#1,001: How Do You Say "Bedbug" in Yiddish?

August 12, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

For people whose knowledge and familiarity of Jewish culture is based largely on Fiddler on the Roof and The Jazz Singer, Yiddish is nothing more than a quaint jargon spoken by men who wear fur-trimmed hats (streimelach - שטרײַמלעך) and married women who cover their hair with wigs (sheitln - שייַטלן). They are, of course, wrong. Yiddish is a real, honest-to-G-d language. Hell’s Bells, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Twain, de Maupassant . . . even Raymond Chander . . . have been translated into Yiddish, although it is beyond me why anyone would want to pal around with Feivel (Phillip) Marlow in Mama Loschen (the “mother tongue”). Linguistically, Yiddish is considered middle-high German (מיטל הויך דייַטש - mit’l hoych daytsch) an 8th-century language that provided the nascent Ashkenazi (German-Jewish) community with a vernacular fused with many elements taken from Hebrew and to some extent Aramaic, written in Hebrew letters. Over many centuries it adopted and adapted words derived from whatever European country Jews might find themselves living. Today, it is spoken mainly by the Orthodox.

Without necessarily knowing it, a lot of non-Jewish, English-speaking people freely use Yiddish words in everyday speech. Many of the words are pejorative:

shmuck, (a foolish or contemptible person);
shmendrick (a hapless fool);
putz (an idiot);
nosh (a quick bite);
shmegegge (a sycophant);
chutzpah (overweening self-confidence, grossly nervy);
mentch (a wonderful human being);
glitch (a minor malfunction) and
klutz (a supremely clumsy person).

This is just a minute sampling. Most Jewish Baby Boomers know little if any Yiddish beyond these kinds of words; their parents and grandparents only spoke Yiddish when they didn’t want their children or grandchildren to understand what they were talking about. In the Stone household, this was never a problem: neither our parents nor grandparents on either side of the family knew or spoke Mama Loschen . . . they were all American-born, hailing from such places like Minnesota, Chicago, and Baltimore going back to the 19th century. (I did manage to learn a bit of Yiddish myself while attending rabbinic school, in order to read Sholom Aleichem [the “Yiddish Mark Twain”] in the original. My mentor and guide to learning Yiddish was a professor with the delightfully Dickensian name of “Herbert Paper.”)

So what all does this have to do with the Yiddish word for “bedbug,” or JD Vance, the Republican nominee for Vice President, whose picture is at the top on the left? Well, in Yiddish, וואַנץ (pronounced “vontz’) is the “bedbug” . . . entomologically the Cimex lectularius Linnaeus, a blood-feeding parasite of humans, chickens, bats and occasionally domesticated animals. This is the definition one stores in the brain. Yiddish words and expressions, however, are often best “understood” in the kishkes . . . one’s stomach or guts. And it is in the kishkes where the parallel between “Vance” and “vontz” becomes clear. In Yiddish, to refer to someone as a וואַנץ is akin to calling them a disgusting, crazy person . . . as in “crazy as a bedbug.” It seems to me that any- and everyone who can go from calling IT “The American Hitler,” “The ultimate conman” or “insane” to becoming a blindly loyal MAGA straphanger is unquestionably a vontz.

Not only that: Vance/vontz is also, to teach yet another Yiddish word, טשודנע - tshudne - a weirdo. Unquestionably, JD Vance (a.k.a. “James Donald Bowman,” “James David Hamel,” “J.D. Vance” and [without the periods] “JD Vance) has belly-flopped his way on to the national political scene with less aplomb than Sarah Palin. While Vonts has attacked Democratic V.P. candidate Tim Walz for everything from being an “unabashed San Francisco-style Liberal” (he’s a Nebraskan who never so much as visited “The City” until recently) to being a “coward” after serving 24 years in the National Guard and becoming the highest-ranking non-commissioned officer ever to serve in the U.S. Congress. Moreover, Vontz has seen his favorability rating plunge to a record low minus 15 points . . . the worst in modern political history. Add to that Vonts’ comment about "childless cat ladies,“ his anti-democratic opinion that families with children should get more votes than the childless, and his having written a gushing forward to Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts’ far, far right tome “Dawn’s Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America,” which spells out precisely what IT is going to do to America in his next term, and you have the living, breathing example of a וואַנץ - a bedbug. (It should be noted that “Project 2025” is so utterly frightening and un-American that IT has disavowed any knowledge of it - one of the biggest and most obvious whoppers he has ever told.)

