Beware the Poisonous Newt

Most crossword puzzle freaks - defined as those who would never be caught dead using a pencil - know that the answer to the clue “eft” is “newt.” For those who don’t inhabit the world of Will Shortz (the puzzle editor of both the New York Times, and National Public Radio and likely the world’s leading enigmatologist - “Newt” is a salamander in the subfamily Pleurodelinae. There are easily more than 100 varieties of the creature, a couple of which are highly toxic. The most deadly contain a toxin known as TTX, the most lethal non-protein substance known to man. When ingested into the body, this toxin directly attacks the nervous system and causes muscle paralysis, which can easily lead to cardiac arrest.

But please know that this week’s post deals with a slimy creature belonging not to the Salamandridae family, but rather to the subspecies of Homo Sapiens we shall call letalis ultra-conservativa popularis (Latin for “lethal ultra-conservative Republican”).  And by now, I’m pretty sure we’ve all sussed out that the Newt we’re referring to is Newton (“Newt”) Leroy Gingrich, House Speaker during the  Clinton administration, primary author of the “Contract With (Against?) America, and current Fox News contributor.   And like his animal kingdom namesake, he can be plenty toxic. Gingrich, like the the “Man From M.A.G.A.” whom he adores, loves lights, camera, action and all the attention a narcissist can handle. As a 10-term member of the House of Representatives from Georgia’s Sixth District, he was never what you’d call a legislative powerhouse; he’s always been more interested proving that he’s the smartest guy in the room. Like the former president, he has a long track record of treating his first two wives like dirt and once blamed his marital indiscretions (he was actually having an affair with his soon-to-be third wife while leading the impeachment charge against then-President Clinton) actually blamed them on his love of country, saying: "There's no question [that] at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.")

Over many years, Gingrich has co-written a series of “alternate history” novels about the Civil War (Grant Comes East, and Never Call Retreat: Lee and Grant: The Final Victory) and World War II (Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December 8, and Days of Infamy), as well as dystopian novels (with titles like Treason, Duplicity and Collusion). Among the things one learns about the former Speaker through reading his fiction are that:

1. He isn’t a very good writer;

2. He is history’s deus ex machina;

3. He has an abiding love of - and extraordinary admiration for - white men who almost single-handedly change the course of history  . . . and not necessarily for the better.

Newt’s self-image is that of a prophet; one who not only can see the future . . . but has been endowed with the power to shape it in his own toxic image.  His latest prophecy was announced to the world this past Sunday on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bertimoro. In addition to railing against the current Democratic legislative agenda, he suggested that people who favor higher levels of government spending to build out the social-safety net are in thrall to a "secular religion" (as opposed to the supply-side economics that have governed the Republican Party ever since Art Laffer laid out the theory on a cocktail napkin in 1974) and compared its practitioners to the Jacobins and Bolsheviks.  Then came the bombshell, based on a Gingrich op-ed piece published in Newsweek, entitled "The Wolves Will Become Sheep," in which he accused the Jan. 6 Committee of being a “lynch mob,” but (as was the case in his TV segment on Fox) does not cite any specific laws that have been broken by investigators. The closest he came to making an actual indictment was saying that “The Jan. 6 Select Committee is in the process of potentially bankrupting scores of Americans who worked for or supported President Trump. They face financial ruin defending themselves against the committee’s attack.”  Say what?

Forgetting that during the Obama years, the Republican-led Congress spent more time and money investigating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s role in the attack in Benghazi, Libya (in which 4 Americans - including the American ambassador were murdered by terrorists) than it did on the 9/11 attack, Gingrich floated the idea that the January 6 Committee was nothing more than a “partisan lynch mob” (despite having 2 Republicans on that committee) To all but the politically deaf, dumb and blind, it was obvious that the real purpose of the innumerable Benghazi hearings was to drive down Secretary Clinton’s national polling numbers on the way to the 2016 presidential election.

With regards to the single, ongoing January 6 committee hearing, Gingrich blustered that once the G.O.P. took back the  majority after the 2022 mid-term elections, committee members would be tried and sent to prison.  And this prognostication came on the heels of possible future Speaker Kevin McCarthy suggesting that come January 2023, he would move to have members of the January 6 committee stripped of all their House committee assignments . . . if not expelled and put on trial.

This streak of authoritarianism as exemplified by former Speaker Gingrich, possible future Speaker McCarthy, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz (who is giving serious consideration to his state seceding from the Union) is breathtaking in its gall, its political chutzpah and utter political toxicity.  Among those in Gingrich’s corner, one finds such political oddities as Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (who, though loudly, proudly, defiantly unvaccinated, has been buying and selling stock in Pfizer and Moderna, which likely makes her guilty of insider trading) and Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz who, appearing on Steve Bannon’s podcast said “You know what, Newt’s right! We are going to take power. And when we do, it’s not going to be the days of Paul Ryan and Trey Gowdy where the Republicans go limp-wristed, where they lose their backbone, and they fail to send a single subpoena.”  On the same podcast, Bannon himself also floated the idea of impeaching Joe Biden. It’s probably just a matter of time before both ideas—Gingrich’s and Bannon’s—are the default positions for Republicans running for office.

Indeed, as Charles Dickens wrote in the opening paragraph of A Tale of Two Cities: 

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, …”

Beware the toxicity of a Newt Gingrich, the authoritarianism of  a Steve Bannon or the seditiousness of a Donald Trump; for where they go, poison enters the body politic.

And to them and those who support them I say: Be careful what you pray for . . . . 

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Riddle Me a Riddle

Stretching across the intellectual highways called “philosophy,” “theology,” and “cerebral gymnastics,” one finds riddles and intellectual imponderables aplenty, the contemplation of which can provide the best - and occasionally most frustrating - forms of mental, moral and ethical gymnastics. Two of my favorites - neither of which I have come even close to solving - are the following:

Question: if G-d is omnipotent, is it possible for Co* (a divine pronoun I invented 40+ years ago meaning “He/She) to create an object so large and heavy that Co cannot lift it?

Answer: Of course not.  If G-d could  create such an object, that would wipe out Co’s omnipotence, because there would be something beyond Co’s physical ability.

Question: But if the omnipotent G-d were incapable of creating such an object, wouldn’t that then mean that there is something beyond that very omnipotence . . . namely the inability to create something too large and heavy to lift? 

Answer: You’ve given me a migraine . . . better check back later . . . much, much later.

Then there’s imponderable #2, which comes from an early rabbinic work known as Pirke Avot . . . a  book of wisdom whose title is roughly translated as The  Ethics of the Fathers.   In Hebrew it goes:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                               הַכֹּל צָפוּי, וְהָרְשׁוּת נְתוּנָה,

(ha-kohl tza-fuey, v’ha-r’shoot n’tunah) Roughly translated this enigmatic bit of wisdom states “All things are foreseen, but nonetheless there is free will.”

There’s an obvious paradox at work here:   If G-d knows the future and every act we will do for the rest of our lives, do we truly have free will? Do we truly have a choice how we will behave? It is already known, so to speak, that I will sin at a particular time and place. And if so, there is no possible way I can avoid it! I am going to do it! G-d knows it already! There is no humanly possible way for me to alter my predetermined future! And so, isn’t my life merely a meaningless exercise — a futile performance of an already-written and predetermined script?

I have always been intrigued by this sentence (which is ascribed to the great Rabbi Akiba). I really love it, perhaps because it is an enigma to me, spiritual and intriguing. Every once in awhile the sentence pops up in my mind. And for the longest time, I said “Not yet, I still don’t understand its meaning.”

Talk about an imponderable riddle! Talk about yet another migraine!!

Annie asked me a question the other day that brought this omniscience- versus-free-will conundrum to mind. Annie, as many of you know, has taught for years at Broward College in the Ft. Lauderdale area. She teaches English as a Second Language (ESL) to adult immigrants, refugees and asylees. Her students come from places as diverse as Haiti, Cuba and the Caribbean to South and Central America and the Middle East. Many received next to no education prior to their arrival in the U.S.; some were college-educated doctors, accountants and engineers. The latter find it next to impossible to resume their professions; once skilled surgeons become registered nurses; engineers turn to  the building trades and accountants become bookkeepers.

Recently, the college offered a cash incentive ($250.00) for any and all students who agreed to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and another $250.00 for receiving a booster shot. Annie contacted each and every one of her students to make sure they were aware of this program and answer any questions they might have. Of necessity, she asked each student whether or not they had already been vaccinated and/or received a booster injection. Hauntingly, a fair number of her students - including the doctors and other professionals - had not, but refused to give a reason why.

“How’s it possible for a doctor to be against getting a COVID vaccine?” she asked.  Indeed, how is it possible for anyone (save those whose religion refuses medical attention or those with compromised immune systems) to willingly refuse a potentially life-saving vaccine?  Or fight tooth and nail against being compelled to wear a mask . . . or compare any mandate concerning COVID protection to the Nazis forcing Jews to wear a Yellow Star?  Do they have any brains?  Do they really, truly believe all the conspiracy theorists who likely have been vaccinated behind closed doors?  Amazingly, just the other day fringe factions of the right wing erupted in anger after both former POTUS Trump and former FAUX News commentator Bill O’Reilly urged people to get vaccinated and boosted.  Anti-vax conspiracy theorists  such as Alex Jones and Ali Alexander swiftly rebuked Trump over his pro-vaccine stance. Members of QAnon-linked Telegram channels said they felt betrayed after Trump said to get the shot.  Ultra-conservative millennial commentator Candace Owens hit back hard at Trump for telling the truth about vaccines, explaining to her growing legion of fans that he's "too old" to find the "obscure websites" where people do their own research on the vaccines. "People oftentimes forget that, like, how old Trump is," Owens said on an Instagram Live post last Thursday night. "He comes from a generation — I've seen other people that are older have the exact same perspective, like, they came from a time before TV, before internet, before being able to conduct their independent research."

(It should be noted that Trump, who famously had his own reality TV show, never lived in "a time before TV." Then again, he reportedly doesn't use a computer.)

In the Luddite-larded world of antivaxxers, one finds such utterly ludicrous beliefs as: urging - if not mandating - vaccinations, masks and rigorous hand-washing during a time of mutating pandemia is a “human rights” violation; that according to Fox commentator Tucker Carlson (who, after all, knows everything) the nation’s leading expert in infectious diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci created the Covid virus (and is making a fortune off of it); and that COVID-19 is a plot by big pharma to make a fortune.  And for those who haven’t been paying a lot of attention, one of the loudest anti-Fauci voices in the country is attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a mainstay in the vaccines-cause autism brigade whose newest book is entitled The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, which just about says it all. 

Truth to tell, some of those peddling these - and other ridiculous notions have stock holdings in  many  of the companies manufacturing the very vaccines which are  saving tens of millions of lives.  (One of these is loud-mouthed Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene who, in addition to recently saying on Steve Bannon’s podcast that "vaccine Nazis [are] "ruining our country," holds stock in AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson.)  In fact, according Business Insider’s “Conflicted Congress” project, at least 13 senators and 35 US representatives held shares in Johnson & Johnson, 11 senators and 34 representatives held shares in Pfizer, and two representatives or their spouses held shares of Moderna. 

In their drive to monetize the COVID pandemic, hardcore right-wing conspirators who insist (and will sell you) that Ivermectin, herbal “cures,” tons of vitamin C and Hydroxychloroquine will cure what ails you are - either knowingly or not - are endangering the lives of the very people they need to “Make America Great Again.” According to a recent report on National Public  Radio, "Since May 2021, people living in counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump during the last presidential election have been nearly three times as likely to die from COVID-19 as those who live in areas that went for now-President Biden.”  Recent polling shows that partisanship is now this single strongest identifying predictor of whether someone is vaccinated. Polling also shows that mistrust in official sources of information and exposure to misinformation, about both COVID-19 and the vaccines, runs high among Republicans.  According to Liz Hamel, vice president of public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation, (a nonpartisan health policy think tank), "An unvaccinated person is three times as likely to lean Republican as they are to lean Democrat . . . . If I wanted to guess if somebody was vaccinated or not and I could only know one thing about them, I would probably ask what their party affiliation is." 

It would take a heartless fool to cheer on those Trump acolytes who are killing the future of their movement by potentially killing themselves. But it has gotten to a point where they won’t even listen to their leader, who now tells them that getting vaccinated and boosted is a good thing.

In the words of Puck, perhaps Shakespeare’s most endearing creation: “Lord, what fools these mortals be!”

Sorry to say, but when push comes to shove, I haven’t got an answer to Annie’s question about how in the world doctors and otherwise educated people - let alone those who are not - can bury their heads in the sand and their feet in concrete when it comes to saving their lives and the lives of their families and friends. It will have to remain an unsolvable riddle . . . perhaps even to the G-d who, despite being both omnipotent and omniscient, grants each of us free will . . .

Copyright©2021, Kurt F. Stone   

Liz Cheney: Lauding the Courage of a Politician I'd Never Vote For

                                   Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY)

Back in November, 2009, when this blog was still called “Beating the Bushes,” I posted a piece entitled In the Words of Joseph Nye Welch. In this op-ed, I castigated right-wing radio Luddite Rush Limbaugh for continuing to claim that then-President Barack Obama (who had been elected the previous November) was continuing to proclaim that our 44th POTUS was not only foreign-born (thus invalidating his presidency) but a Muslim plant to boot. In that essay, I called upon the ghost of the late Harvard- trained attorney Joseph Nye Welch (1890-1960) who, in 1954, became the epitome of a political hero when, during the nationally-televised “Army-McCarthy Hearings” unmasked the Wisconsin senator for the ogre he truly was:

Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness . . . . If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think that I am a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me . . . . , Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?  As history records, Welch’s heroism turned out to be what would become the first - and ultimately deepest - shovelings in what would shortly thereafter become Joseph McCarthy’s grave. 

Now mind  you, Welch was not an elected official; he had no seat to lose, nor would he carry a target upon his back.  He was just (just!) a mild-tempered man with a love of justice and the courage to put his convictions before the court of public opinion.  In her own way, Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney is a Welch clone; a courageous person willing to put her convictions foursquarely before the court of public opinion. What obviously separates Rep. Cheney from attorney Welch is that the former has much to lose . . . like  her political life. In voting for the conviction of former President Trump and then becoming one of the most visible and forthcoming members of the Select Committee on the January 6 Attack (of which she serves as Vice Chair) Liz Cheney has already been thrown out of her position as Chair of the House Republican Conference, has earned the undying enmity of the former president and nearly 100% of her caucus. Moreover, she stands a good chance of losing her seat in Congress.

