everything you said nor everything you believed in order to join hands with you in a quest to rid our nation and our times against the scourge of hatred. For when all is said and done, we are family . . .

Wishing you and yours a Happy, Merry Everything!

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

#965: Oh What a Week . . .

Without question, the past 168 hours have contained more news stories and headlines of historical importance, drama, tragedy and trepidation than any in recent memory. Some of these stories and headlines concern people, places and events that will be prominently noted in history books so long as people read and write history. Other stories and events will ultimately become nothing more than mere historic asterisks like 3’7” Eddie Gaedel, the smallest player to appear in a Major League Baseball game. (Gaedel, who had signed a one-day contract with the St. Louis Browns, walked on 4 pitches tossed by Detroit Tiger southpaw Bob Cain, and then was pulled for pinch runner Jim Delsing. The only people who remember Gaedel and that August 19, 1951 stunt some 72 after his single at-bat, are undoubtedly the geekiest of baseball aficionados.)

This past week (168 hours) has seen the passing of Dr. Henry Kissinger, America’s first Jewish Secretary of State at age 100. Unlike Gaedel, Dr. Kissinger will be long remembered. (Actually, America’s first Jewish Secretary of State was Judah P. Benjamin, known to many historians as “The Brains of the Confederacy.” The one-time planter, slave-owner, America’s highest-paid attorney and United States senator from Louisiana, Benjamin variously served as Jefferson Davis’ Attorney General, Secretary of War and Secretary of State; at war’s end, he wound up his professional life moving to England, where he read British law and rose to become Queen’s Counsel. He is buried at the famed Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris, not far from the graves of Jim Morrison, Marcel Marceau and Edith Piaf.)

Without question, Dr. Kissinger was a titan. Over a span of nearly 60 years, he served, advised and counseled 9 different presidents and even more Secretaries of State. Considering the vast differences of these men and women (Madeline Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton) in terms of intelligence, experience, worldliness and weltanschauung (world-view), this is a rather remarkable record. On the plus side, Kissinger, perhaps even more than Richard Nixon, was responsible for bringing China and America closer together; back then it was called “Ping Pong Diplomacy. Unquestionably, his biggest, most grievous negative would be the secret bombing of then-neutral Cambodia during the Vietnam War. During that war, Kissinger and then-President Nixon ordered clandestine bombing raids on Cambodia, in an effort to flush out Viet Cong forces in the eastern part of the country.

It should never be forgotten that the US dropped more than 2 million tons of bombs on Cambodia from 1965-1973. (For context, the Allies dropped just over 2 million tons of bombs during the whole of World War II, including the bombs that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki.). Until the end of his life, Kissinger maintained that the bombing was aimed at the Vietnamese army inside Cambodia, not at the country itself. The number of people killed by those bombs is not known, but estimates range from 50,000 to upwards of 150,000.

We shall not - G-d willing - see his kind again for a long, long time.

This week also sees the passing of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to sit on the United States Supreme Court. A rancher’s daughter from Arizona, she earned a law degree at Stanford, tried to get a job after the passing the California Bar, only to be told that perhaps she should lower her sights and look for work as a legal secretary.  Eventually, she became an icon for future generations of women in the law. A legal conservative - though not as we think of them today, she served during a crucial period in American law — when abortion, affirmative action, sex discrimination and voting rights were on the docket.

Although William H. Rehnquist, her Stanford Law School classmate, served as chief justice during much of her tenure, the Supreme Court during that crucial period was often called the “O’Connor court,” and Justice O’Connor was referred to, quite accurately, as “the most powerful woman in America.” Very little could happen without Justice O’Connor’s support when it came to the polarizing issues on the court’s docket, and the law regarding affirmative action, abortion, voting rights, religion, federalism, sex discrimination and other hot-button subjects was basically what Sandra Day O’Connor thought it should be.

That the middle ground she looked for tended to be the public’s preferred place as well was no mere coincidence, given the close attention she paid to current events and the public mood.  Among her most important decisions were:

• In Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) she said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act.

• In Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) O’Connor upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor’s opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment.

• In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) she broke with Chief Justice Rehnquist and other opponents of a woman’s right to choose as part of a 5-4 majority in affirming Roe v. Wade.

• In Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) Justice O’Connor affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting.

Returning to the land of the living, this past week had bit of a unique first: a televised prime-time “debate” between a sitting governor and presidential candidate and another governor who may become a presidential candidate in another 4 years. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and California’s Gavin Newsom spent their ninety minutes on a well-designed stage taking shots at one another about banning books, who has the greatest tax burden (Florida has no income tax), the price of homeowners insurance (Florida’s is the highest in the nation) and who gets along best with Disney. DeSantis’ major advantage was having Fox News’ Entertainer Sean Hannity throwing him softball question whenever Newsome backed the smaller man into a corner.  One positive thing to say about the two: man, do they have great heads of hair!

At one point, as both men were talking over each other and the volume got louder, Newsom played his best Joe Cool imitation, threw his hands open, turned to DeSantis and said with a smile, "Hey, Ron, relax." The one thing DeSantis may have learned from the evening’s 90-minute tussle is that it’s next to impossible to get under the skin of a man who has nothing to lose. As soon as the 90 minutes were up, a panel of Fox hosts spent hours declaring him the obvious and overwhelming winner, while the major cable outlets decided not to report on it until the next day. When they did, a clear majority yawningly gave Newsom a collective thumbs-up.

Donald Trump spent last week further outlining what he has in the works for the next 4 years should he be elected. Besides making personal loyalty to him the key qualification for getting a position in the federal government (hasn’t he ever heard of the Civil Service?) and reversing the “weaponization” of both the DOJ and DOD, the FPOTUS doubled down on his calls to replace the Affordable Care Act, (“Obamacare”) if he’s elected president again. “I don’t want to terminate Obamacare, I want to REPLACE IT with MUCH BETTER HEALTHCARE. Obamacare Sucks!!!” Trump said in a pair of late-night posts on social media.

It seems that he has gotten his hand on an old speech . . . or has forgotten that back when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate they failed to do precisely what he is once again promising to do. Interestingly, only a handful of prominent Republicans have voiced anything even approaching approval of the plan. The reason? The ACA now scores highly with most Americans. As Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., reminded his colleagues just the other day, reopening the ACA fight in 2025 would require Republicans to craft a replacement plan ahead of time, which they have never done.

Over on Capitol Hill, President Biden’s son Hunter played a masterful game of political chess with the Republican-led House Oversight Committee, which has been misspending tons of time and taxpayer money in their attempt to impeach President Biden.  Hunter’s attorneys “castled” Committee Chair James Comer by telling the Kentucky Republican that their client, whom the committee recently subpoenaed (along with Hunter’s former business associate Rob Walker, and the president’s brother James Biden) would be glad to appear . . . but only if the hearings are held in public.  Needless to say, Comer, his committee colleagues and a clear majority of the Republican caucus are dead set against the demand.  Why?  Because the public would quickly learn that when it comes to real, honest to G-d charges against the Bidens, in the immortal words of Gertrude Stein, "There’s no there there.”  In a letter to Comer, Hunter Biden’s attorney,  Abbe Lowell. wrote: “We have seen you use closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort the facts and misinform the public.”  Comer et al realize that Hunter and Abbe Lowell have got ‘em in checkmate.  They just cannot abide by it.  Of course, this does not mean that they will discontinue the current game of political chess; they’ll likely switch to political checkers.  Counselor Lowell, by the way, will be remembered a lot longer than Chairman Comer . . . and for good reason.

We conclude with the one former member of Congress who in future years, like little Eddie Gaedel (number “1/8”) will likely only be remembered by political geeks: the expelled fabulist, George Anthony Devolder Santos. By a vote of 311 (206 Dems., 105 Reps.) to 114 (2 Dems., 112 Reps.), Santos became just the sixth member of Congress to be shown the door . . . and likely the third of this group to wind up being incarcerated. In many regards, Santos is the Platonic Absolute of a MAGAite: venal, hypocritical, mendacious to the  max, larcenous, a moral albino (you figure it out) and possessing all 9 signs of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  I mean, lying is one thing in politics.  But lying for the sake of Botox, Ferragamo and Hèrmes?

As Vanessa Williams noted in a New York Times essay:

In the end, it may have been the luxury goods that brought down George Santos.

Not the lies about going to Baruch College and being a volleyball star or working for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. Not the claims of being Jewish and having grandparents who were killed in the Holocaust and a mother who died of cancer as result of 9/11. (Not true, it turned out.) Not the fibs about having founded an animal charity or owning substantial real estate assets. None of the falsehoods that have been exposed since Mr. Santos’s election last year. After all, he did survive two previous votes by his peers to expel him from Congress, one back in May, one earlier in November.

 I for one am not sure what ultimately brought him  down . . . or made enough of his fellow Republicans (though not a majority of them) to finally show him the door.  Perhaps it was the looming not-too-distant presence of the 2024 elections; an unvoiced  fear of having to answer questions about his presence in their caucus . . . along with questions about their caucus’ all-but-invisible agenda.  Under normal circumstances (if they still exist), a disgraced former member of Congress with a penchant for publicity could look forward to eventually making a fortune on Fox, starting his own podcast or radio talk-show, or having a ghost write him a tell-all book while  spending his hefty advance on G-d knows what.  This probably won’t happen, because soon, he, like his beloved leader, is  going to be spending his every waking hour (and what cash he can put his hands on) proclaiming his innocence in federal court. 

Who knows: perhaps future generations will remember George Anthony Devolder Santos for having been Donald J. Trump’s cellmate in prison . . . 

Oh what a week! 

Copyright2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

#962: ס'איז שװער צו זײַן אַ ייִד ("It's Hard to Be a Jew")

Audio Block

Double-click here to upload or link to a .mp3. Learn more

Although it is rather simple to translate the title of this essay from Yiddish to English, its meaning can likely only be understood on an emotional level by what we Jews refer to as “MOT,” - i.e. “A member of the tribe.” Translated into French (C'est dur d'être juif), Spanish Es difícil ser judío) or even German (Es ist schwer, Jude zu sein), the expression loses the cultural angst, the shrug-of-the-shoulders fatalism that pervades the original. In English, French, Spanish, German or any other language, the expression is only “understood” as a mere translation of words . . . a matter for the cerebellum. In Yiddish, it is best translated by what we MOTs called די קישקע - “the guts.”

                               Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra

Historically, Jewish literature is filled with the kind of fatalism that is best comprehended in the guts, rather than the frontal lobes, which make expressive language possible. Jewish fatalism is perhaps best expressed by that most distinguished of rabbinic commentators and poets, Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1167) who wrote: “If I started out selling candles/the sun would never go down.  If I started selling funeral shrouds/people would stop dying. If I went into the arms trade/ universal peace would break out.” 

Got it?

Although rabbis, scholars and writers of every stripe have long attempted to explain Jewish fatalism and the ongoing historic nature of anti-Semitism,  no one has truly succeeded; it is just a fact of life.  And now, as the modern State of Israel and Hamas, a terrorist group fueled by its ghoulish 7th century theocracy go-toe-to-toe with one another in war, those who know little - if anything - about history and clash between theocracy and Democracy have chosen to take sides with “the Palestinians” (who historically, don’t really exist) over the Israelis (who, for most of history were the ones referred to as "Palestinians”).  The Gaza Strip is ruled not by a government, but by a terrorist group called Hamas, which is an acronym for Harakat – Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyya – or "Islamic Resistance Movement.  In Arabic, hamas (حماسة) also means “zeal,” “fervor” or “ardor,” which just about says it all. 

The religious “zeal” of the Islamic Resistance Movement has as much to do with the murderous October 7 attack on Israel, as does the more than half-century occupation of Gaza by the Israelis.  Truth to tell missiles have been raining down on Jewish Gaza-border towns and kibbutzim  on a regular basis for years and years.  It’s just that the October 7th attack/invasion was on such a massive scale and that the Netanyahu government was caught with its pants down . . . largely concerning itself with political issues affecting the P.M.’s ability to keep his right flank satisfied and himself out of the courtroom where he faces charges of fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes in three separate scandals involving powerful media moguls and wealthy associates.

By the end of the day (October 7, 2023), Israel declared war on Hamas, thus beginning its massive assault on Gaza. Today, nearly 37 days into the war, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have killed more than 10,000 people; of these, the majority are civilians. Food, water and fuel have been embargoed; surgeons in Gaza City are performing operations and delivering newborns by flashlight, because there simply is no electricity. And all across the world, people are condemning Israel for its “heartless excesses” and demanding an immediate cease-fire. The chances of this happening are slim at best; Hamas would immediately get back to restoring its weaponry and fortifying its many subterranean encampments. Israeli military leaders have no interest in a case-fire; not due to a love for killing Palestinian civilians or insensitivity towards saving and repatriating the hundreds of civilians kidnapped by Hamas.

In Hebrew, one would say that the Israelis - and Jews worldwide - are caught בין הפטיש והסדן - literally, “between the hammer and the anvil” . . . more commonly, “between a rock and a hard place.” On the one hand, almost all will admit that Israel, a sovereign state with a democratically-elected government, has every right to defend itself against heavily-armed terrorists whose rai·son d'ê·tre is the annihilation and utter dismemberment of Israel and the Jewish people from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. On the other, Israel’s response to Hamas’ deadly - and ongoing - invasion is both deeply repellant and repugnant. But what can the Israelis do? To a growing number of anti-Semites, and-Zionists, the answer is simple: “Just die! Leave the Palestinians alone. Stop your intended act of genocide!”

On the other side of the aisle, there are ultra-conservatives coming out of the cracks urging that “all Palestinians should be killed,” or urged the banning of all pro-Palestinian groups on college campuses for offering “material support” to terrorists. The rise in supporting Palestinians and attacking Israelis and Jews in general is being both seen and heard in both Europe and South America. Indeed, ס'איז שװער צו זײַן אַ ייִד “It’s hard to be a Jew.” Recently, both the Trump-supporting Fox entertainer Sean Hannity and the left-leaning U.K. talk show host Piers Morgan have interviewed Mosab Hassan Yousef, the disowned son of Hamas co-founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef.

In both interviews, Yousef., who was long ago dubbed the“Green Prince” (also the title of a 2014 documentary based on his autobiography) for his efforts to help the Shin Bet (the Israeli security agency) thwart terror attacks during the Second Intifada in the early 2000s. In both interviews, Yousef (a “marked man” who now lives in San Diego), predicted that once Israel removes Hamas from power in the Gaza Strip as it has vowed to do following the October 7 terror onslaught, Palestinian residents would celebrate and thank Israel for ending their oppression and “lust for power.” Contrasting 21st century Israel and Hamas “which possesses a 7th century mentality,” Yousef went on to describe the two sides in saying: “. . . the gap is very huge. Hamas represents chaos. This is where they thrive. Israel represents order; democracy – Hence those are the two opposite extremes that have been clashing,"

Like many Jews, it truly hurts, bothers and worries me that Israel has taken such savage reprisals against the people of Gaza.  Yes, I support Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens by going after and eliminating the murderers of Hamas.  And yet, I feel like that parent who chastises the child by saying “But we expect more of you.”