There are several well-known rules for selecting a vice presidential running mate, the most basic of which is “First, do no harm.” IT and his advisors have obviously broken this rule . . . presuming that he even pays attention to them. Had they done serious vetting of the man who made his tens of millions in San Francisco and then returned to Ohio to run for the United States Senate, they would have discovered his many liabilities, inconsistencies, and prior questionable comments about his running mate, women, mixed-race people, democracy itself. Many have come back to haunt him. It is doubtful Vontz will be able to attract any new independent/ undecided voters. He is doing quite poorly among suburban women and educated people in general. As a result, the Republican campaign has of late adopted a new strategy about Vontz: downplay his importance to the Republican ticket. In the words of It himself, “Historically, the vice president in terms of the election does not have any impact, I mean virtually no impact.” How’s that for a less-than-ringing endorsement? Then again, what can one expect to come from the mouth of a man (i.e. IT) who is currently undergoing the worst public psychological/political meltdown in the history of Presidential elections?

Permit me to close with a slightly altered blessing/curse from the mouth of טבֿיה די מילכיקע (Tevya the Milkman): “May G-d bless and keep Senator Vontz . . . far away from us.”

Comment 4 Likes

categories / 2024, Satire

#999: In Sanskrit, "Kamala" (कमल) Means "Lotus"; In America, It Means "POTUS"

July 29, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

It’s simply amazing how much the world can change in a mere 168 hours (1 week). A week ago, Trump was riding high on the iconic moment when he rose bloodied and with a defiantly raised fist from an assassination attempt, pulling away in the polls. President Biden, meanwhile, was struggling to recover from his dire late June debate against the Republican nominee and an unconvincing performance in the days since. Then, on Sunday, July 21, President Biden’s press office sent out a brief message telling the world that he would be leaving the 2024 presidential race. In the note, which many of us received via email, he wrote, in part:

It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.

Within a few more hours, he would publicly endorse Vice President Kamala Devi Harris for the Democratic nomination to face off against former POTUS Donald Trump and Ohio Senator J.D. Vance. The Vice President hit the ground running: by the next day, the Harris campaign had raised in excess of $50 million in smallish donations, and sent a massive steroidal infusion into the body politic. As of today the campaign is still in the deliriously happy “Honeymoon” stage, and has raised in excess of $200 million. (As an unexpected side benefit, viewership of the 2012-2019 cable TV show “Veep” has gone up more than 300 percent within a week.) For people all across the country, Vice President Harris’ entry into the race put smiles on faces, tears in eyes, and hope - until recently, a pretty rare commodity - into souls. Her polling numbers began creeping upward. At the same time, her entry into the race - along with an avalanche of endorsements - sent MAGA-world scurrying in anger, fear, and resentment, the resurrection of racist and birther memes, and above all, dire uncertainty. Suddenly, the campaign they were oh so comfortably running - the one against “Sleepy Joe” - had to be revamped; they would have to create a new game plan containing a new strategy, along with new lies and brand-new epithets.

Within the past 168 hours, Trump has called Vice President Harris “a bum”, “lazy,” and a “crazy liberal,” accused her of wanting to “defund the police,” claimed she was a “terrible prosecutor who never won a case,” and most recently, in a rally held in St. Cloud, MN, roared “she has no clue, she’s evil.” He told a rally in South Florida he “couldn’t care less” if he mispronounced her name, (he repeatedly proclaimed that there were “at least seven different ways” to say Kamala). Obviously, he was becoming even more unhinged than the norm; at a rally in Florida this past Friday night organized by the far-right Christian advocacy group Turning Point Action, Trump not only went personal against the Veep, but once again appeared to threaten American democracy:

“Christians, get out and vote! Just this time – you won’t have to do it anymore. You know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians,” he said at the event in West Palm Beach, not far from his Mar-a-Lago resort and residence. Trump also promised to create an anti-Christian bias federal task force, as well as to defund schools "pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content onto the lives of our children." Madame would have called this “crapola.”

Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post got into the anti-Harris attack by claiming that the V.P.’s step-daughter, Ella Emhoff, had personally raised more than $8 million for Hamas, and “does not consider herself to be Jewish.” A bit of research shows that Ella Emhoff did not raise $8 million to support Gaza. She did share a link to a fundraiser created by the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund. That fundraiser has generated more than $8 million from hundreds of thousands of donors, including one donation from Ms. Emhoff herself. The Trump campaign has used this untruth - along with Harris’ public position vis-à-vis Israel’s response to the October 7th attack, to “prove” that the V.P. is an “anti-Zionist, anti-Semite.”

The same Republican sources have reported that Harris “refused to attend” Israeli P.M. Benyamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress. What they of course left out is that both President Biden and Vice President Harris had a private meeting with the Israeli P.M. As such, Trumpsters are doing everything in their power to wrest Jewish votes away from the Democrats. I for one (who, despite being both an ordained rabbi and a Hebrew-speaking practicing Jew) have been accused of being both an “anti-Semite” and “anti-Israel”) because I refuse to condemn those who cannot or will not approve of each and every pronouncement of the Netanyahu government. Likewise, Kamala Harris - like Joe Biden - is, and will long remain, a strong supporter of Israel . . . despite - like yours truly - not agreeing with Bibi Netanyahu or his war cabinet on everything they do.

Ed Luce, the observant and perspicacious US editor and columnist of the Financial Times notes the rapidity with which Kamala Harris’ “capture of the Democratic crown has changed the political weather. A funereal Democratic party has rediscovered its zest.” I for one applaud her for also bringing a sense of “fun” to an election campaign that felt, until 168 hours ago, like a “death march.” Can Kamala Harris and whoever she taps to be her running mate win in November? Without jettisoning our current and much-needed gush of giddiness, we must leave room for political reality. The Harris campaign has quickly outlined the content of their campaign strategy: the seasoned prosecutor versus the convicted felon; the youngish forward-looking progressive versus the oldest presidential candidate in American history who wants to eliminate virtually every bit of progress since the New Deal; a candidate with a full slate of issues and proposals versus one whose strategy is nothing more than the denigration of his opponent; a woman who wants to expand human rights versus a man who wants to make America a land of and for white Christian males.

Kamala Harris, Democrats, Independents and lovers of freedom and democracy everywhere face 100 days of the most serious political knife fight in all American history. MAGA-world knows and follows the famous line from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: “There are no rules in a knife fight.” Want proof?

Already, we have seen Elon Musk, the owner of X (formerly Twitter, which I abandoned the day he announced his purchase) break his own rules by retweeting a parody Kamala Harris campaign ad without labeling it as misleading. Segments of video in the altered content — such as Harris speaking to crowds, and general videos of her supporters — were used in a recent Harris campaign video on YouTube. Most notably, the altered content used a voiceover that sounds like the vice president, making it seem she is calling President Joe Biden senile and herself an incompetent presidential candidate. There has also been a carload of false claims about Vice President Harris ranging from her not being eligible to run for POTUS due to citizenship issues, to having an affair in the 1990s with the then-married Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown (he had been separated from his wife for nearly a decade before they saw one another) to her not really being Black. Each of these claims (and more) has been fact-checked; all have been found to be total fabrications.

And lest we forget, in the eyes of MAGA-world her biggest negative is SHE LAUGHS TOO MUCH! When, I ask you, was the last time we ever heard the Sir Donald of Queens laugh?

In Sanskrit, Kamala, a very popular Indian name, is the lotus flower. Despite their delicate nature, these resolute plants can survive being submerged under ice and can even bloom in extreme heat. Some lotus plants can live for nearly a century! They symbolize both rebirth, (due to its blooming pattern of opening with the rising of the sun and closing as night falls), and persistence (because they're most commonly found in swampy, difficult terrain and emerge from the dark, muddy water looking pristine and beautiful).

For the sake of our future as a freedom-loving democratic republic, let’s do everything in our power to ensure that 100 days from today, LOTUS will become POTUS.