Without question, Liz Cheney is Republican Royalty: her father, Dick Cheney, at various times served as Chair of the House Republican Conference (1987-89); Secretary of Defense (1989-1993) and 46th Vice President of the United States (2001-2009); her mother Lynne served for seven years as Chair of the National Council of the Humanities under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush (1986-1993). Yet despite her political bloodlines, Republicans treat her as if she were the spawn of Bella Abzug and Barney Frank. With every pronouncement or revelation regarding the January 6 coup she makes, the lower her stock goes with her former political allies. The Wyoming Republican Party has disowned her; along with the former president, the party has endorsed Harriett Hageman to be Ms. Cheney’s opponent in the 2022 Republican primary. (It should be noted that in 2016, Ms. Hagemen tried to overturn Donald Trump’s victory in the Wyoming presidential primary, noting that Trump was both “racist and xenophobic.” Once he endorsed her for Ms. Cheney’s seat, she began referring to him as “the greatest president of my lifetime.”)

These days, the only people saying positive or congratulatory things about Liz Cheney are Democrats and a tiny handful of what the Jim Jordans, Madison Cawthorns and Rand Pauls of the world call “RINOS” - “Republicans in name only," like Illinois Republican Adam Kinzinger and Senators Mitt Romney, Richard Burr, Ben Sasse and Lisa Murkowski. I’ve even chatted with a few people who wonder if Democrats could convince her to move to the other side of the political aisle and join the party of FDR, JFK, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  Sorry, one Joe Manchin is enough . . .

Whoa there!

As much as I admire her courage and stiff spine, I will remind you that Liz Cheney is a dyed-in-the-wool ultra-conservative. Jake Bernstein, co-author of the book Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency, recently noted: “I think part of the reason for why Liz Cheney is doing what she’s doing is directly the result of her father in the sense that her father was the very embodiment of the Republican establishment for decades. . . . She’s still very conservative. She would never see eye to eye with Democrats on anything else but a belief in the institution of Congress and the democratic process. To believe that she is in any way a moderate politically says more about what Donald Trump has done to the Republican party than it does about her.”

Need proof of Cheney’s ultraconservatism? According to an article in the May 26, 2021 issue of Forbes, from 2017 to 2021, Cheney voted in line with Trump's position 92.9% of the time, supporting him more consistently in House votes than even his former chief of staff Mark Meadows. Believe it or not it wasn’t all that long ago that Cheney publicly feuded with Rand Paul over who was "Trumpier.”

Make no mistake about it: outside of the valiant stand she has taken vis-à-vis the impeachment of Donald Trump and informing the public about his involvement in the January 6 insurrection, few of those reading this piece could find any political commonality with Liz Cheney. And that’s OK. Political courage need not be packaged in a set of positions which find favor with voters on both sides of the aisle. One can, however, hope and dream that such courage is ultimately contagious.

Three cheers for Liz Cheney!

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

"The Darkness on the Edge of Town"

This past Thursday (December 9, 2021) the veteran journalist and news anchor Brian Williams signed off as host of MSNBC’s The 11th Hour, thus ending his 28-year run with NBC News. In his final 3 minutes and 51 seconds on-air, Williams delivered a highly reflective valedictory which, if it had had a musical backdrop, would undoubtedly have come from Paul Anka’s My Way, featuring the lyric Regrets, I’ve had a few/but then again, too few to mention/I did what I had to do/and saw it through without exemption . . . But more than that, he spoke out for his greatest fear: the future of America:

After 28 years of Peacock logos on much of what I own, it is my choice now to jump without a net into the great unknown,” he said. “As I do, for the first time in my 62 years, my biggest worry is for my country.

The truth is I am not a liberal or a conservative, I am an institutionalist. I believe in this place, and in my love of country I yield to no one. But the darkness on the edge of town has spread to the main roads and highways and neighborhoods. It is now at the local bar and the bowling alley, at the school board and the grocery store. And it must be acknowledged and answered for. Grown men and women, who swore an oath to our Constitution — elected by their constituents, possessing the kind of college degrees I could only dream of — have decided to join the mob and become something they are not, while hoping we somehow forget who they were. They’ve decided to burn it all down with us inside. That should scare you to no end.

Williams announced he would be leaving NBC News back on Nov. 9, bringing to an end a relationship that began in 1993 when he joined the network. Before moving to MSNBC, Williams served as chief anchor and managing editor of NBC’s Nightly News, succeeding the legendary Tom Brokaw in 2004. In 2015, he faced scandal and a six-month suspension over false claims about his helicopter being hit by a grenade in March 2003 while covering the Iraq War. He was later replaced by Lester Holt in the anchor role, and made his transition to the 24-hour cable network.

To Brian Williams’ detractors, the scandal and suspension represent the entirety of his nearly 3-decade career. Sadly, that’s the way things go in the modern world; one’s detractors make sure their audience never forgets the foibles of the fallible who happen to occupy the opposite side of the whatever aisle divides them, all the while turning both a deaf ear and a blind eye to the imperfections of those they support. A handful of mistruths from Brian Williams make him lower than Lenin in the minds of the Fox/News Max/OAN/Breitbart crowd, while the 30,000+ whoppers told by Boss Tweet matter neither whit nor farthing.

Like many on our/my side of the aisle, I found Brian Williams' valedictory to be terse, his words well crafted and his message scary as hell.  His message - and what today we increasingly refer to as “messaging” - hit the nail on the head.  “Messaging” is a fairly new concept, and means something like: the ideas or messages conveyed either explicitly or implicitly by a politician, advertising campaign, etc., or the way in which this is done.  Williams’ political messaging, in a nutshell, conveyed a great truth: We need more people WITH A PLATFORM to step up and say, “Hey folks, we’re on the ledge of losing our imperfect republic, our highly flawed but great democratic experiment. Open your eyes. We are hanging on by our freaking fingertips. 

Writing about Williams’ messaging in The Daily Kos, progressive Stella Ray noted “There will be those who say this is hyperbolic---but I now think those are the same sort who didn’t see Hitler coming, even after the Brown shirts had arrived. And make no mistake about it, the Brown shirts have arrived in the United States of America. They just go by different names these days. All sorts of  names, but most disturbing of all is this name: the Republican Party. There is no ‘both sides do it’ in this ultimate game, despite my opinion on the many imperfections of the Democratic Party.  I

I think there is no doubt this is who Williams was talking about.  Think about it: so much of what is driving Americans apart and democracy down is due to things such as:

• The promotion of anti-vaxxing, anti-masking lies in the name of “preserving individual freedom,”

• The passing of countless pieces of state and local legislation making voting terribly difficult - if not impossible - for the poor and people of color . . . and this in the name of safeguarding against electoral fraud;

• State-after-state enacting laws which make abortions next to impossible for all but women (or families) of means;

• The perpetuation of a solid slate of lies concerning the dangers posed by refugees, asylees and non-white immigrants;

• Perpetuating myths and lies about the teaching of Critical Race Theory; fostering bullying against children who are LGBTQ;

• Denying climate change;

• Spreading conspiracy theories about virtually everything in order to keep their base close at hand;

• Convincing a vast portion of America that anything they disagree with is the product of a Socialist/Communist revolution in the making.

Democrats have long been unsuited to repelling Republicanism. Hells bells: Democrats have long been unsuited to fighting fire with fire, to calling a spade a spade or showing anger. For too long, Democrats have strapped on lace gloves for any lethal Mixed Martial Arts battles they’ve entered. For the past couple of decades Democrats have held on to the canard that “working across the aisle” is the best way to survive, succeed and progress.  

It seems to me that if Democrats are going to succeed - to continue occupying the White House and leading both the House and Senate, they are going to have to shine one whole hell of a lot of cleansing megawattage on that “Darkness on the edge of town” of which Brian Williams spoke during his final segment of “The 11th Hour.”

Democrats are going to have to pump ungodly amounts of cash, courage and energy into races for POTUS, Congress, governorships, state legislatures, county commissions and boards of supervisors and education across the country. We are going have to flood airways with visuals and actualities of what such political miscreants as Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Matt Gaetz, Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley et al have been vomiting out for the past several years . . . mostly as an act of obeisance to their cult leader, Donald J. Trump. In addition to being the one party running on a platform of political possibilities, Democrats will have to point out their opponents’ lies, conspiracy theories and penchant for scaring the daylights out of the citizens of America. Anything less will spell not only loss at the polls, but the loss of democracy in cities, towns and farmlands of this once great nation.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Without Truth, Democracy Corrodes

                                      Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)

On any given day, I am the recipient of a minimum of 75 emails from various members of congress and state legislatures, political PACS supporting causes as varied as gun safety, climate control and overturning Citizens United . . . even the White House. Like many political activists, I am on lots and lots of different email lists; unlike many, I also have many different email addresses . . . some devoted to Democratic politics and politicians; one just for Republicans and conspiracy groups; one for congregants and rabbinic questions; one which is in Hebrew; one which is devoted to medical issues and clinical research trials; one strictly devoted to the world of film and my beloved “Hollywood Brats”; and even an address which is limited to family, close friends, and people who can legitimately call me by my first name.

So far as political emails go, I receive just as many from people and causes I support and/or mostly agree with, as those whom I execrate and/or simply cannot fathom. Among the latter are Representatives Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Louie Gohmert, and Paul Gosar, as well as Senators Ron Johnson, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn. I also receive email notifications from liberal/progressive groups as People for the American Way, Right Wing Watch, The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Brady Center Against Gun Violence as well as such far right/racist/anti-Semitic groups as The Daily Stormer, The American Thinker and Liberty Nation News.

Now don’t get the idea that I read all the emails I receive on a daily basis. To do so would make earning a living next to impossible. Nonetheless, I do peruse enough of my mail to get a sense of what or who is demonstrably true, civil, upright, and honorable for some, and precisely the opposite - false, crooked, discourteous and utterly dishonorable - for others. Besides delving into different approaches, realities and points of view, I also keep my antennae up and searching around for that which strikes me as being factual, against that which is most likely the product of conspiratorial hogwash.

So what have I learned? Well, most importantly, I’ve learned that there is a high, fortified wall standing athwart the political landscape. One person’s fact is another’s fiction; one set of eyes sees a bright light where another set sees nothing but vast darkness; one side’s heroes are another’s arch-enemies. There is, of course, a huge difference between fact and fiction, truth and lies.  The former – fact and truth – stand firm, while the latter – fiction and falsehood – eventually wither under their own weight.  Nowhere is this better or more clearly displayed than in an ancient Hebrew lesson.  To whit: The Hebrew word for “true,” (emet) is made up of the letters alef-mem-taf,  (א-מ-ת).   One notes that all three letters are the same same size and are thus stand firm   . . .   whereas the word for “lie” or “falsehood” (sheker), which is also made up of the letters shin-kuf-resh ( שּ-ק-ר )   cannot stand . . . its middle letter is longer than its mates and thus will soon topple. 

Nowadays,  with so many different forms of communication, it’s nearly impossible to separate truth from falsehood. All too frequently, people decide what is true based not so much on a collection of provable facts, but rather on who is making the presentation. The same goes for falsehoods; people conclude that something is untrue, based not nearly so much on a set of declarations or explanations, but again, on who is making the declaration. The most brazen example of “true lies” goes back to an interview that MSNBC’s Chuck Todd had with long-time Trump counselor and advisor Kellyanne Conway a few days after her boss’s inauguration. At one point in the interview, Todd stated that then-Presidential Press Secretary Sean Spicer had told an obvious and provable lie during his very first press conference, saying with a straight face that the Trump inauguration was attended by more people than any President in American history. Todd then had a picture put up on the screen showing an aerial view of those attending the Obama inauguration versus that of Trump. It demonstrably proved that  the gathering for Barack Obama vastly outnumbered that for Donald Trump. 

“Why put him out there for the very first time, in front of that podium, to utter a provable falsehood?” Todd asked Conway.  Her response? “Don't be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. You're saying it's a falsehood, and they're giving — our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that. But the point really is . . .”  At this point, a visibly exasperated Todd cut in. “Wait a minute. Alternative facts? Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered . . . were just not true. Alternative facts are not facts; they're falsehoods.” And things have been going downhill ever since.

Trump supporters refuse to believe anything Chuck Todd or anyone working for or appearing on MSNBC (or CNN or National Public Radio) says . . . ergo, they all are incapable of telling the truth.  But this is by no means a one-way street: many people find it next to impossible to believe what they hear from people working for - or appearing on  - Fox News, Newsmax or “One America News Network” (OANN) And let’s not forget the overwhelming number of people who get their “news and views” on radio from the likes of Mark Levin, Joe Pags, Sean Hannity or Michael Savage to name but a few.  What the above have in common - in addition to their politics and love of conspiracy - is the lack of civility and respect they show for those who have opposing points of view. I fear that one reason why right-wing radio, television and the blogosphere succeeds far better than those media outlets in the middle or the left is that they are far more entertaining. While driving from lecture to lecture and university to university, I frequently listen to right-wing talk radio. Although most of what I hear is laughable, it is frequently sickening, I’ve got to admit the hosts are a tonic for low blood pressure.

At the moment, I have just finished reading Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost our Democracy and Still Could by California Representative Adam Schiff. It is an impeccably well-written book which details the impeachment(s) of Donald Trump from the perspective of a man who has played a pivotal role as both Chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and the manager of Trump’s first impeachment trial before the United States Senate.  I would rate Adam Schiff as one of the best and brightest - not  to mention brainy and humble - members of Congress of the past half century.  His importance to that body - and indeed, to Democracy itself - cannot be overstated.  I have often thought that he would make a world-class Attorney General . . . or Justice of the Supreme Court.

For all his efforts both past and present (he currently serves on the 1/6 committee), he has received tremendous praise and accolades - along with death threats and vile calumnies, being nicknamed “Shifty Schiff,” being labeled a "Communist,” “abject liar” and far worse. Despite all this, his knowledge, candor and courage have made him a hero to many. If there is one thing he has sought to uncover above all else during his 20 years in the House, and  before that as a highly successful federal prosecutor, it is THE TRUTH. As a constant target of what he refers to as the “Misinformation Machine,” Adam has never ceased shining a spotlight on political facts.

In a recent email outlining many of the attacks he has suffered at the hands of the aforementioned “machine,” he wrote: “I can take these attacks. But with every false story or misleading segment, our idea of shared truth is shredded. And nothing is more corrosive to a democracy than the idea that there is no truth.”

I for one could not agree more.

And so, read and listen to as much as you can stomach, learn what those who disagree with you are saying, and, in the words of Winston Churchill, “Never, never, never, never give up.”  Never give up believing that despite what the other side claims, there really, truly is such a thing as THE TRUTH.  Finding it is never easy, but don’t let that stop you.  

Courage, it seems to me, is the antidote to political corrosion. And what is courage? That which it takes to stand up and speak; that which it takes to sit down and listen.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Creating Solutions to Problems That Don't Really Exist: A Toxic Political Strategy

By the time you get around to reading this blog, Virginians will likely have gone to the polls to elect a new governor. Looking into my frequently unreliable crystal ball, I see 3 possible outcomes:

1) Former Governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, who served as the Commonwealth’s 64th governor from 2014-2018 would be returned to office by a nose;

2) Republican businessman and Republican donor Glenn Allen Youngkin, a Trumpian clone, would defeat McAuliffe in a squeaker, or that

3) Younkin would lose in a particularly close race and then claim that McAuliffe stole the election from him.