So what is to be done and how can we get across to the growing masses of those who support the “poor oppressed Palestinians” against the “genocidal Israelis?”

One possible answer is to teach history; to open the minds, hearts and souls of those who protest in the streets with a handful of crucial facts to ponder.  The other day, my friend Herb Stoller forwarded me the following video from an unknown Yemini under the title of “Hypocrisy for ‘Pro-Palestinians.”  It just about says it all:

All I can get is that those who whole-heartedly support the Palestinians against the military might of the Israelis, ponder what this young man has to teach . . . and learn a bit of history. It just might save the world from the planet’s most catastrophic collision.

Not only is it “hard to be a Jew”; it is doubly difficult to be an intelligent human being.

Copyright©2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

#955: L’shana Tovah Ivanka . . . May We Ask a Favor Of You?

On behalf of my wife and family, as well as our chavurah (our “synagogue without walls”), please accept our best wishes for you, your husband Jared and children Arabella Rose, Joseph Fredrick and Theodore James a shana tovah u’mtukah - A Happy and Sweet New Year.  So where did you celebrate Rosh Hashana? With Rabbi Lookstein at Kehilat Jeshrun on the Upper East Side, or in your newish mansion in Miami Dade on Rock Creek Island (affectionately known to locals as “Billionaire Bunker”) I’ve occasionally wondered how far a walk it is from your place to the closest orthodox shul. Actually, it’s none of my business. I’m not casting any aspersions: if you walk on Shabbos and Yontuf, mazal tov; if not, that’s your decision.  I have long been in step with the concept of חזקת לאדם כשר (chezkaht l’adam kashair) roughly translated as, “if one says he/she is a ‘kosher Jew,’ who am I to question?”  In any event, our good wishes that you be both written and sealed in G-d’s Book of Life” goes without question.

I’ve longed wondered what your father thought when you announced you were going through an Orthodox conversion in order to marry Jared. I mean, despite the fact that your dad has long been associated with - and employed - Jewish people like Roy Cohn, Alan Weisselberg and Michael Cohen, and then more recently , the likes of Steven Miller and Steve Mnuchin, his background and upbringing weren’t precisely what one  would call “pro-Semitic” or “Jew-friendly.”  From what I understand about your grandpa Fred (and this according to your Aunt Mary), he was a thorough-going anti-Semite. ‘Tis a pity; but by now you know that despite what our detractors try to sell, we’re really a pretty kind and moral bunch, whose love of justice, mercy and humility are part of the very fabric of our religious and cultural being.

You well know that for Jews, this is a very, very important time of year; a period of reflection, atonement and spiritual growth.  What we do, what we say and indeed, what we confess to, are meant to make better, more honest and more caring people of us all.  These “Ten Days of Repentance”, as they are called, are difficult ones; they are far, far more difficult than the “resolutions” people make on December 31st and then forego by January 2nd.  One of the concepts you no doubt learned at the feet of Rabbi Lookstein during the year-and-a-half you studied with him for  conversion was that of תיקן עולם (tikun olam -literally “repairing the world”), which commands us to do everything in our power to bring truth, understanding and love to the world, and well as erasing untruths, bigotry and baseless hatred,  

At this point, we  come to the “favor” mentioned  in the title of this post.  As you well know, it is customary at this time of the year for people in the political arena - both those holding and those running for office - to release greetings to the Jewish people. 99% of these messages are cheerful, inclusive, positive, and politically non-partisan.  Your father, as again you well know, broke virtually ever rule of good taste and comity by choosing to attack and defame an overwhelming majority of the American Jewish community on Rosh Hashana. This past Sunday, as many of us were getting ready to lead or attend services for the second day of the Jewish New Year, he decided to put in his two cents by posting on Truth Social: “Just a quick reminder for liberal Jews who voted to destroy America & Israel because you believed false narratives! Let’s hope you learned from your mistake & make better choices moving forward! Happy New Year!”

Sad to say Mrs. Kushner, that although your father’s Rosh Hashana post was both maddening and totally inappropriate, it really was not out of keeping with the anti-Jewishness that lurks in the recesses of his troubled soul. I mean, this is the man – along with his deputies (most of whom no longer work with/for him) who:

• Tweeted Hillary Clinton’s face next to a Star of David and the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever” 

• Closed his 2016 campaign with an ad that included the images of three Jewish people—George Soros, Janet Yellen, and Lloyd Blankfein—while warning that a secretive “global power structure” was to blame for economic policies that have “robbed our working class“ and “stripped our country of its wealth”

• Waited to specifically condemn the neo-Nazi violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and said there were “very fine people on both sides” of a white supremacist rally during which marchers carried Nazi signs and chanted things like “Jews will not replace us”

• Called Jews who didn’t vote for him dumb and/or traitors

• Declared in a tweet that Jewish voters “don’t even know what they’re doing or saying anymore”

• Suggested that Jews only care about money

• Baselessly suggested that Soros, a favorite bogeyman among white nationalists and neo-Nazis, was funding a migrant caravan

• Hosted a White House Hanukkah party that featured an evangelical pastor who once said Jews were going to hell

• Told a room full of Jewish people that Jews are “brutal killers” and “not nice people at all”

• Suggested Jews control the media

• Said that Jews are “only in it for themselves,” following phone calls with Jewish lawmakers

• Reportedly wanted his military leaders to operate like “the German generals in World War II”

• Reportedly told his chief of staff that Adolf Hitler “did a lot of good things” and shouldn’t be judged by that one genocide

• Kept a book of Hitler’s speeches next to his bed

His Rosh Hashana post touted the one thing he ever did for Israel: relocating the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  And for that one act (which had been mandated by the Jerusalem Embassy Act  in 1995) he claimed that he was “the best friend Israel ever had in the White House.” (Please don’t tell Presidents Truman or Clinton that). This is far from the truth and shows that your father believes that the only thing Jewish voters remember or care about is this single act. The fact that an overwhelming majority of  American Jews still vote for Democrats like Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, as well as Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Chuck Schumer et al, shows how little your father understands about the American Jewish community.  It also shows that when all is said and done, he cares not a fig for anyone who questions or finds fault with him. Truth to tell, there is no truth for him to tell.

As you well know, Ivanka, your father has no consistent political philosophy. Rather, he adopts and adapts whatever will be best for his political career. Once a strong supporter of (and contributor to) Planned Parenthood, today he is as vehemently pro-life as any White Christian Nationalist. His positions on a wide array of political issues change with the political winds.  He judges things only to the extent that they will benefit him personally, and not, G-d forbid, to how they will affect the betterment of the country, the world or the planet.  His plans for the future - assuming the worst - is that all three branches of the federal government will be whittled down until those who remain in the federal bureaucracy will share but a single trait: blind loyalty to Trumpian nihilism and anarchy. 

So what is the favor we so humbly ask of you? Only that you speak truth to power and make it known that your father represents a clear and present danger to the vast majority of American Jews as well as anyone and everyone who firmly believes in the concept of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  At this critical point in time, few if any Republicans of stature have the guts or courage it takes to denounce DJT for the mean-spirited, plastic-political, autocrat-loving bundle of personal wounds who dares to present himself as the cure for all the challenges we face.  

Yael saving the people from Sisera - C. 1620 by Artemisia Gentileschi

And so, Yael bat Avraham avinu (if I may be so bold as to call you by your Hebrew name), perhaps the time has come for you to screw up your courage and sense of moral outrage - just like your Biblical namesake Yael, the wife of Chever (יָעֵל אֵשֶׁת-חֶבֶר) as found in the book of Judges (verses 4:11-22) - and become both a savior and a heroine.  No, not by driving a tent stake through the  forehead of Sisera, the murderous Canaanite general, but rather by standing up for the people who lovingly gave  you welcome into our ancient fold.  You must speak out against anti-Semitism and bigotry; you must fight against the powers that would seek to endanger your children’s future.  Should you speak, you will find thousands of your sisters standing alongside you . . . sort of a collective Yael and Deborah, the “Thelma and Louise” of the Hebrew Bible.  You are in a unique position to do a ton of good for the Chosen People, of whom you are part and parcel . . . I trust.

Wishing you and yours גמר חתימה טובה (g’mar kha-te-mah tova) that you be sealed in the Book of Life in this the New Year 5784. 

Copyright©2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

#951 Article XIV, Section 3: The Constitutional Equivalent of the Manhattan Project?

81 years ago this month (Aug. 13, 1942 to be precise) The United States - along with the United Kingdom and Canada - commenced on what would become known as the “Manhattan Project.” For those who don’t know much about mid-20th century history (or have not as yet seen the movie “Oppenheimer,” starring the Irish actor Cillian Murphey as the fabled yet troubled nuclear physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer), the “Manhattan Project” was the top-secret program to make the first atomic bombs during World War II. The project, which employed more than 130,000 people over a period of nearly 5 years, had profound impacts on world history.  It was a truly monumental effort created, crafted and accomplished in the darkest of all earthly shadows.  Without it, it is likely that the Allies would never have defeated the Axis in 1945; only G-d knows what the world would look like today, in 2023.

To a haunting extent, we are once again faced with an evil that threatens our very future: Donald Trump and the threat he and his MAGA cultists pose to the very future of democracy. In both political and psychological terms he himself is a freak of nature.

Despite having been twice impeached; currently facing 4 separate state and federal indictments totaling 91 different charges; having been found guilty of defamation of character against a woman who accused him of rape; having been caught spreading more than 30,000 lies and mistruths during his four years in the White House; getting his followers to pay his legal fees . . . etc., etc., etc., his supporters trust him more than their families or religious leaders. This essay is not the place to get into a discussion of either the nature of cult leaders and their rabid followers or the psychology behind conspiracies . . . though both deserve a thorough airing.

It seems pretty obvious that behind closed doors, a vast percentage of Republican office-holders despise Trump (who my friend Alan refers to as “The Orange Blob”) and wish he and his MAGA maniacs would just fade away. They know and understand (again, “behind closed doors”) that he represents clear and present danger to America. Sadly, most all of them - save former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie - lack the backbone to speak the truth in public. What they pray for is some sort of “magic bullet” that will do Trump in without their having to lift a finger or utter a discouraging word . . . and the skies are not cloudy all day.

Back in 1942, when the future of democracy was in dire straits, the “magic bullet” was underwritten by the FDR Administration, who turned to the sages of science . . . people like J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, Hans Bethe and Ernest O. Lawrence to create that weapon. (Do note that with the exception of Dr. Lawrence, the rest of these distinguished physicists who headed up the Manhattan Project were all Jewish immigrants.) Today, the magic bullet so many seek to put Donald Trump out of democracy’s pending degradation, may well come in the form of Article XIV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, which states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

     Prof. Laurence Tribe and Judge J. Michael Luttig

A couple of days ago, Laurence Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard Law and J. Michael Luttig, the longtime (1991-2006) Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, co-authored a remarkable article in the Atlantic entitled “The Constitution Prohibits Trump from Ever Being President Again."  The two august Constitutional scholars - Tribe a progressive and Luttig a conservative who has often been compared to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, began their article thusly: As students of the United States Constitution for many decades—one of us as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, the other as a professor of constitutional law, and both as constitutional advocates, scholars, and practitioners—we long ago came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment ratified in 1868 that represents our nation’s second founding and a new birth of freedom, contains within it a protection against the dissolution of the republic by a treasonous president.

“The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause. …

Tribe and Luttig are by no means the first to discuss - let alone conclude - that Article XIV, Section 3 can and should disqualify Donald J. Trump from ever again serving as POTUS.  Indeed, this legal/political thread has been a hotly debated issue among academics and political geeks since January 7, 2021.  The swirl of approval surrounding the use of XIV:3 to remove the “disability of Donald Trump" has been growing ever since. Many of the most vocal are conservative members of the Federalist Society.

Writing in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, members of the conservative Federalist Society, agree: “In our view, on the basis of the public record, former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack.”   

This is not to say that there is total agreement ridding the nation of Trump via Constitutional mandate; some are uncertain that it can work.  Since when was there unanimous agreement on anything concerning “the Orange Blob?” And yet, this could be, as they say in Yiddish פֿון הימל קומט אַ מתּנה - “a gift from Heaven.” For Democrats, most Independents and all those Republicans who really, truly don’t want Trump to win the nomination - thus bringing a plague of frogs, lice, vermin and utter defeat at the polls raining on their political parade - this provides the perfect out: keeping quiet and letting the Constitution answer their “behind locked doors” prayers.

As journalist Bill Press, my long ago boss in Governor Jerry Brown’s “Office of Planning and Research” noted just the other day: The language (of article XIV, Section 3) is so clear, not even today’s conservative Supreme Court could read the Constitution any other way. Trump is not only unfit to be president, but he is also constitutionally prohibited from holding that office. Period.    For leaders of the Republican Party, the next step is clear. Follow the 14th Amendment. It’s time to stop entertaining Donald Trump and find another candidate.”

  One gigantic difference between the Manhattan Project and Article XIV, Section 3 of the Constitution is that the former was done under cover of darkness, while the latter is (hopefully) going to be concluded in the bright light of day.

Here’s looking to a better, more democratic tomorrow . . .

Copyright©2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

#944: Jefferson Monroe Levy, the 4th of July, and US

The Fourth of July 2023 isn’t even close to what it was - or even meant to be - back when Erica (my “slightly older sister”) and I were kids. Back in the late fifties and early sixties, what we nowadays simply call either “The Fourth” or “Fourth of July Weekend” (even if it comes around on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday) meant going to the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks War Memorial Park (where we learned to swim and dive as well as attend day camp in the summer) take a blanket, sandwiches and a thermos-full of lemonade - and watch the best-staged, most artistic fireworks display anywhere in the West. How did we know it was “the best in the West?” Simple: when you live within a couple of miles of the best “special effects” departments on earth, it’s bound to be great . . . and incredibly loud. Having the world’s tallest palm trees as a backdrop . . . well, it just couldn’t be any better.  And to top everything off, there would be the singing of the Star Spangled Banner by some star of the silver screen, usually backed by an orchestra from MGM, Paramount, Fox or even (G-d forbid!) RKO.  

Those were the days!  It was both patriotic (remember, there were veterans of WWI, WWII and the Korean  “police action” scattered throughout the crowd) and filled with pride for the country that our Founders had created.  Oh sure, we knew we weren’t perfect and not everyone was as acceptable as others (these were still the pre-Civil Rights Act days and Hollywood was not yet free of the horrendous “Black List”); but in the main, we still celebrated the dreams and ideals of our Founders.  We were still, for the most part “WE THE PEOPLE.”

