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

           Rep. Florence Prag Kahn (1866-1948)

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

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

Florence Prag Kahn lived a life of firsts:

• The first Jew born in Utah

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

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

• The first Jewish woman elected to the House of Representatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh if only they had never been born!

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone                                                                                             #🟦

#934: Musophobia: Rhonda Santis and the House of Mouse #🟦

One obvious measure of success - or notoriety - for people in the public eye or historic spotlight is the acquiring of one or more easily recognizable nicknames. In politics, “Honest Abe,” “Governor Moonbeam” and “The Governator” are, of course, respectively, Abraham Lincoln, and former California governors Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger. In baseball, most fans can immediately identify “The Babe” (Babe Ruth), “The Georgia Peach” (Ty Cobb), “Mr. Cub” (Ernie Banks), “Mr. October” (Reggie Jackson) and my favorite, “The Splendid Splinter” (Ted Williams). Basketball fans have no trouble identifying “The Stilt” (Wilt Chamberlin), “Zeke from Cabin Creek” (Jerry West) and for my money, the best of the best, “The Round Mound of Rebound” (Charles Barkley.) For those who are gaga about classic Hollywood movie stars, there’s no problem in identifying the identities of “The Little Tramp” (Charlie Chaplin), “The King” (originally Wallace Reid, most famously Clark Gable), “The Great Profile” (John Barrymore), “The ‘It’ Girl” (Clara Bow) and “The Italian Marilyn Monroe” (Sophia Loren.).

One will note that historically, most nicknames were either descriptive (“The Stoneface” - Buster Keaton) or laudatory (The Father of His Country” (G. Washington). Today, nicknames can be either satiric or downright mean and insulting. Perhaps no one in recent history has bestowed more insulting nicknames on public figures than former President Donald Trump:

• “Lyin’ Ted” (Texas Senator Ted Cruz)

• “Disloyal Sleezebag” (Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell)

• “The Nutty Professor” (Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders)

• “Gretchen Half-Whitmer” (Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer) and

• “Maggot Haberman” (New York Times White House Correspondent Maggie Haberman).

Of late, the politician who has garnered the greatest number of potential nicknames - whether descriptive, laudatory or downright mean and insulting is current Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who I almost always refer to as “Rhonda Santis,” due to his obsession with drag queens. Indeed, there is even a website devoted exclusively to his many sobriquets, both congratulatory and disparaging. Because he was, until late, considered to be Donald Trump’s strongest competitor for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, he is being most closely vetted by both the national media and the former president’s strongest, most steadfast allies. That’s how the game is played; any- and everyone considering running for high office had better know this . . . and have about them the hide of a rhinoceros. 

At this point, the question is whether or not Governor DeSantis is “ready for prime-time.”  Paying very close attention to what he has been doing, saying and mandating here in Florida, I would have to say the answer is a rounding NO! HE IS BY NO MEANS READY FOR PRIME TIME!! Anyone who is following DeSantis from the point of his being the Florida Governor will likely conclude that virtually everything he declares or does within the Sunshine State is meant to send a message to what he deems the Republican base. He seems to be not at all aware that running to the right of Donald Trump is not smart; that his advisors are little better than rank amateurs. Compared to the obnoxious, narcissistic, dumb-as-a-bag-of-hair, twice impeached Trump, DeSantis is little more than the former President’s “Mini-Me.”

That which keeps the MAGA wing of the Republican Party in Donald Trump’s shadow is mostly his audacity; his lack of concern about what anyone else believes or thinks about him.  Politically speaking, he is rara avis; the only politician I am aware of who, when he is indicted for 34 different felonies, actually gains in the polls!  To his followers, he is the future of an America which will soon become a minority/majority country. DeSantis, on the other hand, seeks to collect brownie points by attacking and punishing those who disagree with the Trumpian vision of the American future.  Back in 2011, when he was beginning his run for governor, DeSantis published a book-length screed against then President Barack Obama entitled Dreams From Our Forefathers. In this truly terrible, child-like tome, DeSantis screamed at President Barack Obama for 286 pages, implying he was a closet Marxist, and at one point wrote that Obama had "Muslim roots."  Even worse, DeSantis' book included justifications excusing the legalization of slavery in the U.S. Constitution, as well as repeated complaints about policies designed to protect women from rape and domestic violence.

We were warned as far back as 2011 . . . and still, 62 of Florida’s 67 counties voted for him in 2022.

But as the commercial tagline goes: “But wait . . . there’s more!”  In many parts of America - and even here in Florida itself - he is making himself look like the “Fool on the Hill” . . . 

“Nobody seems to like him, they can tell what he wants to do 
And he never shows his feelings. But the fool on the hill
sees the sun going down, and the eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round."

As Florida’s fool on the hill travels the country, ostensibly hawking his new book, The Courage to be Free (which contains a chapter entitled “The Magic Kingdom of Woke Corporatism”), he is becoming well-known for that which revs his political engine:

• Banning books in public school libraries;

• Putting the nation’s fifth most progressive institution of higher learning -  Sarasota’s New College - into the hands of a newly appointed board that wishes to remake it in the image of, say, Michigan’s Hillsdale College, a private conservative Christian school founded by members of the Free Will Baptists in 1844.  In a DeSantis dictatorship, he would ban diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I.) programs and the teaching of critical race theory, give New College trustees broader powers to review and fire faculty, and compel all state colleges to deprioritize fields deemed to fit a “political agenda”; 

• Making sure that any entertainment spot featuring performers in Drag while there are children present (even if brought there by their parents) will lose its liquor license;

• Threaten any teacher who teaches about anything involving sex, gender or what he calls “The WOKE history of the Civil War” will likely loose their teaching license, be fined and even subject to imprisonment  . . . and the most notorious, most puzzling and most publicized of ‘em all:

• His all out  war on the House of Mouse - by far the state’s largest single employer and payer of taxes.  

It’s not that Rhonda is musophobic (i.e. overwhelmingly and irrationally fearful of mice and other small rodents);  I mean for crying out loud he and wife Casey’s 2009 nuptials took place at Disney World.  In his book. DeSantis explains that he grew disillusioned with the corporation as it moved “beyond mere virtue, signaling to liberal activists.” So how did it morph from being “The happiest place on earth” to being a coven of crazies? Simple: its leadership exercised their First Amendment right to speak their mind.  Now, the disparagement - if not dismemberment - of the house of mouse is a core part of his political identity.  Everyone remembers that it was Nero who fiddled while Rome burnt to the ground.  In the case of DeSantis, he פארקויפט (sold) copies of his new book while Broward County (which happens to be the most Democratic county in the state) washed away. It’s akin to Senator Ted Cruz vacationing in Cancun while Texas froze.

The latest imbroglio began when Disney announced it would halt its political contributions in Florida and pledged to work to get the “Don’t Say Gay” law overturned.  As in a game of chess between a beginner and a grand master, DeSantis took aim at the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which had overseen Disney World’s government services since the 1960s.

Vowing to end Disney’s “special privileges,” DeSantis had the stupid-majority Florida legislature pass a law to put the district under state control; Disney responded by reaching a development agreement meant to undo that law; mate, Disney.  Now, DeSantis is threatening to have the state take over safety inspections for rides and monorails at Disney World, or potentially sell off the company’s utilities . . . or even build the state’s largest prison right next door to the state’s most powerful tourist magnet. This comment made national headlines and became fodder for cartoonists and comedians.

It also has caused his polling numbers to plunge.

Not only is Disney the state’s biggest employer, its economic multiplier is vast.  Without Disney World, there would likely be no Universal Orlando Resort, no Sea World, no Disney Hollywood Studio, no Sea World Orlando, no Toy Story Land . . . as well as all the hotels, motels, restaurants and shopping areas servicing the area.  And don’t forget to think about all the thousands upon thousands of people who have jobs as a result of all these tourist attractions.

None of these places are cheap.  I well remember when Disneyland opened in 1955.  We went there shortly after it first opened its gates on July the 17th.  Then, the one attraction which drew the longest  lines was "Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride” (it still exists); believe it or not, in 1955, a day’s ticket was $1.00 . . . $.50 for children.  If you were upper middle class, you might follow up a visit to Disney with a jaunt over to Knott’s Berry Farm in nearby Buena Park.  Situated on 57 acres, admission was free (until 1968, when the fee was $1.00 for adults and $.25 for kids).  And then, after a long, joy-filled day, you would go home.  Today, minus hotel and food charges, a one-day pass to Disney World will set one back anywhere between $109.00-$189.00.  This is to say that in 68 years, the price of a good time has gone from pocket change to a second mortgage.

And this is the ultimate cash cow that Governor DeSantis wants to punish for having the audacity to stand up for the rights of LGBTQ+ men, women and children . . . as well as their grandparents, friends and tourists to the Sunshine State.

 To my way of thinking, Ron DeSantis and his narrow-minded clique are even more toxic than the mice and other small rodents they so breathlessly fear . . . 

 Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone.     #🟦

The Historic Importance of January 6th . . . 1941

                     January 6, 1941: “The Four Freedoms”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    jean Baptiste Alphonse Karr 

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

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

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Purim, Politics, and Satire

This evening, when the sun goes down, Jewish folks the world over will observe the holiday of Purim, the happiest - and least theistic - of all our holidays. Costumes, noisemakers, wine and sweet treats (called hamentashchen) are all part of the celebration. It is said that unless and until one cannot distinguish between baruch Mordechai (Blessed be Mordechai) and arur Haman (Cursed be Haman), one has neither consumed enough wine nor entered the true riotous, satiric spirit of the day.

Purim, the “Feast of Lots,” celebrates a Jewish miracle in ancient Persia. It commemorates the Divinely orchestrated salvation of the Jewish people in the ancient Persian empire from a plot orchestrated by a narcissistic, racist bigot’s plot “to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews, young and old, infants and women, in a single day.” Literally “lots” in ancient Persian, Purim was thus named since Haman (the ultimate bad guy who happened to be the King’s Prime Minister) had thrown lots to determine when he would carry out his diabolical scheme, as recorded in the Megillah (the Biblical book of Esther . . . the only one which does not specifically mention G-d).

The Persian Empire of the 4th century BCE extended over 127 lands, and all the Jews were its subjects. When King Ahasuerus had his wife, Queen Vashti, executed for failing to follow his orders, he arranged a beauty pageant to find a new queen. A Jewish girl, Esther (Jewish name, Hadassah), found favor in his eyes and became the new queen, though she refused to divulge her nationality.

Meanwhile, the Jew-hating Haman was appointed prime minister of the empire. Mordechai, the leader of the Jews (and Esther’s cousin), defied the king’s orders and refused to bow to Haman. Haman was incensed, and he convinced the king to issue a decree ordering the extermination of all the Jews on the 13th of  the Jewish month of Adar, a date chosen by a lottery Haman made. 

Mordechai galvanized all the Jews, convincing them to repent, fast and pray to G‑d. Meanwhile, Esther asked the king and Haman to join her for a feast. At a subsequent feast, Esther revealed to the king her Jewish identity. Haman was hanged, Mordechai was appointed prime minister in his stead, and a new decree was issued, granting the Jews the right to defend themselves against their enemies.

On the 13th of Adar, the Jews mobilized and killed many of their enemies. On the 14th of Adar, they rested and celebrated. In the capital city of Shushan, they took one more day to finish the job.

Purim is a raucous holiday; it involves most people being clad in costumes, consuming more wine than usual, cheering on Mordechai (the hero) each time he is mentioned, and blotting out the name of Haman (the bad guy) every time his name is mentioned.  It is also a time for satire and parody.  For years, I have written and performed parodies based on Broadway musicals (Westside Story, Oliver!, The Pirates of Penzance, as well as "A British Invasion Purim”, and “A Woodstock Purim.”

As but one terribly small example, Paul Simon’s The Boxer was turned into The Fixer:

Esther, once Hadassah has a story quite well-known,

She’s the girl who saved our people,

From the mania of Haman, he’s the enemy.

He was a pest, ‘cause he cast a lot that sealed our fate

To put us all to rest.  Lai lai lai . . .

When she heard the news from Mordechai

Of what Haman planned to do,

She retreated to her chamber,

In the quiet of the royal palace, good and scared.

Praying slow, seeking out the one solution

That would “let her people go”

Looking for the blessing only G-d would know.  Lai lai lai . . .

Then too, it became the custom over the centuries to create what came to be known as The Purim Torah, in which rabbinic scholars would do parodies of Talmudic tractates. One of the most famous was done in 1929 by “Reverend” Gershon Kiss of Brooklyn as a parody on the era of Prohibition (the cover page can be seen above.  It’s title, translated into English is Tractate Prohibition).  It captured the spirit of Purim brilliantly poking fun at both Rabbinic dialectic and American society. Written in a combination of Hebrew, Aramaic and the occasional Anglicism (“do not read for the Jews there was light and joy va-yikar, rather there was light and joy and liquor”) and formatted like a traditional Talmudic tractate, with a “gemara” framed by a Rashi-like commentary, This little-known work makes for excellent reading and even study as part of the holiday festivities. Regrettably, it is not easily translatable. “Tractate Prohibition” is best enjoyed by readers familiar with Talmudic terminology, who will appreciate its subtle allusions to classic passages, Mishnah and Gemara (“ha-kol shokhtin,” the opening of tractate Hulin, is rendered as “ha-kol shotin:” “everyone is eligible to perform ritual slaughter” now reads “everyone is eligible to drink”). Even readers with less experience in Talmud, however, will enjoy the social satire evident on every page. The text wonders, for example, if the mandated temperance extends to “Mar (“Mister”) Vilson,” meaning President Woodrow Wilson, during whose term the 18th Amendment was enacted. The “Rabbis” conclude that President Wilson is exempted from prohibition “ki gavra rabah hu,” meaning “he is a great man.”

Every year, I prepare myself for Purim  by rereading the Biblical Book of Esther along with its commentaries and rereading what, to my way of thinking, is the greatest of all modern satires: Voltaire’s Candide, a satire about eternal optimism.  After so many, many years, Candide. his tutor, the “optimistic metaphysician” Dr. Pangloss (“This is the best of all possible worlds”) his true love, Cunégonde, and her brother, The Baron of Thunder-ten-Tronckh, are friends.  This week, while rereading Candide, I also continued reading the political news from around the country, focusing in closely on the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and the upcoming annual session of the Florida State Legislature.  I was amazed by just how closely the pronouncements of MAGA Republicans seemed to be satiric . . . except they weren’t.  

Let’s deal with the latter first - that which is being proposed in Tallahassee.  Just the other day, State Senator Jason Brodeur (R.- Lake Mary) filed a bill which would require bloggers who are covering political figures in Florida—including the governor, lieutenant governor, Cabinet or state legislators—to register with the state and report whether they received compensation for their posts.  This would include yours truly who, although I have never received a single cent for any of the nearly 950 political essays I’ve posted over the past 18 years,  would, if this asinine legislation were to become law,  have to fill out a ton-and-a-half of paperwork and likely be both fined and arrested.  