Sound familiar?

McAuliffe, a seasoned poll and self-made millionaire, chaired the Democratic National Committee from 2001-2005 and then the National Governors Association in 2016-2017. He has long been close to the Clintons, and campaigned largely on his economic record from his single term as governor (Virginia only permits non-consecutive terms), supporting infrastructure improvements, voting rights, and President Biden's current “American Rescue Plan." McAuliffe has also managed to get in a few words about Donald Trump, letting it be known that his opponent is very much in Trump’s thrall and, like the former POTUS (who endorsed Youngkin no less than ten times during the campaign, is a multi-centimillionaire making his first run for office.

During the campaign, whatever support Youngkin showed for Trump was more tacit than obvious; the name T-R-U-M-P barely passed his lips even once. And one can be reasonably certain that he prayed that the de facto head of the G.O.P would not come into the Commonwealth to campaign on his behalf. So what were Youngkin’s main issues? At first, he avoided any discussions of divisive social issues in favor of praising of free markets and job creators, lower taxes, and balanced budgets (an historically typical Republican smorgasbord) and conservative activists actually knew very little about him other than the fact that he has a degree from Harvard Business School, a long and lucrative career in private equity, devout religious convictions and even a family love of horses . . . making him more similar to Utah Senator Mitt Romney than former POTUS Donald Trump.

Then, in the election’s final two weeks, he made a sharp right-hand turn and began promoting causes which animate and energize the conservative Republican base (read: Trump); now he began hammering away at the “danger and peril” of teaching of “Critical  Race Theory” in schools as well as transgender children. In other words, Youngkin no longer ran against Terry McAuliffe; now his targets were school bathrooms and sports teams to the Pulitzer and Nobel Prize winning writer, poet and essayist, Toni Morrison. What all these - and many other - “dog whistle” issues have in common (besides being “dog whistles”) is that they are arguing for “solutions” to “problems” which really do not exist.  Nakedly, they combine to make a political campaign strategy which is both toxic and represents a clear and present danger to the future of “small-d” democracy.

Candidate Youngkin has quickly made the banning of Critical Race Theory (“I’ll do this on the first day I’m in office”) the number one issue for his campaign. According to Fox News it has pushed him to a 54%-46% lead in various polls. (I for one take polls run on Fox, News Max or OAN with a dollop of salt). He wants to protect Virginia’s children from having to be “indoctrinated” with “. . . left, liberal, socialist notions that America is a racist nation . . . and will make our children into a bunch of Californians.” The fact of the matter is that Critical Race Theory is not part of the state-wide curriculum in Virginia . . . or Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Arizona or any of the other states which have either banned it as a matter of law or are in the process of doing so. It is a toxic solution to a problem that does not really exist.

Here in Florida the State Board of Education unanimously approved an amendment to its rules this past June. The amendment instructs public school staff to teach topics around race "efficiently and faithfully," using materials that meet "the highest standards of professionalism and historical accuracy." It bans the teaching of Critical Race Theory, which the legislation describes as "the theory that racism is not merely the product of prejudice, but that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons." It has the full-throated approval of Governor Rick DeSantis.

Why has Fox News mentioned “Critical Race Theory” more than 1,300 times in less than 4 months? What is causing state legislatures, governors, and candidates for school board across the country to be so adamantly opposed to something which exists far more in theory than in reality? What is it about the late Toni Morrison and her best-known, most widely read novel — Beloved - to so rile up the right? And by the way: how many have actually read it? (Watching the 1998 movie starring Oprah Winfrey and Danny Glover doesn’t count).

For those who have neither read nor watched Morrison’s Beloved, it is a graphic, violent and harrowing novel, sort of a Sophie’s Choice transferred back to America’s post-slavery era.  It won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1986.  In brief, the novel is based on the true story of a Black slave woman, Margaret Garner, who in 1856 escaped from a Kentucky plantation with her husband, Robert, and their children. They sought refuge in Ohio, but their owner and law officers soon caught up with the family. Before their recapture, Margaret killed her young daughter to prevent her return to slavery. In the novel, Sethe is also a passionately devoted mother, who flees with her children from an abusive owner known as “schoolteacher.” They are caught, and, in an act of supreme love and sacrifice, she too tries to kill her children to keep them from slavery. Only her two-year-old daughter dies, and the schoolteacher, believing that Sethe is crazy, decides not to take her back. Sethe later has “Beloved” inscribed on her daughter’s tombstone. Although she had intended for it to read “Dearly Beloved,” she did not have the energy to “pay” for two words (each word cost her 10 minutes of sex with the engraver).

These events are revealed in flashbacks, as the novel opens in 1873, with Sethe and her teenage daughter, Denver, living in Ohio, where their house at 124 Bluestone Road is haunted by the angry ghost of the child Sethe killed. The hauntings are alleviated by the arrival of Paul D, a man so ravaged by his slave past that he keeps his feelings in the “tobacco bin” of his heart. He worked on the same plantation as Sethe, and the two begin a relationship. A brief period of relative calm ends with the appearance of a young woman who says that her name is Beloved. She knows things that suggest she is the reincarnation of Sethe’s lost daughter. Sethe is obsessed with assuaging her guilt and tries to placate the increasingly demanding and manipulative Beloved. At one point, Beloved seduces Paul D. After learning that Sethe killed her daughter, he leaves.

The situation at 124 Bluestone worsens, as Sethe loses her job and becomes completely fixated on Beloved, who is soon revealed to be pregnant. While the lonely and largely housebound Denver initially befriends Beloved, she begins to grow concerned. She finally dares to venture outside in order to ask the community for help, and she is given food and a job. As the local women attempt to stage an exorcism, Denver’s employer arrives to take her to work, and Sethe mistakes him for “schoolteacher” and tries to attack him with an ice pick. The other women restrain her, and during the commotion Beloved disappears. Paul D later returns to the grieving Sethe, promising to care for her, and Denver continues to thrive in the outside world.

Admittedly, Beloved is not everyone’s cup of tea; Morrison’s writing style is both unique and difficult to plumb for the casual reader of fiction. Nonetheless, for those who have read it in its entirety, it is a novel that remains forever. From listening to and reading the remarks of those anti Critical Race Theory automatons who go on and on about how dangerous this book is and how it should be outlawed in public schools and universities, I get the impression that they have never read it. True, it is not an easy read. True, it shines a brightly uncomfortable light on a part of American history that many would care to avoid . . . or even believe never happened. But it is not meant to teach students to hate being white or turn them into anti-patriots. This is all stuff and nonsense dreamed up by those who believe banning books is a sure-fire way to solve problems which simply do not exist.

This is, of course, nothing new. American politicians began blaming immigrants for the nation’s economic woes as far back as the “Panic” (recession) of 1837. American “masters of morality” have urged the banning of books they considered harmful for well over a century (who remembers the folderol over Norman Mailer’s The Naked and the Dead” ]which contained ‘that word’] and J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye [which dealt with such “immoral” issues as teen angst, alienation and the superficiality of modern society?]). The, of course, there was the Hollywood “Black List.” which accused innumerable actors, directors, screenwriters and even hair stylists of being “Fellow Travelers, “premature anti-Fascists” and “rotten Commies.” All these - and oh so many more - presented so-called “solutions” to problems that truly did not exist.

Some things never change.

So what is to be done about the stench of pro-gun-racist-white-power-anti-immigrant-Critical-Racial-Theory? Trying to talk sense to these social misfits and miscreants is a fool’s errand, tantamount to taming a rabid rhino. People who listen intently to the malicious, hateful cadences of the Marjorie Taylor Greenes, Madison Cawthorns, Tucker Carlsons and Joe Pags of the world aren’t going to be disabused of what they hear or see through rational discourse. That is why so many still fully believe that the Clintons are pedophiles, Barack Obama is an African-born Muslim, that the Democrats are going to take guns away from all “real Americans,” ban the Bible and turn control of the country over to George Soros. Yes, it is sheer twaddle, but there’s plenty of it out there.

Political revolutions are just as frequently created from the bottom up than from the top down. Our attention must be even more laser-focused on school boards, town councils and county commissions as on state legislatures, governor’s mansions, Congress and the White House. I urge readers to attend school board meetings . . . not to outshout, but to listen and to learn and to grasp. I urge you to volunteer to register voters, to join campaigns and to never, ever except toxic political strategies where elbow grease is needed.

 We close with a thought from Toni Morrison which says it all: "There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal."

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone 

Enough!

About a week ago, Catherine Rampell, one of the Washington Post’s best and brightest young op-ed writers, published an opinion piece entitled “The GOP rebrands itself as the party of tax cheats.” Her essay began:

Once upon a time, Republicans portrayed themselves as the party of small government and family values. Recently, though, GOP leaders have been cobbling together a new coalition, welcoming insurrectionists, white-nationalist tiki-torchers and people who think Bill Gates is trying to microchip them.

The latest recruit to the Big Tent? Tax cheats.

Ms. Rampell’s excellent article delved into the issue of the approximately $600 billion of legally owed, but un-paid taxes of the wealthiest 1% in this country.  Putting this ghastly figure into perspective, she noted: “For scale, that’s roughly equal to all federal income taxes paid by the lowest-earning 90 percent of taxpayers. . . . To be clear, rank-and-file wage-earners are not necessarily more honest or patriotic. It’s just much harder for them to shortchange Uncle Sam.

She then went on to explain how Congressional Democrats were attempting to pass legislation which would make it far more difficult for the über-wealthy to “sneak unpaid liabilities past the I.R.S.”

Of course, keeping taxes on both huge corporations and hyper-wealthy individuals as low as possible is really nothing new. Remember the macroeconomic theory of the Reagan years known as “Supply-Side Economics” or its genetic model, the so-called “Laffer Curve,” which showed that lowering tax rates for the wealthy and the corporations they own, ultimately led to increased consumer spending, which ultimately raised tax revenues for the middle class? Although never referred to by name in polite company anymore, “Supply-Side Economics” is just as much an article of faith in 21st century Republicanism as it was 40+ years ago.

As the Biden Administration and a near majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill are hammering out the largest domestic spending increase of the past 80 years, Republicans have firmly mired their boots in hardened concrete. Whether or not they favor federal funding on dams, roads, bridges and the like, they are fully against raising taxes by so much as a dime in order to pay for it. They are planning on scaring the daylights out of working class Americans between now and 2022 by warning them that regardless of what the Democrats promise, they fully favor raising their taxes in order to pay for all the “ needless goodies” like universal pre-K, childcare, climate change etc.

Are the Republicans really that near-sighted and hard-hearted? Many, I fear, are. But many more, I firmly believe, have a different motive responding to any and all Biden proposals with a near unanimous thumbs-down: keeping their wealthiest mega donors writing all those big fat checks which keep them in office. Without corporate and PAC dollars, they might just lose their seats, their power and self-worth.

While pondering the venality of America’s billionaire and multi-centimillionaire class, I found myself wanting to get them - the fantastically rich - to answer a single question: “What are you going to do with all the additional millions your Republican lapdogs lay aside for you? How many more mansions, yachts or private jets do you need? Is an additional billion or two or ten going to make you any happier, healthier or more content?”

While pondering this, I found myself remembering a brief piece the late Kurt Vonnegut wrote about his late friend, the writer Joseph Heller, whose most famous work was Catch-22. Published in the New Yorker back in May of 2005 the “poem” was, in a sense, Vonnegut’s eulogy to Heller. It was simply entitled:

Joe Heller

True story, Word of Honor:

Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer

now dead,

and I were at a party given by a billionaire

on Shelter Island.

I said, “Joe, how does it make you feel

to know that our host only yesterday

may have made more money

than your novel ‘Catch-22’

has earned in its entire history?”

And Joe said, “I’ve got something he can never have.”

And I said, “What on earth could that be, Joe?”

And Joe said, “The knowledge that I’ve got enough.”

Not bad! Rest in peace!”

I can justs imagine some of the negative, name-calling emails I’m going to be receiving from some of my readers; otherwise good and kind people who go bat crap crazy when anyone even suggests that there should be some sort of limitation on unfettered, untaxed wealth. They will no doubt accuse me of being a naïve, idealist, a radical relic of the sixties who wants nothing more than to take away lucre from the rich and shower it upon the poor. They will likely remind me that they “. . .earned their own fortunes by their own ingenuity and the sweat of their own brows,” and that “. . . those who want riches should bloody well go out and earn it for themselves!” Sorry if I’ve ruffled your truffle, but to my way of thinking, its time to unstack the deck; to make it possible for the have-nots to climb aboard the stairway to the middle-class. And if building that stairway means allocating funds to healthcare, childcare and education; to creating millions of jobs through greater expenditures on climate change, clean water and clean air . . . so be it.

I do not mean to lump all billionaires and their “poorer cousins” - the multi-centimillionaires - into a single cauldron of cupidity. I am well aware of all the those hyper-wealthy souls who, at the urging of Bill and Melinda French Gates and Warren Buffett joined in and took the “Giving Pledge” to donate no less than half their fortunes to charitable organizations and causes either during their lifetime or in their wills. Thus far, the group has donated tens upon tens of billions of dollars to various causes and philanthropies. Ironically, one small snag has emerged: though they’ve promised to shed at least half of their wealth for the common good, many of the billionaires are richer than ever . . . this, according to the Institute for Policy Studies noted in a recent article. This piece noted that, “. . .while some pledgers earnestly intend to fulfill their promises, many are unable to because their assets are simply growing too fast.”

What a world!

While I do not hold out a great deal of hope for the most visionary and generous aspects of President Biden’s spending plan to be enacted, I do, nonetheless, applaud him and his supporters on Capitol Hill - many of whom, like Speaker Pelosi (CA), Senators Mark Warner (VA), Dianne Feinstein (CA), and Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Reps. Don Beyer (VA), John Yarmuth (KY), Suzane DelBene (WA). Scott Peters (CA), Hugh Auchincloss (MA) and Lloyd Doggett (TX) - multi-millionaires all - for trying their utmost to pass meaningful legislation.

They, like the late Joseph Heller, are fully in agreement with a truly important two-syllable word:

ENOUGH!

Copyright2021, Kurt F. Stone 

Texas: The Lone Tzar State

Ask the average non-Texan what the state’s official slogan or motto is and you’ll likely here the words “The Lone Star State” . . . and they’d be wrong. Actually, in 1930, the state legislature made “Friendship” its official motto, According to state historians and southwestern etymologists. "Texas" or "Tejas" is a Spanish pronunciation of a name for the native Indian Caddo tribe and their land.  The Caddo's (or Tejas') name for allies or friendship is taysha. The Spanish in this way, adopted a derivation of taysha as a descriptive name for the friendly tribes in what is today Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. In this way the Texas motto "friendship" may be intended to symbolize a hopeful fertile fusion of Western and Native American culture.