Even as a kid of 8 or 9, I reveled in the thought that we, the Stone family, descended from the Schimbergs and Greenbergs of Maryland and Virginia, and the Kagans and Hymans of Minnesota and Illinois, were all part of the U.S., which we always pronounced as the single word: “us.”  We were among the few whose grandparents and great-grandparents neither spoke Yiddish nor had ever never set foot in New York.  And yet, we certainly never felt ourselves to be more of “US” than those who were of the first generation . . . either in America itself or Hollywood in general.

In the generations of our grandparents, great-grandparents and even more, the Fourth of July was far, far different than what Erica and I remember. While I have read about fireworks being a staple of 19th-century Fourth of July celebrations (signifying the “bombs bursting in air” at the battle of Ft. McHenry - a legacy of the War of 1812), it was the public reading of Jefferson’s magnificent “Declaration of Independence” which took center stage. These celebrations weren’t nearly as jingoistic (propagandistic) as those celebrations of a later age; rather they centered and brought to mind the words, thoughts and dreams of that most literate of all our Founders, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. And even after Jefferson died (ironically on the 4th of July, 1826, the very same day as his colleague/political nemesis John Adams), his words - among the greatest in all human history - were kept in the ears and memories of a grateful public . . . US:

                       Jefferson’s handwritten draft

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government . . .

Jefferson Monroe Levy (1852-1924)

After serving two terms as POTUS (1801-1809), Jefferson returned to his estate at Monticello (Latin for Little Mountain), where he continued to live for the remainder of his life. For more than a quarter century, it was his habit to invite all the people from “down the hill” to attend his 4th of July celebration during which he read the Declaration of Independence from the very bookstand on which he drafted the original document. At the time of his death on the 4th of July, 1826, his estate was in severe disrepair; in 1831, the house and grounds were sold by Jefferson’s heirs (his daughter, Martha Jefferson Randolph and her son, Thomas Jefferson Randolph) to one James Turner Barclay, a Charlottesville pharmacist. Three years later (1834), Uriah P. Levy (1792-1862), the first Jewish Commodore of the United States Navy, bought the 218-acre estate from Barclay for $2,700 (equivalent to $79,100 in today's dollars). Commodore Levy then undertook to have the long-neglected home repaired, restored, and preserved. He also bought hundreds of additional acres that had been part of the plantation, to add to what was left. Levy, it should be mentioned, was part of one of the oldest and most prominent Jewish families in America.

Uriah P. Levy used Monticello as a vacation home.  Toward the end of his life, the Commodore also restored the Charlottesville Town Hall, built in 1852, as a theater, and renamed it the Levy Opera House. This bold Greek Revival 800-seat structure is still in use today.

From 1837 to 1839, Uriah’s widowed mother, Rachel Levy, lived there fulltime until her death; she is buried along Mulberry Row, the main plantation street adjacent to the mansion (making her the only Jewish person buried on the grounds of Jefferson’s estate).

17 years after the Commodore’s death, Levy’s nephew, the patriotically-named Jefferson Monroe Levy (1852-1924), who was a successful three-term New York congressman, businessman, and lawyer, purchased Monticello at public auction for $10,500 (a little less than $312,200.00 in 2023 dollars. He owned, cared for and completely restored the mansion and its grounds until it was purchased by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation forty-four years later  (1923). During the years he owned Monticello, Jefferson Monroe Levy poured nearly half-a-million dollars (over $15,000.000 in todays money) into the restoration of Monticello. Despite only using it as an occasional retreat, Jefferson Monroe Levy revived Thomas Jefferson’s 4th of July custom; on that date, the former Congressman would be there, among all the townies from nearby Charlottesville,  to attend his reading of the Declaration of Independence . . .  from the very same stand-up writing table-cum-podium upon which Thomas Jefferson had originally composed it.

There is far, far more to the Fourth of July than fireworks, hotdogs and beer, or sales at the local mall hyped and hawked by the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al.  (BTW, July 4, 1776 is not the date upon which the Founders signed the Declaration of Independence.  In matter of historic fact, independence was formally declared on July 2, 1776, a date that John Adams believed would be “the most memorable epocha [sic] in the history of America.” On July 4, 1776, Congress approved the final text of the Declaration, but it wasn't signed until August 2 of that year.) 

To me, the Fourth of July should serve as something akin to a “refresher course” in the miracle that is America; its founding principles and ideals, its historic promise, highs, lows and the many challenges and stumbling blocks which have always stood in the path of our Democratic Republic. For many of US, the promise of America is best and most succinctly expressed by the 3 Latin words which make up our national motto: e pluribus unum . . . i.e. “Out of many, one.”

America is unique among the nations of the world when it comes to combining pluribus - people of virtually all ancestries, origins, tongues, religions, histories native myths to make something brand new . . . unum - one people. This has long been our ideality - even when not precisely our reality. Throughout our relatively brief history (247 years and counting), we have accomplished great things as a Democratic Republic. We have also fought with one another, treated “others” as our enemies, sought to bar entry to those we feared or did not understand. We have been through generations when rights were greatly expanded and enjoyed, and times - like now - when rights have been contracted.

No one ever said that being part of US was going to be easy . . . or inexorable; indeed, it has always been a challenge. This was best summarized by Dr. Benjamin Franklin in 1787. According to James McHenry (1753-1816) a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention, who throughout that convention, kept one of the best and most compendious journals of all the compatriots in Philadelphia. On the page where McHenry records the events of the last day of the convention, September 18, 1787, he wrote: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin ‘Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy? “A republic” replied the Doctor . . . if you can keep it.” (McHenry’s journal, by the way, is at the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress.)

And so it is: We are US; a most unique breed. Not necessarily the best . . . just the most unique.

May we continue attempting to live up to - and expanding upon - the very best of the ideals our Founders bequeathed to US.

May this Fourth of July be happy, healthy and most importantly, energizing.

E PLURIBUS UNUM

Copyright©2023, Kurt Franklin  Stone

#938: Four Questions #🟦 (Copy)

It’s hard for the approximately fifteen to twenty percent of us - like readers of this blog - who are deeply involved in following “the chess game of politics” to believe - let alone grok - that an astounding 80%-85% of the American public follow it anywhere between “casually and not at all.” The New York Times’ editorial board refers to this as the “attention divide.” According to an astute - though deeply disturbing - editorial published back in October of 2022: “Most Americans view politics as two camps bickering endlessly and fruitlessly over unimportant issues.” If this is true - and I for one have no reason to gainsay their finding - is it any wonder that people like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis are being taken seriously as presidential contenders; that more and more state legislatures have passed laws permitting the banning of books in public schools; that at least 14 supermajority Republican state legislatures have passed laws banning drag shows; and that despite more than 60% of those polled supporting a woman’s right to choose, more than 2 dozen state legislatures have already enacted laws banning the medical procedure?.

The precipice at which the American political process - and indeed, Democracy itself - currently lurches, has as much to do with the mega-billions now flooding the undertaking as the quality of its practitioners (at least on one side of the aisle), and the dumbing-down of its content. It’s not that the issues are too complex for the average citizen to follow; it’s more that the average citizen doesn’t feel they have any skin in the game. They don’t know what or whom to believe, and haven’t the slightest idea of what questions to ask of those soliciting their vote. For the 80%-85% who, in the words of the Times’ editorial, follow politics “casually, if not at all,” they can’t tell you why they support candidate X over candidate Y, except for the fact that the former is not the latter. If anyone contemplating suggesting that these folks are, in reality, supporting people who really don’t care a whit about their plight or needs, expect a concussion; this is the typical result of banging one’s head against a brick wall.

I for one long for the day when citizen voters can state positive reasons for supporting candidate X over candidate Y . . . instead of hearing “Well, at least he/she isn’t the other guy/gal.” Perhaps part of the problem is that neither citizens nor members of the professional press ever ask the right questions in such a way as to elicit a response . . . or make the pol at the mike come off as a first-class know-nothing.

Here are 4 questions that should be asked of every candidate at every press gathering or conference:

1. “According to almost every every recent poll - including - Fox News - a clear majority of the American public favors enacting a ban on assault weapons. While 45 percent of those surveyed said they would encourage more citizens to carry guns to defend against attackers, 61 percent said they favored banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons. Where do you stand on this issue, and how would you vote on any form of sensible laws concerning lethal weapons in the hands of citizens? And by the way, how much money did you receive from the National Rifle Association in the last election cycle?”

2. “A recent survey found that nearly 60% of registered voters prefer political candidates who will take action on climate change — including more than a quarter of Republicans. Do you see this as a major issue affecting the future of the planet? And if not, why not? How much money did you receive from the oil and gas industry in the last election cycle?

3. Many political analysts have suggested that the Democrats’ surprisingly strong performance in the 2022 midterm elections — which were held about five months after the Supreme Court’s decision which overturned Roe V Wade— stemmed partly from public dissatisfaction with the justices’ ruling. And there’s evidence that Democratic voters in particular were energized to vote because of the change in abortion policy. In recent polling nearly three quarters of adults (74%) and 79% of reproductive age women say that obtaining an abortion should be a personal choice rather than regulated by law. Where do you stand on the issue of a woman’s right to choose? Will you vote to fine and/or imprison women who receive abortions and/or their physicians who perform them? At what age will you vote to cut off abortions?

4. A recent USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds a majority of Americans are inclined to see the word “woke” as a positive attribute, not a negative one. And yet, Republican presidential hopefuls are vowing to wage a war on "woke.” According to this poll, a 56%-39%, majority, say 'woke' means being aware of social injustice, not being overly politically correct. Republican politicians and voters alike have differing definitions of wokeism — and some struggle to define it at all. The rallying cry has recently been used to denounce everything from climate change policies and socially responsible investing to transgender rights, critical race theory, which books must be removed from library shelves in public schools, and the Black Lives Matter movement. Please explain your definition of “woke,” and justify how legislating so many aspects of people’s lives, education, relationships and individual choices is consistent with the classical Republican agenda of smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

At this point in time, it is more than evident that the gap between Democrats and Republicans is of Grand Canyon proportions. How so? Well, agree or disagree with them, Democrats have a pretty obvious ethical and legislative vision upon which to run. They have pretty clear-cut strategy based on both a a set of ethical principles - such as the moral trinity of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion and the furtherance of Democratic values - and concrete political goals such as saving planet Earth for future generations, keeping assault weapons out of the hands of everyone save members of the military, supporting our allies and changing tax laws so that the wealthiest individuals and corporations pay what used to be called “their fair share.” These are all things which can be given expression without having to resort to fear and name-calling. Ask the four questions - or five or six or more - and then demand answers.

On the other side of the political gap, it seems there are no answers to the basic questions - just rhetoric and buzz-terms such as “Socialist,” “Communist,” “Woke,” “anti-religion,” and a laundry list of villains like “George Soros,” “Adam Schiff,” “LGBTQIA+” and pejorative nicknames (“Brandon,” “Sleepy Joe,” and “Pocahontas.”(  Of course, to those of us who love the history of political nicknames, these show little wit and even less tact. Take for example a couple of the best: “Martin Van Ruin” (after America’s 8th president, Martin Van Buren . . . given that nickname after presiding over the “Panic of 1837”); “Rutherfraud” (America’s 19th chief executive, Rutherford B. Hayes who, despite losing the popular vote in the election of 1876 to Samuel Tilden, still managed to win the Electoral College); and “Slick Willie” (obviously Bill Clinton).

I urge all lovers of Democracy and fearers of Führers - whether journalists or just plain citizens - to dig in and ask the four questions at every press conference, town-hall meeting and Passover seder, and not give up until you hear some answers.  And if the questions are avoided or turned into attacks on the other side, remember to ask the best, most obvious follow-up question of all: “Why won’t you answer the question he/she just asked you?”

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone    #🟦

#936: Ten Trillion Here, Twenty Trillion There #🟦

Fairbanks & Chaplin: 1918 Wall Street Bond Rally

Mark Twain, that most notable and quotable of all American authors once wrote “Never put off till tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow.” Because, so far as I know, he wasn’t referring to any contemporary situation in particular, his aphorism is thus both brilliant and timeless; it speaks to human nature in general.

In reflecting on how little time remains until the United States - for the first times in its history - defaults on its debt obligations . . . which, as of this past January, stood at $31.38 trillion and rising . . . Twain’s remark seems all the more tailor-made.

Trying to access blame – to determine precisely which side shoulders the greater burden in the nation’s titanic debt obligations – brings to mind yet another writer of renown:  the occasionally controversial cartoonist Walt Kelly. Kelly (1913-1973) put into the mouth of Okefenokee Swamp-dwelling oposum Pogo, his greatest creation, the immortal words “We have met the enemy and he is us!” (n.b. This is an abridgement of what Master Commandant Oliver Hazard Perry announced at the Battle of Lake Erie, when his small naval force had defeated the British in 1813: "We have met the enemy and he is ours.")

In other words, Democrats and Republicans alike share a mutual blame for America’s massive debt; it’s just that the former are more “tax-and-spend,” the latter “cut-taxes-and-spend.”  With America's Debt Ceiling about to be breached (it’s already been reached) by June 1, President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy are about to sit down and see if anything can be done. POTUS wants a “clean bill,” wherein Congress passes an increase in the ceiling without any attached budgetary strings. Period. 

By contrast, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's "Limit, Save, Grow Act" of 2023, as recently passed by the House, would require broad-based spending cuts totaling $4.5 trillion over the next decade. President Biden had said in no uncertain terms that he will refuse to sign the act into law; he spoke truth-to-power when he referred to it as "dead on arrival" in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Speaker McCarthy wants to tie any rise to a series of draconian spending cuts which would most likely affect the poorest among us: veterans, children relying on food-stamps, students being crushed by debts, Medicaid Recipients, etc.  Moreover this act mandates dramatic cuts in monies already allocated for such things as climate change programs and the addition of 78,000 new IRS agents . . . whose purpose is to make sure that millionaires and billionaires are paying their fair share.  

Can you say “stalemate?”