The bill has drawn criticism from free speech advocates, who have warned that it would eat away at the constitutionally-protected right to freedom of speech and press.  Sen. Brodeur has defended the bill, saying that paid bloggers equate to lobbyists and should therefore be required to report their compensation.  I wonder if he, Brodeur, would be willing to list the names and amounts of everyone who has contributed to his campaigns were, by law, required to be listed.  This legislative proposal (SB 1316) is so obnoxious and unsavory (and obviously meant to curry favor with the ultra-right MAGA wing of his party) that even former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich has spoken out against it: "The idea that bloggers criticizing a politician should register with the government is insane. it is an embarrassment that it is a Republican state legislator in Florida who introduced a bill to that effect. He should withdraw it immediately," he tweeted.  (Ironically, Prior to his election in 2022, Senator Brodeur was found to have dumped tens of thousands of dollars of campaign money into firms operated by prominent Republicans, as well as payments to Jacob Engels [a.k.a. “Roger Stone’s “Mini-Me”], an Orlando blogger associated with InfoWars and a neo-fascist group the Proud Boys.

The other “Purim satire” centers around conservative pundit/actor/Daily Wire podcaster Michael Knowles who, speaking before attendees at the annual gathering of CPAC, boldly declared that “trans people do not have a right to exist.” Predictably, he denied having said this . . . despite tons of videos proving he did.  “For the good of society … transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.”  That’s what he said, verbatim. Knowles subsequently claimed that “eradicating” “transgenderism” is not a call for eradicating transgender people and demanded retractions from numerous publications, including Rolling Stone. This would be as laughable and parodic as a Purim gathering - if it were not so incredibly horrifying.  Knowles and his many followers - both in and out of public office - have loudly voiced their support for bills to deprive transgender people of gender affirming medical care, bans on using public bathrooms, and the targeting of live performances by trans individuals.

Geoff Wetrosky, the Human Right’s Campaign National Campaign Director, responded to Knowles and other Cu speakers, saying they were attempting to appeal to a right-wing audience — and putting trans people and other members of the LGBTQ community at risk.

“Their vile, anti-trans rhetoric does not resonate with the majority of Americans who are interested in solutions, not slander. But that doesn’t mean their transphobic hate and propaganda won’t cause harm,” Wetrosky said. “Their words rile up far-right extremists resulting in more stigma, discrimination and violence against LGBTQ+ people. The rights and very existence of trans people are not up for debate. We will keep fighting back until we are all treated equally, with dignity and respect.”

Knowles occupies a not-unique space on the far-right spectrum.  His A-historicism is as bone-chilling as that of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister for Propaganda: “Nobody is calling to exterminate anybody, because the other problem with that statement is that transgender people is not a real ontological (relating to the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being) category — it’s not a legitimate category of being, There are people who think that they are the wrong sex, but they are mistaken. They’re laboring under a delusion. And so we need to correct that delusion.”  

According to Jewish tradition, Haman ha-rasha (“the wicked Haman) was a descendent of Amalek, who was the grandson of Esau and likely history’s first anti-Semite. The Hebrew Bible (Deuteronomy 25:17–19) commands “Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey after you left Egypt . . . you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under the heaven. DO NOT FORGET!” This is why we put our noisemakers (called either graggers [Yiddish] or ra-ahsh-shanim [Hebrew] to work, making a noisy cacophony of sound every time Haman’s name is mentioned in the reading/chanting of the Purim scroll. It’s somewhat akin to the ancient custom of writing the name of one’s enemy on the soles of one’s sandals and then stomping about in the mud.

And so I say, wineglass in hand, noisemaker at the ready: ARUR (cursed be) MAGA! ARUR CPAC! ARUR HOMOPHOBES, WHITE SUPREMACISTS AND ALL RIGHT-WING CULTURE WARRIORS!

!חג פוּרים שמח (Chag Purim samayach) Have a riotous Purim

 Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

The 21st Century's Most Malignant Legacy?

This past Tuesday (Feb. 7, 2023) President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. delivered his second State of the Union (SOTU) address before a joint session of Congress. Depending on which side of the Congressional House of Worship you occupied, you were either witness to a political chess master easily parrying the jabs and overhand (far) rights of a bunch of punch-drunk amateurs, or cheering on the manhandling of a WOKE-supporting, mentally unstable octogenarian by a courageous group of young Republicans who understand that “there are no rules in a knife fight” (Yes, this is of course a famous line from "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, which the likes of Marjorie ‘Cruella Deville’ Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz and the rest of the Hole-in-the Head Gang have, in all likelihood, never heard of.)

For proof of this bipolar analysis of last Tuesday’s SOTU, all one needed to do was catch the “post-game” recaps provided by either MSNBC and CNN on the sensible middle, or Fox News and OAN (One America News) on the freaky far right. To watch and listen to both would give one the impression that there were actually 2 totally different realities surrounding the President’s speech; one with heroes (and heroines) sitting on either side of the aisle telling nothing but the truth (i.e. that MAGA Republicans are on record as wanting to cancel both Social Security and Medicare), the other totally incapable of anything but utter dishonesty, putting masks of incomprehension on their faces and shouting out “LIAR!  YOU LIE.”  While watching all this take place, I was reminded of something I read long ago: “Never attempt to destroy someone else’s life with a lie when yours can be destroyed with the truth.

                Rep. Marjorie Taylor “Cruella Deville” Greene (R-GA)

 I for one gave President Biden’s State of the Union address an “A.” (Personally, I have never given any student an ““A+” and certainly don’t believe that there should be any G.P.A. higher than 4.0.)  He was everything a POTUS should be: warm, upbeat, unflappable, occasionally showing that Biden 20 megawatt smile, humorous when called for, and above all, presenting a full-bodied, well-conceived legislative wish-list with a minimum of ho-hum political bromides.  One of the longest-lived politicians in American history (36 years as a Senator, 8 years a Vice President and now 2 years as POTUS), Joe Biden understands better than most the dignity demanded of his office, as well as knowing how to handle himself in front of a camera, and how to deflect a political haymaker with extraordinary éclat (striking effect).  He is, in brief, everything his predecessor was not.  Unlike '45, he doesn’t affix nasty nicknames to his political foes, nor carry himself about like a deranged cult master.  He really, truly believes in working across the aisle (note that was he who initiated the handshake with Speaker McCarthy) and is a gentleman.  

Sara Huckabee Sanders, the newly-elected Governor of Arkansas was, against all reason, chosen to give the response to the State of the Union . . . historically, a position which adds next to nothing to a politician’s c.v. Sanders was likely chosen for two, perhaps three reasons: first, she is 40 years old where President Biden is twice her age; second, she is a woman . . . a demographic which the Republicans are seeing slip through their fingers in the post Roe v. Wade era; and third, she can sling red meat to the MAGA base with the best of them. And if Donald Trump faces a large field of Republican office holders in the 2024 primaries, he’s going to have to capture every last MAGA vote in America . . . that’s where Sanders likely comes in.

In her 20-minute rebuttal, the former Presidential press secretary painted a dystopian portrait of the country leaning heavily into Republican culture war issues and accusing Biden of pursuing “woke fantasies.” “While you reap the consequences of their failures, the Biden administration seems more interested in woke fantasies than the hard reality Americans face every day,” said Sanders, the former White House press secretary. “Most Americans simply want to live their lives in freedom and peace, but we are under attack in a left-wing culture war we didn’t start and never wanted to fight.” She didn’t mention Trump by name, which to the base, is tantamount to a preacher delivering an impassioned Sunday sermon without once mentioning Jesus. Instead, she embraced conservatives’ fights against the way race is taught in public school. She called Biden’s administration “completely hijacked by the radical left.”

“The dividing line in America is no longer right or left,” she said. “The choice is between normal or crazy,” she said. Democrats made much of that line, giving it full-throated support while endlessly running video captures to prove the point that its the Republicans who are the crazy ones . . . Indeed, this line may go down in history as the 2022 equivalent of Senator Marco Rubio reaching for a bottle of water during his 2013 response to President Obama’s SOTU.

In other words, Governor Sanders, like the Republican’s Capitol Hill “Crazy Caucus” are planning on running (and winning) in 2024 on the lies and mistruths of the past many years . . . likely their most malignant legacy to America.  Lies and mistruths have become so endemic to politics and society in general - thanks  in part to the growth and omnipresence of social media and cable “news” outlets, and in part to the moral albinism of its most hypocritical practitioners - that it’s become neigh on impossible to separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of mendacity.  For far too many, that which goes against their grain is the product of “fake news.”  This is incredibly dangerous for the future of civilization.  When lies become nothing more than a commodity to be sold under the brand name “truth,” then our republic - let alone civilization itself - is definitely imperiled and likely subject to autocratisation. 

It never ceases to amaze me how much trash and dishonest bloviating a goodly segment of the public is willing to accept as the god’s honest truth.  A few examples: going into the 2020 election, a photo was posted on Facebook claiming that “Joe Biden lives in the biggest mansion in his state and just bought another mansion in Washington, D.C.”  It was quickly shared more than 1,000 times and became “a well-known fact” shortly thereafter.  Stuff and nonsense!  Delaware is the ancestral home of the DuPont family . . . ergo, no one has ever - or shall ever - possess a residence larger than theirs.  The  Winterthur Estate could be considered Delaware's largest mansion. The house was originally built in 1839 but has been enlarged considerably over the years. Henry Francis du Pont renovated the building between 1929 and 1931, resulting in a 175-room mansion sitting on 2,500 acres. This estate was turned into a museum in 1951, however, so some may not consider it to be the "largest mansion" in Delaware.

The Du Pont family built another massive property in Delaware in the early 1900s. While the Nemours Mansion dwarfs the properties owned by Biden at 47,000 sq. ft. (compared to 7,000 for the 2 Biden properties), this property, too, no longer serves as a single-family residence and therefore may not be an applicable comparison.  

Then there is the entire universe of Hunter Biden tales.  Depending on the source of your news, the president’s son made anywhere between $45,000 and $83,677 per month for a position on the board of the Ukrainian oil and gas company Burisma Holdings from 2014 to 2019 - a time when his father was V.P. through the beginning of his presidential campaign.  Recently, rocker Ted Nugent (“The Motor City Madman”) posted a Facebook meme falsely insinuating that Hunter’s payments from the company ended with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Then there is Fox’s Tucker Carlson who issues negative reports on President Biden’s profligate son so often, that somehow he has forgotten the days when he actually asked Hunter for his help in getting his son into Georgetown University, including writing a letter of recommendation. And by the way, why hasn’t anyone suggested looking into all the money the Trump and Kushner families made during the time ‘45 was in office?  What Jared and Ivanka pulled in in a single  year would have taken Hunter nearly 640 years to make.  (And this does not include Jared’s $1.3 billion loan from the Saudis . . . )

One of the first items on the House Republican’s agenda in this new congress is the impeachment of President Biden, based largely on the many so-called corruptions of his son.  Indeed, Hunter is about to become the “Hillary Clinton Benghazi Hearings” of the 118th Congress.  Many will recall that Congressional Republicans spent more than 2 years and $7 million looking for something - anything - which  would lay guilt at the feet of the former Secretary of State in the death of Chris Stevens, the American Ambassador to Libya.  What they were hoping for, of course, was an indelible stain on her at the beginning of the 2016 presidential election cycle. After 6 hearings, they issued their 800-page report; it landed with a thud.  And yet, to this very day, there are those Republican House members who want to reopen the Benghazi probe.  And so do their most hypnotized followers who, to this day, “know for a fact” that Secretary Clinton was guilty of murder.

As Mark Twain (or Winston Churchill) once noted, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

Or better still:

 Lies are like a pain killer; it gives instant relief, but has lethal side effects forever.

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Just When We Thought We'd Heard It All

Audio Block

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

Let’s face it: nearly all Republicans (we’ll give a pass to the 4 or 5 remaining moderate ones) have little to add to the current political dialog. Other than complaining and blaming Democrats for nearly everything under the sun, they rarely say anything worth listening to, let alone seriously considering.

An example or two or three: Republicans continuously blame Democrats in general (and President Biden in particular) for inflation, high gas prices, high rates of violent crime, the stalled consumer pipe-line (which leads to higher prices), increases in the number of immigrants, asylees and refugees entering the country, and a thousand-and-one other things. (Oh, if only Donald Trump had been able to complete his wall . . . the one the Mexican government was supposed to pay for.) 

On the other hand, Republicans rarely - if ever - offer concrete suggestions about containing, constricting or curtailing - let alone solving - any of these challenges . . . short of legislating deep cuts to entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, lowering corporate taxes, impeaching President Biden, A.G. Garland, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkis and Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swallwell, and passing a so-called “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” which  ordains that all infants born after attempted abortions must get medical care. (Do remember that the number of babies actually surviving late-term abortions is infinitesimal . . . save in the imaginations of some truly warped individuals;  it is already a crime [it’s called homicide] to intentionally kill an infant that is born alive.)

Besides not possessing any concrete plans or proposals for dealing with the above referenced political challenges (as amply proven in both the 2020 presidential and 2022 midterm elections), many of these challenges are easing due to the efforts of both the Biden Administration and two years of a Congress controlled by the Democrats. Do note that although high, the rise in inflation is beginning to be contained; gas prices are slumping due to a production surplus; (note that the millions of barrels of oil we “lent” ourselves from our Strategic Petroleum Reserves have already been returned . . . and at a lower price) and regardless of what the disloyal opposition broadcasts, the national debt has been reduced by nearly $200 billion, with more reductions on the way . . . assuming that troglodytes do not prevail.

So what is a political party and their mouthpieces to do? Simple: raise new issues guaranteed to consume the attention of their base . . . even if they are untrue and/or simply asinine. The first of two such attempts to keep their base fired up and fearful deals with gas stoves. According to reports popping up on such slanted sources as Fox, the Washington Examiner and the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, President Biden and his administration are about to take away even more of our personal freedom by “coming to take away our gas stoves.”  (Is that before or after they take away our guns?)

It goes without saying that this canal water about gas stoves is not true.  So how did this rumor - one which numerous Republican members of Congress have been scaring the pants off their constituents over - come to be such a hot issue?  Well, recently, Richard Trumka Jr., a U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) agency commissioner, said in an interview with Bloomberg that there was rising concern about hazardous indoor pollutants caused by gas stoves.  In the interview, he floated the idea of a ban as a possible solution to the problem. “This is a hidden hazard," he said. "Any option is on the table. Products that can't be made safe can be banned." 

In a public statement about Commissioner Trumka’s interview, a spokesperson for the CPSC explicitly stated that the agency is not considering new guidelines for regulating, or banning, gas stoves. Anything the group proposes, the spokesperson firmly averred,  would “undergo a lengthy review process."  The CPSC spokesperson further stated that Trumka's views do not reflect the views of the entire organization. While the agency was not considering new regulatory measures, nor a ban, the spokesperson said they were planning to gather information from the public "on hazards from gas stoves and potential solutions to hazardous gas [emissions].