(It should be noted that Howard Hughes [1905-1976] one of Texas’ most famous and eccentric native sons, named his film production company “The Caddo Company.”  Under that name, Hughes produced such classic films as “Scarface,” “Hell’s Angels” “The Front Page,” and “Two Arabian Knights,” which won the first - and only - Academy Award for Best Comedy in 1927).

As a kid growing up in the ‘50s, the two things I knew about Texas were Davy Crocket (starring Fess Parker) and Gene Autry singing Deep in the Heart of Texas (which he also wrote). I was also aware that Lyndon Johnson was a senator who went by the initials L.B.J., and had quite a drawl.  What I did not realize was that "The Friendship State” was also the home to some of the weirdest, most right-wing nuts imaginable.  In terms of politics, Texas was about as Deep South as one could get; Democrat to the core.  Until LBJ became  an accidental president in 1963 and then rammed through both the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Medicare (1965), about the only progressive who ever came out of the state was the late Senator Ralph Yarborough.  Since then Texas has developed some progressive pockets, sending the likes of Barbara Jordan, Sheila Jackson Lee, Al Green and Juaquin Castro to the House of Representatives and electing Ann Richards Governor of the state. 

Today, Texas has the reputation for electing some of the farthest right, most autocratic members of the “loony tunes brigade” such as Senator Ted “Cancun” Cruz, Rep. Louie Gohmert and current Governor Greg Abbott.  Texas, like many states, has some of the strangest laws on the books:

• In Texas, it is illegal to milk another person’s cow;

• Criminals must give their victims 24-hour notice before committing a crime, either orally or in writing;

• It's against the law to sell Limburger cheese on Sundays in Houston;

• It's illegal to emit obnoxious odors while on an elevator in Port Arthur;

• Any person who sits on a sidewalk in Galveston may be fined up to $500.

(OK, you can also find crazy laws in just about any city or state if you know where to look . . .)

• Between Governor Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, Attorney General Ken Paxton and the state legislature, Texas has become the nation’s leader in oppressive, partisan political action - a “Lone Tzar State” if you will.  Not only do the folks of this state fry everything they eat and pack guns in public places, their leaders have enacted laws and executive actions which:

• Makes abortion all but illegal for anyone (except those with the financial means to travel out of state);

• Have gerrymandered the state’s Congressional Districts to make the election of minority candidates (read: black, brown and non-Christian) near impossible;

• Drastically changed election laws thereby aiding GOP incumbents and decreasing minority representation;

• Outlawed virtually any and every mask mandate in the state;

• Passed Texas law HB3979, which seeks to restrict discussion of race and history in schools.  Ostensibly, this law was enacted in order to make the teaching of Critical Race Theory (which in matter of fact isn’t part of any school district’s curriculum), thereby scoring points with their ultra-conservative, largely fundamentalist political base.  The law, among other things, mandates that social studies teachers can't "require" or include in their courses, the concept that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex" or the concept that "an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously."   (please do note how poorly written this section is!)

The act, which Governor Abbot signed into law on September 1, 2021, notes that "a teacher may not be compelled to discuss a particular current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs." Teachers, according to the bill, can't require or give extra credit for a student's political activism.  The craziest part of the bill makes it mandatory that if a teacher does engage in such a discussion, the teacher is required to "explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective."  It would seem that no one in the Lone Tzar State paid attention to where this bill might lead — like teaching an “opposing view” with regards to the Holocaust.

How’s that you say?

Just the other day NBC News revealed a leaked audio clip in which a top administrator with Southlake Texas’s Carroll Independent School District advised teachers that if they have books on the Holocaust in the classroom, they should also include “opposing” viewpoints on it.  The school district’s executive director of curriculum and instruction was quoted as saying “Just try to remember the concepts of [House Bill] 3979 […] And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust, that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.”

“How do you oppose the Holocaust?” one teacher can be overheard saying in response.

“Believe me. That’s come up,” Peddy responded.

The release of the audio recording resulted in widespread controversy. The school district released a statement saying the comments in the recording “were in no way to convey that the Holocaust was anything less than a terrible event in history. Additionally, we recognize there are not two sides of the Holocaust.”

Holocaust denial is spreading with every passing year.  According to Deborah Lipstadt, author of the seminal 1993 work Denying the  Holocaust and President Biden’s nominee to become the United States Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combatting anti-Semitism, "When you learn the history of the Holocaust, you are not simply learning about the past. These lessons remain relevant today in order to understand not only anti-Semitism but also all the other 'isms' of society. There is real danger to letting them fade."  

It seems that with every passing week, Texas and its lone Tzar Governor are enacting bills and issuing executive orders which capture the imaginations of autocratic wannabes around the country. These acts and pronouncements - whether they deal with what they insist are “election integrity,” or gerrymandering, the outlawing of mandates and restrictions, or the banning of critical thinking within our schools, all stand a good chance of falling prey to what the seminal sociologist Robert K. Merton (Meyer Robert Schkolnick) referred to as the “law of unintended consequences.” I rather doubt Tzar Greg had given enough thought in signing HB3979 to realize that it could actually lead to putting a positive spin on der Führer. Then again, the purpose of the law was the rewriting of American history . . . at least in terms of race relations. Talk about unintended consequences!

Other unintended consequences - and not just in the Lone Tzar State, but across the entire country - deal with the twin issues of “Stopping the Steal” and the enforcement of anti-masking, anti-vaxxing legislation.  Both issues are meant to stimulate stronger support from core Trumpeters; both can, in reality, lead  to the diminution of their numbers at the ballot box - either because they don’t trust those who count votes so why even show up, and/or there are fewer anti-vaxxers out there because they have died. 

I can live with the former; they (the anti-mask, anti-vax crowd) I regret to say, cannot live with the latter.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

In the Words of Hedy Lamarr ("That's HEDLEY!")

                   Harvey Korman as Hedley Lamarr in “Blazing Saddles”

Without question, Mel Brooks’ “Blazing Saddles” is one of the greatest comedies ever produced. Who can suppress a belly-laugh during the campfire bean-eating scene? Or not chortle  at the very name “Lili Von Shtüpp,” the send-up of Marlene Dietrich  for which the late Madeleine Kahn was nominated for an Academy Award? Then there’s Governor Lepetomane’s power- behind-the-throne “Hedley Lamarr,” as played by the marvelous Harvey Korman, who is given some of the picture’s best lines, such as “My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives,” to which his dumber-than-dirt side-kick Taggart (played by Slim Pickens) responds “God darnit, Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.”

Again, without question, Blazing Saddle’s best lines belong to Hedley, the most dexterous of which of comes when he is telling Taggart about the gang of miscreants he wants rounded up in order to overthrow the town of Rock Ridge: “I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.”

I don’t know about you, but to me, this sounds a lot like former President Trump’s cattle call for the January 6 insurrection. But in this case, the verbal shopping list wasn’t meant for merely one set of ears (Taggart) but rather for a handful of co-conspirators, among whom were Chief of staff Mark Meadows, presidential aide Dan Scavino, professional grizzled hobo Steve Bannon and determined remora Kash Patel. (The remora by the way, which in the world of ichthyology, is known as the “suckerfish,” is known for getting a “free ride” on host fish.  As such, remora has also come to describe a person or a group of people who get a free ride and a free meal by way of the efforts of others.)  

As of today, Donald Trump’s gang of “. . . mugs, pugs, nitwits, halfwits et al are in severe legal jeopardy.  Although “Rock Ridge” (the nation’s Capitol) has not been torn down, they themselves have all been subpoenaed by the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Not surprisingly all 4 have declared that they will neither honor said subpoenas nor turn over any documents relevant to their participation in the January 6 insurrection.  And more on point, Trump, the FPOTUS (“Former President of the United States”) has also declared that he will not hand over any documents related to the insurrection, claiming that he is protected by Executive Privilege.” (n.b. There is a possibility that members of the former president’s staff who have yet to be issued subpoenas are speaking to the Select Committee behind closed doors, away from the spotlight, in order to save their hides and future careers.)

This is - or in any event should be - a non-starter; there is absolutely no mention of executive privilege in the Constitution. Richard Nixon, who knew one hell of a lot more about what was in that document than the immediate FPOTUS, learned his lesson the hard way . . . and resigned office before he could be arrested. (And while it is highly likely that arrangements had already been made for Nixon’s hand-picked successor, Gerald R. Ford, to pardon Nixon, there are precisely two chances that current President Biden has made the same sort of arrangement with his predecessor: absolutely none and one hell of a lot less than that.)

Battle lines between the White House, the Select Committee and those who remain steadfastly in support of Donald Trump have been both widening and hardening in recent days. For in addition to the various subpoenas handed down, President Biden announced this past Friday his steadfast demand that the FPOTUS hand over thousands upon thousands of pages dealing with January 6 to the Department of Justice. Trump swiftly responded with the “Executive Privilege” argument, calling Democrats “drunk on power” and insisting that “this assault on the Constitution and important legal precedent will not work.” Without question, the Constitutional issues involved here are soon to be headed into federal court.

Legal experts say they think Biden, as the sitting president, is far more likely to prevail in court than Trump. But they also say that the legal questions raised by this conflict are highly significant.

“This is one of the historic tests of executive power,” says Walter E. Dellinger III, the Solicitor General under President Bill Clinton and the
Douglas B. Maggs Professor Emeritus of Law at Duke University. Still, he says, “the decision of the current president not to assert executive privilege is going to weigh heavily” on those having to make the decision. Select Committee member - and longtime Constitutional law professor - Jamie Raskin, speaking about Trump’s lawyer’s assertion that Congress has no claim on any information put it succinctly: “This is a matter of the utmost seriousness, and we need to consider the full panoply of enforcement sanctions available to us. And that means criminal contempt citations, civil contempt citations and the use of Congress’s own inherent contempt powers.”

 The last of these -- “Congress’s own inherent contempt powers” - - is found not in the Constitution, but rather in the U.S. Code (Title 2, Section 192), but has not been used since 1934. According to the Code, Congress has the unilateral authority to fine or even jail recalcitrant witnesses. The offender(s), after being cited for contempt of Congress, is/are  tried on the floor of the chamber of Congress invoking the power. If a majority affirms the contempt charge, they may instruct the Sergeant at Arms to arrest the offender(s) and detain them in the Congressional jail [yes, there is one in the basement of the Capitol] or until they comply with the subpoena or until the end of the session. This is highly unlikely to be employed, mainly because it would all but certainly involve a lengthy court battle involving Trump and his “mugs, pugs and  thugs” which would no doubt run on the front pages of papers as well as the twenty-four-hours-a-day-seven-days-a-week propaganda industrial complex for years to  come . . . thus giving Republicans a political issue for the ages. 

To my way of thinking, even before the House Select Committee concludes hearings and issues its final report, it should begin working in tandem with Attorney General Garland and the Department of Justice.  Let the DOJ do its job.  With the legislative and executive branches working together, they then should be able to issue arrest warrants and ultimately put the sowers of sedition in prison. And it could, as an added benefit, force individual Republican office-holders and future candidates to go on record as to whether or not they support those who sought the dismemberment of our democracy.

Insurrection is not a matter that should be taken blithely; it carries serious sanctions which should be undertaken for the sake of our future as a nation.

How do you like them eggs Hedy . . .  (that’s HEDLEY!)

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

What Does Tucker Carlson See in Viktor Orban?

Let’s assume that most, if not all of you reading this piece know who Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson is. For the few who don’t, Tucker (1969- ), is the son of Richard “Dick” Warner Carlson, a former “gonzo” journalist who eventually became the director of the Voice of America, president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles. When Tucker was nearly 10, his father married Patricia Swanson, an heiress to the Swanson Food Enterprises fortune. Tucker is a Paleoconservative news commentator for Fox News. As of the beginning of 2021, he is the most-watched, most popular commentator on cable television. Estimates of his salary at Fox range from $6-25 million a year. The ultimate preppy who received his undergraduate education at St. George’s School in Rhode Island (where he chaired the “Dan White Society” [an apparent reference to the American political assassin who murdered San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk] and married the headmaster’s daughter Susan), Carlson has long been a vocal opponent of progressivism, a critic of immigration, and has been described as a racist, misogynistic, ultra-nationalist. He is also a first-class pain in the ass, who while on camera interviewing someone he disagrees with, is well-known for maintaining a look of puzzlement; at times variously frowning and raising an eyebrow in supposed consternation. 

This past week, Tucker Carlson broadcast live from Budapest, where he spent a good deal of time interviewing and exchanging grins with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who heads an authoritarian government bent on targeting liberal institutions, including universities, the judiciary and the media. While in Hungary, Carlson took a helicopter to inspect a border fence designed to keep out migrants. Yes, in addition to all his other political phobias, P.M. Orban is also a xenophobe. Carlson’s visit bolsters Mr. Orban’s mission to establish Budapest as an ideological center for what he sees as an international conservative movement. 

Orban (1960- ) who refers to his governing philosophy as “illiberal” democracy, has, over the past twenty years, been compared to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, France’s Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump . . . which tells you just about all you need to know about the corrupt Hungarian autocrat. To Tucker Carlson and a growing number of American paleoconservatives, Orban is a shining star; a guidepost on the path to a new America built for – and run by – white Christian men who bar the gates to most of the world’s “struggling masses yearning to breathe free,” and use whatever conspiracies they might concoct in order to keep their camp followers scared witless.

In his first nightly newscast from Budapest, Carlson praised Hungary as a “small country with a lot of lessons for the rest of us,” and held up Hungary’s hardline policy on rejecting asylum seekers as a model for an American immigration system that he believes is too lenient and has weakened the power of native-born citizens, an argument that Carlson’s critics say overlaps with white supremacist ideology. Carlson also praised Hungarian Prime Minister Orban for not allowing "this nation of 10 million people to be changed forever by people we didn't invite in and who are coming here illegally.” To make sure his US viewers understood his message, he contrasted Mr Orban's policies with those of President Biden:

"Because the lessons are so obvious, and such a clear refutation to the policies we currently have, and the people who instituted those policies, Hungary and its government have been ruthlessly attacked and unfairly attacked: 'It's authoritarian, they're fascists…' There are many lies being told right now, that may be the greatest of all."

Unbelievably, Carlson has gone so far off the rails as to claim that Hungary is “freer than America.” In Orban’s Hungary, the ultimate preppie told his fellow travelers, their leader refers to white Christians as “the original inhabitants” of the country. Carlson treats this vision of national identity as fundamental to Hungary’s “success.” As Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent recently noted: According to Carlson, here [in America] . . . you’ll be silenced by Silicon Valley or hounded from your job if you dare criticize the “orthodoxy” of liberal internationalism and social liberalism — that is, if you yearn for association with a national identity that is culturally insulated and unsullied by socially liberal threats (like “transgender athletes”) to traditional conservative values. Who’s freer? If you’re an American, the answer is painful to admit.