The United States started running up debt long before July 4, 1776.  Someone had to help pay for General Washington’s troops and the creation of the Continental Congress. The Revolutionary War was, to a great degree, financed through the selling of “Continentals bills of exchange,” arranged for by one Hayim Salomon, a Polish-born Jewish businessman living in Philadelphia. Salomon (1740-85) risked his growing fortune to travel to Europe and broker these bills of exchange at rock bottom prices. For his services, Salomon - who also made interest-free loans to many of the Founding Fathers and himself died a pauper at age 46 - charged a measly one-quarter-of-one-percent. (BTW: In 1941, Howard Fast wrote an impressive historical novel about Salomon, called Hayim Salomon: Liberty’s Son. If you are interested, there are still copies available . . . )

From 1776 to the turn of the 20th century, the Treasury Department had to go to get Congress’ approval whenever it needed to engage in deficit spending. Then, in the early 20th century, the debt limit was instituted so that the U.S. Treasury would not need to ask Congress for permission each time it had to issue debt to pay bills. During World War I, Congress passed the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 to give the Treasury more flexibility to issue debt and manage federal finances. All over the country, people gathered to buy tens of millions of dollars worth of war bonds to help finance the Great War. The most famous such gathering was on Wall Street, where movie stars Douglas Fairbanks, Charles Chaplin, Mary Pickford and Marie Dressler, along with then Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt, reached out to an estimated 20,000 people crowded into Wall Street, doing their best to get them to buy, buy, buy, lend, lend, lend. Within two hours, the assemblage bought more than $3,000,000 worth of bonds. (The actuality at the top of this article is a photo of that historic event.) Similar rallies would occur all around the country.

The first debt limit was instituted by Congress in 1939. Congress consolidated limits on specific forms of debt (e.g., separate caps on bonds and shorter-term debt) into one aggregate debt limit. The first federal debt limit was set at $45 billion and gave the Treasury Department wide discretion over what borrowing instruments to use, so long as total debt did not exceed that level. From then until now, Congress has raised the debt ceiling with every passing war (whether Congressionally mandated or not) and crisis. During the 4 years of the Trump administration, the president and Congress increased America’s debt limit by nearly 25%, due in part to an unprecedented tax cut which he sold to both Congress and the American public by claiming that it would pay for itself by greatly increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by up to 6% per annum. He was wrong.

Indeed, raising the debt ceiling used to be most commonplace, least dramatic event of a congressional session. Why even during the Trump years, Congress increased the nation’ ability to borrow on 3 separate occasions. In matter of fact, when asked about threatening spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, he told reporters “I cant think of anyone using the debt ceiling as a negotiating wedge.” (Someone should have asked a follow-up question, like “Mr. President, can you explain to us precisely what the ‘debt ceiling’ is? Come to think of it, of all 46 presidents in American history, he likely knows more about debt than any of his colleagues . . . real estate empires are, after all, colossi of debt.)

Speaker McCarthy’s insistence that the House will never accept a “clean” bill unless the White House accepts massive spending cuts is, in the words of President Biden, “D.O.A.” . . . “Dead On Arrival.” The MAGA branch of the House appears to believe that they can actually sell the American public on this toxic witches’ brew. How is that possible? Don’t they know that raising the debt limit has virtually nothing - NOTHING - to do with future spending? That cutting spending from the next budget will have no effect - NONE, NADA, GORNISHT - on what we have already committed ourselves to spending? Or, even worse, don’t they really care? Are they more interested in winning the next election - even if it means seeing the American economy go up in smoke, thus triggering the loss of millions of jobs, trillions of dollars of losses in people’s retirement savings, a major stock market crash and ensuing global depression? Are they looking to finish that which January 6, 2021 began . . . the overthrowing of the government? Nothing provides greater fodder for revolution than economic uncertainty and collapse. But do remember, all fodder is, when one puts it under a microscope, nothing more than manure.

               $1,000,000,000,000,000.00!

To be certain, there are a couple of bizarre, dystopian suggestions on the horizon. Some economists (none I trust) have stated it's time for a break-the-glass option: a trillion-dollar coin. The coin — which wouldn't need to be bigger than an average coin, and can be made quickly — as part of a potential debt-ceiling loophole. The Treasury Department can mint platinum coins of any denomination. That's led to a school of thought that says Secretary Yellen should simply mint a trillion-dollar platinum coin and deposit it to pay off the debts until a more permanent solution can be found. Even conservative economists have found the notion to be “beyond silly.” The first problem, of course, is that it would have to get past Treasury Secretary Yellin; the second that the courts would, in all likelihood, shoot it down. But this is precisely the kind of simple-mindedness that MAGA Republicans believe they can sell their base on . . . even if they themselves know it is twaddle.

Then, there is a theory being discussed behind closed doors at the White House ,that the government would be required by the 14th Amendment to continue issuing new debt to pay bondholders, Social Security recipients, government employees and others, even if Congress fails to lift the limit before the so-called X-date. This theory rests on the 14th Amendment clause stating that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Some legal scholars contend that this language overrides the statutory borrowing limit, which currently caps federal debt at $31.4 trillion and requires congressional approval to raise or lift. Top economic and legal officials at the White House, the Treasury Department and the Justice Department have made that theory a subject of intense and unresolved debate in recent months, according to several people familiar with the discussions.

It is unclear whether President Biden would support such a move, which would have serious ramifications for the economy and almost undoubtedly elicit legal challenges from Republicans. Continuing to issue debt in that situation would avoid an immediate disruption in consumer demand by maintaining government payments, but borrowing costs are likely to soar, at least temporarily.

Oh how I wish I had paid better attention to Dr. Daniel Suits’ class in “The Politics of Economics” 50+ years ago! All I know at this point in time is that playing “Debt Chicken” is an incredibly dangerous, economically lethal, game.

As of today, all I can hear is Ella Fitzgerald singing “Something’s Gotta Give.” Where oh where are the adults? There’s far, far more to politics than winning another term . . . or the White House, or taking back the Senate. Whatever happened to doing the right thing for the nation?

To paraphrase the late Senator Everett Dirksen (after whom a senate office building is named): “A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone #🟦

#935 Let's Heed Florence Kahn's Advice (Satire) #🟦

           Rep. Florence Prag Kahn (1866-1948)

Of the more than nearly 225 Jewish men and women who have served in the United States Congress, one of my favorites, without question, is Florence Prag Kahn, who represented what would eventually become Sala Burton’s, Barbara Boxer’s and Nancy Pelosi’s District in San Francisco. In interviewing the three for my mammoth biographic works The Congressional Minyan (2000) and The Jews of Capitol Hill (2010) they all remembered with great fondness the many hours they had spent with their young children (and now grandchildren) at the Julius Kahn Playground and Clubhouse which was named after Florence’s late husband Julius, himself a member of Congress for 24 years. Located at Jackson and Spruce, the “JK” is the nation’s largest urban park.

Born in Salt Lake City, Utah on November 9, 1866, her parents, who had immigrated from Poland in the early 1860s, were actually friends with the Mormon leader Brigham Young.

Florence Prag Kahn lived a life of firsts:

• The first Jew born in Utah

• The first woman to graduate from Berkeley (class of 1887)

• The first woman to manage a congressional campaign (for her husband Julius, in 1899)

• The first Jewish woman elected to the House of Representatives

• The first woman to serve on both the House Military Affairs and Appropriations Committees.

Additionally, she was largely responsible for the funding of both the Golden Gate and Oakland Bay Bridges, and was so instrumental in the early funding of the FBI that its director, J. Edgar Hoover, always referred to her as “The mother of the FBI.”

Politically adroit, fearless and frumpy, Rep. Kahn also had a dry sense of humor and was known to possess the quickest wit on The Hill. Once, when asked how she was able to pass far more significant legislation than most of her male colleagues, she famously responded: Don’t you know? It’s my sex appeal, honey!” When assigned to the committee on Indian Affairs, she flatly turned it down, telling then-Speaker Nicholas Longworth III (the husband of T.R.’s daughter “Princess Alice” Roosevelt) “The only Indians in my district are made of wood and sit outside cigar stores . . . and I can’t do a damn thing for them! Put me on Military Affairs!” Then there was the time that New York Representative Fiorello LaGuardia accused her of being “. . . nothing but a standpatter, following the reactionary Senator Moses of New Hampshire.” Mrs. Kahn is reported to have wriggled loose from her chair, jammed her nondescript hat over her nose, and bellowed: “Why shouldn’t I choose Moses as my leader? Haven’t my people been following him for ages?” The House erupted into gales of laughter, LaGuardia - himself the son of a Jewish mother - included.

My favorite Florence Prag Kahn quip - and the genesis for this satiric posting - comes from the time when the House’s most ultraconservative - and least liked - member acidly asked her, “Would you support a birth control law?” Without taking time to draw a breath, she answered, “Yes I will . . . if you will personally make it retroactive!” I remember doing my initial research on Mrs. Kahn back in the early 1990s. I was occupying a tiny cubby on the top floor of Harvard’s Widener Library. When I came across this line I cracked up and almost fell out of my chair . . . so much so that there quickly erupted the sound of a couple of dozen people “shushing” me. Believe me, it was hard to stop laughing . . .

Frequently, Mrs. Kahn used her rapier-like wit as a cover for her revulsion or distaste; call it the verbal version of Bonaparte’s “iron fist in a velvet glove” . . . firmness being couched not with outward gentleness, but with wit. Alas, such is rarely the case within the halls and walls of Congress. Today, instead of wit and double-entendre zingers, we hear catcalls and shouts of “YOU LIE!” as well as inanities such as “a stepmother really isn’t a mother at all,” or “Women who support abortion rights are too ugly to need them. Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb.”

       Stewart and Travers in “It’s a Wonderful Life”

The various members of Congress (mostly notably those who are members of the so-called “Freedom Caucus”) and nasty “influencers” who make these sort of comments - comments which drip with animus and ignorance - are perfect examples of the sorts of people to whom Florence Kahn was referring - those who would have made far greater contributions to society by never having been born in the first place. Think of the Frank Capra/James Stewart classic It’s a Wonderful Life . . . but in reverse. In the 1946 film (the best film never to have won an Oscar), Stewart’s character George Bailey sees his life fall apart so quickly that he contemplates suicide.  He reasons that his family - indeed, the entire world - would be better off with him dead. But the prayers of his loved ones result in his guardian angel named Clarence Odbody (played to perfection by Henry Travers) coming to Earth to help him, with the promise of earning his wings. He shows him what things would have been like if he had never been born.  And of course, being a Frank Capra film, everything comes up roses, sweet tea, and scones.

Now let’s reverse that by implementing Rep. Kahn’s sarcastic quip, and granting retroactivity to the births of those who are daily making the world more dangerous, less civil and stupidly intolerant by march, march, marching to the beat of deafening dictatorial drums. These are the merchants of mayhem, whose chief wares are fear, fanaticism provincialism and bigotry . . . four things the world can definitely do without.

Oh if only they had never been born!

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone                                                                                             #🟦

#🟦 Standing Up to Jewish Hate

         Standing Up to Jewish Hate

The word antisemitism was first popularized in Germany back in the year 1879. Its originator was a German agitator and journalist named Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904). As early as 1862, Marr, a Lutheran who was, for a short while, married to a Jewish woman, published an essay entitled “The Way to Victory of Germanicism Over Judaism” (Der Weg zum Sieg des Germanismus über das Judentum. Marr’s conception of antisemitism focused on the supposed racial, as opposed to religious, characteristics of the Jews. His organization, the League of Antisemites, introduced that into the political lexicon and established the first popular political movement based entirely on anti-Jewish beliefs.

(n.b. There has long been an uncertainty as to precisely how to spell the term; is it hyphenated or not? In German, French, Spanish and many other languages, the term was never hyphenated. The unhyphenated spelling is favored by many scholars and institutions in order to dispel the idea that there is an entity ‘Semitism’ which ‘anti-Semitism’ opposes. Antisemitism should be read as a unified term so that the meaning of the generic term for modern Jew-hatred is clear. At a time of increased violence and rhetoric aimed towards Jews, it is urgent that there is clarity and no room for confusion or obfuscation when dealing with antisemitism.)

Long, long before Wilhelm Marr, there was an Egyptian priest who likely lived in the Ptolemaic kingdom in the early 3rd century, B.C.E.  His name was Manetho, and he was rather famous during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who ruled Egypt from 284-246 BCE.  During his reign, wrote Manetho the Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt) in Greek, a major chronological source for the reigns of the kings of ancient Egypt.

In one of the volumes of his work, Manetho presented a counter-narrative to the traditional story of the Biblical work Exodus. He depicts the Jews most negatively — as Lepers and Shepherds – exuding anti-Jewish themes. While the Hebrew Bible's Exodus tells of the Jews escaping Egypt, and thus, with the help of G-d and Moses - liberating themselves, Manetho tells a different story: that Egypt expelled lepers because of their impurity who then chose to revolt against Egypt pioneered by leader Osarsiph — later revealing himself as Moses. — who imposed various anti-Egyptian laws. Together with the Shepherds, they conquered Egypt in a 'barbarous manner…set[ting] the cities and villages on fire…roasting those sacred animals…and forced the priests and prophets to be the executioners and murders of those sacred animals." (For a thorough examination of Manetho’s counter-narrative, one can check out Flavius Josephus’ Against Apion.

Hatred against Jews and Judaism - as a people, a religion, a culture and (falsely) a race, is as old as recorded history. Sometimes it is a bit better, and others one hell of a lot worse. It is both omnipresent and universal; there have long been reports of societies, kingdoms and cultures which, although never having offered a home to Jews, have nonetheless despised them. The “whys?” range from “They were complicit in killing Jesus” (I’ve never understood how anyone can kill a supposedly divine being) and “they foment and finance revolutions everywhere they go,” to “they control the banks, the media and the food supply,” and “they are avaricious, incapable of telling the truth, and are the most malodorous people on the planet.”

Depending on time, place, and contemporary circumstance the reasons for upticks in Antisemitism vary. But they always lead to the same thing: hatred. Sometimes Jews are pilloried for having killed Jesus; at others, being blamed for “poisoning the water supply” (during the medieval Bubonic Plague), of destroying the economy or funding revolutionary causes . . . do note that the majority of actors, directors and screenwriters accused of being Communists during the post-war “witch hunts” were Jewish. And the capital-H Holocaust, in which the Nazis murdered more than 6 million Jews, was not the only lower-case-h holocaust in human history: the massacre of English Jews in York (and their eventual exile) in 1190; the Spanish Inquisition of the 15th century; the notorious Kishniev Pogrom of 1903 . . . and today, the rapid rise in Antisemitic acts here in the United States, Europe and South America.

Where once the name “Rothschild” and even “Roosevelt” (whom Antisemites tried to convince unlettered people was in fact, a Jewish family) has now been replaced by “Soros.”  As recently as this past week, diehard MAGA Republicans and the cheerleaders at Fox are claiming that Donald Trump’s indictment at the hands of a NYC grand jury and D.A. Alvin Bragg was “politically motivated.” What’s the proof? That D.A. Bragg had received campaign donations from none other than billionaire George Soros . . . which, they insist, means that the Jews are behind it all. I have had a couple of nauseating conversations with people who gladly mention Soros’ name in discussing Trump’s legal woes. “Who’s George Soros?” I ask, “and what does he have to do with the indictment?” Most just answer “You know . . .“ In response, I either remain silent or simply say, “No I don’t . . . please enlighten me.” So far, no enlightenment has yet come my way.