 And yet, despite a welter of information which shows that no one is going to be forced to get rid of their gas stoves on pain of legal penalty, the lie persists. You had better believe that it will continue playing a role in conservative talking points from now until the 2024 elections.

But this is by no means the nuttiest, most mind-numbing of fears tearing at the minds and hearts of the right. Believe it or not, one of the greatest fears is a “. . . no-doubt fury that Mars Wrigley, the candy company that manufactures and markets M&Ms, has gone “WOKE.”  Over the past couple of years, M&Ms has adopted new interior flavors (such as pretzel, strawberry shake and espresso) and a host of new colors.  Additionally, Mars has rebranded six of its iconic mascots to represent "more nuanced personalities to underscore the importance of self-expression and power of community through storytelling."

Mars Wrigley has debuted a new promotional wrapper for M&Ms that features three female candy characters, and introduces a new Purple M&M along with Green and Brown. Mars Wrigley has announced they would be donating some of the profits from these M&M sales to organizations that support a variety of professional pursuits by women. The "sexy" green M&M's character has traded in her signature go-go boots for a pair of "cool, laid-back sneakers to reflect her effortless confidence," while the orange M&M's character will suffer from anxiety "to better reflect young people." From a marketing point of view this makes sense; every product goes through changes in order to attract new customers, thus keeping up sales.

Ah, but according to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson,  whom we are told is the single-most popular and influential face on cable, the newest changes are a conspiracy in order to push a “WOKE” philosophy.  According to Carlson, the “Paul Revere” of this conspiracy “M&M’s will not be satisfied until every last cartoon character is deeply unappealing and totally androgynous—until the moment you wouldn’t want to have a drink with any one of them.”  Personally, I don’t know anyone (myself included) who has ever had the desire to down a pint or gigger with a chocolate icon.  Methinks Mr. Carlson needs to get a life.

One of the things which bothers and concerns me the most in issues like gas stoves and WOKE M&Ms, is that those who speak the loudest and most passionately about them in reality, could give a rat’s rump.  They don’t really believe that the Biden Administration is coming to take away their gas stoves any more than Florida Governor “Rhonda Santis” believes that children reading certain books will make them want to change sexes, or that the newest shapes, accoutrements and colors of M&Ms are a danger to America’s moral fiber.  No, they are after more political support, more votes, and higher offices.

Just when we think we’ve heard it all, we discover that we’re wrong . . . 

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

The Clown Car is All Gassed Up . . . But With No Place to Go

Whether the great unwashed majority realizes it or not, we the American people have just gone through the eeriest, most divisive week of political danse macbre in at least the past 150 years. It took 15 votes - 15 VOTES - over 4 days for Kevin McCarthy to fulfill his lifelong dream of becoming Speaker of the House of Representatives. He managed to accomplish his single-vote victory by trading away virtually all the powers historically vested in the Speaker. He ran a race fueled not by a set of political goals or principles, but solely by the power of his ego. And so, within less than 168 hours, the House went from being a body run by Nancy Pelosi, one of the strongest, most powerful and politically adroit Speakers in all American history, to Kevin McCarthy, whose speakership could come crashing down with a mere finger snap on the part of Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert or any of a number of Freedom Caucus clowns.  Indeed, the House has quickly gone from a body led by a cunning tigress to one that whose leader is both defanged and likely on the road to political defenestration.

Precisely what Speaker McCarthy had to give in to in order to win the gavel is, at this point, unknown. Bits and pieces of his most craven concessions may be easily assumed, such as bestowing plumb committee assignments (Rules, Appropriations, Ways and Means, Judiciary) and chairmanships of various subcommittees to Freedom Caucus disrupters and election deniers. We already know that a minimum of 3 Freedom Caucus members will be appointed to House Rules, easily the most crucial committee under the dome.

Unlike most other committees, Rules is not concerned with policy substance; rather, it is what incoming chair, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma explained to VOX, “. . . is a process committee.” Its role is to set the terms of debate and decide whether bills are subject to amendments on the floor . . . and whether they need to be germane to the subject at hand. It has long been the redoubt (e.g., protective barrier) of House leadership in both parties and exists, in Cole’s words, to “make sure [legislation] gets to the floor in the form that the speaker thinks [or in the case of Kevin McCarthy, is told he thinks] is most likely to pass.” Even more importantly, this committee can keep any bill they don’t like from ever reaching the floor . . . without the House resorting to what is called a discharge petition . . . a means of bringing a bill out of committee and to the floor for consideration without a report from the committee. The problem is, according to clause 2 of rule XV of the Rules of the House, it requires a majority vote in order to succeed.  Good luck!

From what has been learned, McCarthy’s highest-profile concession: to allow any one member — down from his previous compromise of five — to force a House-wide no-confidence vote in the speaker at any time (known as “a motion to vacate”).  Under Speaker Pelosi, a motion to vacate could be offered on the House floor only if a majority of either party agreed to it.  Prior to Pelosi’s revolution, a motion to vacate could be put forth at the instigation of a single member . . . that which McCarthy has relented to.  Therefore, the issue isn’t even that a single member could topple a speaker; it would still take a majority vote of the entire House to actually vacate the seat. Instead, the real issue is that the current, 10-seat Republican majority is so small — and McCarthy’s speakership victory so slim — that the threat of defection is likely to loom over every bill, giving the same rebels who have paralyzed Congress this week endless opportunities to do the same thing again and again.  

What this adds up to is an extraordinary amount of leverage for a miniscule group of men and women who were, in large part, Congressional instigators and backers of the January 6 rebellion.  

These are people who have no political agenda or platform.  They aren’t, when all is said and done, true conservatives,  What they are is a gaggle of libertarians, Christian Nationalists, White Supremacists, “Great Replacement” theorists and QAnon-believing conspirators bent on shrinking the federal government to the point where it can fit into a ditty bag.  

The most frightening thing about all this is that people like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, Eli Crane, Bob Good, Matt Rosendale, Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz (the “Ken & Barbie” of Capitol Hill) will, without blinking an eye, do everything in their power to make  sure the debt ceiling is not raised (which will cause America to default, thus causing the stock market to crash, I.R.A.s to become worthless and likely bring on an international Depression (and in their hopes and dreams the Second Coming); cut off all future aid to Ukraine and restore Jim Crow laws.  And they will do all this in the name of “Making America great again!”  And Speaker McCarthy won’t be able to do a thing about it . . . for fear that a single passenger on the Congressional Clown Car will call for a motion to vacate.  And you know what?  He won’t have anyone to blame save himself and his Brobdingnagian ego. The House will be thrown back into utter chaos.

This is no time for Democratic schadenfreude - deriving pleasure from another’s complete misfortune; if the Republicans stomp on the clown car brakes, we all - and I mean we all will suffer. Merely saying “Well, these mental schlubs brought it on themselves” won’t accomplish a damn thing So what can be done? If Democrats band together and refuse to lift a finger of assistance to Speaker McCarthy, it is likely that come 2024, Republicans will suffer a cataclysmic fall the likes of which has never been seen in all American history. But then too, so will all of us. Perhaps under Minority Leader Jeffries (who, by the way gave a historic, brilliant speech stressing the “A-to-Zs” of what Democrats stand for) could, working with his own caucus add just enough votes to keep McCarthy out of the political snake pit whenever he (meaning McCarthy) faces a motion to vacate. In theory, that could force the speaker and the so-called “moderate” Republicans to cut the Democrats a bit of slack out of gratitude. Then too, during a future motion to vacate, perhaps the Democrats could put together a kind of coalition approach to House governance that would essentially throw the clowns off the bus.

Whatever the case, there is no question but that we are going to continue to be observers - if not participants - in history’s eeriest political danse macabre.

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

Of Quarks and Quacks

 “Alice” - the Lawrence Livermore particle collider 

Say what you will, but the past 168 hours have been the living definition of an alpha and omega week. Say what? For those who studied a bit of Greek (and managed to stay awake during class), alpha (A) and omega (Ω) are, respectively, the first and last letters of the Greek αλφαβήτα (alphabet). The concept of “alpha and omega” also connotes bipolar opposites; the nadir and the zenith . . . the highest high and lowest low. And that they should both occur in the same 168-hour period (a week) is both eerie and one for the books.

Let’s begin with last week’s omega, its low point - and one I can write about with quite a bit more confidence than its alpha:  its high point.    This past Tuesday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, saying that COVID-19 vaccines have been “pushed on Americans,” asked the state Supreme Court to impanel a grand jury to investigate “wrongdoing in Florida” related to these shots.  DeSantis announced his request for a grand jury during a media event to discuss “COVID-19 mRNA (“Messenger RNA) vaccine accountability,” where he was joined by state Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, M.D., and a group of professors, researchers and doctors - all of whom are noted for questioning the efficacy of coronavirus vaccines and whether adverse health reactions (lethal side effects) have been accurately reported. Within that part of the medical community which specializes in clinical trials in epidemiology and infectious diseases, the response to the DeSantis gang’s proposal was both swift and all but unanimous: that Governor DeSantis and Dr. Ladapo are, in the words of our late Grannie Annie,  “full of canal water.”    

As for the governor’s inane proposal: The Florida Department of Law Enforcement would serve as the primary investigator for a grand jury, though the governor’s petition said any law enforcement agency in the state could be called upon for the probe.

On the same day, DeSantis announced that Dr. Ladapo, who doubles as secretary of the Florida Department of Health, will lead what Ladapo called a “surveillance study” to explore deaths that occurred after people were vaccinated against COVID-19. “We are initiating a program here in Florida where we will be studying the incidents, in surveillance, of myocarditis within a few weeks of COVID-19 vaccination for people who died,” Ladapo said. (n.b.) Myocarditis is a condition that causes inflammation of the heart. It can be fatal . . . although it need have nothing to do with a COVID-19 vaccine or booster. Moreover, a recent clinical study showed that patients with COVID-19 “had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19.”)

One should expect that a state government’s Chief Medical Officer should possess significant experience in the area of public health. Checking the internet’s best source for medical research information [Clinical Trials.Gov] we find that Dr. Ladapo has taken part in precisely 5 clinical trials, only two of which were ever completed: Financial Incentives for Weight Reduction Study and Financial Incentives for Smoking Treatment. Compare this to the soon-to-be-retiring Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is the 6th most cited medical researcher on planet earth, and that prior to being named head of the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] Dr. Rochelle Walensky was chief of Infectious Diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital . Talk about alpha to omega!)

The DeSantis/Ladapo proposal has next to nothing to do with public safety or the saving of lives. What it does involve is the governor’s obsession for keeping his name and worldview in front of the MAGA crowd who he believes may well be looking for a candidate to replace Donald Trump in 2024. Participating alongside Governor DeSantis and Dr. Ladapo at the Tuesday media event were Stanford University professor Jay Bhattacharya and epidemiologist Tracy Hoeg, both of whom are expected to be part of the the governor’s Public Health Integrity Committee. The committee, according to DeSantis, will “assess recommendations and guidance” that has come from entities such as the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health.

Bhattacharya served as a witness for the state in a high-profile lawsuit challenging a directive by DeSantis that schools avoid imposing mask requirements for students to stave off the spread of COVID-19. Bhattacharya also was one of the state's witnesses in a separate legal challenge of DeSantis' decision to reopen schools in the early stages of the pandemic. Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, M.D., PhD., is a board certified Sports Medicine and Spine Medicine specialist in California who has on innumerable occasions spoken out in favor of DeSantis’ anti-mask, anti-school closure mandates: “We know that masks interfere with communication, and children do not like wearing them. The children with hearing impairments and other impairments have difficulty wearing masks. And, we’re forcing them to do this just because we have this idea that they’re going to be doing something good. We have actually no high-quality evidence showing that they are.”

All we can hope for is that the seven-member Florida Supreme Court (six of whom were appointed by DeSantis) will vote against his petition for a Grand Jury, thereby staving off his desire to keep his “COVID vaccines are a conspiracy” campaign away from center stage as we move onwards to 2024.

Well, that’s the omega. What, pray tell is the alpha?

Only what could be the biggest scientific breakthrough since Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaiuti de' Galilei (1564-1642), the “Father of Modern Physics” proved the validity of Copernican heliocentrism (which states that the Earth rotates daily and revolves around the Sun) or Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity (E = mc2, which expresses the fact that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other). In this case, the alpha may well turn out to be the BIGGEST and MOST IMPORTANT scientific breakthrough in the past half millennium: going back in time 14 billion years (or less than 6,000 if you are a Bible-toting literalist) to the very origins of the universe. For as of just the other day, Physicists have confirmed the existence of a doubly charmed baryon (a composite subatomic particle), opening the door to an entirely new kind of fusion, known as quark fusion.

Yes, yes, I know, many readers are going to tune out at this point, assuming that I’m going to continue writing in “Star Trek” technobabble. I promise this is not the case: I am neither a particle physicist nor a writer of science fiction; just a regular guy who took a 2 semesters of “College Physics for Philosophers” and a perpetual student. Believe me: I know a hell of a lot more about practical politics and medicine than I do about fusion.

As a brief introduction to this week’s alpha: You’re looking at quarks right now. Magazines, screens, and air are made of atoms, and atoms are largely made of protons and neutrons – which are the most familiar examples of the three-quark bundles that physicists call baryons. Fusion describes a general process in which particles recombine to form new particles, because the new particles need less energy to exist than the old ones did. With that scant info in tow, you should know that on 5 December, researchers at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in California finally did it, focusing 2.05 megajoules of laser light onto a tiny capsule of fusion fuel and sparking an explosion that produced 3.15 MJ of energy—the equivalent of about three sticks of dynamite. This means that for the first time in human history, scientists have finally, finally been able to ignite a nuclear fusion reaction unlike any before in human history. That's because the fusion reaction produced more energy than it took to start the reaction.

I wish I could go in to greater detail, but this ain’t my field. Nonetheless, after chatting up several friends and classmates who know one hell of a lot more than I do (e.g., those who went into physics rather than philosophy, politics or rabbinics), they tell me that the result of this fusion test should ultimately change the energy picture for the entire globe; that ultimately we will be able to provide clean, non-lethal, non-polluting, infinitely available energy for the rest of human history. And if this isn’t the ultimate alpha, I cannot image what could be better.

What makes all of this so incredibly weird is that at precisely the same time that physicists - the experts whose “religion” is scientific truth - have made such a mind-numbing, historic pronouncement, the conspiracists - whose motto is “believe nothing but what we tell you” - are doing everything in their power to clobber and corrupt our gateway to the future. And for what? For clinging to power? For bringing Armageddon a few inches closer? For putting down those who did better than them in school? I simply do not know . . . and seriously doubt I ever shall.

What I do know is that the future will ultimately be far, far more in the hands of those who use their brains to bring about hope and progress, than those whose raison d’être is to create hysterical retrogression. And, it will also take a radical change in society, wherein telling lies and fomenting fear becomes as unacceptable as alchemy.