It would be a pleasure to say that Tucker Carlson is a lone voice in this disgraceful, despotic forest. But alas, he is not; far from it. As the Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum noted in an essay which came out just the other day, The aggrieved Americans who now find their way to Orbán or Vladimir Putin also dislike their own country, albeit for different reasons. They cannot abide its racial diversity, its modern culture, its free press. Those who dream of a white-tribalist alternative—one that also puts pressure on gay people and uses anti-Semitic tropes in its propaganda—believe they have found this nirvana at dinners and think-tank events in Budapest. What American paleoconservatives fail - or even worse, refuse - to recognize is the irony that under a nationalist autocrat like Orban, it’s impossible for a Hungarian equivalent of Carlson—a loud television pundit, critical of the government, watched by millions of people—to exist. In Hungary, the ruling party doesn’t merely influence the press. It owns the bulk of the press, and not metaphorically.

My dear “Pal Al” Blake - the nicest Yankee fan I know – sent me an email the other day asking whether it might work for people to start boycotting Tucker Carlson’s advertisers on Fox.  Well, I looked it up, and to my amazement discovered that at his peak the likes of Disney, T-Mobile and the brokerage firm Ameritrade were among those who paid big bucks to keep him on the air. Of late, most have left the fold. In the second quarter of 2021, Tucker Carlson Tonight had as its most prolific sponsors “Fox News Channel” (17 airings), “My Pillow” (13 airings), “Balance of Nature” (9 airings) and “Rejuvenate Muscle Health” (5 airings.) Could it be that the preppie who has been at the forefront of pushing anti-vaccine theories, called the Joint Chiefs of Staff head “a pig” and continually talked up replacement theory is now on a downward spiral? Well, in the words of Elliott Ness, “Follow the money.”

To give the paleoconservative Carlson the benefit of the doubt (why, I do not know . . . but I guess that’s the rabbi in me), that he truly doesn’t believe much more than a soupçon of the bilge he broadcasts on Fox, his cynicism about America is so profound, and his nihilism so overpowering, that he simply does not care. If he can make people angry, he achieves his most important goal. Sound like anyone who served as POTUS from 2017-2021?

This is all very, very dangerous stuff.  People like Tucker Carlson, Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Green, Paul Gosar and Matt Gaetz as well as Governors Ron De Santis  and Greg Abbott (and let’s not forget the terrorists of January 6), American Democracy stands atop a desperate precipice.  

If anyone had told me back in the 1960s that a half-century later I would consider myself and fellow “freaks” more patriotic than the “straights,” I would have asked them what in the hell they were smoking. But this is no more the case.  As we used to say back in the days of the Free Speech Movement and People’s Park . . . “let your freak flag fly” . . .

Don’t give in, and above all, don’t give up: America is not and never shall be Hungary . . . or Russia or Brazil.  We are the land of the free and the home of everyone . . . 

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Way Down East in the Land of Lobsters

Audio Block

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

Maine, the easternmost state in the nation is tiny. According to the most recent census, it is home to a mere 1.344 million people (42nd smallest in the nation). In 2018, HealthIQ.com named Maine the nation’s 3rd most vegan state; in 2010, a study found Maine to be the least religious state in the United States; in 2018, Bon Appetit magazine name Portland, the state’s most populous city (population c. 67,000) “Restaurant City of the Year.” By far, the most famous people to hail from Maine have been Nelson A. Rockefeller, Dorothea Dix, film director John Ford (to my way of thinking the greatest of them all), as well as writers Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Edna St. Vincent Millay, E.B. White, and Stephen King.

Maine is also known for its pristine parks and waters, and for producing more lobster, crabs and kelp (seaweed) than any other state in the nation. These have long provided a steady flow of jobs and income for the state whose motto Dirigo (Latin for “I lead” or “I direct”) has long set a striding point for the people of this physically beautiful, utterly delightful state. (Springtide Seaweed, the nation’s largest organic seaweed farm, can also be found on the shores of Frenchman Bay, located in a onetime cannery.)

But much of this is now in jeopardy, and cries out for our help . . . no matter whether we live in Maine, Florida, Ohio or Washington State.   

So what is the challenge?   

According to a troubling, fact-filled article published in the July 23rd, 2021 edition of the Boston Globe Magazine, there is a move afoot on the part of a firm larded with Norwegian investors called American Aquafarms to build the world’s largest “closed cage” ocean-based salmon farm — 30 circular pens, each 150 feet in diameter — on two sites covering 120 acres in the heart of Frenchman Bay (shown in photo). According to Globe writer Ellen Rupell Shell, “At full capacity, the annual yield of the [proposed] farm is projected to be 66 million pounds [of salmon], three times the total production of the state’s only other large salmon farming operation.”  And here’s both the rub and the challenge: not only would the “aqua farm” cause Maine’s lobster industry (which represents a substantial percentage of the state’s annual income) to plummet by as much as 62% and likely cause the nation’s largest kelp/seaweed business to collapse; it would cost thousands upon thousands of jobs, and destroy one of the most Edenic places in the United States. . . Frenchman Bay.

A brief word about Frenchman Bay (called by some “Maine’s most dramatic bay”): Likely named for Samuel de Champlain, the French explorer who visited the area in 1604, it was an important staging point for French warships preparing to fight the English during “King William’s War” (1689-97).  Located in Hancock County, the bay is bounded on the east by the Schoodic Peninsula, and on the west by Mount Desert Island; parts of both are in Acadia National Park. The area has long been the summer home of rich easterners (including several generations of Bushes whose compound, “Walker Point Estate” has been in the family for more than 100 years) and provided the state with a significant financial base. 

Frenchman Bay also has a highly fragile and vulnerable ecosystem; because it is served by no large rivers, the bay’s ability to flush out waste is rather limited.  And this presents yet another glaring problem with American Aquafarm’s proposed “closed cage” salmon farm. It would likely force the remaining lobsters (already beginning to suffer from the effects of global warming) to move north (thus decimating an entire industry) and turn a historically untarnished biome into an ecological trash heap.  And to what end?  Profit my friend . . . tons and tons of profit for shareholders who will never have to witness precisely what their investment hath wrought.

From Norway, American Aquafarm’s vice president Eirik Jors (founder and former CEO of a Nordic securities firm), insists that what he calls his company’s “cutting-edge” closed-pen technology — built around a cavernous fabric bag tucked around the pen to collect debris and ward off pests — will prioritize fish health and “on average” capture 90 percent of solid waste, thus minimizing ocean pollution and deadly algae blooms.

One should note, however, that the cited technologies have not as yet, to the best of my knowledge, been tested under Maine conditions, making their potential for ecological impairment unknown.  Then too, Norway, the world’s standard-setter in commercial fish farming, has extremely strict environmental regulations that include — among other things — limiting the size and density of aquafarming operations. The salmon farm that American Aquafarms has proposed for Maine will have 20 to 60 percent higher density of fish than would be permitted in Norwegian waters.  How does American Aquafarms expect to accomplish this “miracle” in the face of a lot of lots and lots of devoted Mainers who fervently oppose the salmon farm?  One way might be for American Aquafarms to spread tons of $$$ to members of state government and convince them that it will be in everyone’s best interest to give the project the go-ahead. 

Sound familiar?

Don’t get me wrong: I am by no means against capitalism; we Stones are still beneficiaries of our father’s career as a stock broker. Nonetheless, I’ve never been sanguine with those whose drive for profit all but blinds them to the rest of reality. I mean, what good is yet another fortune if in so doing it ultimately destroys the ecological balance?  Can more millions shield anyone from increased global warming, a decimated environment or the utter destruction of the brilliant balance the Good Lord constructed during the six days of creation?  I for one find it utterly stupefying.  If a lobbyist temps a stakeholder with a treasure, what will that treasure avail him/her if it ultimately adds to the destruction of other living creatures?  Let’s just hope that there are far more people out there who love the lobsters of Frenchman Bay than pots of gold. 

We Americans are a most resilient people.  Born of revolutionary fervor and nurtured by the concept of e pluribus unum (Latin for “out of many, one”) we have the unique ability to band together as Davidic warriors when it comes to going up against the Goliaths who attack us. This is precisely what is going on up in Maine.  I urge readers to check out the website of the Frenchman Bay United Organization – a group of brothers and sisters who have banded together to stop the raping of their beloved corner of the ecosphere.    I am in personal contact with many of them, offering what little advice I can for their campaign against those who would trade in their lobster/kelp culture for the big business of salmon farming.  They are good people who deserve both our praise and assistance . . . regardless of where we live.  

The good people of Frenchman Bay United Organization are of course striving to keep the issue before state leaders from Maine Governor Janet T. Mills (who just announced she is running for reelection) on down to members of the state legislature and local municipal leaders.  Precisely how much lobbyist money is going to ultimately flow around the state (on the part of the pro-fish farming gang) is as yet uncertain.  What is known is that the folks of Frenchman Bay, Acadia National Park and beyond possess something the deep-pocketed investors and lobbyists do not: people power. 

Although I don’t personally indulge in lobsters, clams, oysters or other treyf delicacies (keeping kosher will do that), I nonetheless whole-heartedly applaud and support the efforts of both the people and the shellfish who love Frenchman Bay.

Check out their website and see if you can lend a hand . . .

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

We Alone Can Fix It

In their riveting, best-seller on the final year of Donald Trump’s presidency (Only I Can Fix It) crack Washington Post writers Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker have thrown open the doors and windows of an Oval Office and an administration which perpetually put personal gain and political triumph well above the needs, interests and future of the people of the United States, and thus the world. Far from being a partisan political screed, Leonnig’s and Rucker’s book is a day-by-day, moment-by-moment account of what history will likely remember as being the most misguided presidency in this nation’s history - ever since the day George Washington took the oath of office in New York. Speaking of our country’s first President, Trump actually had the delusional chutzpah to claim “I think it would be hard if George Washington came back from the dead, and he chose Abraham Lincoln as his vice president, I think it would have been very hard for them to beat me.”

In their painstakingly-documented work, Leonnig and Rucker dispassionately show Trump’s growing inability to respond to the Covid pandemic, thus separating the nation’s health from his own political needs - most specifically, of wiping up the electoral floor with former Vice President Joseph Biden in the November election 2020. Most of us well remember reading about Trump’s personal encounter with Covid-19; of his brief hospitalization at Walter Reed, and his sudden return to the White House. Upon reading that he had been treated with a pharmaceutical cocktail of Dexamethasone (a steroid commonly used to treat asthma and rheumatoid arthritis), the experimental drug Remdesivir, (a monoclonal antibody cocktail, also called REGN-COV2), Zinc, Vitamin D, famotidine (Pepsid, to treat ulcers), Melatonin (commonly used to treat insomnia) and aspirin, I thought it to be a rather bizarre medical package with many potential side effects. Particularly the first, Dexamethasone, whose known side effects include paranoia, delirium and hallucinations. From this point on (October 2020) Trump seemed to get weirder and weirder . . .

Trump’s political modus operandi was all about down-playing the seriousness of the Covid-19 virus, and proclaiming - against all available medical evidence - that warm weather (or hydroxychloroquine or internally administered bleach) were just what the doctor ordered — precisely which docs he never got around to telling us. Those who remember his presidential press gatherings will no doubt recall the severely pained, looking down at their shoes responses of such MDs as Deborah Birx (the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator) and Anthony Fauci (the then long, longtime Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and today, President Biden’s Chief Medical Advisor).

Then there was the issue of wearing masks, maintaining social distance and keeping public crowds to an absolute minimum. With all these issues, Trump and his closest advisors came out on the wrong - the strictly political - side of the challenge.  As early as October 2020, Trump told his team that he would not wear a mask in public because he thought it would “make me look weak” in the eyes of his supporters.  In one rambling comment, Trump told a reporter: I just don’t want to be doing — I don’t know, somehow sitting in the Oval Office behind that beautiful Resolute Desk, the great Resolute Desk. I think wearing a face mask as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings, queens — I don’t know, somehow I don’t see it for myself. I just, I just don’t.”  Truth to tell, there were any number of high-ranking members of the  administration who paid close attention to what the medical folks were advising. But for many, their tight-lipped approval wound up being a one-way ticket back to the private sector.

As time went on, the Trump version of Covid-19, masking and what its true dangers might be, seeped into the very marrow of his political base . . .  including those who were and are most comfortable with conspiracy theories. They decided that if their leader wouldn’t wear a mask, neither would they;  if their local leaders told them that vaccines were more dangerous than the virus itself, they surely would never submit to a vaccination which included electronic tracking devices . . . and on and on.  

Eventually, Trump and his team came up with their version of FDR’s Manhattan Project: they called it Operation Warp Speed; the name was derived from Star Trek’s imaginary USS Enterprise’s ability to travel at a speed faster than light. Trump’s greatest priority was creating a vaccine (a “cure”) by early November 2020 - just before America went to the polls.  Turns out that the British pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca came through with a vaccine that was highly effective in blocking transmission of the virus first.  Jared Kusher, the president’s son-in-law quickly brokered a $1.2 billion deal to purchase 300 million of the first one billion doses the  company planned to produce. When told this, his father-in-law “sounded deflated” in Leonnig and Rucker’s words.  “I’m going to get killed,” the president said.  “Oh, this is terrible news.  (British P.M.) Boris Johnson is going to  have a field day with this. . . . I don’t want any press on this” Trump told Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar (the former CEO of Eli Lilly & Co. “Don’t do any press on this.  Let’s wait.” 

And so they had to wait until January 21, 2021 - the first day of the Biden administration - to make “Operation Warp Speed” completely functional.

As we head into August, 2021, America and the world are entering a new phase in the COVID19 pandemic. In the past month alone, cases of COVID-19 have tripled, and hospitalizations and deaths are rising among unvaccinated people. While the rates are still sharply down from their January highs, officials are concerned by the reversing trendlines and what they consider needless illness and death. Where at the beginning of June the CDC advised that those who were vaccinated were pretty much out of the woods and that schools, businesses and sporting venues could pretty much resume as before, by the end of July President Biden, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Wilensky and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the president’s chief medical advisor, are urging that due to the Delta mutation and the fact that so many, many Americans are refusing to be vaccinated, we are likely going to see the return of masks, social distancing and a massive campaign to get people immunized.   “Look,” the POTUS said just the other day, “the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated.”

Indeed, there are now approximately 90 million Americans who have yet to get shots. Just four states with low vaccination rates made up 40% of new cases last week, and nearly half of them came from Florida alone. Those of us living here in Florida are well aware of how Governor Ron DeSantis (a.k.a. “Donald Trump’s ‘Mini Me’”) has placed economy over health and actually threatened to fine any business, school or cruise line for mandating people to show proof of having been vaccinated against COVID-19. And, it is strictly against the law here in the “Sunshine State” to mandate the wearing of masks.  According to statistics provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation, states, and individual Congressional Districts that voted for Donald Trump in 2020 had a significantly lower percentage of adults receiving COVID19 vaccinations than states and districts that gave their votes to Joe Biden.  Not only does the rate of the vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated show a partisan political divide, so too does educational level (the lower the amount of schooling, the smaller the percentage of those receiving vaccines) and then there’s  urban-versus rural.  