Over the past decade or so, Antisemitic acts, statements and beliefs have grown exponentially here in the United States. This is not to say that antisemitism was barely existent before  MAGA came on the political scene, for such is certainly not the case. It has always been there . . . but until recently, operating in the shadows. In his new book Birchers: How the John Birch Society Radicalized the American Right, Professor Matthew Dalleck shows how since the time of its founding in the late 1950s, the John Birch Society has fought tooth and nail against the ‘Jewish conspiracy’ to take over America, as well as promoting America as a Christian nation, looking to ban books which they found to be “unwholesome,” against international cooperation and against NATO and the United Nations, and funding candidates who would bind themselves to the eradication of the federal income tax, immorality, and federal funding for nearly everything save the military. Sound familiar?

What the Birchers did not have in their time were two things: first an internet, through which they could introduce, induce and inculcate tens upon tens of millions of potential supporters with their far-right ideas, and second, a potential base of radicals armed to the teeth with military-grade weaponry. In the 1950s and 60s, Birchers could only hope for a second Civil War; today, their descendants are gearing up for one. In the 1950s, Birchers were against a democratic state because it was “communistic”; today, they are in favor of a fascist state because it is not “woke” . . . even if they cannot define it.

Jewish people in America are feeling far less safe than at any time since the end of McCarthyism.  When a former POTUS invites known, vocal Antisemites to his private club for lunch; when synagogues are being bombed and Jewish philanthropists put on the hot seat, this is indeed a cause for concern.

The question is: what can we do about it?  There are certainly going to be those - both Jewish and not - who will claim that since the former POTUS has a Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren, he cannot harbor any Antisemitic tendencies.  Stuff and nonsense; to my way of thinking, Trump/Kirschner was far more a merger than a marriage; tantamount to the old saw “Some of my best friends are Jewish.”

We now come to the “blue emoji,” which will be showing up on television and computer screens more and more in the days to come.  These blue squares are meant to fill about 2.4% of each square . . . equal to the percentage of Jews living here in the United States.  Despite this small percentage, 55% of all religious hate crimes in this country relate to Jews.  This is unconscionable, to say the least.  What we are hoping is that television newscasts, blogs and other communications will contain the  #🟦 as a way of keeping the message that we - both Jews and non-Jews alike - are #Standing Up to Jewish Hate.

Last week, billionaire Robert Kraft, owner (among other things) of the New England Patriot’s football team, donated $25 million  to create the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism. which uses the blue square emoji, which is already on all smartphones, as a "simple, but powerful symbol of solidarity and support for the Jewish community."

The campaign's launch follows last week's release of a report by the Anti-Defamation League asserting that Antisemitic incidents in the U.S. rose 36% in 2022. The report tracked 3,697 incidents of harassment, vandalism and assault aimed at Jewish people and communities last year. It's the third time in five years that the annual total has been the highest ever recorded since the group began collecting data in 1979.

The Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, based at California State University, San Bernardino, reported last week that Jews were the most targeted of all U.S. religious groups in 2022 in 21 major cities, accounting for 78% of religious hate crimes.

During Kraft’s campaign, the blue square will take up 2.4% of television and digital screens, billboards, and social media feeds. That number as mentioned above, symbolizes that Jews make up 2.4% of the American population, yet are the victims of 55% of religious-based hate crimes. The foundation already has its own website: #StandUpToJewishHate - Uniting to Combat Antisemitism.  In announcing the creation of his foundation, Kraft said the campaign “is designed to raise awareness for the fight against antisemitism, specifically among non-Jewish audiences, and to help all Americans understand that there is a role for each of us to play in combating a problem that is unfortunately all too prevalent in communities across the country today,”  

Already, the blue square #🟦 is appearing on television shows, digital billboards and social-media sites.  The campaign is encouraging people to download the blue square and share it widely. You can also watch a clip on Twitter explaining it.

Said Kraft: “We must stand up and take action against the rise of all hate, and I hope everyone will post and share the blue square to show their support in this fight.”  Already, former New England Patriot quarterback Tom Brady and former Heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson have joined the crusade.

Sadly, one cannot convince an avid anti-Semite to stop hating Jews; its a lethal part of their genome. One can, through knowledge, diligence and smarts, open the minds and hearts of those who never hated in the first place to understand that they can do their share to spread the word: a society that is not safe for Jews is ultimately not safe for anyone . . . of any color, any religion, any ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

Do check out the online ADL report Antisemitism Uncovered: A Guide to Old Myths in a New Era. To be knowledgeable is to be well armed. And while you’re at it, you may want to check out the latest statistical report from ADL about the horrifying growth of anti-Jewish, racist attacks in the United States. 

If antisemitism has grown exponentially with the growth of social media (it definitely has), perhaps we can fight it on social media as well.

 #🟦

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

The Historic Importance of January 6th . . . 1941

                     January 6, 1941: “The Four Freedoms”:

It seems like the prime-time presenters on MSNBC (Ari Melber, Joy Reid, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell ) have been reporting on nothing but the historical importance of January 6, 2021 for the past year-and-a-half. Who can blame them? After all, that is a day - which, to borrow a quote from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt - “which shall live in infamy.” The major difference, of course, is that FDR’s December 8, 1941 “live in infamy” address to Congress, concerned Japan’s bombing of the U.S. Fleet at Pearl Harbor; our “day of infamy” is the seditious storming of the U.S Capitol on January 6, 2021.  The people of MSNBC have spent the lion’s share of their on-air time investigating and reporting on virtually every aspect of that day when democracy was nearly destroyed.  It fascinates me no end that no one has mentioned or figured out what, most eerily, happened on Capitol Hill precisely 80 years before (that’s 29,200 days and 700,800 hours before) on January 6, 1941: FDR’s State of the Union Address, where he set out in bold and eloquent detail that which has ever since been known as “The Four Freedoms.”  What makes it all the more eerie - not to mention prescient and breathtaking - is how much FDR’s speech mirrors America and the world 80 years later . . . to the day. 

To be certain, there are a handful of speeches which stand out in American political history:

• George Washington’s “Farewell Address” in 1796.

• Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (“Four score and seven years ago . . . “)

• JKF’s Inaugural Address (“Ask not what your country can do for you . . . “)

But topping them all, in my humble opinion, is FDR’s State of the Union address to Congress on January 6, 1941. For his “Four Freedoms” address, while not white-washed with the good news and optimistic phrases of most annual presidential addresses, set a course and a purpose for this nation that has never since been equaled. As America entered the war these "four freedoms" - the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear - symbolized America's war aims and gave hope in the following years to a war-wearied people because they knew they were fighting for freedom. Indeed, it is the only one speech in American history that inspired a multitude of books and films, the establishment of its own park, a series of paintings by a world famous artist, a prestigious international award and a United Nation’s resolution on Human Rights.

At the time of Franklin Roosevelt’s State of the Union address on January 6, 1941, he had just been reelected president for an unprecedented third term. At the time, the world faced unprecedented dangers, instability, and uncertainty. Much of Europe had fallen to the advancing German Army and Great Britain was barely holding its own; London was being strafed from the air by the German Luftwaffe on a nightly basis. A great number of Americans remained committed to isolationism and the belief that the United Sates should continue to stay out of the war, but President Roosevelt understood Britain's need for American support and attempted to convince the American people of the gravity of the situation. 

In his State of the Union, FDR articulated a powerful vision for a world in which all people had freedom of speech and of religion, and freedom from want and fear.

The ideas enunciated in Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms were the foundational principles that evolved into the Atlantic Charter declared by Winston Churchill and FDR in August 1941; the United Nations Declaration of January 1, 1942; President Roosevelt’s vision for an international organization that became the United Nations after his death; and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948 through the work of Eleanor Roosevelt.

As tyrannical leaders once again resort to brutal oppression and terrorism to achieve their goals, as democracy and journalism are under attack from extremists and conspiratorialists both in the United States and across the globe, and as surveillance and technology threaten individual liberties and freedom of expression, FDRs bold vision for a world that embraces these four fundamental freedoms is as vital today as it was more than 80 years ago.  For those who are interested in reading the speech in its entirety, please check out FDR’s Four Freedoms Speech.

Interestingly, FDR, after consulting with his behind-the-scenes advisors, dictated the speech in a matter of minutes to his secretary Grace Tully.  Unlike presidents ever since, FDR rarely used a team of speechwriters.  This SOTU  came from his heart; it would wind up changing the world. 

               FDR’s Handwritten Notes for the January 6, 1941 SOTU                 

In 1941, there were plenty of people who believed that FDR was a “traitor to his class” - an aristocrat who actually cared about the state and fate of the downtrodden; one who believed that democracy was the most superior form of government. There were also those who found him “too much of a Socialist” (FDIC, Social Security and the Tennessee Valley Authority). He surrounded himself with a stellar brain trust (Samuel Rosenman, Benjamin Cohen, Felix Frankfurter and Bernard Baruch, to name but a few) and listened intently to the advise he was given.  He also understood that the fate of America and her allies was ultimately up to him, and did whatever he could to motivate a nation to do the right thing.  Yes, it is true, his State Department didn’t always do the right thing when it came to the Jews attempting to escape Nazi oppression (which causes many modern-day Jews to throw him on the ash-heap of history); nonetheless, FDR responded to his ilk by telling them that Democracy belonged to everyone . . . not just the WASPS he grew up and was educated amongst.

At the time of the January 6, 1941 State of the Union address, there was both a loud, staunchly vituperative isolationist wing of  the Republican Party (“America First,” led nationally by Charles A. Lindbergh) and a fully-armed batch of Nazi sympathizers (The “German American Bund,” led for many years by Fritz Kuhn, the so-called “American Fuhrer.” 

Today, more than 80 years  after that first, historic January 6th, America is once again beset by isolationists (the MAGA wing of the Republican Party), growing anti-Semitism and conspiracies galore. This time, we are led by a decidedly non-Blue Blood president who like FDR, understands the critical role America can and must play in a world that once again is falling in love with autocracy and fascism.  But unlike FDR, who was accused of being an enemy of America’s hereditary aristocracy, Joe Biden is attacked for being the leader of a “woke” nation; the leader of a left-wing socialist/communist conspiracy which attempts to make “sissies” of us all.  It is just as moronically idiotic today as it was 80+ years ago.  

    jean Baptiste Alphonse Karr 

 Way back in 1849, French critic, journalist and novelist Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr wrote “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose “ – the more things change, the more they stay the same…  From January 6, 1941 to the same date in 2021, many, many things have changed in and about the United States of America . . . if indeed, not the entire world.  But Karr was and always shall be unerringly correct for in modern idiomatic English, “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose means “What goes around comes around.”

Let us work and teach, give voice and vote that which FDR pledged on the first historic January 6 - the Four Freedoms - will continue to go around and come around.  For it is only through maintaining these four indelible freedoms that America can continue being a beacon of bright light for the rest of the world.

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Oh When Will We Ever Learn?

On April 5, 1945, U.S. Army troops entered Ohrdruf, part of the Buchenwald concentration camp system. One week later, April 12, 1945 (8 days before what would have been Adolph Hitler’s 56th birthday), Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower flew to Ohrdruf to meet American generals George S. Patton and Omar Bradley. The camp was still filled with the bodies of prisoners who had been murdered just before the SS guards fled. The stench of death filled the camp. That which they saw was beyond human comprehension; the stuff which causes the most gruesome of all possible nightmares . . . the sort that never go away.

General Eisenhower quickly cabled U.S. Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, declaring that everything that had appeared in the press about these sites was “an understatement." He requested: 

If you would see any advantage in asking about a dozen leaders of Congress and a dozen prominent editors to make a short visit to this theater in a couple of C-54s, I will arrange to have them conducted to one of these places where the evidence of bestiality and cruelty is so overpowering as to leave no doubt in their minds about the normal practices of the Germans in these camps. I am hopeful that some British individuals in similar categories will visit the northern area to witness similar evidence of atrocity.

Eisenhower, a man often underestimated for the depth of his knowledge and foresightedness, understood that it was of extreme importance that everything the conquering Allied Forces saw, smelled or felt be committed to film - both cinematic and still. His reason? He understood that the day would likely come - whether it be in a year, a decade or even more - that people would forget the Holocaust; would declare that it never had happened . . . that it was all a myth perpetrated by the very people “claiming” to have been its victims.  

   Hebrew translation: “The Israeli connection to the Twin Towers terrorist attack.”

Eisenhower’s prescience was and still is, sadly, a marvel to behold. For the number of “Holocaust Deniers” is continually growing. Indeed, it is an essential part of the bedrock that underlies the philosophical feculence called QAnon. As noted in a recent ADL report on the frightening growth of anti-Semitism in both America and around the world: Today, the most popular QAnon influencer, GhostEzra [recently outed as Robert Randall Smart of Boca Raton, FL], is an open Nazi who praises Hitler, admires the Third Reich, and decries the supposedly treacherous nature of Jews. 

 It is estimated that the ironically-named “Smart,” has a minimum of 300,000 followers on the so-called “Deep Web,” best described as “the parts of the web not indexed (searchable) by search engines.  His followers are conspiracy theorists of the highest (or deepest) water; they are fervent Holocaust deniers who find George Soros’ fingerprints (as well  as his billions) on virtually everything from Democratic pedophilia and COVID-19 vaccines to the “stealing” of the 2020 presidential election.  They are loony, dangerous, very, very well-armed, and more than willing to kill in order to “save” America and the White Western World from the Great Satan. Believe it or not, there are even QAnon followers in Israel!

As recent as the mid-1980s (when he would have been in his nineties) there were people the world over who, at the drop of a hat, would proclaim that Hitler was alive and well, and living in Argentina (or Bolivia or Peru). Similarly, there are inane conspiracists today who fervently believe that  J.F.K. Jr. is still alive, well, and about to reappear in the public square in order to announce that he is going to be Donald Trump’s running mate in the 2024 election.  Shakespeare hit the nail on the head when he put into the mouth of Puck “Lord, what fools these mortals be” (A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, Act 3, Scene 2).   

Of course, it’s not just QAnon and their unlettered fellows who are unfurling and raising aloft the flag of anti-Semitism. Hatred of Jews, Jewish ideas, ideals, and accomplishments, have long earned the obloquy of the frightened, the fearful and the utterly feckless.  A Holocaust-era chestnut told the tale of an anti-Semite who asked  a fellow he knew: "Who is to blame for our economy going to hell in a hand bucket and everything else falling into the trashcan?” His friend told him: "It’s simple: it’s the fault of two groups: the bicycle-riders and the Jews.”  “What in the world do the bicycle-riders have to do with our problems?” the man asked.  “Beats the daylights out of me,” his friend responded.  “What in the hell do the Jews have to do with our problems?” 