Wishing one and all a Happy, Merry Everything!

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Politics and Poker

                    Senator Krysten Sinema (I-AZ)

On Monday, November 23, 1959, a much anticipated musical, Fiorello, made its Broadway debut at the Broadhurst Theatre on West 44th Street. Based on the life of the late, legendary New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, with music by Jerry Bock, lyrics by Sheldon Harnick from a book by Jerome Weidman and George Abbot, it would run an impressive 785 performances and be awarded the 1960 Tony Award for best musical. It’s two main stars were Tom Bosley (best remembered for playing Ritchie Cunningham’s father Howard on “Happy Days”) as Fiorello (who, like hizzoner was actually Jewish), and Howard Da Silva (Silverblatt) as Republican machine boss Ben Marino.  (An avid, active leftist, Da Silva was coming off nearly a decade’s worth of political blacklisting when he was hired for the part of Boss Marino.  The role , which would win him a Tony Award, wound up reviving his career.  Today, he is best remembered for playing Benjamin Franklin in both the Broadway production and movie version of “1776”).

Fiorello follows La Guardia’s career during World War I, his years in Congress, and then his time as mayor. As Mayor of New York City La Guardia reformed city politics by helping end Tammany Hall's vaunted political machine. And of course, as everyone remembers, he read the funnies over radio during a city-wide newspaper strike so that the kiddies wouldn’t be bereft of “Popeye the Sailor Man,” “Lil Abner,” and “Dick Tracy.” Fiorello is filled with pointedly witty songs adorned with great lyrics.  Hell, what can you expect from a musical birthed by the likes of Sheldon Harnick (Fiddler on the Roof), Jerome Weidman (I Can Get It For You Wholesale) and George Abbot (The Pajama Game)?  My favorite song in Fiorello is Poker and Politics, sung by Republican boss Ben Marino (Da Silva) and his cronies.  It includes the lyrics:

Politics and poker, politics and poker
Playing for a pot that's mediocre
Politics and poker, running neck and neck
If politics seems more predictable
That's because usually you can stack the deck!

Politics and poker, politics and poker
Makes the average guy a heavy, heavy smoker
Bless the nominee and give him our regards
And watch while he learns that in poker and politics
Brother, you've gotta have that slippery haphazardous commodity
You've gotta have the cards!

These lyrics came to mind the other day when I woke up and learned that overnight, Arizona Senator Krysten Sinema had announced her defection from the Democratic Party and would henceforth be a registered Independent. My initial response - like that of most of my Democratic friends and colleagues - was a string of vile, four-twelve-letter epithets and an angry feeling of ultimate betrayal. Imagine that! Just a few hours after we were able to cheer Raphael Warnock’s victory in the Georgia election and crow over the fact that come January 3, 2023, the Democrats would have a solid 51-49 lead in the United States Senate, Arizona’s least-favorite drama queen turned back the clock. “DAMN HER TO HELL!” was my initial thought.

But then, miraculously, “Poker and Politics” came to mind:

Quickly, I hunted it up on YouTube, replayed it and understood that in switching from Democrat to Independent, she might actually have done us (Democrats, that is), a favor.  For in this case, the cause of her decision was far more in keeping with poker than with chess . . . the pursuit I most commonly liken the art of practical politics to.   

It seems to me that Senator Sinema’s move is more political stunt than parliamentary strategy.  Not all that much will change as a result of her “caucusing” in the same broom closet as the senate’s other two independents: Vermont’s Bernie Sanders and Maine’s Angus King.  In the main, Krysten Sinema is quite liberal on social and  cultural issues, receives high marks from the likes of Planned Parenthood and anti-gun organizations, has a history of policy advocacy regarding LGBT rights and issues, and has always voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act.  Where she tends to differ with her now former Democratic colleagues is on issues affecting taxation and the economy.  But even there she can sound like a progressive: "Raising taxes is more economically sound than cutting vital social services."  According to the Bipartisan Index created by the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, Sinema was the sixth most bipartisan member of the U.S. House of Representatives during the first session of the 115th United States Congress.  

One can easily say that Krysten Sinema has always marched to the beat of her own drummer.  Consider that in her 2018 race for the senate (which she eventually won, defeating incumbent Martha McSally by a scant 55,000 votes out of nearly 2.4 million cast), she described herself as having “a fierce, independent record,” and being “independent, just like Arizona.”  Nonetheless, her jumping the fence won’t really amount to a hill of beans. Chuck Schumer will still be Senate Majority Leader, but this time around won’t have to share power with Senator McConnell; Democrats will have greater power within Senate committees, having the ability to issue subpoenas and get judicial nominees to the floor without having to resort to Discharge Resolutions.  

So why has she left the Democratic fold and become an independent?  Because of the cards she’s been dealt . . . that’s why.  Facing reelection in 2024, she looks at her “hand” (polling figures, that is) and sees that among Arizona voters in general, she holds a mere 18% approval rating. Among Democrats in particular, her favorable-versus-unfavorable rate is 5% to 82%; among Independents it’s 25%/56%, and among Republicans 25%-54%. She is smart enough to realize that were she to run in a Democratic primary, she could be beaten by a pair of deuces.

By changing her Arizona registration, she leaves the Democratic field open. Whoever jumps in feet-first will have the obvious edge. Chances are that person will be 7-term Democratic Representative Ruben Gallego, who served as a combat marine during Iraqi Freedom, is bilingual, a formidable fundraiser, and a member of the House Armed Services Committee and chair of the Intelligence and Special Operations subcommittee. His campaign website is already operational, thus pretty much clearing the field for himself.

 On the Republican side of the aisle, leaders of the non-MAGA wing of the Arizona GOP have long dreamt of current Governor Doug Ducey pulling up a chair joining playing a little 5-card stud. They had courted him to run this year against incumbent (and former astronaut) Mark Kelly who carries an enviable 78% approval rating among Arizona Democrats. Ducey ultimately declined to do so, thus leaving the field to MAGA venture capitalist Blake Masters, who was crushed by Kelly. Ducey has already stated that he has no interest in running for Senate. But Republicans are again pushing him to get in for 2024 . . . they simply cannot stomach another MAGA-ite representing their party.

This scenario leaves Senator Sinema with a pass into the general election. Generally speaking, Arizona political history shows that when an independent runs in a statewide general election, that person tends to draw votes away from Democrats rather than Republicans. Of course, it all presumes that the Republicans don’t make the same mistake as they did over and over again in 2022 . . . nominate a Luddite from the MAGA wing of the party.

In all likelihood, Krysten Sinema’s political career has run its course. Perhaps by registering as an Independent, she has given herself a plausible way to leave the game of politics and poker and start earning a seven-figure income as a lobbyist.

It sure beats the daylights out of working for a living.

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

A Tale Told by an Idiot . . . Signifying Nothing

Nearly 60 years ago, “our crowd” of academically enriched students at Robert A. Millikan Junior High School (which as of February 8 of this year was renamed “Louis Armstrong Middle School”), flocked to a year-long elective class called, simply, “Reading Enrichment.” This class was taught by Edward Blakely, one of the most literate people we would ever know. His class was both brilliant and controversial, and made many demands upon us . . . like reading, reading, reading, writing, writing, writing. thinking, thinking, thinking, and memorizing, memorizing, memorizing. Part Renaissance man, part martinet, under Mr. Blakely’s entrancing guidance, we delved deeply into some of the world’s greatest, most noteworthy and censorable literature of all time. (n.b. It is rather doubtful that here, in Ron DeSantis’ Florida c. 2022, that a majority of the books, plays and essays we were assigned would remain on library bookshelves, let alone be taught in what today is referred to as a middle school.)

Even after so many, many years, I can still picture the students in that wonderful class: Gottlieb, Halpert, Korinblith, Miller, Saltzman, Sands, Scharf, Wilson, Wald, and yours truly. (Alan: any names I may have forgotten, please clue me . . . I, like you, am afflicted with junior moments). Even more importantly, many of us can still recite from memory passages of the novels, plays and essays our beloved teacher assigned us. Mr. Blakley was a galaxy-class instructor who introduced us to the joys and intricacies of such works and writers as:

• Aristophanes (Lysistrata), a bawdy anti-war comedy, wherein the title character, a strong as nails woman, convinces the women of Greece to withhold sexual privileges from their husbands as a means of forcing the men to negotiate a peace;

• Beowulf, an epic 8th century old English poem which tells the story of the Scandinavian hero Beowulf, who gains fame as a young man by vanquishing the monster Grendel and Grendel's mother, thus becoming king;

• Boccaccio (The Decameron, also known as “The Human Comedy”) which is a series of 100 short tales told by 7 young men and 3 young women during a ten-day period in which they are quarantined due to a pandemic;

• Chaucer (The Canterbury Tales), a so-called “frame story” (a narrative that frames or surrounds another story or set of stories), in which the framing device is used for the collection of stories told by 30 people on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Thomas Becket in Canterbury, Kent;

• Charles Dickens (Great Expectations), likely the great English novel of all time, and

• William Shakespeare’s, Macbeth, in which Three witches tell the Scottish general Macbeth that he will rise to become King of Scotland. Encouraged by his wife, Macbeth kills the king (Duncan), becomes the new king, and kills more people out of sheer paranoia. Civil war erupts to overthrow Macbeth, resulting in more death. Seventeen years after killing King Duncan, Malcolm Canmore, (the son of King Duncan) in turn murders Macbeth.

Macbeth is indeed, a most grisly play in 5 acts; it puts one of the most psychologically flawed (if not THE most psychologically flawed) characters in all classic literature right up there on center stage. It is also a deeply political work, much like Lysistrata, Beowulf, Great Expectations, and virtually every work Mr. Blakely assigned our class. And by “political,” I mean far more than the modern definition of “relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics.” Going way back to the days of Aristotle and Plato, they saw politics as being equal parts art, science, and strategy . . . a far cry from where we are today.

So what does all this “remembrance of things past” (not to be confused with Marcel Proust’s massive 7-volume novel of the same name [À la recherche du temps perdu]? Isn’t this a mostly political blog? And partisan politics at that?

Well, it is. With all the ink and hot air still accruing to our FPOTUS - especially in light of his recent announcement that he is once again running for the nation’s highest office - I find myself remembering the many, many months we spent reading, learning. contemplating and memorizing under the tutelage of Mr. Blakely . . . especially Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Or to be painfully precise, Act 5, Scene 5. lines 19-28. Tell me if you sense an eerie pre-prescience in this famous soliloquy. What is frequently forgotten is that before launching into his brief, dispirited downer, Seyton, Macbeth’s chief servant, informs him The Queen, my Lord, is dead. Macbeth responds not with grief for his mate, nor with tears staining his face , but with an oft-forgotten line: She should have died hereafter: / There would have been time for such a word.

It is only then that he launches into the meditation memorized and analyzed by oh so many over the past 400 years:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

I’ve listened to literally dozens of great actors (Orson Welles, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Patrick Stewart, Baron Olivier and Sir Ian McKellen, among others) pronounce these words. To my way of thinking, only Sir Ian seems to have gotten it right . . . putting the first “tomorrow” as the end of the sentence which preceded it. In other words, it should be read She should have died hereafter: / There would have been time for such a word TOMORROW.

Lady Macbeth’s death prompts Macbeth to reflect upon the futility of all of his actions: his ‘overweening ambition’, which had spurred him on to commit murder after murder (including that of King Duncan, no less) and take the kingdom for himself. It has all been for nothing; now he is truly alone, with most of the lords rallying to Macduff, and standing foursquarely against him.

Although not nearly so self-aware as Shakespeare’s fictional King, Donald Trump is every bit as avaricious and power mad as the Scottish thane-cum monarch. But listening to and watching him over the past several weeks, he finally seems, eerily, a bit more like Macbeth: beginning to grasp that much of what he has accomplished is, in the end of all his tomorrows, a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. I find myself wondering if, like the former Thane of Glammis and Thane of Cawdor, he is beginning to realize that all his mendacious verbiage has finally amounted to little more than A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I have to wonder precisely what - or who - Donald Trump sees when he looks into his gilt mirror: a leader whose power and greatness are inspired by God above, or "a poor player who struts his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. Even Macbeth came to recognize that he was alone . . . that all his troops, advisors and acolytes had stormed out in droves, leaving him with only his blindly loyal attendant Seyton (could this be Shakespeare’s play on the name Satan?); a single “yes-man” to stand by his side to face his ultimate fate. Who does Donald Trump have left? Madison Cawthorn? Matt Gaetz? Mike “My Pillow” Lindell? Senator Tommy Tuberville? Former California Rep. Devin Nunes? Indeed, what he is left with is little more than “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I do not in the least feel sorry for Donald Trump. I do feel both deeply angry and greatly concerned for what he has forced upon the American future. As a politically active member of a generation often accused of being pro-Communist and anti-American, I am stupefied by just how much the tables have turned. Those who accused us of being in league with drugs and the devil more than a half-century ago, are now the true anti-patriots; those who once considered themselves the most pro-American, are now the ones who could most easily destroy the American ideals of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Mr. Blakely, it turns out, was oh so wise to teach us everything he knew about Macbeth. Without knowing it, he was preparing us for the future. Turns out, his desire to teach was matched by our need to learn . . .

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

How Low Can You Go?

Although DeSantis, Abbott & Ducey may sound like the name of a high-tone law firm, it is of course, anything but. The three principals are, the MAGA-Republican governors of, respectively, Florida, Texas, and Arizona. They pretty much stand together on the major political issues of the day (they are all vehemently pro-life, pro-Second Amendment and anti-immigrant), and each harbors thoughts about someday running for POTUS. And oh yes, all three find the greatest amount of political comfort among the most ardent followers of Donald Trump. The mere contemplation of the lengths the three are willing to go in order to impress this growing gaggle of anti-(small d) democrats, is enough to make a good night’s sleep next to impossible.

Day-by-day, hour-by-hour, the story about how the three - especially Florida’s DeSantis, the man who seeks to out-Trump Trump - have, through trickery, been transporting mostly Venezuelan migrants to places like Martha’s Vineyard, New York City, and Vice President Harris’ own front yard in Washington, D.C., it grows and grows. The three have become exporters of migrant misery in order to put America’s border policy woes back on the front burner, thus reinvigorating the MAGA-Republican’s political playbook just in time for the 2022 midterm elections. The obvious political strategy is that when you haven’t got a positive platform to run on, stick to what you do best: label everyone on the other side of the political fence “radical libs,” “socialists” or “anti-Americans” and oh yes, don’t forget to blame the nation’s many intractable woes on “illegal aliens.”