According to Dr. Fauci, the U.S. is in an “unnecessary predicament . . . . We’re going in the wrong direction.”  And just as the number of those entering hospitals is on the rise, so too are conspiracy theories which keep people from seeking prophylactic measures.  Case in point: when the president suggested that healthcare volunteers go “door'-to-door” talking to people about the importance of getting themselves vaccinated, Representative Madison Cawthorn (R.-NC) warned “Now they’re talking about going door-to-door to take vaccines to the people . . . . Then think about what those mechanisms could be used for,” Cawthorn darkly warned. “They could then go door-to-door to take your guns. They could then go door-to-door to take your Bibles.” 

Although I am a firm supporter of the Constitution’s 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech, this is going too far; it is akin  to violating Justice Holmes’ dictum from the 1919 Schenck v. United States case about "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."  Those who spread these kinds of vile lies via the internet, blogs or the so-called “dark net/dark web” should be fined and be held accountable.  Period.  This is playing with people’s lives, and from what I can see or tell, for purely political reasons.

So obviously, Donald Trump’s claim about “Only I Can Fix It” contained a massive dose of what Grandma used to refer to as “canal water.”  I would like to amend this and state  that  when it comes to the current grave challenge, “Only we can fix it.”  And despite the rapid rise in new cases of COVID-19 and the Delta variant; despite the even greater levels of anger, fear and brainlessness which adhere to imbecilic anti-vaxxers,  there are some challenges which we may well be able to fix.  Increasingly over the past few weeks, there are a greater number of people both great and small, beginning to emerge from the anti-vaxxer’s closet.  Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Louisianan Steve Scalise, number two in House Republican leadership  and Alabama Governor Kay Ivey are admitting to having been vaccinated and urging their constituents to do likewise.  Conservative radio and television celebs like talker Phil  Valentine and Fox News’ Sean Hannity are talking up the necessity of being vaccinated.  (Egad . . . for the first time in my life Sean Hannity and I actually agree on something!)

Locally, teachers,  preachers, sports icons and just plain folks are standing up, helping people change their minds . . . coming to the understand that getting a shot and wearing a mask is not  the end of personal freedom . . . but can actually save lives.  I’ve come to believe that where once  these  Republicans used the weapon of fear in order to score  points and win votes, it’s now come too close to home; the time to act like responsible, empathic leaders is now.

I wish I could tell you that having a heart-to-heart conversation with a staunchly anti-vaxx neighbor, friend or family member just might help them change their tune - but I cannot.  Debating people who  choose not to think for themselves is akin to banging one’s head against a brick wall; all you gain is a concussion or a migraine.  And so, unless you are in love with cerebral pain, leave the convincing to those occupying the same original space as the naysayers.

These are difficult times.  However, I do believe that a healthier future is within our grasp - if only we recognize that together, we can fix it. 

Masks on!

Copyright2021 Kurt F. Stone

Is It Finally Time to Stop Being so Damned "Nice?"

“When they go low, we go high.” These were the words of a political catchphrase first made famous by First Lady Michelle Obama at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. “When they go low, we go high,” she said while discussing how to best “handle bullies” in support of Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House. Her motto quickly caught on. Even Secretary Clinton herself used it to defend herself against then-Republican candidate Donald Trump a few months later during their final presidential debate. “Going low is easy, which is why people go to it,” the former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State told Oprah Winfrey in 2020. “It’s easy to go low. It’s easy to lead by fear. It’s easy to be divisive. It’s easy to make people feel afraid. That’s the easy thing and it’s also the short-term thing . . . . When I want to go low, it’s all about my own ego. It’s not about solving anything.... It’s about seeking revenge on the thing that happened to you.”

For quite some time, many of us - mostly Democrats and Independents, but a handful of Republicans to boot - have found Michele Obama’s pronouncement to be on the money; an accommodating, well-conceived and gracious response to irresponsible political lunacy.  But now, after having lived through the first six-months of the Biden presidency - which has, in the main been quite successful despite what the opposition would have their core backers believe  - have begun reconsidering Mrs. Obama’s bon mot. To wit:

• When they go low, we might well consider going even lower;

• When they lie, we must call it out in 1,000 decibel syllables;

• When they insult, we should return fire;

• When they use fear instead of a political platform, we must boldly proclaim what our positions are. 

It’s easier said than done . . .

For as long as many of us can remember, it simply hasn’t been in Democratic DNA to “go low.”  Holding our heads up high and traveling a road of higher elevation has been both our wont and our custom.  The party of FDR, JFK, LBJ, Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden has produced few - if any - demagogues. Oh sure, back in the days of the “solid south” there were any number of Democratic S.O.Bs and racist brutes to make us quake in our brogues and loafers.  But that was then and now is now . . . when the brutes and liars, the fictionalizing fearmongers and abject bigots all seem to be products what was once proudly called “The party of Lincoln.”  Today. it is “The party of Trump,” and whereas it was founded on the lofty principles of  honesty, humanity and justice for all, today it is swirling around a toilet bowl overflowing with grifters, gougers and alarmist prophets of doom.  In these days of paranoid Cassandras, can we continue to afford “going high” when they persist in remaining “low?”

In a recent article entitled For Republicans, ‘Crisis’ Is the Message as the Outrage Machine Ramps Up the New York Times’ Jonathan Weisman summarizes the above by noting: House Republican leaders would like everyone to know that the nation is in crisis. There is an economic crisis, they say, with rising prices and overly generous unemployment benefits; a national security crisis; a border security crisis, with its attendant homeland security crisis, humanitarian crisis, and public health crisis; and a separate energy crisis.  These seemingly disparate issues have one thing in common: they are all meant to scare the pants off of Republicans and reinforce the absolute necessity of ridding America of the “Communist/Socialist Democrats.”  

For fans of Fox News, News Max and One America News America is on verge of becoming a Marxist dictatorship.  The supreme enemies of the state are President Biden (whom, they claim, is suffering from significant mental deficits), Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (both of whom are pushing an obvious Socialist agenda), the six House members making up “The Squad” (who are all virulent anti-Semitic racists) and Dr. Anthony Fauci (whom Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has accused of being "criminally liable" for allegedly helping to create the COVID-19 "bioweapon” and then making a personal fortune off of it. Then too, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the loudest and most pugnacious of all Republicans, has been telling anyone who will listen that that President Biden's face-to-face meeting this past Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Switzerland was a “disaster” which showed that American leader “has no idea who Putin is.”  And let’s not  to forget about Vice President Kamala Harris, she has come under fire for not having visited the nation’s Southern Border while on a recent diplomatic mission to Guatemala and Mexico.

Yes indeed: according to Trumpeters, QAnon aficionados and other assorted conspiratorialists, there is so much to be fearful of . . . and we haven’t even mentioned the teaching of Critical Race Theory (a.k.a. “Lessons in ‘how to hate America’”), stolen elections, the participation of transgender athletes participating in high school sports, and  the taking away of oh so many liberties from “real” Americans by “forcing” them to become vaccinated against COVID-19 and confiscating all their automatic weapons.

As anyone who follows national politics closely knows, there is a lot of tension and dislocation within the Republican Party.  While many give the public impression of being 100% dyed in the wool supporters of the former president, in reality, it is not truly political support they are expressing . . . it is a fear of falling out of favor with their “beloved leader” and facing an even more stridently pro-Trumpeter in the 2022 primary. About the only tie that binds Republicans  together is outrage . . . and fear-mongering. Outrage at what the “Socialistic Democrats” are planning for America, and the  spreading of abject fear. In his aforementioned Times “memo,” Jonathan Weisman noted that “House Republicans, still overwhelmingly in the thrall of Donald J. Trump, have learned over the last four years that grievance, loudly expressed, carries political weight, especially with their core voters.

In other words, House and Senate Republicans are already in full mid-term election mode, stressing not political policies or plans, but the need for a one-party Congress.  They have made abundantly clear that they will stand up defeat whatever Democrats seek to enact, and live up to the old saw that “the best defense is a good offense.”  It also keeps them from having to deal in any way, shape or form with the cataclysm of January 6. 

Republicans have long been far better than Democrats at imparting a sense of impending crisis.  Well, isn’t it about time that the Democrats learn from their so-called “friends across the aisle?” Republicans have long been better than Democrats at imparting a sense of crisis. How many remember the Solyndra crisis?  Congressional Republicans made the failed solar company a household name back in 2011, with heated news conferences, accusatory hearings and angry statements, when the solar company went bankrupt and left the Obama administration — and the taxpayers — the bill for a $535 million federal loan guarantee. This week, an electric pickup truck plant in Lordstown, Ohio, midwifed by the previous president, lost its top executives, its prototype burst into flames and it is on the brink of economic collapse.  And yet, there hasn’t been word one emanating from the Biden White House, Speaker Pelosi’s office or any Democrat of note.  As we used to say in high school, “There are times when you just have to ‘show some hair.’”  If they really tried, Democrats could make Lordstown the new Solyndra.  

Then too, there was the 2012 deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi in Libya, which became a two-year ordeal for Hillary Clinton, thanks to the Republican outrage machine.  Literally dozens of congressional hearings were held, all seeking to turn the then-Secretary of State into the guilty party.  It wasn’t until late June 0f 2016 that the  the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Secretary Clinton in the Libya that left four Americans dead.  The 800-page report delivered a broad rebuke of the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department — and the officials who led them — for failing to grasp the acute security risks in Benghazi, and especially for maintaining outposts there that they could not protect.  And keep in mind, that all of the committees which held hearings were chaired and staffed by Republicans.

Then there was the botched military attack ordered by President Trump in Niger, in which 4 American soldiers died.  Not only did the Republican-controlled Congress fail to look into this tragedy which led to the largest loss of American troops during combat in Africa since the 1993’s “Black Hawk Down” debacle in Somalia; the president fumbled the name of one of the dead and told a grieving widow her husband “knew what he signed up for.”  This debacle quickly became forgotten, due mostly to the Democrats keeping their mouths shut.  Once again, Democrats failed to explain to the American public the gross culpability, insensitivity and incompetence of the other guys.

I say it is time to stop being so damned nice and quit “going high” whenever Republicans “go low.” The traditional Republican playbill, which for eons has stressed “more freedom for individuals with lower taxes, a stronger economy and a safer nation,” has all but evaporated amid a constantly shifting menu of crises and outrages. For whatever reason, most Democratic leaders don’t believe the Republicans’ crisis talk is working, beyond spinning out clicks for right-wing media outlets and Facebook algorithms that thrive on outrage over such things as the decision by Dr. Seuss’s estate to cease publishing works that include egregious racial and ethnic stereotypes or the switch by Hasbro to a non-gendered brand name for its iconic plastic toy, now known as Potato Head. Democrats who truly believe this, do so at their own political peril.

It seems to me that if Democrats really, truly want to counter the Republican “world of crisis,” they must stop going high and, with all apologies to Michelle Obama, attack the current Republican strategy by calling a spade a spade, and replacing that spade with a full-throttled agenda. Democrats are not pernicious Socialists; Republicans are not prideful Patriots.

It’ time to stop being so damn nice, and start fighting pernicious fire with the power of full-throated truth.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

What in the Hell is "Critical Race Theory?"

Received a message the other day through Facebook in which the writer . . . whom I have never met . . . tried to get my goat by writing “For what it’s worth, you have the greatest governor in the country and Florida has become attractive to me in terms of relocation for the first time in my life.” My response was (I hope) pleasantly direct, mostly truthful, and carrying just a smidge of sarcastic humor: “It has long been a hard and fast rule with me that I neither argue, debate nor discuss politics unless I am getting paid. Having written this I will tell you that I've never been all that wild about Florida. I greatly prefer mountains (which we have in great abundance in my native California), which can be enjoyed from a great distance; oceans, on the other hand, require one to live close by in order to get any benefit. Also, I do like an occasional chilly morning and cold night . . . which is virtually impossible in South Florida. Have a great week.”  I have yet to receive a response.  I would suspect that the reader is an avid Trumpeter who has a world-class political crush on Donald Trump’s “Mini-Me,” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. 

This week’s essay is not expressly about the Florida governor; we posted a piece about him (The Clone) this past March 2, so you know something of my thoughts and opinions about him. Rather, this piece is about an issue that DeSantis and most of his Republican colleagues have been increasingly putting under the political electron microscope for the past several months: “Critical Race Theory.” Simply stated, Critical Race Theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that racism is a social construct, and that it is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice (like racism or [dis]organized white supremacy), but  something embedded in legal systems and policies.

Through continually clanging the ultra-conservative claxon and demanding that the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) be made illegal (lest impressionable children be led to “hate the United States”), they hope to create yet another “Marxist” scare tactic which will keep their more gullible supporters on edge and champing at the Trumpian bit to replace Democracy with authoritarianism. Strategically, “Critical Race Theory” motors along the same highway as the spate of restrictive voting laws passed by the majority of Republican-controlled state legislatures (who would have us believe that the 2020 presidential election was rife with corruption and criminality on the part of the “Socialist Left”),  the gutting of any and every attempt to bring sanity and safety to gun ownership in America, and that illegal immigrants - with the blessing of Left - are increasingly entering the country in order to turn us all into Marxist slaves. These sorts of political canards are all meant to create fear of the so-called “Cancel Culture” and “woke,” and place as many restrictions as possible on anyone and everyone who disagrees with their reality.  This is the new reality for the erstwhile GOP - now called in many circles the “Q (Anon) OP.”

Republican governors and lawmakers across the country have been advancing legislation that would limit how public school teachers can discuss race in their classrooms; increasingly, educators say the efforts are already having a chilling effect on their lessons.

In recent weeks, Republican legislatures in roughly half a dozen states (including Florida) have either adopted or advanced bills purporting to take aim at the teaching of critical race theory. Conservatives have made the teaching of critical race theory a rallying cry in the culture wars, calling it divisive and unpatriotic for forcing students to consider the influence of racism in situations where they might not see it otherwise.

Instead of seeking to galvanize their core activists with such traditional Republican issues as less government, local control and tax cuts, GOP officials at the state level are now rolling out policies that flow from the woke/cancel culture fight. These include limits on public schools’ use of the New York Times’ 1619 Project which chronicles the role of slavery in American history and the teaching of critical race theory at public colleges. They consistently call Critical Race Theory “ . . . a Marxist framework that views society only through the lens of race-based oppression,” and claim “It is everywhere these days . . . In corporations, federal agencies, schools, and even the military; it sows hatred and division in the name of “dignity” and “equality.”