And so it goes . . .

Late last week, The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) released a report showing that, in 2021, there were more anti-Semitic incidents in America than in any year since the group started keeping track over 40 years ago. The rapid growth of Jew hatred isn’t limited to the United States. According to a new report from the Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University, anti-Semitic incidents were up last year in countries including Australia, Britain, Canada, France and Germany. Comparisons to 2020 might be misleadingFeducated because pandemic lockdowns likely reduced the numbers of anti-Semitic assaults and in-person harassment. But in several countries, including the United States, there were more anti-Semitic incidents in 2021 than in the prepandemic year 2019.

As the New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg noted in a trenchant op-ed piece, “. . . something has obviously gone wrong. The question is, what? Some, she notes, blame the left for being anti-Zionist . . . as if finding fault with the Israeli government (which I do from time to time) is really anti-Semitism cloaked in a kippah (a Jewish skullcap, often called a yarmulke, which I myself wear). An extension of this observation would then have it that anyone who does not support everything the Israeli government says or does is really an anti-Semite. To me, this is stuff and nonsense; they should study the centuries-old arguments of the rabbis of the past, who made careers of disagreeing with one another. These were not haters of Jews; they were seekers of truth.

Just yesterday, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with California Representative Adam Schiff and 9 other Democratic members of Congress met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in war-torn Kyiv (which had been bombed just hours before their secret arrival), Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov caused an absolute furor when he told an Italian interviewer that Russia’s purpose in invading Ukraine was to ““denazify” the country - a justification which Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly used for months.  When the Italian interviewer mentioned that President Zelenskyy was himself Jewish and had lost family members in the Holocaust, Lavrov responded “. . . when they say ‘How can Nazification exist if we’re Jewish?’ In my opinion, Hitler also had Jewish origins, so it doesn’t mean absolutely anything. For some time we have heard from the Jewish people that the biggest antisemites [sic] were Jewish,"  One can only imagine how well that comment is being received by anti-Semites around the world.  Once again, the victims are being accused of having been the perpetrators. . .

The reason - or reasons - for the stunning rise in anti-Semitic incidents both in the United States and worldwide is nigh on impossible to thoroughly comprehend. Certainly, there is an [un]fair measure of anti-Zionism involved, though, as mentioned above, simply being critical of Israel does not necessarily make an individual, a group or a political alignment guilty of being anti-Semitic. Then too, the explosive growth and untrammeled “Wild West” nature of social media over the past generation has made the spread of all kinds of mis- and disinformation and conspiracy theories available to the credulous masses. But in the main, the reason for the growth of the baseless hatred of Jews is what it always has been: cultural breakdown and economic uncertainty, which frequently lead to both antisocial behavior and the dire need to “pin the tail on the donkey.” It’s what the father of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), himself a French Jew from a long line of Rabbis, called anomie, generally translated as “normlessness” . . . a "condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals."

It is absolutely essential to restore norms to society; to challenge anyone who is shallow, callow or ignorant enough to liken anything or anyone they don’t agree with to Hitler or the Nazis;  to have the courage to stand with the angels (in the Jewish world we call them mentchen),  call a monomaniac a menace, and refuse to remain silent before the megaphones of mendacity.  

I have long pondered - with a soupçon of frustration - about what came first: Jews or anti-Semites. “How’s that?” you may well ask. At times it just seems to me that if G-d in Co’s (the “Divine Possessive Pronoun” id est .. His/Her) infinite wisdom had not created the Jews, the “Eternal People,” anti-Semites, in their infinite depravity, would have, in order to possess a target for their eternal hatred and inhumanity. As a question, it is no doubt a non-starter . . . but one which has long drawn my attention.

Another imponderable is how or what can ever bring an end to anti-Semitism . . . to the hatred of Jews? It is undoubtedly the case that psychopathy cannot be cured with a pill, shockwaves or a set of facts and photos. What can help - if not solve - this menace is a commitment on the part of individuals, leaders and nations to make the world saner, less economically unbalanced, and more universally educated; to do whatever we can to delimit the causes of severe anomie . . . toxic normlessness.

Or, to slightly paraphrase the late Pete Seeger, Oh when will we ever learn?

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

One Person's Religious Exemption is Another's Civic Mandate

According to most modern-day Republicans, America’s Founders were, for the most part, a bunch of pro-life, Christian fundamentalists who would have little or no argument with today’s right wing office holders. Not only is their knowledge of America’s Founders deeply flawed; it reveals an astounding lack of understanding of what makes America truly great.

Consider that among America’s most important founders, and early presidents, Washington, Madison and Monroe were Episcopalians; the Adamses,  both pere et fils were Unitarian; Jefferson (who like John Adams and James Madison could read and translate the Old Testament from Hebrew to Latin and from Greek to English)  and Benjamin Franklin non-denominational Deists. None - we repeat none - would have understood - let alone accepted - the hard-core “born-again” Christianity of their modern successors. They really, truly believed in the separation of Church and State, and would have found the incursion of one upon the other to be both noxious and deeply dangerous. Yes, they certainly did believe in the G-d of creation; nonetheless, they also had a deep and abiding faith in both human reason and the discoveries of science. 

Today, those who argue that the federal government oversteps both its rights as well as its licit moral and legal boundaries by mandating COVID-19 vaccines ought to learn from history; had it not been for General Washington mandating Small Pox vaccinations for all his troops before going into battle, this essay would have been composed in the Southern-most colony of the British Empire. According to the U.S. Library of Congress's Science, Technology, and Business Division, the smallpox inoculations for all of Washington's forces who came through the then-capital of Philadelphia and then through Morristown, New Jersey, following the Battle of Princeton, began Jan. 6, 1777.  As noted above, had not Washington done so, this week’s essay would have been composed in the Southern-most colony of the United Kingdom . . .

But alas, not that many citizens in early 21st century America know jack about our early history; about how George Washington mandated that all his troops be vaccinated against Small Pox, thus saving a revolution. Today, a small but garrulous minority - aided largely by the conspiracy theorists predominating a right-wing social media blitz - argues that mandating vaccinations against COVID-19 is a flat-out abridgement of individual rights and freedoms. (As opposed to not smoking on airplanes, wearing seatbelts or vaccinating children before they can attend public school.)  As we have seen, such utter נאַרישקייט (nareshkeit - that’s Yiddish for “lunacy”) has led to thousands upon thousands of needless deaths. Unlike G. Washington and his loyal troops, these modern Americans find no truth coming from the ivy-covered halls of science. Their preference is following a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, all the while praying for recovery from the immediate agency of the Divine. Of course in reality, this approach has far more to do with partisan politics and the winning of elections than with religion versus science. Although the number of so-called hard core anti-vaxxers is getting smaller all the time (thank G-d), there are still those who steadfastly proclaim that  they have every right to receive a religious exemption from said vaccines. In fact, for every law which has been enacted at some level, there is a group that demands its religious values permit them to abrogate the law or clause in question. As Washington Post contributing columnist Kate Cohen wrote in a recent piece: “A person can claim a religious exemption to the equal opportunity clause that’s required in all federal contracts; to the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act; and, in some states, to the requirement that a child be immunized to attend public school.”  We’ve all read about bakers refusing to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples because they believe that to do so would be going against the word of G-d.  Where does it end? This seems crazy. Obviously not everyone agrees with every law, but that’s the bummer and the challenge about living in civil society. In a democracy, if you feel strongly enough, you can set about finding like-minded people and then try to change the law. Or, if that doesn’t work, and you truly believe it’s a sin to, say, fill contraceptive prescriptions, then (a) don’t be a pharmacist or (b) risk getting fired. Wouldn’t G-d appreciate the gesture? For now, let’s return to the issue of vaccines and masks. By keeping an angry, largely unlettered minority believing that scientists, progressives and Democrats (frequently referred to as “Socialists”) are purposefully injecting vaccines and salad dressings with GPS trackers and various poisons, keeps that minority within the Republican fold . . . thus keeping Republicans in charge of the three branches of government.  

So let’s get this straight: according to these משוגעים (m’shugoyim - that’s Yiddish/Hebrew for “screwballs”), it is both good and perfectly legal to keep government from imposing on individual liberty and freedom when it comes to the wearing of masks, getting vaccines and mandating social distancing, but not so when it comes to a woman’s right to choose whether or not to get an abortion . . . under any circumstance, whether it be rape, incest or the health of the mother? And then, adding even further insult to injury, legislating precisely when life begins? According to the Texas Legislature (and soon the legislatures of George, Mississippi and Florida), a viable life begins at precisely 6 weeks . . . a time when a vast majority of women have yet to discover that they are pregnant. According to Texas, after six weeks, abortions are illegal, and anyone who assists a woman in any way, shape or form to terminate a “viable fetus,” can be arrested, tried and sentenced. (And whosoever notifies the authorities about these “assisters” may receive a reward of up to $10,000.)

In other words, what Texas has done in passing this onerous legislation is to, essentially, incinerate Roe v. Wade. Publicly, those legislators (the majority of whom are men) who vote in favor of such draconian laws, say they are doing so with G-d’s blessing . . . that abortion - regardless of the circumstance - is  murder.

These are the folks who self identify as “Pro-Life.”  I have never understood this.  How can it be that the vast majority of “Pro-Life” legislators consistently vote against such things as food stamps, funding for healthcare and universal pre-K education, cannot and will not lift  a finger to fund clean air, clean water or dozens of other things which are necessary for life?  By their actions it would seem that they are of a belief that although life begins at conception (if not even before - like the moment one considers engaging in sexual congress), it ends with birth.  If so, let’s call a spade a spade: they are not “Pro-Life” - - - they are stridently “Pro-Birth” and nothing more.

Recognizing that many readers of this blog are “MOT” (“Members of the Tribe”), permit me a few words about the beginning of life from a Jewish legal perspective. Jewish law (halacha) has a nuanced view of abortion. While it is true that many פרומע יידין (frume Yidd’n - Yiddish for “pious Jews”) have not been overly worried by these and other efforts to curtail legal abortion, in America, the pro-life narrative is largely articulated by the Christian right; there are important differences between how Judaism and Christianity view the span of time between conception and birth.

Jewish law does not consider the fetus to be a being with a soul until it is born. It does not have personhood. Furthermore, before 40 days, some poskim, (deciders of Jewish law), have a low bar for allowing an abortion. The Talmud, in Yevamos 69b, cites the view of a rabbi named Rav Hisda that “until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being.” Moreover, if there is a threat to a woman’s life, the safety of the mother takes precedence over continuing the pregnancy at any stage. Many sources illustrate this graphically and rather unambiguously, and all modern poskim, or religious deciders, agree on this. In fact, in certain circumstances, a fetus that endangers the life of the mother is legally considered a “murderer” in active pursuit.  Jewish law prohibits killing in all cases — except if one person is trying to murder another. If an individual is trying to end someone’s life, killing that person is actually a requirement. How much more so, a fetus (not yet a full person) who threatens the mother’s life may be aborted.

In his Mishneh Torah, Maimonides (one of the greatest physicians of his day) writes: “The sages ruled that when complications arise and a pregnant woman cannot give birth, it is permitted to abort the fetus in her womb, whether with a knife or drugs, for the fetus is considered a רודף (rodef - a murderer in pursuit]) of its mother … If the head of the fetus emerges, it should not be touched, because one life should not be sacrificed for another. Although the mother may die, this is the nature of the world.”

In other words, when a fetus endangers the life of the mother, unless it is in the process of being born, abortion is a halachic (Jewish legal) requirement.  How very different from that of the fundamentalist Christian perspective . . .

One of the biggest differences is that Jewish law has never, and will never, be decided on the basis of contemporary political needs.  Although there are centuries-old disputes within the world of Jewish law on how various laws and enactments should be interpreted and/or adjudicated.

Whether it comes to vaccines, climate change or choice, there is a lot to be learned from ancient texts. One of the most insightful comes from an ancient sage known as Rabbi Tarfon:

“It is not up to you to finish the task, but you are not free to avoid it”.

Sounds like something the Founders might have said . . .

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

In the Majestic Words of JFK (Or Ted Sorensen, or Winston Churchill or George St. John)

Without question, one of the most majestic and awe-inspiring of all presidential inaugural addresses was the one delivered by the then 43-year old John Fitzgerald Kennedy on January 20, 1961. It was also one of the shortest - a mere 14 minutes. That speech contained such gems as:

• 'Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'

• 'If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'

• 'Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.' and perhaps the most magical of all presidential phrases:

• 'And so, my fellow Americans - ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'

The inauguration of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-1963) represented a seismic change in American politics.  He was, after all, more than a generation younger than his predecessor, President Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969).  He was also the first president born in the 20th century and brought to the White House, a dash and flair, an energetic youthfulness and élan unlike anything America and the world had ever seen before. JFK and his picture-perfect family had it all: wealth and movie-star good looks; sophistication, 50-mile hikes and above all, breathtaking charisma.  He only lived a brief 46 years; unbelievably, he has now been dead for nearly 60. 

Kennedy’s image is that of a fire-breathing progressive.  In truth, he was anything but.  Rather, he was a slightly right-of-center moderate Democrat whose greatest accomplishments - Medicare, the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts - were mostly completed by his successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was likely American political history’s most masterful legislative prestidigitators.  What Kennedy had in spades over Johnson - and most all of our presidents before or since - was the ability to motivate people of all ages to get off their backsides and give something back to “The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.”  The motivation of which we speak was of course wrapped up in the ultimate sentence of JFK’s  inaugural address: to "Ask not what your country can do for you, [but rather] ask what you can do for your country.”  Ironically, those words for which he is best remembered may well have not come from his pen . . . or that of Ted Sorensen, his brilliantly poetic 33-year old speechwriter.  According to Chris Matthews, the former press spokesman for Speaker Tip O’Neil,  chief speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter and former MSNBC news host, that phrase likely came from either from one of Winston Churchill’s war-time speeches or George St. John, who was JFK’s headmaster at Choate  in the early 1930s.  In his 2011 book Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero,  Matthews, who interviewed many of Kennedy’s Choate classmates, notes that they frequently heard headmaster St. John tell his students precisely the same thing.

I well remember listening to JKF’s inaugural address on the radio in Miss Cook’s class that January afternoon in 1961.  (The next day would be our father’s 45th birthday).  The new president sounded so young; his Boston accent was like something we only heard in movies; hearing Robert Frost read the poem The Gift Outright was especially rewarding . . . I was terribly smitten by great poets, thanks largely to “Granny Annie,” my mother’s mother. (Actually, Frost had written a brand new poem for the event entitled Dedication.” He approached the microphone, but blinded by the sun's glare on the snow-covered Capitol grounds, Frost was unable to read it. Thinking quickly, he instead recited "The Gift Outright," a poem he had written in 1942.)