Besides being what The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols correctly called “a sadistic political stunt,” DeSantis’ ploy could well get him indicted . . . which likely wouldn’t bother his political followers one iota. For a man who graduated magna cum laude from Yale and earned a juris doctor at Harvard, DeSantis loves coming across to his fan base as the reincarnation of “Lonesome Rhodes,” the raucous hayseed turned right-wing demagogue, played to haunting perfection by newcomer Andy Griffith in the 1957 film A Face in the Crowd.” In the film, “Lonesome,” who on mic or before the television camera regularly proclaims things like “The family that prays together, stays together,” is anything but a Bible-toting Christian. In reality, he is a truly mean-spirited miscreant who considers his adoring fans to be nothing more than cretinous fools and idiots. Eventually, he gets his comeuppance when Marcia Jeffries (marvelously played by Patricia Neal), the woman who made him a super-star, leaves the microphone on at the end of a broadcast, thus ruining Lonesome’s career when he is finally unmasked as a total fraud; a man motivated only by money and his own egotistical thirst for power.

In chartering 2 planes to take upwards of 50 Venezuelan asylees from Texas (not Florida as was at first mistakenly assumed) up North to Martha’s Vineyard, DeSantis found himself quickly becoming the butt of late-night jokes, inquiries into the legality of what he had done, and even the wrath of the FPOTUS. Mind you, Donald Trump’s outrage had nothing to do with moral revulsion at his protege’s using human beings as unsuspecting pawns for a political attack. Instead, Trump has been telling allies and confidants that he’s outraged that DeSantis seems to think he’s allowed to steal the ex-president’s mantle as both media star, and undocumented-immigrant-basher-in-chief. Trump and his advisors are smart enough to realize that DeSantis’ ploy is intended to be a shot across the bow of the Former President’s plans for running in 2024, and intend to do something about it.  What that “something” is, is unknown, considering just how full to overflowing Trump’s political dance card is these days.

As much as other Republicans may think poorly of just how low DeSantis has sunk, few - if indeed any - have gone public with their thoughts and/or condemnation. It is once again pointing out the moral and political bankruptcy of just about every Republican within range of a camera. Need an example? Here’s Texas Senator Ted Cruz - who like the highly-educated DeSantis is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law, proclaiming that the law is "clear" and a citizen could "easily be arrested" for moving migrants from one state to another, and yet still stating that he supports the Republican governors’ doing it: "I commend Greg Abbott for sending the immigrants to these blue cities, I commend Ron DeSantis for doing so, and they need to do more," Cruz said. "Tomorrow, Martha's Vineyard needs a hundred. The next day they need two hundred. The next day they need a thousand," he concluded. Got that? Harvard should rescind his law degree!

So far as I know, about-to-become-former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney is the sole Republican to utter so much as a single syllable against the likes of DeSantis, Abbott and Ducey. Have they no sense of what is moral, ethical or legal? Are they so fearful of losing the support of Donald Trump or the MAGA-Republican base as to remain mute in the face of gross inhumanity, not to mention the most vile form of  mendacity?

Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell − who's married to an immigrant, former U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao − acknowledged at a news conference ". . . there's been a good deal of talk about what some of the governors have done to transport illegal immigrants up to other parts of the country. I personally thought it was a good idea. If you added up all of the [immigrants] who've been taken to Chicago or Washington or Martha's Vineyard, it would be fewer than people down in Texas have to deal with on a daily basis."

If there is any justice left in America, Ron DeSantis should be in a world of legal - not to mention moral and ethical - jeopardy. There are questions aplenty to be asked and investigated:

• About DeSantis’ use of federal COVID-19 dollars to fund his Martha’s Vineyard (and now Delaware) stunt;

• About the relationship between the DeSantis-for Governor campaign and Vertol Systems, a Destin, Florida-based company which is a major Republican contributor, that was paid more than $615,000 to charter the two planes which flew the 50 migrants (lawfully awaiting their asylum hearings) from Texas (not Florida) to Massachusetts. (n.b.: The Vertol Systems website link is suddenly no longer operable.)

• About whether or not DeSantis conned the migrants into signing consent documents holding both him and the State of Florida harmless from any legal action.  (As a medical ethicist, I can tell you that unless an informed consent document is written so that anyone capable of reading can understand it, it simply is not legal.  It also has to be written in the language which the subject is most literate.) 

Bexar County (Texas) Sheriff Javier Salazar has launched a criminal investigation into DeSantis’ cruel stunt. The decision comes on the heels of immigration rights groups and Democrats accusing Republicans of exploiting vulnerable migrants for political points by promising them jobs and housing, only to fly them to an island off the coast of Massachusetts that was not warned people needing help were coming.

Salazar, sheriff for the county where San Antonio is located, said it is too early in the investigation to name suspects or know what laws were broken. But he said he is talking to an attorney representing some of the migrants who have already filed a class-action suit and trying to figure out what charges should be made and against whom.

“We want to know what was promised to them. What, if anything, did they sign? Did they understand the document that was put in front of them if they signed something? Or was this strictly a predatory measure?” Salazar said.

For all his efforts, it would appear that Ron DeSantis has wound up being on the wrong side of Donald Trump. According to a report from Rolling Stone, Trump felt DeSantis not only stole his thunder, but also his idea to ship illegal migrants into heavily Democratic areas of the country. Rolling Stone writers Aswin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley reported they spoke to two people in Trump’s orbit in the days after the migrants were flown to the ritzy resort island:

Trump has fumed over all the praise DeSantis’ action has been receiving in influential conservative circles lately - such as on right-wing media like Fox News - and has privately accused DeSantis of doing this largely to generate a 2024 polling boost for himself among GOP voters.

It seems to me that Ron DeSantis’ sights had better be on November’s gubernatorial race before he starts drooling over 2024; goodness knows how many Florida Hispanic voters are going to either vote for Democrat Charlie Crist or simply stay away from the polls, as a means for expressing their anger and outrage at the man who used to be called Trump’s ‘Mini-Me.’

Time and again, “Rambo” DeSantis has proven that he will do or say anything that can put him at the top of the MAGA-Republican list of favorites. He may be well-educated, but clearly is none too smart . . . and has an utter lack of scruples.

To paraphrase the old Chubby Checker song:

Every Rambo boy and girl
All around the Rambo world
Gonna do the Rambo rock
All around the Rambo crock

Ron be Rambo, Ron be thick
Ron go unda Rambo shtick
All around the Rambo rock
Hey, let's do the Rambo crock

Rambo lower now
Rambo lower now
How low can you go?

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Paul Simon's Timeless Tune

On January 19, 1977, the night before Jimmy Carter took the oath of office, thus becoming America’s 39th President, a strictly A-list pre-inaugural gala was held at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. Among the performers rocking the house were the “alpha and omega” of world-class musical talent: Aretha Franklin and Paul Simon. For her part, Franklin tore the house down with her megawatt version of Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America.” Although Berlin wrote the song way back in 1918, it wasn’t heard in public until Kate Smith sang it on her number One most popular radio show on November 10, 1938. Aretha’s Franklin’s version had the pre-inaugural crowd jumping and stomping and sweating.

By comparison, Paul Simon’s choice was a much quieter, more thoughtful, pensive - even prophetic - piece musically based on one of the greatest masterpieces of Baroque music: J.S. Bach’s sacred oratorio St. Matthews Passion (part 1, numbers 21 and 23, and part 2, number 54). Simon simply called it American Tune. It began with the words:

Many's the time I've been mistaken
And many times confused
Yes, and I've often felt forsaken
And certainly misused.

Oh, but I'm all right, I'm all right
I'm just weary to my bones
Still, you don't expect to be bright and bon vivant
So far away from home
So far away from home

The song, originally released in November 1973, has been a personal favorite of both Paul Simon and his vast fan base ever since. Rolling Stone has rated it as high as #262 on its list of “The 500 greatest songs of all time.” (Somewhat ironically, Aretha Franklin’s “Respect” came in at #1.) Upon his induction to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2011, Simon chose to sing American Tune.

In the song’s second verse, Simon amps up the feeling of civic dislocation and anomie - something which was and is as telling in 1977 as in 2022:

I don't know a soul who's not been battered

I don't have a friend who feels at ease

I don't know a dream that's not been shattered

Or driven to its knees

Oh, but it's all right, it's all right

For we've lived so well so long

Still, when I think of the road we're traveling on

I wonder what's gone wrong

I can't help it, I wonder what's gone wrong

I don't know a soul who's not been battered

I don't have a friend who feels at ease

I don't know a dream that's not been shattered

Or driven to its knees

Oh, but it's all right, it's all right

For we've lived so well so long

Still, when I think of the road we're traveling on

I wonder what's gone wrong

I can't help it, I wonder what's gone wrong

The song’s bridge conveys a dream of death and of the Statue of Liberty “sailing away to sea.”

And I dreamed I was dying
I dreamed that my soul rose unexpectedly
And looking back down at me, smiled reassuringly
And I dreamed I was flying
And high up above, my eyes could clearly see
The Statue of Liberty sailing away to sea
And I dreamed I was flying

In addition to Simon’s impeccable, pristine guitar playing, there is his voice . . . soft, semi-mournful and melancholic. During the many years of their partnership, it was Art Garfunkel whose voice received the greatest plaudits: often referred to as heavenly, crystal clear, and otherworldly. And yet, Paul Simon was as vocally adept as his high school friend and long-time partner.

I well remember watching “Rhymin’ Simon’s” performance the night before Carter’s inauguration; tears began welling up in my eyes as the full impact of the song was nearing its muted crescendo. “Where,” I wondered” would Simon’s mythic “flight” be taking us? Would it be a chimera . . . something to be hoped or wished for but in fact be illusory or impossible to achieve, or a catastrophic crash-landing? There are songs which resonate powerfully when first we hear them, yet continue to expand with meaning and poignance through the passing years. Few songs do this with the pointed poetics of this song. It was stunning back in 1973, magnificently poignant in 1979, breathtakingly prophet in 2011, and still speaking to this American moment in 2022 better than just about any other song ever written.

Simon’s third verse puts a capstone on what, for Americans, has always been, historic reality: tomorrow.

We come on the ship they call The Mayflower
We come on the ship that sailed the moon
We come in the age's most uncertain hours
And sing an American tune

Oh, and it's alright, it's alright, it's alright
You can't be forever blessed
Still, tomorrow's going to be another working day
And I'm trying to get some rest
That's all I'm trying to get some rest

At the time this song was included on Simon’s 1973 album There Goes Rhymin’ Simon, he and Art Garfunkel had already broken up the act . . . although they would occasionally sing together at mass outdoor concerts over the years. On September 19, 1981, they reunited for what would become the historic “Concert in Central Park,” at which they sang American Tune as a duo. In his introduction, Garfunkel admitted that he truly regretted not having sung this song until this moment for indeed, “it is one of my very favorites . . . I truly love it.”

Much of the power of “American Tune” is in Paul Simon’s voice. It does not ring with the loud anger that runs through our time. It is mournful, as if unspooling in the candlelight of a day’s end, in the place where a person’s battles give pause until dawn. The song is searing in its tenderness, poetic in its indictment. It is political without being so. And its voices sound like truck drivers or factory workers, men and women who hustle for their daily bread while the world above them, the one of bankers and politicians, spins on indifferently.

Throughout its history, America has refracted its patriotism and its protest in music, including “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” the African American spiritual “Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child,” Billie Holiday’s rendition of “Strange Fruit,” Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind” and Neil Young’s album “Living With War.”

In their new book, “Songs of America,” Jon Meacham and Tim McGraw write that American history “is a story of promises made and broken, of reform and reaction — a story fundamentally shaped by the perennial struggle between what Abraham Lincoln called ‘the better angels of our nature’ and our worst impulses… Through all the years of strife, we’ve been shaped not only by our words and our deeds but by our music, by the lyrics and the instrumentals that have carried us through dark days and enabled us to celebrate bright ones.”

In American Tune, Paul Simon is tired but resilient. The American dream comes with both disappointment and loss. Each generation endures its sins and crises; its diminishment and cruel realizations. It is the job, though, despite the clamor and politics, that waits at first light with the hope of reward and the fear of resignation.

American Tune is the masterwork of a modern prophet . . . one who believes that regardless of the crises and fears of today . . . there will yet be another and brighter tomorrow.

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Schadenfreude

72 hours ago, I posted a piece which expressed a bit of joy at the recent political winning streak on the part of both the Biden Administration and Capitol Hill Democrats. German speakers would call this relative joy freudenfreude, which roughly translates as “finding joy in the success of others.” Freudenfreude is not as nearly well known as its antonym, schadenfreude, [literally ‘harm joy’’] which refers to the uncanny giddiness people can feel upon seeing those they cannot stomach suffer harm or defeat.  Watching the Dodgers win 10-straight is ample cause for freudenfreude; seeing the gates of Mar-a-Lago thrown open in order to permit FBI agents to carry out a federal search warrant presents many with the opportunity to engage in a smirking bout of schadenfreude.   

One wonders how former First Lady, New York Senator, Secretary of State and 2016 presidential candidate Hillary (“Lock Her Up!”) Clinton must be feeling these past 72 hours. Is she struggling to contain herself from gleefully raising two thumbs upward . . . or simply smiling in the knowledge that “what goes around comes around?”  Having first been introduced to Secretary Clinton and her husband nearly 45 years, (and acting as a surrogate for her in the 2016 election) I think I know her well enough to put a dollar on the former and a fiver on the latter.  “How’s that possible?” you well might ask.  “After the tens of dozens of post-Benghazi hearings, the innumerable FBI-led investigations into her using a private email server, and the innumerable, incomprehensible, calls for her imprisonment . . . how could she possibly keep a civil tongue and not shout out for joy?”  In other words, where’s the schadenfreude?  Where are the explosions of mirth, the chorus of Munchkins singing the Harold Arlen/”Yip” Harburg song which begins with the words “Ding-Dong! The witch is dead . . .”

Don’t get Secretary Clinton wrong: like President Biden, Majority Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi and all those raised with a touch of class - Secretary Clinton has neither the time, the temperament nor the taste for revenge. Justice? Decidedly so and coompleted merited.. Revenge? That comes from elsewhere. Clinton, Biden et al know - and pray - that Donald Trump will get his; that he will wind up being unmasked, sentenced, and becoming the foulest footnote in all American political history; that he will ultimately make Buchanan look like a savant, Harding a vestal virgin and Nixon a saint. .

For the past 72 hours, responsible mainstream media have been reporting on precisely what happened at Mar-a-Lago; of how the Department of Justice, after thousands of hours of investigation, went to a federal magistrate judge (now known to be Bruce Reinhart, a former federal prosecutor) for a search warrant that would give them the legal authority to enter the former POTUS’s residence in search of top secret materials which, according to the Presidential Records Act, he had no legal right to have in his private possession. We have learned that his response was to go after both the DOJ and FBI (whose director, the Yale-educated Christopher Wray was first appointed by the former POTUS ); and of how, when (not if) he is returned to office, he will seek to defund both institutions. We have seen how many of his Congressional supporters (the majority of whom wanted nothing to do with him at various times before he was elected) have prostrated themselves at his Berluti-shod feet, angrily proclaiming that he is the ultimate victim of what they have chosen to characterize as “the modern incarnation of the Gestapo” . . . or as Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert would have it, “The Gazpacho police.”