Warnings about the danger inherent in employing critical race theory in public schools and universities are spreading like wildfires in the West. In an article by the Associated Press’s Bryan Anderson it was noted that “Teachers and professors in Idaho will be prevented from ‘indoctrinating’ students on race. Oklahoma teachers will be prohibited from saying certain people are inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. The Tennessee schools will risk losing state aid if their lessons include particular concepts about race and racism."  At least 16 states are considering or have already signed into law bills that would limit the teachings of certain ideas linked to “Critical Race Theory.” It has gotten so loopy that one state lawmaker in Tennessee actually declared that the Constitution’s original provision designating a slave as three-fifths of a person was adopted for “the purpose of ending slavery.” (n.b. while it is true that many historians agree that this compromise gave slave-holding states more political power, it is far from the historic truth . . . except to modern-day members of the QOP.)

Even House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has gotten into the act.  Recently, he led his party in protesting a proposed Biden administration rule promoting education programs that address systemic racism and the legacy of American slavery, calling the guidance “divisive nonsense.”

In a letter to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, McConnell, along with three dozen other Republicans, singled out a reference in the proposal to The New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project, which was included as an example of a growing emphasis on teaching “the consequences of slavery, and the significant contributions of Black Americans to our society.”

“Families did not ask for this divisive nonsense. Voters did not vote for it,” the senators wrote. “Americans never decided our children should be taught that our country is inherently evil.”  

What is inherently evil, is rewriting, reinterpreting and re-legislating history in order to score points with people who know next to nothing about history.

There are 526 days until the 2020 election.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Congressional Bigots, Racists and Utter Morons

Ever since day one, Congress has been peopled with generations of Blue Bloods like the Saltenstalls, Cabots Lodges, and Freylinghuysens, as well as the Dingells of Michigan, The Chaffees of Rhode Island and the Tafts of Ohio. Then too, there are the California actors who served in Congress; their numbers include the very first, Julius Kahn, a noted Shakespearean actor whose San Francisco district has long been represented by Speaker Nancy Pelosi; former Broadway star (and wife of Melvin Douglas) Helen Gahagan (who was derisively called “The Pink Lady” by California ultraconservatives); Sonny Bono, George Murphy (whom satirical songwriter Tom Lehrer noted “Now we’ve got a senator who can really sing and dance”); and of course two non-members of Congress: Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Moving away from the Golden State, Minnesotans sent Al Franken to the U.S. Senate, Fred Grandy (A.K.A. “Gopher” in The Love Boat) represented an Iowa house district for 8 years, and The Dukes of Hazzard’s Ben “Cooter” Jones, was a two-termer from Georgia.

Among the professional athletes who became successful politicians, several were Hall of Famers in their respective sports: New Jersey Senator and basketball legend Bill Bradley (who was also a Rhodes Scholar and an Olympic Gold Medalist); Kentucky Senator (and Hall of Fame hurler) Jim Bunning; Seattle wide receiver and 4-term member of the House from Oklahoma, Steve Largent.

Congress has also had more than its share of morons, bigots, anti-Semites, and outright intellectual lightweights.  One of the most obnoxious of ‘em all was a sixteen-term Democratic Representative from Mississippi, by the name of John E. Rankin (1882-1960).  Rankin, who served in the House from 1921-1953 at one point chaired the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee. He was a thorough-going racist and anti-Semite. He hated anything involving Hollywood . . . which he believed with all his heart and soul was the American capital of the Communist conspiracy.  That’s Rankin in the picture to the left, enswathed in an endless petition demanding a thorough investigation into the producers, directors, writers and actors in Hollywood . . . all of whom he was certain were card-carrying Jewish Marxists.  One wonders if it ever dawned on him that being draped in all those signatures made him look like a rabbi!

In 1944, Time Magazine reported Rankin referring to Jewish columnist Walter Winchell (Winshell) “the little Kike.” This incident inspired the novelist Laura Z. Hobson to write her world-famous story of antisemitism, Gentleman's Agreement (1947).

Today’s 117th Congress likely has more bigots, racists, anti-Semites and utter morons than any gathering in the past 100 years.  Among the worst are:

• North Carolina Freshman Republican Madison Cawthorn, the youngest member of Congress, who defended his having missed the most votes in Congress by claiming that it was far more important servicing his wife during their honeymoon than serving the people of his district.  "If I have to choose between voting with Nancy Pelosi or spending time with my beautiful wife, I’m choosing Cristina every time," he said.  Cawthorn further admitted he had missed a number of votes in the week he was gone but said it was all "Democrat garbage."

• Georgia Republican Andrew Clyde who likened the mob’s breaching of the Capitol on January 6 to a “normal tourist visit,” despite photos from that day showing him, mouth agape, rushing toward the doors to the House gallery and helping barricade them to prevent rioters from entering. The images resurfaced this week on social media amid a wave of disbelief and outrage over Clyde’s comments, including from several Republicans.  (It should be noted that the actor who probably played more dumb sidekick parts in Hollywood Westerns than anyone in history was the Scottish-born actor Andy Clyde, best known for playing Hopalong Cassidy’s comic relief, “California Carlson.”  Oddly ironic, no?)

• Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, who is so far out of it that even his siblings want him expelled from Congress. 

• Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert who freely concedes that people believe that he’s the “dumbest member of Congress.”  Among his loopiest actions are claiming his face mask likely gave him COVID-19 (on the extremely rare occasions he wore one) and then taking the failed Donald Trump “cure” hydroxychloroquine to fight it. He has said that caribou love to “date” over oil pipelines and nominated Republican Newt Gingrich to be speaker of the House 13 years after Gingrich left Congress.

• Georgia Freshman Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene who, among many other inanities, recently likened Congressional leaders forcing members to wear masks during their time on the House floor to the Holocaust.  Furthermore, she was voted off all her Congressional committees due to her steadfast support of QAnon supported-reality, and has spent the lion’s share of her free time stalking the likes of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Eric Swalwell as well as Marjorie Stoneman Douglas survivor David Hogg.  Moreover, even before she won her seat in Congress, Greene suggested that  a bank controlled by the Rothschild family, who are Jewish, a utility company responsible for the fire and then-Gov. Jerry Brown had a compelling motive to spark lethal forest fires in California, thus clearing the path for a high speed rail project that Brown wanted.

• Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert who, like her freshman colleague M.T.G. is out on the edge of political sanity, recently posted a tweet asking her followers to reveal their favorite verse from the Bible. Unfortunately for Rep. Boebert, her public tweet garnered responses from people who are decidedly not impressed with the Colorado legislator’s overall performance as one of Congress’s most notorious wanna-be seditionists and gun-rights advocates.

It would seem that Rep, Boebert, who knows as much about the Bible as yours truly does about about lobster bisque, has posted her question in order to gather in more reelection cash. How in the world could I be so dismissive of another’s religious convictions? Well, it seems to me that one who truly knows their Bible, would be aware of certain verses, such as:

                    Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (L) & Lauren Boebert (R)

• “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others,” (Matthew 6:15);

• “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” (Matthew 25, 35)

• If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you.” (Lev. 25: 35)

• '"Before the blind, do not put a stumbling block- (Lev. 19:14).

This last verse, "וְלִפְנֵ֣י עִוֵּ֔ר לֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן מִכְשֹׁ֑ל” is, in my humble opinion, one of the most important of all verses in the Bible, and an exceptionally important lesson for anyone who makes their living as an elected official. For this verse makes crystal clear that those who place what we today call a “big lie” before the people, are committing a fundamental sin - not to mention breaking several Divine Commandments. Whether it be getting the public believing that that the last election was purposefully stolen; that the Holocaust was an invention of the Jews; that the COVID-19 pandemic was the intentional work of Dr. Anthony Fauci or that all those who broke into the the U.S. Capitol on January 6 were either “left-wing radical Marxists” or “peace-loving patriotic Americans” are knowingly driving a lethal wedge between neighbors and moving America ever closer to a second Civil War. And for what purpose? To put money in their pockets? To destroy the planet’s oldest and most successful democracy and replace it with a malevolent autocracy? To sell as many stumbling blocks as the market will bear?

An even more basic question has to be “Do the people spewing all this fraud and rhetorical deceit really believe what they are saying?” To be perfectly honest, I don’t know what is worse: believing with a full heart that the 2018 California wildfires were caused by Jewish space lasers (just ask Rep. Taylor-Greene) or knowing that they (the liars-in-chief) know full well that they are absolutely full of what Granny would call “canal water.”

My hope, prayer and dream is that come November 8, 2022, the public will give the likes of Reps. Clyde, Gosar, Gohmert, Greene and Boebert (not to mention Senator Ted Cruz and Florida’s own Matt Gaetz) their walking papers and replace them with ladies and gentlemen (of either party, but hopefully Democrats) who know that Congress is no place for bigots, racists, morons and habitual liars.

 There are 532 days left until November 8, 2022.

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

The Danger of Political Sectarianism

The term “sectarianism” is generally understood to exist mostly - if not exclusively - in the realm of religion. Think of the splits or schisms between Sunni and Shia in Islam; betwixt Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox within the church; or between Sadducee, Pharisee and Essene in early Jewish history. These schisms could and did lead to isolation, recrimination and even violence. An aged Yiddish tale breaths a quaint satiric breath into the nature of religious sectarianism:

A ship traveling across an uncharted sea spots a funnel of smoke upon a distant uncharted island. Making their way there, they discover a very old Jewish man who, it quickly turns out, is the island’s only inhabitant. When asked how long he’s been on the Island, he admits to no longer remembering, but tells them he would be delighted to show them around - to all that he has accomplished in his many, many years of stranded solitude. He takes them on a tour of his home, showing them a beautiful orchard filled with fruit-bearing trees, a pasture with sheep and goats, a garden with numerous varieties of leafy plants and bulbs, and a hutch with dozens of egg-laying hens. At last he says, “If you will follow me to the other side of my island, I will show you the piece de resistance . . . my most prideful accomplishment.” So saying, they all make their way to the other side of the isle only to see two beautifully constructed lanai huts sitting atop carefully crafted hills of sand. They sit about 50 meters apart. “And what are these?” the old man is asked. “These are my two shuls - synagogues” he replies. “And why do you need two?” the captain of the ship asks. “Ah,” the old man smiles and responds . . . “this one is where I pray three times a day.” “And the other?” the captain inquires. “That one,” the elder responds, pointing in its direction, “that’s the one I would never step foot in!”

Religious sectarianism is an age-old plague that has produced a lot of pain, disagreement, dislocation and even death. It can lead to overwhelming certitude . . . or utter humility. As the Indian philosopher, poet and Nobel Prize winner Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) best expressed it, “The pious sectarian is proud because he is confident of his right of possession in God. The man of devotion is meek because he is conscious of God's right of love over his life and soul.” We can say nearly the same about the political sectarian . . . about being proud because he or she is utterly confident of possession in whomsoever is their leader. Look to the certitude of the Stalinist (who holds to “Socialism in one country”) as against that of the Trotskyite (who are adherents to the theory of “Permanent revolution”), the Maoist against the Leninist (wherein the peasantry are the revolutionary vanguard in pre-industrial societies rather than the proletariat) or today, of the Trumpeter over that of the garden-variety non-conspiratorial Republican or progressive Democrat. Indeed, one of the most baffling and worrisome aspects of contemporary politics is precisely this: insuperable, almost cultic sectarianism.

Today, American politics, in the words of the New York Times’ Nate Cohen “faces many challenges: New limits on voting rights. The corrosive effect of [disinformation]. The rise of domestic terrorism. Foreign interference in elections. Efforts to subvert the peaceful transition of power. And making matters worse on all of these issues is a fundamental truth: The two political parties see the other as an enemy.”  As a result, those issues which at one time were subjects for debate - balanced budgets, lower taxes, a strong military - have become existential showdowns. Witness the chief - and extraordinary difference - between the 2020 national Democratic and Republican platforms: the former was chock-a-block with the minutiae of program (everything from what to do about the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy to climate change and the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure); the latter was literally non-existent.  While Democrats ran on what they were for and presented what they hoped to accomplish, the Republicans ran on what they were against . . . what they warned an nauseum was the “ultra-leftist Socialism” of the Democrats versus the “Make America Great Again” populism of the Party of Donald Trump.     

For better or for worse, Joe Biden insisted that the future depended on both parties working together.  For those to his political left, it sounded wistfully Pollyannaish.  But that’s been the Biden political zeitgeist for nearly half-a-century. But now that he has been in office for nearly 100 days, his definition of “bipartisanship” has morphed into something like “a successful bipartisan bill need not attract a single Republican vote.”  As the Washington Post’s Ashley Parker recently noted, “Biden pushed his $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill through the Senate with the support of all 50 Democrats and nary a Republican, yet later declared it a resounding bipartisan triumph. The president and his advisers have also signaled that, while they are planning robust outreach to Republican lawmakers, they are prepared to pass his infrastructure plan on the votes of Democrats alone — and call it a bipartisan victory.”  Truth to tell, Biden and his team have not forsaken bipartisanship; they’ve simply come to understand that Republican support need not come from members of Congress.  Polls are showing increasing support for much of the Biden agenda from Republicans who are not elected to office.  

Something is at work here that few Trump-supporting Republicans seem to grasp. Has it dawned on them that it’s been a long, long time since they captured a majority of the presidential vote? Or that continuing to run on a negative platform which stresses that which political psychologists call “collective victimhood” (e.g. that it is Whites who are far more endangered than people of color, and that unless radical changes are made, America will soon become a “majority-minority country”) . . . that continuing to run to the political beat of this populist/nationalist/white supremacist beat is akin to an extended “Groundhog Day.”

To return to the Times’ Nate Cohen, he concludes that “Whether religious or political, sectarianism is about two hostile identity groups who not only clash over policy and ideology, but see the other side as alien and immoral. It’s the antagonistic feelings between the groups, more than differences over ideas, that drive sectarian conflict.”

American democracy is at a dangerous crossroads . . . for both Democrats and Republicans alike. For Democrats, the task is to stay positive, keep active and turn a blind eye and deaf ear the tortures of vilification. In this way, they may be able to gain even more support from the shops and residences of Main Street U.S.A. For conservative Republicans, their task will be far more difficult. First, to ask themselves what precisely they mean to “conserve,” and how to sell it, and second, what to do about Donald Trump. For as sure as shooting, he is not the answer; he is the predicament. The former POTUS is like a fire: stand too close and you get burned; stand too far away and you are out in the cold.”

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Pandemic, Pandering and Partisan Politics

The story is told that back in 1957, Horace Stoneham (1903-1986), the longtime owner of the National League’s New York Giants, got it into his head that for economic reasons, it would be best to move his team from the Polo Grounds out west to Minneapolis. Stoneham confided this plan to his friend, Dodger owner Walter O’Malley (1903-1979), who in turn let his friend Horace in on a secret: O’Malley himself was already negotiating with the powers-that-be out in Los Angeles to move his team out West. O’Malley suggested that Stoneham ditch the plan to move the Giants out to Minnesota, instead contact San Francisco Mayor George Christopher, and move his team to the City by the Golden Gate . . . thus preserving their bitter rivalry. It was a brilliant idea; today, 63 years after their mutual move out west, there is still no stronger antagonism in all professional sports than that between the two teams . . . and their  respective fans.