I also well remember wanting desperately to join the Peace Corps and go out on a 50-mile hike. Alas, one needed a minimum of a B.A. in order to join the former, and their parents’ permission to participate in the latter. (I was but 11 at the time and possessed neither the degree nor parental permission.) Nonetheless, JFK inoculated in many of us a desire to be active, to give something of ourselves back to the country of our birth. JFK would be the reason why many of my generation became involved in what used to be known as “causes.” It’s something woefully lacking in today’s world . . .

        Post-war: able to get back into tailored clothing!

As a child, I well remember going to either the Union (train) Station in downtown Los Angeles or what was then known as the Los Angeles Airport (where parking was still both unpaved and free). In my recollection, both places were filled with uniformed soldiers, sailors, and marines rushing to make connections. In our neighborhood, there were many men who still bore the scars and halting gait of men who had been injured in the war. Unbeknownst to us - children living lives of relative privilege, many of our parents were actually in the 91%-92% income tax bracket and yet never tried to start a revolution. They were children of the Great Depression who survived a gruesome war and helped rebuild both a nation and a world. For some, it was a matter of noblesse oblige; for most, it was part of the obligation of being a patriotic citizen.

Where have those times gone?

I for one firmly desire to see Congress and the Biden administration institute something akin to “National Service; a series of programs and policies meant for the masses to join, thereby repairing our country while answering JFK’s challenge to “ask what we can do for our country.” In one of the very few conversations I ever had with my father about his 6 years of service during WWII, I remember him telling me that perhaps the best part of being in the service (outside of winning the war and coming back alive) was working alongside and getting to know people he otherwise would never have met. “I learned so much about people who were vastly different from myself . . . and they about me. Imagine: I was the first Jew many of these lads had ever met . . .”

Let’s face it: for quite some time, Americans have been growing further and further apart, whether the dividing lines be race, religion, politics, ethnicity economics or a combination of any or all these things. We frequently take sides, “knowing” that our problems or shortcomings are due to others with whom we have next to no contact with - let alone or knowledge of. This is a loss for all of us. If there were some way for people to work together for the common good, perhaps we could revive the dream of JFK: to ask what we can do for our country. I for one couldn’t care less whether the words come directly from JFK, Ted Sorensen, Winston Churchill or George St. John or Bob Dylan. If America is to survive, we must all find a way to work together.

Interestingly, the one person in the Biden Administration who has spoken most about reviving a national service program is Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. He is all all in favor of expanding the Peace Corps (which still exists), as well as Vista and other such programs. Ironically Elaine Chao, Secretary Pete’s immediate predecessor at DOT (she is the wife Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) served as the head of the Peace Corps during the first Bush Administration. Perhaps Buttigieg and Chao should get together with President Biden and his Chief of Staff Ron Klain in order to begin the process of creating a new National Service agenda for all of America.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Pride and Privilege, Paranoia and Prejudice

The late Alan King - one of the greatest of all Jewish comedians - once quipped “Here’s a brief summary of every Jewish holiday: ‘They tried to kill us, we won, let's eat!’”  

Mathematician/topical song writer Tom Lehrer wrote a well-known satiric piece called “National Brotherhood Week,” the opening lyrics of which go: “Oh the Protestants hate the Catholics, and the Catholics hate the Protestants, and the Hindus hate the Moslems, and everybody hates the Jews.”

In 1923, the Welsh-born, sober-sided David Lloyd George, who served as British Prime Minister from 1916-1922, noted: Of all the extreme fanaticism which plays havoc in man’s nature, there is not one as irrational as anti-Semitism. … If the Jews are rich [these fanatics] are victims of theft. If they are poor, they are victims of ridicule. If they take sides in a war, it is because they wish to take advantage from the spilling of non-Jewish blood. If they espouse peace, it is because they are scared by their natures or traitors. If the Jew dwells in a foreign land he is persecuted and expelled. If he wishes to return to his own land, he is prevented from doing so.”  Then too, there was an anonymous wit who once proclaimed “I don’t know which came first: the Jews or the anti-Semites.  It  seems to me that if G-d hadn’t, in his great wisdom created the ‘Chosen People,’ anti-Semites would have, in order to have an eternal target for their deranged animosity.”  

To my mind, the best of all quotes about the Jews comes from the pen of Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens): "If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race.  It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way.  Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of.  He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.

His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine and abstruse learning are also very out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers.  He has made a marvelous fight in this world in all ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself and be excused for it.  The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.

The Jew saw them all, survived them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmaties, of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert but aggressive mind.  All things are mortal but the Jews; all other forces pass, but he remains.  What is the secret of his immortality?”

Between the humor of comedian King and the wit of satirist Lehrer one gets an insider’s grasp of the irrepressible, self-deprecating wit of the Children of Abraham and Sarah.  Likewise, the brilliant insights of two non-Jews - Lloyd George and Mark Twain shine a blinding white light on the historic enigma of this people who are about to enter the year 5782 with prayers of hope and forgiveness, as well as historic pride and tearful remembrance.    

Without question, there are tons and tons of things to be proud of when it comes to the accomplishments of Jewish people.  Hell’s bells, a brief ramble through the pages of movie history, broken down into producers, directors, screenwriters, composers and stars is enough to make one’s chest puff up to the point of exploding.  Then too, the number of Jewish brothers and sisters involved in medical research, physics, chemistry, biology and various sciences we cannot even pronounce is legion. In the world of politics, the Senate Majority Leader (New York’s Chuck Schumer) and the floor leaders of both Trump impeachment trials (California’s Adam Schiff and Maryland’s Jaimie Raskin) are all "MOT” (members of the tribe).  Within the  Biden Administration we can identify far more than a minyan occupying important posts:

Ron Klain: Chief of Staff

Janet Yellin Secretary of Treasury

Alejandro Mayorkas: Secretary of Homeland Security

Tony Blinken Secretary of State

Merrick Brian Garland: Attorney General

Jared Bernstein: Council of Economic Advisers

Rochelle Walensky: Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Wendy Sherman: Deputy Secretary of State

Anne Neuberger Deputy National Security Adviser for Cybersecurity

Jeffrey Zients: COVID-19 Response Coordinator

David Kessler: Co-chair of the COVID-19 Advisory Board and Head of Operation Warp Speed

David Cohen: CIA Deputy Director

Rachel Levine: Deputy Health Secretary

Jennifer Klein: Co-chair Council on Gender Policy

Jessica Rosenworcel: Chair of the Federal Communications Commission

Stephanie Pollack: Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration

Polly Trottenberg: Deputy Secretary of Transportation

Mira Resnick: State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security

Roberta Jacobson: National Security Council “border czar”

Gary Gensler: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman*

Genine Macks Fidler: National Council on the Humanities

Chanan Weissman: Director for Technology and Democracy at National Security Council

Thomas Nides U.S. Ambassador to Israel [to be confirmed]

Eric Garcetti U.S. Ambassador to India [to be confirmed]

David Cohen: U.S. Ambassador to Canada [to be confirmed]

Mark Gitenstein: U.S. Ambassador to the European Union [to be confirmed]

Deborah Lipstadt: Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism [to be confirmed]

Jonathan Kaplan: U.S. Ambassador to Singapore [to be confirmed]

Marc Stanley: U.S. Ambassador to Argentina [to be confirmed]

Rahm Emanuel U.S. Ambassador to Japan [to be confirmed]

Sharon Kleinbaum: Commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom  

Thankfully, to date, there has been precious little chatter from cyber anti-Semites about the overwhelming number of Jewish men and women serving the country in top-line posts.  Historically, those who hate Jews need little reason for their conspiratorial animosity.  Historically, the reasons why people hate Jews falls into roughly six categories:

1. Economic -- "We hate Jews because they possess too much wealth and power."

2. Chosen People -- "We hate Jews because they arrogantly claim that they are the chosen people."

3. Scapegoat -- "Jews are a convenient group to single out and blame for our troubles."

4. Deicide -- "We hate Jews because they killed Jesus."

5. Outsiders -- "We hate Jews because they are different than us." (The dislike of the unlike.)

6. Racial Theory -- "We hate Jews because they are an inferior race."

Every other hated group is hated for a relatively defined reason. We Jews, however, are hated in paradoxes: Jews are hated for being a lazy and inferior race - but also for dominating the economy and taking over the world. We are hated for stubbornly maintaining our separateness - and, when we do assimilate - for posing a threat to racial purity through intermarriages. We are seen as pacifists and as warmongers; as capitalist exploiters and as revolutionary communists; possessed of a Chosen-People mentality, as well as of an inferiority complex. It seems that we just can't win.

Over the past year or so, there has been an obvious rise in the number of anti-Semitic events in both the United States and Europe, as well as throughout much of the rest of the world. Much of it has been focused on Israel and the spread of COVID-19. In a sense, history is repeating itself; much of Europe blamed the Jew for the spread of the so-called “Black Death” of the early Middle Ages. And yet, if there are any bright spots on the horizon when it comes to COVID-19 and its Delta variant, they emanate from Jewish scientists, immunologists and infectious disease specialists in America, Europe and Israel. As Jews, we can be proud, knowing that our sons and daughters have been largely at the forefront of containing the worst, most lethal pandemic of the past century. But at the same time, we are both puzzled and frightened by the response of professional Jew-haters who tell their followers that we are largely responsible for its spread.

It is one of the great ironies of human history that virtually every powerful culture or civilization which sought to eliminate the Jews from the face of time are now extinct . . . to be found mostly in museums or libraries.  It is even more ironic that the great and literate histories of their growth, decline and fall, have been written primarily by Jewish historians.  Perhaps. when all is  said and done, the underlying truth of being  part of the “Chosen People” is precisely this: that we have been “chosen” to exist throughout time . . . to continue adding to human history regardless of what our enemies - both ancient and more contemporary - might have wished.    
I for one am more than amazed that few professional anti-Semites have yet to figure out that the vast majority of the people serving in the current administration are either Jewish or Catholic. If they had, the level of finger pointing and ethno-religious animosity would be far, more virulent than it already is.

We are by no means a people without flaws. Like any people, we have our historic and contemporary embarrassments. From the phony “Messiah” Rabbi Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676) and the man who continued Zevi’s cult, Jacob Frank (1726-1791) and from such psychopathic American gangsters as Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegal (1906-1941) Mickey Cohen (1913-1976) and America’s greatest/worst fraudster Bernard “Bernie” Madoff (1938-2021) Jews have plenty of MOT (“Members of the Tribe”) to be embarrassed by.  Then too, we have provided the world with more medical discoveries, scientific breakthroughs, Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winners as well as Emmy, Oscar and Tony winners and MacArthur Fellowship (“Genius Grant”) recipients than any other tiny family on the face of the earth.   

As we enter this New Year, we have much to be proud of . . . and much to worry about. Those who hate despise and dream up noxious conspiracies about the children of Abraham and Sarah not about to disappear from the human equation. Then again, their pernicious derangement isn’t about to stop us from doing everything in our power to make the world a better, saner, more healthy place. It’s just part of the price we pay for being “chosen.” Pride comes with privilege; paranoia always runs alongside prejudice.

So be it.

Copyright ©2021 Kurt F. Stone

There's More to President Grant Than War, Whiskey and Dishonest Dealings

Today is the 4th of July; America’s 245th birthday. It is, of course, a day of fireworks (“The bombs bursting in air”), backyard barbeques and for some of us, watching for the umpteenth time Peter Stone’s magnificent musical 1776, starring William Daniels (John Adams), Howard Da Silva (Benjamin Franklin) and Ken Howard (Thomas Jefferson). For American historians, it is the time to write yet another essay, hopefully shedding even greater light on this magnificent experiment in liberty and representative democracy called America. At this time of year, Presidential historians are, as is their wont, surveying anew the presidential ranking of all 45 of the nation’s Chief Executives - from Washington to Trump. (#46, Joe Biden has not yet made the list as of today he’s only served in office 165 days.)

                             Ulysses S. Grant: America’s 18th President

When it comes to Presidential ranks decade-by-date, there are many givens: Lincoln, Washington, FDR and TR have ranked numbers 1-4 as long as anyone can remember. Then too, those at the bottom of the list - Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding and John Tyler - haven’t budged; they are still the worst of the worst . . . with the exception of Donald J. Trump who now enters the list at 41 out of 45.  (BTW: Barack Obama debuted at #12 in 2016 and as of the latest polling, has moved up to #10). There are some surprises: Dwight Eisenhower, as an example, has moved all the way from 9th to 5th best over the past 2 decades.  The president whose reputation has improved the most in the past two decades? That’s Ulysses S. Grant, who started at No. 33 and is now ranked 20th. Grant has had a number of sympathetic biographies in recent years, and these days gets more credit for Reconstruction and his diplomacy than condemnation for his supposed dipsomania and alleged corruption.

That Grant loved bourbon (likely “Old Crow”) was well known to just about everyone.  According to one tale, a leading politician told President Abraham Lincoln that the man he was about to appoint his commanding general was nothing more than a rotten drunk.  “He is not himself half the time; he can’t be relied upon, it is a shame to have such a man in command of an army,” the man told Lincoln. “So Grant gets drunk, does he?” queried Lincoln, addressing himself to one of the particularly active detractors of the soldier. “Yes, he does, and I can prove it,” was the reply. “Well,” returned Lincoln, with the faintest suspicion of a twinkle in his eye, “you needn’t waste your time getting proof; you just find out, to oblige me, what brand of whiskey Grant drinks, because I want to send a barrel of it to each one of my generals.”  That might have ended the crusade against General Grant . . . not the historic stereotype . . . which may or may not be true.  

At the end of  1930, Scribner’s Magazine began publishing what would prove to be a short-lived series of “alternative history” pieces. The first installment, in the November issue, was “If Booth Had Missed Lincoln.” This was followed by a contribution from none other than Winston Churchill who turned the concept on its head. It was piece bafflingly titled “If Lee Had Not Won the Battle of Gettysburg”—but, as we all know, Lee didn’t win the Battle of Gettysburg.  Reading Churchill’s story brought out the zaniness in parodist James Thurber, who then wrote “If Grant Had Been Drinking at Appomattox” in The New Yorker in December of that year. The next month Scribner’s published a third essay (“If Napoleon Had Escaped to America”) before bringing the series to an end. All three pieces were soon forgotten, but Thurber’s parody became one of his most famous and beloved works, and is still being performed on stage.  I urge you to you read If Grant Had Been Drinking at Appomattox and have a good laugh . . .  So much for Grant’s affinity for whisky.  Politically, his presidency was long associated with corruption . . . most notably (and ironically) the so-called “Whiskey Ring,” a scandal uncovered in 1875 involving whiskey distillers, agents of the I.R.S. Treasury clerks and various members of the Grant Administration.  Although Grant appointed the nation’s first “special prosecutor” to look into the case (who discovered, tried and sentenced the culprits), the president and his time in office were nonetheless forever tarnished. In the eyes of history, he may have been a successful commanding general, but was definitely a worthless drunk and criminal.