The FBI’s legal search of Mar-a-Lago has brought out tons of nasty, nasty threats and responses.  House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has likely dashed any hopes he has of becoming Speaker by warning A.G. Merrick Garland to " . . . get your papers in order and clear your calendar.”  What in the world does this mean? That should he become Speaker, he will run a House whose main concern is neither climate, economy nor COVID but revenge and “GOTCHA” politics.  He, like his cultish boss, is far more concerned about the past than the future.  Florida Republican Senators Rubio and Scott (the latter being the head of his party’s campaign committee) are desirous of nothing more than defunding both the DOJ and FBI. And they dare to refer to themselves as “The party of Law and Order.”  That is why I am supporting Democratic Rep (and former Chief of the Orlando Police) Val Demmings to take over Rubio’s seat: "If you don’t show up to work you get fired!”  So goes the tag-line to one of her recent campaign ads.

With each passing day, Donald Trump’s woes . . . along with his legal bills . . . continue to mount  He spent the better part of yesterday (Wednesday, August 10, 2022) taking the Fifth Amendment nearly 450 times in a New York civil court investigation into his business practices.  (The only question he did answer was “Is your name Donald John Trump?”) Upon arriving at N.Y. Attorney General Latitia James’ Manhattan office, Trump told the press: “I once asked, ‘If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?’ Now I know the answer to that question,” the statement said. “When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors and the Fake News Media, you have no choice.” The man is clearly scared to death.  Above and beyond the FBI search and the N.Y, investigation of his business practices, there is also the grand jury investigation into a minimum of 3 state laws he may have broken in Georgia.  Simply stated, he is a man with a mountain of problems. One wonders how much sleep he’s getting these days and nights.

It should come as no surprise that DJT is urging his most fervid MAGA supporters to continue contributing to his legal defense fund; only time will tell just how much more he can raise.  The most worrisome issue he faces, it seems to me, is the recent court decision compelling him to release his tax returns . . . which may well prove that he is not a billionaire and that he has played face and lose with his taxes for decades.

On October 2, 2020. Merriam-Webster.com reported that searches for the word schadenfreude had increased by 30,500% on the site, making it the most popular word of the day. Why? Well, that was the day it was announced that Donald and Melania Trump had both tested positive for COVID-19. One wonders how many searches for the untranslatable German word there have been in the past 72 hours.  One has a feeling that it must be in the tens – if not hundreds – of thousands.  And while it not all that surprising – in light of how many people truly despise Donald J. Trump – it may well be an emotional and/or psychological response we would do well to avoid.   While psychologists inform us that that there is nothing abnormal about feeling smugly joyous when we see or hear about wicked people “getting theirs,” it is not healthy. Or, to quote the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (one of the first 19th century philosophers to contend that at its core, the universe is not a rational place):

                                                                   “To feel envy is human, to savor schadenfreude is devilish.”

Let Congress, the DOJ,  FBI, DHS, I.R.S. as well as the states of New York and Georgia and his former freunde (friends) at Deutsche Bank - to mention but a few - lawfully saddle Donald Trump with the future he so richly deserves.  I for one look forward to a time when freudenfreude replaces schadenfreude as the most-oft used  - though miserably unpronounceable - German word in the English language.

 Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Patrick Michaels Meets His Maker

Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D., who spoke out often and brashly against the prevailing view that climate change needs urgent attention, thus becoming a favorite of climate change skeptics and a target of criticism by those advocating action on greenhouse gases and in other areas, died on July 15 at his home in Washington. He was 72. Unlike many climate change deniers, Dr. Michaels had sterling academic credentials; he held a doctorate in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, was for decades a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and Virginia’s state climatologist, and had published in scientific journals. At the same time, he was a staunch libertarian who worked hand-in-glove with both the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute to spread the word that “The world is not coming to an end because of global warming. Further, we don’t really have the means to significantly alter the temperature trajectory of the planet.”

Michaels was the co-author of several books, including “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media” (2004) Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (2009) and “Lukewarming: The New Climate Science That Changes Everything” (2016).  Snippets from these books are frequently recited by climate-change deniers as “proof” that not everyone believes the earth is going to hell in a handbasket or that human beings are the proximate cause.

In short, Dr. Michael’s was to politically-charged climate change denial what such scientists as Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich and Rachael Carson were to such seminal climate change awareness works as The Population Bomb (1968) and Silent Spring (1962).  One huge difference, of course, is that Ehrlich and Carson are still read and quoted by the masses [Dr. Ehrlich, BTW, just turned 90 this past May] while Dr. Michaels is read and quoted almost exclusively by movement conservatives. Ehrlich and Carson are recognized as experts in their field; Dr. Michaels is largely considered an outlier.

What follows, briefly, is an imagined conversation between the recently deceased Dr. Michaels and his maker . . . the Master of the Universe.  In place of the term “G-d,” I have chosen to use the Divine Pronoun “CO,” which as longtime readers know is  to be understood as “He/She” ).

CO: Well, well, as I eternally live and breath; it is you, Dear Dr. Michaels. So sorry to meet you under these circumstances. Please accept my deepest sympathies to your dear wife Rachael and your children, Erika and Robert. It’s been a most impactful and melodramatic three score and twelve.

PM: And whatever do you mean by that?

CO: Well, in a nutshell, that I fully expected far more from you. I mean, you started out your career in Climate science with so much promise, and then, as time went by, you kind of . . . sold out to the highest bidder and turned the pursuit of scientific truth into the divertissement of politics. I well remember that piece you published back in the late 1990s when you predicted that hybrid vehicles, such as Toyota’s Prius, “. . . were in the process of finding out that gas is so inexpensive in this country (despite its 40 cents per gallon tax) that no one except die-hard technophiles and hyper-greens are willing to shell out several thousand dollars extra for a hybrid.” I hope you will admit, Patrick, that you were wrong, wrong, wrong.

PM:  With all due respect, I certainly will not!  I was, am and will always be ahead of the scientific curve!

CO:  Oh really? Then how do you account for the fact that the vast majority of your scientific colleagues find your conclusions on global warming to be sorely wanting, and  accuse you of having sold out to petroleum-backed and financed interests like CATO and the Competitive Enterprise Institute CEI)?  I well remember when you accepted a whopping $100,000 donation from a fossil-fuel interest, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, back in  the days when you first joined up with CTI.  I will admit that science can and does include advocacy, but you somehow found a way to profit by it all, for which I find you guity.

PM: With all due respect, dear CO, there have long been scientists who have stood firmly in place against the majority of their so-called colleagues, and were eventually proven to be correct.  Is that not so?”

CO:  Are you really trying to compare yourself to Aristarchus, Copernicus, Kepler or Semmelweis? To misquote the late Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen, “Professor Michaels, I knew Aristarchus, Copernicus, Kepler and Semmelweis, and you, sir, are not they!”  Being eternal, omniscient and omnipotent, I can tell you I really, truly had a Divine Plan in creating the universe.  If you pay attention to the opening chapters of the Hebrew Bible (you called it the “Old Testament”), you will note, I hope, a certain unity of purpose spelled out in the creation the universe.  To wit, the order in which I created it.  I created the oceans before the seas, and the trees before the birds, and virtually everything else before humanity,  Which is to make obvious that neither the seas need the fish nor the trees need the birds.  Nothing which precedes depends on that which antecedes.  And since humanity comes last - the so-called “Crown of Creation” -  this obviously means that nothing depends upon  humanity, but rather that humanity depends on virtually everything.  In other words, dear Professor Michaels, you are wrong, wrong wrong . . . theologically, historically and scientifically.

PM: So what is it you’re trying to say?

CO: That you have placed a major - and G-d forbid fatal - stumbling block in the path toward saving the planet I created; that you have caused so many to ignore - or forget or misinterpret - my very First Commandment to “. . . be fruitful, multiply and act as responsible stewards of the good earth.” In the original, Dr. Michaels, this reads:

                                           פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ  (p’ru, u’revu, u’m’l’ooh et ha-aretz v’kheeb-shuah)

PM: I get the feeling that you aren’t terrible happy with me. Where do we go from here?

CO: See that elevator over there?

PM: Yes, what am I to do?

CO: Enter and wait for the doors to close . . . then press the button that takes you to the basement, where most regrettably, you will experience maximal universal warming . . .

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Speaking of Senator Manchin . . .

Back in 1966, when he first ran for political office, Ronald Reagan, who was on the receiving end of a lot of ill will and jibes from California Republicans, announced that he would follow what he termed the unwritten Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.” This made for smart politics, for following on the heels of the disastrous 1964 election when Lyndon Johnson destroyed Senator Barry Goldwater in the Electoral College (486-52) and won two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, the GOP was in the finger-pointing mood. This “Eleventh Commandment” strategy worked well for Reagan, for not only did it fit his personality as “a nice man with a lose screw,” but led him to a 57%-42% landslide victory over the incumbent Democratic Governor, Edmund G. “Pat” Brown. And, as they say, “The rest is history.”

For the next half century, Republicans pretty much heeded their Eleventh Commandment, which was, in fact, not the creation of Ronald Reagan, but rather of the long-forgotten Gaylord Parkinson, who served as state chair of the California Republican Party during the 1960s. Even during the worst days of Richard Nixon and Watergate, Republicans managed to put the screws to their president not by castigating him as a person, but rather by adhering to a tightly-constructed legalistic strategy. This all ended in 2016, when a ton of Republican “heavy hitters” (e.g. Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio et al) called Donald Trump virtually every name in the book . . . and then some.  Fat lot of good it did ‘em! Once “The Orange Man” became their official nominee, the Eleventh Commandment was reinstated and, in the words of Bing Crosby “. . . seldom [was] heard a discouraging word and the skies [were] not cloudy all day.” That lasted until January 7, 2022 when Republican leaders in Congress lambasted their leader for grave sins against the body politic.  Of course, their brickbats soon faded, and within less than 72 hours, most went back to honoring their Eleventh Commandment.  And ever since, institutional Republicans (with a few notable exceptions like Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger as well as Senator Mitt Romney) have stood idly by with mouths shut and permitted their titular leader rant and rave as he pleases. Once again, they are - at least on the surface - a unified party.

Looking over at the other side of the aisle, it is obvious that Democrats have never abided by a commandment which forbids negative speech against one’s political compatriots. As far back as the 1930s, Will Rogers, the cowboy philosopher, highest-paid Hollywood actor and political pundit joked, “I am a member of no organized party: I am a Democrat.” Back in those days, the Democrats were America’s party of dysfunction, an unstable coalition of urban Northern liberals and rural Southern conservatives. Occasionally, the two wings worked together, as during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term, but more often they clashed, right up until the party splintered during the 1960s, as Southern conservatives bailed out to join the Republicans.  For the past several years, there have been obvious, clear-cut factions within the Democratic caucus: moderates and centrists, progressives and near-socialists, and a hard-core conservative or two. 

Included in this latter listing is Joseph Manchin III, the Senior Senator from West Virginia.  Manchin, a multi-millionaire whose fortune comes mostly from coal and gas, is wealthy enough to drive a Maserati and live on a houseboat in the Potomac River when in Washington. He is, without question, the most powerful Democrat on Capitol Hill. How so?  Well, in order for Democrats to pass any legislation in the United States Senate requiring a 51-vote majority (as opposed to a 60-vote filibuster-proof "super majority”), every Democrat - plus Vice President Harris - must vote as a unified bloc.  That’s where Senator Manchin’s power comes in, for like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) he can all but single-handedly stymie any piece of legislation. Just this past Thursday, Manchin informed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that he would not support a Democratic proposal for new climate change spending and higher taxes for corporations and the wealthiest Americans.  This came after more than a year of negotiating (in what turned out to be bad faith) with fellow Democrats, always promising that he was “seeking a common middle ground” by which he could find a package which he could agree to vote for - a measure which would, in addition to allocating funds for climate change and lowering prescription costs, would be paid for it by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  His announcement caused extraordinary consternation on the part of his Democratic colleagues.  Truth to tell, the Democrats should not have been so shocked; after all, Manchin had already stymied earlier attempts to pass President Joe Biden's "Build Back Better" legislation over concerns about the deficit and inflation. 

As Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Manchin can pretty much do whatever is best for him and his financial portfolio.  It should be noted that over the past several years, Senator Manchin has received the most funding from the oil and gas industry of any senator, including $1.6 million in donations from fossil fuel PACs alone.  This should come as no surprise, for not only is Manchin the Energy and Natural Resources Chair, he also represents West Virginia - the country’s largest coal-producing state.  In standing steadfast against anything green, Manchin is serving two masters at once: the mining industry and his own stock portfolio.  

Senator Manchin has drawn a lot of withering criticism from his Democratic colleagues for all but single-handedly limiting, then scuttling, his party’s attempt to enact legislation directly addressing climate change.  And then, within 24 hours of announcing that he could not go along with their latest proposal, he called in to a West Virginia radio show during which he suggested that in another month or so, he might see his way clear to salvaging the last bits of President Biden’s domestic agenda!  Is it any wonder that Democrats have had enough of (and with) Joe Manchin? While still in Saudi Arabia, President Biden was asked whether he thought Senator Manchin had been negotiating in good faith. The President demurred, saying he was not the one who had been negotiating with him. 

There seems to be next-to-nothing the White House and Congressional Democrats can do or offer in order to get Joe Manchin to cease being such a damnable political stumbling block. As New York Times writer Emily Cochrane noted in a recent piece, “On Capitol Hill, Mr. Manchin is something of a unicorn — the only national Democrat from his ruby-red state — and acts and votes accordingly. Set to face voters in 2024, he is unlikely to be threatened by a primary challenger in a state former President Donald J. Trump won by nearly 40 points in 2020.”  And so, it looks like the disorganized party of Will Rogers are stuck with him . . . unless or until they make his vote irrelevant.  How to do this?  Democrats have to put as much time, talent and treasure into flipping at least 3 or 4 senate seats this coming November.  The best chances will be in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida.  The first 2 are open seats in which Republican  incumbents have decided to retire and have political crazies running in their stead (J.D. Vance in Ohio and Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania); the latter two have incumbents carrying serious baggage (Ron Johnson in Wisconsin and Marco Rubio in Florida) and running against smart, well-funded Democrats (John Fettermann in Pennsylvania  and Val Demmings in Florida).  If, like me, you receive fund-raising emails from most Democratic campaigns, consider chipping in a few bucks from time to time.

Democrats have the issues: abortion, guns violence, home-grown terrorism, climate change, and the Republicans refusal to abandon their so-called 11th Commandment. Can this be enough to overcome Party of Trump whose vocabulary will be limited to precisely 5 words: “inflation” and “the price of gas.”  

I have to believe it is.