6 Comments 2 Likes

categories / 2024, American History

#997: A Brief Moment in Time

July 14, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

Come Sunday, August 4th, or, at the latest, Monday, August 5th, I will, G-d willing, be posting the 1,000th The K.F. Stone Weekly blog essay. (In reality, there are already more than 1,050 postings on this website - don’t forget my other blog, Tales from Hollywood & Vine). By the time I officially posted my first essay on February 5, 2005, I had already given the enterprise much thought, such as its name (some will recall that for the first several years it was entitled Beating the Bushes), its purpose, intellectual parameters, and what the range of events, issues, and personages might be included in each posting. The one thing I knew of a certainty - even before I had figured out what its masthead would read - was its basic purpose: to be a hebdomadal (weekly) witness to contemporary history. Looking back over the years, many of the people and events that made headlines and now - even less than 20 years old - have already found a place in the dustbin of history.

On a personal level, one of my main interests in creating a weekly blog was - and still is - a matter of personal discipline; of knowing that week in, week out, I would commit myself to researching, writing, editing, recording, and then posting an essay of anywhere between 1,250 and 6,000 words. In short (or long) I was giving myself the task of recording a brief moment in time. And time is so incredibly brief. Imagine that from Tuesday to Friday, I was researching and writing the first draft of a piece about the current state of the Biden Campaign and here, on Sunday, I am writing about the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. The latter - the attempted assassination - knocked the former off my schedule, not to mention the front page - as well as pages 2-5. And by this time next week? Who knows?

Earlier this morning I was scouring through various online sources, checking out responses to this horrifying event. Many Trump supporters publicly - and unsurprisingly - laid blame for the failed attack at the feet of President Biden and the “extreme left-wing, of which he is the leader.” Georgia Republican Representative Mike Collins wrote on X that “The Republican District Attorney in Butler County, PA, should immediately file charges against Joseph R. Biden for inciting an assassination.” Speaker Mike Johnson blamed “the usual suspects” for the shooting: “Biden, social media and Hollywood.” Within minutes of the shooting, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, who apparently has made the final cut in the race to be Trump’s V.P., wrote "Today is not just some isolated incident," Vance wrote on X. "The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination." This goes counter to statements made by both Trump and former First Lady Melania Trump on Truth Social, calling for unity. By mid-afternoon, more and more Republican notables began taking that tack. But the rhetorical damage had already been done; there continues to be a groundswell of conspiratorial fables on the internet.

As for the Democrats, many expressions of outrage mixed with prayers were delivered on the Sunday morning talk shows. President Biden has called for a heightened investigation by a consortium made up of the Secret Service, FBI, and Homeland Security agencies. President Biden, has already spoken to Donald Trump (who is currently at his residence in Bedminster, New Jersey) and plans to speak to the nation shortly (as I write this it is Sunday, 5:05 EDT). Predictably, President Biden has called for the passage of a new Assault Weapons ban; something he knows a great deal about; as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he sponsored and largely shepherded the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act into law in 1994. That law, among other things, included an “assault weapons” ban, which prohibited the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity magazines that could accommodate 10 rounds or more. This is par for the course for Democrats; whether it will do any good is anyone’s guess. I regret to say that I recently dropped my crystal ball into our washing machine; ever since, it has been cloudy and grimy, offering no answers.

The first email I received after news of the failed assassination attempt was was from a long-time reader of this blog (who, BTW, has rarely - if ever - agreed with me on anything). He opined “What better image can you have of a candidate, bloodied and fisted, defiantly in the air, immediately after being shot, if you needed a hero. This has to be worth a number of conflicted voters, to believe they have a Spartacus, Robin Hood, Rocky, or "gladiator" in their midst. A million advisors and publicity personnel couldn't have planned an event greater than this, and Democratic strategists have to be thinking up counters to the picture of a fisted, bloodied Trump, which will appear worldwide.”