Presidential historians, it turns out, have begun finding out that U.S. Grant was far, far better than his reputation or personal stereotype would have us believe.  He was responsible for bringing hundreds of thousands of former slaves into American society, and see that the  South not get away Scot-free with their moral and political transgressions.  Although deeply flawed, the “Reconstruction Era” did make it possible for government to get back on its feet after the War.  Grant had a lot to do with making the politics of that difficult program possible.

Then too, Grant was far better read and far more philosophical than historians have given him credit.  He was a damn good writer whose prose was praised by none other than the great Mark Twain who came to Grant’s financial aid during the former president’s final days by convincing Merrill Lynch to put up $50,000.00 to buy the rights to Grant’s autobiography, which Twain would then publish. (Twain accomplished what he sought out to do; most regrettably, Grant put the finishing touches on his autobiography just 5 days before dying in July 1885 at age 63.  The two-volume work was published at the end of that year.)

One of the Grant’s most prescient and chilling messages was delivered in a speech he gave at the Annual Reunion of the Army of the Tennessee in Des Moines, Iowa, on Sept. 29, 1875.  Its most revealing passage sounds like something could - and should - be spoken on this year’s Fourth of July observance.  We will conclude with these words, think about them, and then prepare to watch 1776:

I do not bring into this assemblage politics, certainly not partisan politics, but it is a
fair subject for soldiers in their deliberations to consider what may be necessary to secure the prize for which they battled in a republic like ours. Where the citizen is sovereign and the official the servant, where no power is exercised except by the will of the people, it is important that the sovereign — the people — should possess intelligence.

The free school is the promoter of that intelligence which is to preserve us as a free nation. If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon’s, but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition, and ignorance on the other.

Now in this centennial year of our national existence, I believe it a good time to begin the work of strengthening the foundation of the house commenced by our patriotic forefathers one hundred years ago, at Concord and Lexington. Let us all labor to add all needful guarantees for the more perfect security of free thought, free speech, and free press, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or religion.

Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money appropriated to their support, no matter how raised, shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that the State or Nation, or both combined, shall furnish to every child growing up in the land, the means of acquiring a good common-school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistic tenets. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate. With these safeguards, I believe the battles which created the Army of the Tennessee will not have been fought in vain. 

And may Ulysses S. Grant’s name, deeds and reputation grow with every passing year.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

The Talking Cure

                        Dr. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

Anyone who has spent even a bit of time learning about the history of Freudian psychoanalysis, is familiar with the term “The talking cure.” In a nutshell, the good Dr. Freud was speaking with a colleague of his, Dr. Josef Breuer one day and Breuer told Freud about a patient he called “Anna O” (in reality, Bertha Pappenheim), who was experiencing “hysteria.” Breuer excitedly told Freud he had discovered that if he hypnotized Anna, she'd reveal all sorts of information she didn't recall when she was conscious — and her symptoms would lessen afterward. Freud tried this “talking cure” in his own private practice, but found patients would talk pretty freely to him without hypnosis, provided they were in a relaxed position — specifically, lying down on a couch — and if they were encouraged to say whatever came into their heads, a process known as “free association.” Once a patient talked at length, Freud could analyze what the person said to figure out what past traumas were likely causing the patient's current distress. Thus was born Freud’s “Talking Cure.” It was a boon to the nascent world  of psychoanalysis . . . not to mention the sale of couches!

As important as the Talking Cure has been to  psychoanalysis, one must keep in mind that it is not - nor ever has been - a panacea; sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Let’s just say that it can be a valuable arrow in Freud’s quiver.

The United States Senate has its own version of the Talking Cure - a tradition which occasionally offers a helping hand to those in the minority, but frequently acts as a political hindrance or impediment to those in the majority.  Here, of course, we are referring to one of the most nettlesome of all legislative strategies: the filibuster.   

Likely stemming from the Dutch /ˈvrɛi̯bœy̯tər/ meaning either a “freebooter” or “a pirate,” the Senate website defines filibuster as “An Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions."  The term filibuster was first used in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill. In the early years of Congress, representatives, as well as senators, could filibuster bills. However, as the number of representatives grew, the House amended its rules placing specific time limits on debates. In the 100-member Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue. Prior to 1917 the Senate rules did not provide for a way to end debate and force a vote on a measure. That year, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a two-thirds majority to end a filibuster, a procedure known as "cloture." In 1975 the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.

                James Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes  to Washington” (1939)

For non-political geeks, the greatest exemplar of the term filibuster is Jimmy Stewart playing the young idealistic Senator Jefferson  Smith holding the Senate floor hour after hour so as to keep a handful of his more corrupt colleagues from destroying his dream - creating a national boys’ camp.  Most will recall the hoarse, reeling Smith collapsing on the Senate floor after setting some sort of record for “talking the bill to death.”  In reality, this is a tactic which actually did exist: the “talking filibuster.”  The all-time record for the longest filibuster of ‘em all belongs to the late South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who  spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, according to U.S. Senate records.

Thurmond began speaking at 8:54 p.m. on Aug. 28 and continued until 9:12 p.m. the following evening, reciting the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, President George Washington's farewell address and other historical documents along the way.  So long as he stayed on his feet, it  really didn’t matter what he spoke about. Using what might be called a “tag-team” strategy, Thurmond and several of his colleagues (all Southern Democrats) managed to hold the floor for an amazing 57 days (March 26 -June 19), the day the Civil Rights Act of 1957 passed.  Among the other filibuster champs, several were, believe it or not, progressives: Wisconsin Senators William La Follette, Sr. (18 hours, 28 minutes in 1908) and William Proxmire (16 hours and 12 minutes) who managed to stall debate on an increase of the public debt ceiling in 1981 and Oregon’s Wayne Morse (the “Tiger of the Senate”) who spoke for 22 hours and 26 minutes to stall debate on the Tidelands Oil bill in 1953.

Today, the “talking filibuster” is a remnant of the past.  Just calling for a filibuster on a given bill (most always by the minority party) makes it possible to stall legislative activity against a particular bill while continuing to be in session.  In 2003, Senate Democrats threatened a lengthy filibuster to block several of then-President George W. Bush’s nominees. Republicans discussed invoking the parliamentary move since, like a nuclear explosion, it cannot be controlled once it is unleashed. Former GOP Senate Majority leader Trent Lott coined the term “the Nuclear Option” because both parties saw it as an unthinkable final recourse, just like nuclear war. During a standoff over George W. Bush nominees in 2003, Republicans discussed invoking the parliamentary move by using the codeword “The Hulk" since it, like the superhero alter ego, cannot be controlled once it is unleashed. Senators who wanted to give the maneuver a more positive public image, call it “The Constitutional Option.”

Well, now that Democrats and Republicans are living and working in an equally divided Senate (where only V.P. Harris can break a tie), the idea of minority Republicans reverting to the filibuster has both sides wondering what to do.  Some - mostly the progressive left - want to get rid of the filibuster altogether; others want to go back to the days when cloture requires 60 votes; then there is President Biden, Majority Leader Schumer, his assistant, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, and  the so-called “institutionalists.”  They realize that they simply do not have the votes to change Senate rules (it only takes a majority vote).

If the Democrats managed to end the filibuster (as of today, they don’t have the votes) the first thing they would no doubt do is pass their voting rights bill, (S.1), which would counteract curbs Republicans are placing on mail-in and absentee voting, streamline national voter registration and end the partisan drawing of congressional lines. Voting rights activist Stacey Abrams has argued Democrats could possibly get around the filibuster for this one bill. But most people agree that once a party ends the filibuster for one bill, it'll be hooked and do it again and again.

President Biden is likely the lynchpin in this debate. He was a senator for decades and respects the institution, but he's now a president trying to get things done. Biden told ABC's George Stephanopoulos just the other day he'd like to revert to a "talking filibuster."

"I don't think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it [like] what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days," he told Stephanopoulos. "You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking."

"So you're for that reform? You're for bringing back the talking filibuster?" Stephanopulos asked.

"I am. That's what it was supposed to be," Biden said, a la "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

There is already quite a significant debate over whether or not returning to the “Jefferson Smith” version of the filibuster will solve anything.  Shortly after the president’s sit-down with George Stephanopoulos, CNN political analyst Chris Cillizza wrote an analysis piece flatly stating that A 'talking filibuster' isn't going to solve the Senate's problems.”  Only time will tell.

I personally agree with the POTUS and a growing cadre of Democrats. By going back to the old rule, it would force Republicans to remain on their feet in front of all those cameras, showing themselves to the American public for what they are; obstructionists whose main issue is being against anything and everything the Democrats are for.  Period.  It would b e easy enough to change one aspect of the filibuster rule: mandating that all speechifying must be germane to the topic at hand. In other words, no more reading from the Bible, the White Pages, or Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham (as Ted Cruz actually did in September 2013).

Which brings us back to Dr. Freud who, although unbelievably gifted and insightful, was by no means political.  Nonetheless, he did understand the mind, heart and soul of the politician Fpr indeed, here are his thoughts:

“The challenge of leadership is to be strong, but not rude; be kind, but not weak; be bold, but not bully; be thoughtful, but not lazy; be humble, but not timid; be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly.” 

Can we talk?

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

March 7, 1965

Fifty-six years ago today (March 7, 1965) the then 25-year old civil rights activist John Lewis (1940-2020) led over 600 marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama and faced brutal attacks by oncoming state troopers. Lewis himself was one of 18 who were injured badly enough to require hospitalization. Footage of the violence collectively shocked the nation and galvanized the fight against racial injustice. In response, civil rights leaders planned to take their cause directly to Alabama Governor George Wallace on a 54-mile march from Selma to the state capital of Montgomery. Although Wallace ordered state troopers “to use whatever measures are necessary to prevent a march,” approximately 600 voting rights advocates set out from the Brown Chapel AME Church on Sunday, March 7.

In the wake of the shocking incident, President Lyndon Johnson called for comprehensive voting rights legislation. In a speech to a joint session of Congress on March 15, 1965, the president outlined the devious ways in which election officials denied African American citizens the vote.

Within days, the number of people participating in the march - whose ultimate destination was Montgomery - had grown to more than 25,000.  Now led by John Lewis, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, the horrific event which began on “Bloody Sunday” galvanized the nation.  So much so that Congress passed - and President Lyndon Johnson signed the “Voting Rights Act” on August 6 . . . a mere 5 months after “Bloody Sunday."  The purpose of this act was to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Voting Rights Act is considered one of the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.

Unfortunately, over the past several years, governors, state legislators and members of Congress (overwhelmingly Republican) have been doing everything in their power to undo or reverse the Voting Rights Act. The majority of those seeking this reversal are motivated by pretty much the same concern: putting as many stumbling blocks in the path of poor and minority voters, a sizeable percentage of who regularly vote for Democrats. Most readers of The K.F. Stone Weekly know that there are important aspects of voting which are protected by the 15h Amendment which in sum states that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Nonetheless, many state legislatures - especially those under Republican control - have been, as mentioned above - been putting significant roadblocks before the rights of minority voters.

Today, in memory and honor of the 56th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” President Biden has signed an executive order to promote additional access to voting. The administration describes the executive order as an “initial step” to protect voting rights — one that uses “the authority the president has to leverage federal resources to help people register to vote and provide information,” according to an administration official. This move comes not just in memory of “Bloody Sunday,” but also as a strong response to Republicans in statehouses around the country who are doing everything in their power to advance voter suppression legislation, including a bill in Georgia that voting rights groups say targets Black voters. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, have pushed measures in recent days to increase voting rights, including HR1 -- a sweeping ethics and election package that contains provisions expanding early and mail-in voting, restoring voting rights to former felons, permitting voting on Sunday, and easing voter registration for eligible Americans.

Despite the fact that the decisions of 60 separate courts and Donald Trump’s own Justice Department finding virtually no voting irregularities in the 2020 presidential election (the one which the previous president and his staunchest supporters claimed to be as true as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west) Republican lawmakers in 43 states have introduced 253 bills to restrict ballot access. The greatest activity has been in battleground states, especially Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Measures involve early voting, mail-in ballots, drop boxes, mobile voting facilities, and rules to disqualify ballots received after Election Day that cannot be overruled by the executive branch or the courts.

Some restrictions, however, are likely to be adopted in states in which the GOP controls both the legislature and the governor’s mansion. The Iowa state senate recently passed a bill shortening the early voting period. Although Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis declared that his state “did it right” in November 2020, Florida is poised to reduce the number of drop boxes. Texas lawmakers have submitted a slew of bills limiting voter access.  This week, the Georgia House of Representatives passed a bill whose motive Gwinnett County Republican election official Alice O’Lenick acknowledged was partisan: If House Bill 531 is enacted “at least we have a shot at winning,” she said. The legislation mandates that all counties have the same early voting dates and times: Monday-Friday, during business hours, one mandatory Saturday, one additional Saturday or Sunday. The elimination of early voting in the evening and all but one Sunday is aimed directly at working class Georgians and “souls to polls” initiatives, which usher African Americans to polling places after Sunday morning church services.

An Iowa bill aimed at limiting voting and making it harder for voters to return absentee ballots is headed to Gov. Kim Reynolds' desk this week, after passing both Republican-controlled chambers of the state legislature.

The bill, introduced by a Republican state senator, specifically would reduce the number of early voting days from 29 days to 20 days. It would also close polling places an hour earlier on Election Day (at 8 p.m. instead of 9 p.m.).

The bill also places new restrictions on absentee voting including banning officials from sending applications without a voter first requesting one, and requiring ballots be received by the county before polls close on Election Day.

The Republican-controlled Iowa House passed the measure on Wednesday night in a party line vote of 57-37. That vote came a day after the GOP-controlled Iowa Senate, where the legislation was introduced, also passed the bill on a party line vote.

One attorney representing Arizona before the Supreme Court went so far as to admit that these changes and restrictions had virtually nothing to do with guaranteeing that elections could neither be stolen nor rigged: “We are pushing for these changes for they guarantee the success of Republicans in coming elections.”  If anyone needs a new definition of chutzpah, here it is . . .

So what can be done?” Can or will President Biden’s executive order regarding the 15th Amendment put a horse collar around the Republican-controlled states that wish to turn back the clock?  The only thing that comes to mind on this, the 56th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” is for everyone to work just as hard to overturn their state legislatures and replace their governors as they/we did to get Joe Biden and Kamala Harris elected in 2020.  

In other words, there’s no rest for the weary.  We simply must keep the spirit of John Lewis and Bloody Sunday alive.

Any takers?  Please let me know.

Copyright©2012 Kurt F. stone