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone   

Federalists, Dystopians, and Extreme Nausea

Truth to tell, Friday’s 5-4* Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case centered on a Mississippi law that bars most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, didn’t come as that much of a surprise. Movement conservatives, including the Christian Right, the Federalist Society and their billionaire backers, have been pumping time, effort, energy and endless shekels into reversing Roe v. Wade for more than 40 years. Friday’s ruling has automatically jump started so-called “trigger laws” in 13 states as well as putting fear, loathing and extreme nausea into the minds, hearts and kishkes of an overwhelming majority of the American public. (* It should be noted that Chief Justice John Roberts did not join the majority, writing in a concurring opinion that he would not have overturned Roe, but instead would have only uphold Mississippi's law banning abortions after 15 weeks.)  Despite writing that Roe had been fatally flawed when decided back in 1973, Justice Samuel Alito tried to paper over the decision by stating that it was not intended to ban all abortions in the United States; merely to put the decision back into the hands of the individual states.  Can you say “disingenuous?” 

“Trigger laws” would effectively ban abortions almost immediately after a decision from the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.  These states include Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Kentucky and Alabama.  There are an additional 9 states which have already banned abortions: Wisconsin, Michigan, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.  In an interview on Face the Nation, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem defended her state’s trigger law, rationalizing that in cases of rape and/or incest she does not believe one tragedy is "a reason to have another tragedy occur."  Governor Noem said her state will now work to bolster resources for women who will now have to carry their pregnancies to term, including with more mental health counseling and family services.  "I would prefer that we continue to make sure we go forward and that we're putting resources in front of these women and walking alongside them, getting them the health care, the care, the mental health counseling and services that they should need to make sure that we can continue to support them and build stronger families far into the future as well," she said, adding, "The Supreme Court did its job: it fixed a wrong decision it made many years ago and returned this power back to the states, which is how the Constitution and our Founders intended it."  It should be noted that Governor Noem has made more than a handful of comments that she’s seriously considering making a White House bid in 2024. . .

For the first 15 years after Roe guaranteed women the legal right to control their own bodily destiny, Republicans were as likely as Democrats to support an absolute right to legal abortion, and sometimes even more so. But 2010 swept in a different breed of Republican, powered by Tea Party supporters, who locked in a new conservatism. Going into the 2010 midterm elections, Democrats controlled 27 state legislatures going in, and ended up with 16; Republicans started with 14 and ended up controlling 25. Republicans swept not only the South but Democratic strongholds in the Midwest, picking up more seats nationwide than either party had in four decades. By the time the votes had been counted, they held their biggest margin since the Great Depression. From that point on, Republican-controlled state legislatures began passing more and more restrictive laws which began the inexorable path toward the total dismantling of Roe v. Wade. Not that all the Republican state legislators were saturated with Biblical fervor. They did, in many cases, become increasingly more pro-life in order to grow their majorities and assure greater funding from well-heeled (and largely anonymous) billionaire backers.  This funding issue is crucial; were it not for the Court’s egregious 5-4 Citizens United v. FEC decision back in 2010, which eliminated the prohibition on PACS (“political action committees”) and corporations making unfettered independent expenditures, it is likely that Roe v. Wade would still be settled law today. 

Now mind you, Dobbs (the case which overturned Roe) wasn’t the only terrible ruling from the high court this past week.  Just the day before ruling that women no longer had any say in their bodily destinies, the court struck down a New York gun law enacted more than a century ago that restricts carrying a concealed handgun outside the home. The opinion changes the framework that lower courts will use to analyze other gun restrictions, which could include proposals currently before Congress if they eventually become law.  According to Justice Clarence Thomas, courts are required to "assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment's text and historical understanding,"   

For instance, Thomas wrote, if a gun law is addressing a societal problem that also existed in the 18th century, it is evidence that the modern law is unconstitutional if there was no similar regulation then. Likewise, he said, if that societal problem was historically addressed using a type of regulation different than the one now before a court, this is also evidence that the modern law is unconstitutional.

"When confronting such present-day firearm regulations, this historical inquiry that courts must conduct will often involve reasoning by analogy—a commonplace task for any lawyer or judge. Like all analogical reasoning, determining whether a historical regulation is a proper analogue for a distinctly modern firearm regulation requires a determination of whether the two regulations are 'relevantly similar,'" Thomas wrote.  Thursday's ruling means that for a court to find any type of gun law constitutional, it will have to be consistent with how firearms were regulated historically.  This means states and localities will run into legal trouble whenever they try to enact a gun law that does not have a historical parallel, particularly if the problem the law is trying to address is a problem that arguably has existed for generations.  

In other words, just as with the Dobbs decision, this one invites us to travel back into the past . . . to willfully ignore past decisions of the court.  To a huge extent, this is the work of the  Federalist Society, which wants nothing so much as to return to an America in which men rule over women, states have clear control of the law, black’s and other minorities legal rights take a backseat to those of White Christians, and the frontier is once again, just outside our front doors.

During times like these, my reading habits change.  To get away from all the angst, worry and bile, I tend read as much P.G. Wodehouse as time permits.  (For those not familiar with him, Pelham Grenville Wodehouse, KBE [1881-1975] was one of the funniest, most inane British writers of all time.  He is perhaps best known and most beloved for his series of novels starring Bertie Wooster (one of the dotty “idle rich”) and his sagacious valet Jeeves. My all-time favorite, by the way, is Ring For Jeeves). For more serious, mind-numbing fiction, I find myself turning (or returning) to such classic dystopian novels as:

• The Time Machine by H.G. Wells (1895)

• The Iron Heel by Jack London (1908)

• We by Yevgeny Zamyatin (1921)

• Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932)

• It Can’t Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis (1936)

• 1984 by George Orwell (1948)

• Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

• The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood (1984)

Dystopia is an imagined community or society that is dehumanizing and frightening. “Dystopia” is the bipolar opposite of a utopia, which is a perfect society. The novels I have been rereading, most notably Lewis’ It Can’t Happen Here, and Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, take us into an American society/political culture in which democratic freedoms have been wrenchingly upended by brutal autocrats and hideous dictators. What makes these novels so compelling is that no matter how long ago they were written or published, they all seem to be talking about today. The one drawback in most of them is that they offer no solutions to the problems they all predict . . . short of moving away to another country.

                          Wedding photo of Clarence and Ginni Lamp Thomas in 1987

Although by no means a novelist, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a world-class dystopian.  In his separate, concurring opinion in last Friday’s Dobbs decision, Thomas wrote that this was undoubtedly “an erroneous decision.”  Thomas went on to write that the Court should “reconsider” such previous rulings as those that protect contraception access (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965), same-sex relationships (Lawrence v. Texas. 2003) and same-sex marriages (Obergefell v. Hodges,  2015).  Not surprisingly, nowhere did Mr.  Justice Thomas mention the court’s unanimous 1967 decision (Loving v. Virginia) decision which made inter-racial marriages legal.  At best, Thomas’s omission could be considered a case of inconsistency; at worst, utter hypocrisy.  But then again, hypocrisy and inconsistency have long been key ingredients in both bare-knuckle politics and dystopian literature.  

For all those who have been so vociferously in favor of over-turning Roe v. Wade, one has to wonder whether they are going to do anything about assisting all these newborns (even those who are the product of rape and incest) with food, housing, medical care and education, or just leave them floating in the breeze.  And do all those ultra-conservative cretins who have hopped aboard the “Replacement Theory” bandwagon understand that by outlawing abortions - which will most directly affect non-whites and the poor - will greatly increase the minority population of the United States . . . thus making their supposedly “worst nightmare” a far greater reality?  Not only are they both inconsistent and hypocritical; they are immoral. 

As mentioned above, dystopian novels rarely provide suggestions for remediation . . .  short of emigration. Not being a dystopian writer, permit me to conclude with a  couple of suggestions:

1. Increase the number of Supreme Court Justices from 9 to 13 . . .  the number of Federal Judicial Circuits there are in the U.S.A.

2. Elect a staunchly Democratic Congress which will get rid of the filibuster and enact a bill which codifies abortion as a federal right.

3. Start the process of overturning the Citizens United  ruling. 

4. Make sure that Roe v. Wade is on every ballot in every state and district in 2022.

Never give up hope!  This land belongs to the majority . . . 

Copyright© 2022 Kurt F.  Stone

Don't Find Fault; Find a Remedy

The late Senator/Vice President Hubert Horatio Humphrey (1911-1978) was, in many ways, his generation’s version of Joe Biden; accomplished, mostly - though not universally - well-liked and respected, decent . . . and not overly quotable. About the only quip he is remembered for in a public career spanning nearly 35 years is: To err is human. To blame somebody else is politics.  Sadly, Humphrey’s bon mot carries even more weight and truth in 2022 than it did back in the early 1960s when he first uttered it. 

Although finger-pointing has long played a noxious role in politics, it has never been as much a replacement for action as it has become in the past several years. In the same way, hardcore, steel-encased partisanship was never as much an absolute roadblock to passing legislation of any kind as it has become in the era of Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy. For most of American political history, certain Congressional measures were invariably guaranteed of passage: federal judgeships, names of courthouses, ambassadorships and resolutions of praise or condemnation, to name but a few.  Sadly, this is not so much the case today, when an historic nomination to the Supreme Court barely passes, a resolution condemning anti-Semitism or praising cops for saving the Capitol on January 6, 2021 finds naysayers or H.R. 7990, Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro’s Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act cannot attract more than 9 republicans voting in its favor.  (Please note that Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney, who has become a bit of a fan-favorite amongst Democrats, actually voted against passage of the bill, which provides $28 million to address infant formula shortages.) 

Why ultra-partisanship should stand in the way of even the simplest actions being approved is not all that easy to limn, for their are a lot of disparate factors at play here. But to my way of thinking, one of the most obvious can be summed up in three words first used by Henry E. Peterson, an Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division at a 1974 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing: “Follow the money.” (For film aficionados, the creator of the term would be novelist/screenwriter William Goldman, who put the three words into the mouth of “Deep Throat” [as played by actor Hal Holbrook] in the 1976 blockbuster film “All the President’s Men.”)

So let’s follow the money. . . . Ever since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, Citizen’s United V Federal Elections Commission, which gave the green light to mega-wealthy citizens and corporations to flood American politics with unlimited $$$, politics has become a matter of doing what is best for the donor class. Doing their bidding has become far more important than doing what is right. Money has become the most impregnable roadblock in public life. That one judicial decision has had an immense impact on everything from the failure to pass gun safety laws and the successful banning of books in public school libraries, and from the inability to enact meaningful climate change legislation, to the emasculation of voting rights laws and the vast growth of self-financed, civically illiterate candidates for public offices ranging from local school boards and state legislatures to the very halls of Congress. Citizens United, which gave lucre protected speech status  under terms of the First Amendment and turned corporations into people, has also made it possible for political money to become both invisible and anonymous through the creation of hundreds of PACs - “Political Action Committees.”  These committees have the ability to bypass federal election laws, and contribute hundreds of  millions - even billions - of dollars to “causes” . . . which is a euphemism for both political candidates and corporate dreams.

Although we are only in the month of May, we are nonetheless up to our necks in midterm primaries; November 2022 is just around the corner. This means that as slow and relatively ineffectual as the current Congress (the 117th) has been, its going to become even slower and less effectual. Minority leaders McConnell and McCarthy are going to do everything in their power to bring all Congressional action to a virtual standstill. The Democrats are legislatively stymied; about all they can accomplish in the last months of this Congress is holding Republican feet to the fire by forcing them to go on the record through a series of votes and televising hearings of the January 6 Committee in the hope that the American public gets some notion of just how dangerously close we have come to losing our hold on Democracy.

In the upcoming midterm elections, the Democrats will run on a platform of issues and actions they seek to accomplish in the future. As for the Republicans, they have already admitted that they will not have a platform . . . outside of returning the Democrats to the minority by repeatedly harping on how the ultra-Left has caused historically high inflation and souring gas prices, as well as accusing them of being Socialists and Communists; of seeking to increase the flood of illegal immigrants in order to take away American job,s and then quickly giving them citizenship rights so that they may vote for Democrats.

Not much of a platform, is it?

And should they be restored to the majority, Republicans will no doubt hold hearings as a way of getting back at the likes of Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin and the gang for the actions of the January 6 committee.

In other words, they’re going to be doing the bidding of their well-heeled right-wing masters.  

Follow the money!

In the months leading up to the midterm elections, it will be the Democrats’ responsibility to get across the fact that although inflation is at a 40 year high, corporate profits are a 50 year high. Then too, whenever House and Senate candidates face each other in public debates (that is assuming that Republicans will agree to it in the first place), they must ask simple questions, such as:

“The price of gas is set by several factors:

• the price of crude oil and its availability

• refining costs

• the cost to distribute

• state and federal taxes

• the oil companies desire for profit

“Tell me: since none of these factors are controlled by the President of the United States, what are you going to propose that Congress do about it?   

What it all is going to boil down to in November is precisely whom the two parties’ candidates seek to serve: their donors or the voting public?  And what will they see as their most important challenge: to find fault or to  seek remedies?  

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

Replacement Theory: Eugenics Refitted in 21st Century Rags

Of all the professional pursuits I have engaged in over the past half-century (Oy!), none has been more challenging or rewarding than the field of Medical Ethics. (Yes, I can hear the quip “Isn’t that a bit of an oxymoron?” for the thousandth time . . . and no, it is decidedly NOT). Medical ethics is the one field in which I truly feel I am making a difference in this world. At the same time, each day, each week, requires a tremendous amount of study, and a lot of learning. One of the things that takes up quite a bit of learning time is cramming tons of medical acronyms (such as ARDS, BPD, DVT or PML, to name but a teeny-tiny handful) and then translating them into understandable lay English for the masses. Please know that for purposes of this essay, we won’t  get into even a small sampling, lest you, dear reader, fear that any of the abbreviations or terms will become part of some final exam.

G-d forbid! 

Whether or not one knows the difference between “PK” (Pharmacokinetics) and PD (Pharmacodynamics) is not terribly important; it can easily be solved by asking a question or two from an expert.  However, in the world of modern politics, there are tons of terms (which may or may not have their own acronyms) which are terribly important . . . such as “CRT” (Critical Race Theory), “Let’s Go Brandon,” (a right-wing code for “F*ck Joe Biden,”) and one of the newest, “Replacement Theory,” which has come back onto center-stage as a result of this week’s massacre at a Buffalo-area supermarket which took the lives of more than a dozen African-Americans.

“Replacement Theory” (often prefaced by “The Great”), first came to public attention in July, 2017, when bands of White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis, attending a “Unite the Right” rally, marched through the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, brandishing tiki torches and chanting “Jews will not replace us!” and “You will not replace us!” Nearly two years later, two consecutive mass shootings occurred in a terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. The attacks were carried out by a lone gunman who entered both mosques during Friday prayer; 51 people were killed and 40 injured. Prior to going on his murderous rampage, the shooter, who was eventually sentenced to 51 life terms without the possibility of parole, issued a 74-page manifesto entitled The Great Replacement. In it, he expressed several anti-immigrant sentiments, including hate speech against migrants, white supremacist rhetoric, and calls for all non-European immigrants in Europe - who he claimed to be "invading his land" - to be removed.