Decidedly, rivalries and gross animosities exist in many areas of life.  In American politics, one can go all the way back to Jefferson and Adams; their personal and ideological antipathies were so great that the latter steadfastly refused to attend the inauguration of the former in 1800. The Roosevelts of Oyster Bay could not abide their kinsmen from Hyde Park . . . despite a mutual family member (Anna Eleanor Roosevelt) coming from one side of the clan and marrying into the other.  (BTW: they actually pronounced their family name differently: T.R. and his clan pronounced it “ROOS-e-velt,: while FDR and his, “ROSE-a-velt.”)  For the past several years, due partly to the growth of social media and partly to the - shall we say - “sportive” nature of politics itself, Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Progressives have become as lethally combative as fans of Dodger catcher Johnny Roseboro and Giant pitcher Juan Marichal (that’s them in the picture above, with pitcher Sandy Koufax attempting to play peacemaker).

When all is said and done, historic sports rivalries are nowhere near as serious or as lethal as those in the world of politics. Take the vast divide between conservative Republicans and even moderate Democrats when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines, the wearing of masks, social distancing and science versus conspiracy.  Today, there is a vast gap between those who are ready, willing and able to wear masks, maintain social distancing and get vaccinated just as soon as their name is called, and those who simply will not comply with any recommendation whatsoever.  These folks – mostly conservative Republican men – see in any governmental guideline or suggestion, an invasion meant to take away their First Amendment liberties.  Witness the following verbal contretemps between House Freedom Caucus founder Jim Jordan and America’s leading epidemiologist, Dr. Anthony Fauci:

The very idea - heatedly expressed by Rep. Jordan - that the entire COVID-19 protocol is nothing more than an assault on American freedom and liberty is, of course, utter twaddle. I would imagine that “Gym” Jordan, his Congressional colleagues and political partisans wear seatbelts when they drive and vaccinate their children before sending them to school instead of crying “FOUL” and warning of a loss of individual liberty.  I simply cannot accept they really believe that placing restrictions on businesses during a time of pandemy is nothing but the first step on the downward path to perdition; what they do believe is that loudly proclaiming such is a wonderful way to raise funds, get like-minded souls to the polls and get themselves reelected.  It is an obvious case of pandering for purposes of partisan political gain.  

Consider the following: 

• As of April 15, 2021, just over half of American adults have now received at least one inoculation; this according to a Monmouth University poll released 48 hours ago;

• Similarly, a Quinnipiac University poll, also released on Wednesday, showed that 45 percent of Republicans told pollsters they did not plan to get vaccinated;

• More than two in five Republicans said they would avoid getting vaccinated at all costs; thus suggesting that President Biden has not succeeded in his effort to depoliticize the vaccines;

• The states with the highest vaccination rates are now mostly Democratic-leaning, while the states with the lowest rates are deeply conservative.

  Democrats believe more strongly than Republicans in the power of government. Compare, for example, the chaos of the Trump administration’s virus response, to the Biden administration’s. Democrats belief in the power of government certainly doesn’t ensure they will manage it competently, but it may improve the odds greatly.

  Vaccine hesitancy has declined substantially, polls show. But it is still notably high among registered Republicans.

The relationship between vaccination and politics reflects demographics. Vaccine hesitancy is highest in counties that are rural and have lower income levels and college graduation rates — the same characteristics found in counties that were more likely to have supported Mr. Trump. In wealthier Trump-supporting counties with higher college graduation rates, the vaccination gap is smaller, the analysis found, but the partisan gap holds even after accounting for income, race and age demographics, population density and a county’s infection and death rate.

When asked in polls about their vaccination plans, Republicans across the country (especially men without college educations - have been far less likely than Democrats to say they will likely avail themselves of the free inoculations. As previously mentioned, Monmouth University and Quinnipiac University polls indicated that almost half of Republicans did not plan to pursue vaccinations. Only around one in 20 Democrats said the same. The question is why?  While it is possible that some of the differences in vaccination rates are driven by distribution issues and eligibility rules, most researchers find that hesitancy has more to do with which “team” one roots for.

                                         Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

There has been a tremendous amount of anti-science, pro-”Socialist” claptrap spread around the internet in recent months.  The messages stress that Democrats are urging vaccines, business closings, masking ordinances and social distancing in order to magnify and heighten the fear of the so-called “Socialist agenda” on the American public; of erasing the entire First Amendment. It has been bought hook, line and sinker by a near majority of conservative Republican men.  However, one should also be cognizant of there being a handful of prominent anti-vaxxers on the Democratic side as well.  Robert Kennedy, Jr., the son of the late United States Senator, has been a leading voice in the anti-vaxxer movement.  As far back as 2005, Kennedy wrote an article in Rolling Stone and Salon called "Deadly Immunity", alleging a government conspiracy to conceal a connection between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism. The article contained five factual errors, leading Salon to issue corrections. Six years later, on January 16, 2011, Salon retracted the article completely.  Most recently, Kennedy has promoted multiple conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 including false claims that both Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are trying to profit off a vaccine, and suggesting that Bill Gates would cut off access to money of people who do not get vaccinated, allowing them to starve.  What motivates an otherwise worldly, progressive environmental activist like Mr. Kennedy to immerse himself so publicly and utterly in conspiracy theories when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines?  I for one am mostly stumped, although I do know that one of Bobby, Jr.’s 6 children (son Conor) suffers from anaphylaxis peanut allergies. Kennedy wrote the foreword to The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, in which he and author Heather Fraser link increasing food allergies in children to certain vaccines that were approved beginning in 1989. 

Kennedy I can’t figure out.  However, with regards to conservative Republicans, I am convinced that their conspiracy theories about COVID-19 vaccines and utter distrust for science has everything to do with pandering for the purpose of partisan political gain . . . plain and simple. Shame on those who promote this strategy. Whether they realize it or not all they can hope to accomplish in the long run is to significantly lower the number of conservative Republican voters they can count on to come out to the polls and support their fear-driven platform in 2022, 2024 and beyond.  

Go Dodgers . . . get your shots!

Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone

Matt Gaetz and Denver Riggleman III: The Craven and the Courageous

Back in the day, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank’s congressional colleagues and writers at The Hill regularly voted him as being both the brightest AND the funniest member of the House. And this, despite the fact that Barney was far to the left of most Democrats and virtually every Republican . . . not to mention being one of the few proudly “out” gay members of that body.

Today, it’s anybody’s guess who would be voted the best and brightest in the lower chamber; Maryland’s Jamie Raskin? California’s Adam Schiff?  Florida’s Ted Deutch?  Who knows?  By the same token, the one member of the House who has the lowest rating among both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to collegiality, sincerity, honesty and professionalism is, without a doubt, North Florida’s Matt Gaetz, who as of the past several days, has become front-page news all over the country . . . so much so that even Saturday Night Live assigned one of its cast members, Pete Davidson, to skewer the  hyper-conservative Tallahassee blowhard in prime time. 

For those who have been vacationing on Uranus (pun likely intended), Representative Graetz is reportedly being investigated by the U.S. Justice Department over numerous allegations; the most oft-mentioned being that he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl and paid for her travel, which would be a violation of what at one time was called the “Mann Act.” 

(n.b. A word about the Mann Act: Passed by Congress in June 1910, the Mann Act was named after its primary author, Illinois Representative James R. Mann. The act invoked the Commerce Clause to felonize the use of interstate or foreign commerce to transport women for immoral purposes. The Act was aimed at prostitution, immorality, and human trafficking. Congress appointed a commission three years before its passage to investigate into the problem of immigrant prostitutes. It was alleged that immigrant women were brought to America for sexual slavery and immigrant men lured American girls into prostitution (or “white slavery”). Over the years it was in effect, it was used to arrest such well-known people as African-American boxer Jack Johnson (arrested and convicted in 1913, pardoned by Donald J. Trump in 2018; architect Frank Lloyd Wright (arrested, tried and acquitted in 1926 - charges eventually dropped; Charles Chaplin (arrested, tried and acquitted in 1944); and musician Chuck Barry (arrested, tried and found guilty in 1960 - served 3 years in prison). The most famous history of the early days of this act was written shortly after its passage by the “notorious” anarchist Emma Goldman in 1910. She herself would be deported during the 1919 Palmer Raids aboard the “Soviet Ark” ).

Now, before anyone gets on the “it’s all the fault of the liberal Democratic establishment and the lame-stream media" bandwagon, please know that the investigation began during the Trump Administration where A.G. Bill Barr was still calling the shots.  Gaetz responded to the DOJ allegations alleging that he was the victim of a former Justice Department official seeking a $25 million extortion payment.  "We have been cooperating with federal authorities in this matter, and my father has even been wearing a wire at the FBI’s direction to catch these criminals," Gaetz wrote on his Facebook account. With every passing day the story gets seedier, more complex and less credible, the potential charges ever more damning. 

This past week CNN reported that Gaetz showed other Republican legislators nude photos and videos of women he claimed to have had sex with; he showed the photos while on the floor of the House chamber. Charges have also surfaced that Gaetz once led a group of Republican legislators in a game where they scored “points” for sleeping with staffers and interns—with bonus points for virgins—also resurfaced last week. Though this was not the first time. Or the second. Or even the third. 

 As of this past weekend, he is being investigated for whether or not he dipped into either campaign or Congressional office funds to pay for this and other alleged trysts. Then too there is a sidebar about Gaetz’s involvement with his new 26-year old fiancée Ginger Luckey (they became engaged at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club this past December) and her brother, 28-year old Palmer Luckey, a big name in the tech world who is currently seeking government defense contracts for his company (Anduril . . . named for a sword in J.,R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy) to build weaponized drones, thus taking the industry lead away from the Chinese.  It turns out that Rep. Gaetz has already sponsored legislation to ban federal funds from being used to purchase Chinese drones.  The measure did not pass. 

In light of the initial interest in the “sex-with-a-minor-for-hire” charge, one of the most chilling and ironic things to emerge is that Gaetz, the well-heeled scion of a longtime political family (his father, the onetime president of the Florida Senate sold Vitas Healthcare Corporation business for a reported half billion dollars in 2004; his grandfather Jerry Gaetz ran for Lt. Gov. of North Dakota in 1964) the irony turned out to be that Matt Gaetz cast the lone vote against a bill (S.1536) aimed at combating human trafficking.  In defending his vote against the bill - officially  known as the “Combating Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles Act,” (which creates a committee within the Department of Transportation to develop “best practices for states and transportation groups to combat human trafficking”) Gaetz defended his vote in a Facebook broadcast averring that “despite the best intentions of the bill,” it represented "mission creep" at the federal level in creating the committee.

He further stated “Unless there is an overwhelming, compelling reason that our existing agencies in the federal government can't handle that problem, I vote no because voters in Northwest Florida did not send me to Washington to go and create more federal government . . . . If anything, we should be abolishing a lot of the agencies at the federal level like the Department of Education, like the EPA and sending that power back to our state governments." 

There is a pathetic irony at work here. In recent weeks, practically every well known official in the New York state Democratic Party, and not a few national figures, have called upon New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign following allegations of sexual harassment. As of forty-eight hours ago, the number of Republican officials calling for the resignation of Rep. Matt Gaetz since it was revealed he is under investigation stands at … zero. How in the world does this fit in with political tribe that refers to itself as “the party of family values?” Somehow they’ve managed to forgive and forget the sins of such party stalwarts as Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump while piling on - not to mention impeaching - Bill Clinton for his indiscretions.

Unquestionably, Matt Gaetz’s chances of being reelected are looking rather slim. It also seems to me that are at least four possible scenarios hovering about the future of this craven “son-of-Trump”

• He will resign office and become a media commentator . . . perhaps at NewsmaxTV or One America News (he has already hinted at this);

• He will face a tangle of well-heeled conservatives in the 2022 Republican primary and either lose or face a run-off;

• He will be expelled from the House of Representatives;

• He will face trial on who knows how many charges.

Regardless of what scenario takes center stage, one can only hope  that justice shall be done.

So much for the craven Matt Gaetz.  Let’s briefly turn our attention to the courageous Denver Riggleman III.  Denver who?  Riggleman (1970- ) a Virginia Republican, served but a single term in Congress (January 3, 2019-January 3, 2021), representing Virginia’s 5th District.  He was/is a mostly conservative (e.g. non-hard right) Republican who served 15 years as an intelligence officer in the United States Airforce, created, along with his wife, Christine Blair and 3 daughters, a 50-acre craft distillery in Afton, Virginia (outside of Charlottesville) called “Silverback Distillery.”  Former Representative Riggleman is not your typical Republican politician.  He is a longtime self-described “Bigfoot scholar” and, although he doesn’t necessarily believe in its existence, self-published a 2020 book entitled Bigfoot… It’s Complicated.  In July 2019 he officiated at the same-sex marriage of 2 friends; the next month he was censured by Republican Party officials who claimed that he had  “abandoned party principles.”  Riggleman was defeated after serving but a single term by Bob Good, a former associate athletic director at Liberty University . . . aptly described as a “reTrumplican.”  

But it wasn’t officiating at the marriage, owning and operating a distillery or his fascination with Bigfoot that got party officials to run and fund Bob Good; it was the fact that Denver Riggleman III showed uncommon valor on the floor of the House of Representatives.  No, it was having the guts to be the lone Republican House member to speak in favor of the passage of H.Res. 1154, a resolution “Condemning QAnon and rejecting the conspiracy theories it promotes.”  In speaking to his House colleagues about the threat of QAnon, then-Rep. Riggleman said, ““The grotesque nature of the tweets and Instagram posts and the anti-Semitic tripe spewed by QAnon adherents should cause concern for everyone . . . .  [The] death threats Tom Malinowski (D-NJ - the resolution’s main sponsor) received were a surprise and a shock,. This type of behavior is easily condemned.”  And for his courageous stance, Riggleman lost his seat. 

But that is not the end of Denver Riggleman’s involvement in the public arena.  He is now working for a group of prominent experts and academics at the Network Contagion Research Institute, which studies the spread of disinformation in American politics and how to thwart it. The group has undertaken several extensive investigations into how extremists have used propaganda and faked information to sow division over some of the most contentious issues of the day, like the coronavirus pandemic and police violence. Their reports have also given lawmakers a better understanding of the QAnon belief system and other radical ideologies that helped fuel the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6.  Three cheers for this former Republican who at one point belonged to the House Freedom Caucus and actually supported Donald Trump for President in 2016.

Being a craven blowhard like Matt Gaetz might be ego-fulfilling and sexually exciting; being a courageous public servant like Denver Riggleman III can lead to political dismemberment.  All things considered, I’ll take the latter over the former every day of the 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