In last week’s mass murder up in Buffalo, the eighteen-year old terrorist, like his counterpart in the Christchurch terrorist tragedy, posted a manifesto in which he accused “Jews, Democrats and Communists” of doing everything in their power to bring about “white genocide” - of “replacing” white people with “illegal immigrants, blacks, browns and Asians” who would then vote a straight Democratic ticket with an eye to eliminating “White Christians.” Somewhat lost in the shuffle was a murderous terror attack on a Taiwanese Presbyterian church in Laguna Woods, a community in Southern California’s Orange County.  Once again, the shooter - who was hogtied by members of the congregation with an extension cord - killed because he was a racist who wanted to get rid of as many “aliens” as possible.  (The one person killed in the attack was John Chen, a 52-year old doctor of Sports Medicine in nearby Aliso Viejo.  If not for the heroic Dr. Chen, more congregants would have been murdered. Hauntingly, he was one of my niece Julie’s physicians some years back.)

“Replacement Theory,” got its name from a 2010 work (Le Grand Remplacement) by the French writer Renaud Camus. In his book, Camus depicted a population replacement said to occur in a short time lapse of one or two generations. The French migrant crisis was particularly conducive to the spread of Camus's ideas, while the terrorist attacks accelerated the construction of immigrants as an existential threat among those who shared such a worldview. It didn’t take too long for his worldview to turn into a conspiracy theory and find fertile ground in the rest of Europe and the United States. When all is said and done, Camus’ theory is not all that dissimilar to the 19th-century atrocity known as “Eugenics” - a set of beliefs and practices which aimed to improve the genetic quality of a human population, historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior. The Nazis - particularly Dr. Josef Mengele (Der Todesengel, the “Angel of Death”) comes to mind. From Eugenics to Replacement Theory isn’t that great a leap.

Lest we sneer at “The Great Replacement” as the special provenance of political crazies, lovers of loony conspiracy theories, fans of Tucker Carlson and garden variety Neo-Nazis and racists, consider a few horrifying facts:

• About 1 in 3 U.S. adults believes an effort is underway to replace U.S.-born Americans with immigrants for electoral gains;

• About 3 in 10 also worry that more immigration is causing U.S.-born Americans to lose their economic, political and cultural influence. (Republicans are more likely than Democrats to fear a loss of influence because of immigration, 36% to 27%.)

• Replacement Theory has moved from the fringes into the mainstream among Congressional Republicans. With the exception of Representatives Liz Cheney (R-Wyo) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) who ripped their colleagues for not speaking out against White Supremacy which lay just beneath the Buffalo massacre (for which they have been roundly condemned) not a single member of the Republican caucus has said word one. Indeed, the number 3 member of the House Republican caucus (Elise Stefanik) chose to attack Democrats in general, and President Joe Biden in particular for the massacre: “Democrats desperately want wide open borders and mass amnesty for illegals allowing them to vote. Like the vast majority of Americans, Republicans want to secure our borders and protect election integrity.

Has the whole world gone crazy?  Why oh why do so many people get their news and views from conspiracy-mongers who neither believe nor give a rat’s rump about so-called “White Genocide?  Anyone who could come up with an answer to that question would be in the running for the Nobel Prize in either peace or medicine.  As to what we can do to stifle the voices, the violence and the virulence of these monsters is a bit less confusing, but a hell of a lot more cumbersome.  It is up to us, the masses of ordinary citizens - those who seek a saner and safer society in which to live, love and learn - we MUST banish the bigots, the lovers of totalitarianism, those who are more concerned with the freedom to own weapons of mass destruction than to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and live up to the nation’s slogan e pluribus unum - “Out of many, one.”

I can see no reason why we, the masses of the ordinary, cannot band together and send the haters of humanity back to their humdrum lives . . . far, far away from seats of power.   Put up lawn signs; go knocking on doors, drive neighbors to the polls, and always, always remember the words of Churchill:

“NEVER GIVE UP. NEVER GIVE UP! NEVER GIVE UP!! NEVER, NEVER, NEVER,NEVER NEVER-NEVER-NEVER-NEVER!!!”

Copyright©2022 Kurt F. Stone

"There Are More Horses' Asses Than There Are Horses"

Audio Block

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

Without question, Dorothy Parker and Will Rogers were two of the most notable, quotable wits of the past century or so. Parker, a poet and world-class epigrammatist, screenwriter and saucy satirist, the teeny-tiny “mouth that roared” was best known for such pity maxims as “Men don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses,” The best way to avoid a hangover is to stay drunk,” and a marvelous epigram about the equally quotable Oscar Wilde which appeared in a 1927 issue of the original Life:

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

Then there was Will Rogers: vaudevillian with a lariat, beloved motion picture actor, political commentator and honorary mayor of Beverly Hills, He was perhaps best known for the statement: “I belong to no organized party; I am a Democrat.” One of Mayor Rogers’ very best political quotes (although wrongly attributed to Watergate figure G. Gordon Liddy) is as satirically insightful today as when he first uttered it nearly a century ago: “There are more horses’ asses than there are horses.”  Rogers’ bon mot is, perhaps, best understood by Parker,  who once noted: “There’s a hell of a distance between wise-cracking and wit. Wit has truth in it; wise-cracking is simply calisthenics with words.”

And indeed, when considering all the utter cruelty and cerebral rigor mortis occurring in partisan politics these days, Rogers’ quip about horse’s asses is absolutely spot on.  Need some examples? Just the other day, while a clear majority of America was proudly celebrating Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation to become the first Black woman to sit on the United States Supreme Court, there was a concurrent walkout of every Republican senator (save one, Utah’s Mitt Romney) the moment Vice President Harris announced the final vote.  Despite possessing virtually every quality and experience one might wish for a Justice - including humility and brilliance - 47 Republicans voted against her, claiming either that she was soft on crime, supported pedophilia or possessed an “activist” judicial philosophy.  Did they really believe it?  Of course not; they simply did not want to give the Republican base a reason to challenge them in the next election.

Then there’s the case of another Black judge, the late Joseph W. Hackett (1932-2021) who was the first Black man to serve on the Florida Supreme Court and the first Black judge on a federal appeals court in the Deep South.  Upon his passing, it seemed both natural and fair for Congress to pass a bill naming a federal courthouse after him.  When the time came to organize such a proposal, virtually every member of the Florida congressional delegation - Republican Senators Rick Scott and Marco Rubio, along with all 16 Republican members of the House and all 11 Democrats, signed on as co-sponsors.  It appeared that Judge Hackett was going to be enshrined.  History was on the side of a man who attended segregated public schools and graduated from two historically black universities, and then rose to the judicial heights. For generations, the naming of federal courthouses after distinguished jurists has been the one area where congressional bipartisanship is both expected and de rigueur.  But such was not to be the case with Judge Hackett.  As journalist Annie Karni wrote in a February 22, 2022 (2/22/22) piece in the New  York Times: “ . . . in a last-minute flurry, Republicans abruptly pulled their backing with no explanation and ultimately killed the measure, leaving its fate unclear, many of its champions livid and some of its newfound opponents professing ignorance about what had happened.   

                                                  Rep. Andrew Clyde (R.-GA)

What had happened? The late Judge Joseph W. Hackett’s nomination had appeared in Georgia Republican Andrew Clyde’s crosshairs . . . that’s what happened. Clyde, shown in the photo on the right, is a dead-ringer for the australopithecus robustus, a late Pliocene-Early Pleistocene (4 to 2 million years ago) epoch humanoid. How and why did Rep. Clyde singlehandedly turn a routine vote to name a federal building after a trailblazing judge into a Republican purity test? 

First the how: Rep. Clyde circulated a 1999 Associated Press article about one of Hackett’s decisions relating to prayer in schools. Never mind that Hackett was following Supreme Court precedent when he ruled against student-approved prayers at graduation ceremonies. This single decision made him toxic among House Republicans, with 89% eventually voting against naming the courthouse after him. Since the bill’s passage was seen as certain, it had come for a vote under a fast-tracked process that required a two-thirds majority, which meant that with Republicans suddenly opposed, it failed.  When Republican members of the Florida Congressional delegation were asked why they wound up voting against a nominee they had originally supported, most answered “I don’t know.” Well, at least they were being honest . . . 

Next the why: Rep. Andrew Clyde, like fellow Georgian Marjorie Taylor Greene, is a first-term member of the House.  In his short Congressional career, he has become known for such things as voting against a resolution to give the Congressional Gold Medal to the police officers who responded to the January 6th insurrection; opposing the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act that made lynching a federal hate crime; and voting against recognizing Juneteenth as a federal holiday.  He’s the guy who called January 6 “just a normal tourist visit,” and has been repeatedly fined for not wearing a mask on the House floor.  In other words, despite resembling a prehistoric ape, he’s one of congress’s leading horse’s asses.  And let us not forget California’s Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader in the House, who said not a word about Clyde’s - or his party’s lunacy.  And this is the man who desperately wants to become the next Speaker of the House! We can always pray that the stable suffers a bout of equine encephalitis.

This is not meant to imply that horse’s asses are housed in just one political stable. Goodness knows, one can find equine tuchases within the ranks of Democrats and progressives as well as Libertarians, Socialists and QAnon quacks.  But still and all, the largest and most egregious number reside in the Republican paddock.  

Here in Florida, we are subject to the constant whinnying of Governor Ron DeSantis who, while ignoring such major statewide issues as skyrocketing insurance premiums, unaffordable rental costs and a chief medical officer who does not believe in the conclusions of science, instead has created his own militia whose sole purpose is to ride herd on electoral fraud (?), made abortion all but illegal for women and definitely felonious for physicians, and puts  the rights of parents to keep their children from having to read any book which might “make them feel bad” well ahead of the purpose of education - teaching children how to think. Just the other day, the head of the State Department of Education announced that the state was rejecting more than 50 math textbooks from next school year’s curriculum, citing references to critical race theory among reasons for the rejections. When questioned, Gov. DeSantis said there were different reasons for the books being rejected and officials aimed to “focus the education on the actual strong academic performance of the students.” “We don’t want things like math to have, you know, some of these other concepts introduced. It’s not been proven to be effective, and quite frankly, it takes our eye off the ball.” If anyone can explain what the hell he meant by that, please text me ASAP.

So what’s the cure for this extreme number of horse’s asses? As I believe I suggested a couple of weeks ago, stockpiling tens of thousands of feet of film showing them at their worst . . . and then airing the evidence of their idiocy on ad after ad after ad. And make sure that the media asks them truth-seeking questions . . . make them justify why they are doing everything in their power to excise ethics, fairness and the truth from democracy.

When all is said and done, horses belong in stables, paddocks and racetracks; not in the hallowed halls of Congress, state legislatures, the various governors’ mansions and above all, the White House.

Copyright©2022, Kurt F. Stone

"Woke"

A couple of days ago, North Carolina Republican Madison Cawthorn, the youngest philistine in Congress, held a town hall forum in his home state. Speaking to the group - many of whom are not supporting him for reelection - he called Ukrainian President Zelinskyy (the correct transliteration of his name) a "thug," and posited that the Ukrainian government, now under siege by the Russian military, is "incredibly corrupt, and incredibly evil, and has been pushing woke ideologies." Someone should have informed the 26-year old man child that the word woke, when used in its relatively modern political incarnation is decidedly not plural. Simply stated, there are no woke ideologies. Had I been at the gathering I would have fought through the increasing nausea to inform him of his misstatement and then ask him a simple question: “Would you please define the term woke (or stay woke) in its political context for all of us?” Not having been there (thank G-d!), I can only imagine the utter jabberwalky with which my inquiry no doubt would have been met. By and large, I have rarely met a Trumpeter who has the slightest idea of what the word woke means. When coming from the mouth of a moron, it is intended to be a derisive political aspersion; a synonymous look-down-the-nose slur . . . a middle-finger-in-the-air epithet for politically correct, progressive or liberal. 

A little research turns up the fact that the term woke or the two-word phrase stay woke goes back nearly 85 years when blues musician Huddle Ledbetter (better known as “Lead Belly - the King of the 12-String Guitar”) used it in a 1938 protest song entitled Scottsboro Boys. In the song, Ledbetter tells a story about nine black teenagers who were falsely accused of raping two white women on a train in Scottsboro, Alabama, in 1931. Ledbetter warns black people that they “. . . best stay woke, keep their eyes open", when travelling through Alabama.  In addition to the Scottsboro Boys, he also wrote songs about people in the news, such as FDR, Adolf Hitler, Jean Harlow, boxer Jack Johnson and, believe it  or not, Howard Hughes.

Three decades later in 1962, African American novelist William Melvin Kelley (1937-2017) wrote an article in the New York Times titled If You're Woke, You Dig It, in which he describes a 'woke' person as someone who's aware of the experiences of black people in the United States. The term gained popularity on social media in 2014 following the killing of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old who was fatally shot by a white police officer named Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. After prosecutors said that they did not have enough evidence to bring charges of murder or manslaughter against the officer, protests took place nationwide, with the slogan "stay woke" being used to shed light on instances of police brutality against Black people.

While it originally meant “becoming woken up or sensitised to issues of justice”, its meaning has changed over time into a political slur, according to linguist Tony Thorne.

The labels 'woke warrior', 'wokerati' (a British term) and 'woke worthies' are often used to insult people on the left, who are seen by conservatives as a threat to freedom of speech. A year ago, British P.M. Boris Johnson's spokesman said he was not sure what the word "woke" meant, despite the government having declared war on "woke worthies" and introducing a law to stop them. Then too, when leaving office in January 2021, former secretary of state Mike Pompeo tweeted: "Censorship, wokeness, political correctness, it all points on one direction — authoritarianism, cloaked as moral righteousness."

Secretary Pompeo’s statement is – as Granny Annie would have it “utter canal water.”

What this brief historico-entymological journey through the land of woke teaches us is a couple of intriguing factoids:

• That woke and its linguistic derivatives have a longer history than one might suspect;

• That its meaning changes over time, and that these changes are, generally speaking, due to changes in political action and vocabulary.

• That this single one-syllable word has so many meanings - especially today - as to be almost devoid of meaning itself.

New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), herself an avatar of wokeness, tweeted not too long ago that ‘Woke’ is a term pundits are now using as a derogatory euphemism for civil rights & justice.” As one of the most visible members of her generation (who grew up in the ‘90s, she insists - unlike progressives who grew up in the ‘60s through the ‘80s - that “Woke ain’t broke.” Where once woke meant to keep one’s eyes and ears attuned to social and political injustice, today’s up-and-comers believe it is far, far more. That being woke is senseless if it does not motivate liberals and progressives to action; to the understanding that words aren’t nearly as important as sweat they can produce.  

The next time you hear or read the word woke coming out of the mouth, pen or keyboard of a political Luddite, you might demand for them to define the term . . . and prepare yourself for the  sound of silence.

Copyright©2020 Kurt F. Stone