If Donald Trump (and my friend who wrote the above-referenced email) knew their American political history, they would realize that the last (and only) time a former President was shot while seeking a comeback turned out rather badly for him. One hundred and twelve years ago, Theodore Roosevelt was campaigning to return to the presidency when a would-be assassin opened fire (ironically in Milwaukee, tomorrow’s RNC convenes). TR gave his 90-minute speech with a bullet lodged in his chest. Despite his heroics, TR nonetheless, managed to hand the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. It makes for a fascinating piece of political history. Where after being grazed Trump lifted a fist and shouted "FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!,=” Teddy stood erect. To this day, his bloody shirt is on display.

Another reader sent me an email asking if there was any possibility that the whole Trump assassination scenario might have been planned by his staff in order to win over undecided voters. I did my best to disabuse the reader of this notion . . . not because I had any evidence one way or another, but because I refuse to sink that low.

To my way of thinking, history has - and always shall have - the final word. Perhaps I am naïve, a fool, or even worse. But from where I sit and write . . . as a fairy well-educated patriot with a moral compass that manages to find due north more often than not, I have no other choice than to find the potential for goodness in many of humanity’s grimiest gutters.

In Fiddler on the Roof, the rebbe was asked if he had a prayer for the Tzar. Taking a breath, he chanted: “May G-d bless and keep the Tsar . . . far away from us!”

That’s my belief. . . and that’s why I continue writing this weekly blog!

From one moment in time to the next, that is my quest . . .

4 Comments 0 Likes

categories / 2024, Thoughts and Musings

#995: Box Office Poison?

June 30, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

There can be little doubt that this past Thursday contained the most memorable evening of Joe Biden’s half-century in politics . . . and for all the wrong reasons. The long-anticipated presidential debate between Trump and Biden turned into a clash between optics and reason whereby the latter was easily trounced by the former. There is no denying that Joe Biden looked and sounded old; his raspy functional dysphonia (common in nearly half the people over age 65) turned out to be no match for Trump’s irksome hyperkinetic dysarthria. Because optics play such an overwhelmingly important role in 21st-ceutury televised political encounters, Biden’s perceived loss to a man who managed to tell more than 40 out-and-out lies without breaking stride, shouldn’t be considered all that mystifying. But the Democratic response to Biden’s perceived failure is. Truth to tell, this one debate has, in the eyes and minds of many Biden supporters, made him what we Hollywood Brats would call "Box Office Poison.”

Newscasters of all stripes and persuasions seemed far more interested in talking up Biden’s vocal and mental blunders and lapses than the wall-to-wall lies told by Trump. My g-d . . . Biden was even chided for choosing the wrong side of the stage to stand on; camera right, which had him looking at where the moderators were seated rather than directly into the camera(s). Trump, a former television star, knew to stand on the left, which permitted him to look straight away into the camera, thus making it seem, by comparison, that Biden was staring off into space. Biden’s blunders and miscues had Democrats questioning whether or not he was up to the job; whether Biden should drop out of the race in favor of, say, Governors Gretchen Witmer (MI), or Gavin Newsome (CA) or Josh Shapiro (PA) or Roy Cooper (NC); or VP Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg or Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo; New Jersey Senator Cory Booker or even former First Lady Michelle Obama. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no one, to the best of my knowledge, called upon Donald Trump to bow out of the race . . . either because he is a convicted felon (34 counts) or a serial liar (30,573 lies during the 4 years he served as POTUS) or because he has - in the words of President Biden - “The morals of an alley cat.” The debate was so debased and unprofessional that this statement would turn out to be the most memorable line of the evening. As for Trump, who ever dreamed that the memorable rebuttal would be “I did not have sex with a porn star”? I for one could care less who can drive a golf ball farther or who has a lower par. I for one am far, far more concerned with who can surround himself with wiser, more fully experienced advisors . . . and then keep them for the whole 4 years. BTW: did you catch Trump’s turning Biden’s ability to keep his cabinet and staff together into a negative? He actually criticized him for not firing more people!

And yet, Biden is now, in the minds and fears of many Democratic office-holders, major financial backers, and political influencers “box office poison.” At first glance, the very term “Box Office Poison” seems incongruous in the vast world of competitive professional politics. It seems a better fit from the place called Hollywood . . . both the literal city composed of 3.51 square miles ((9.1 km) and the figurative term for a vast world of dreams . . . and the place I was born three-quarters of a century ago. To be certain, politics has long had a show-business aspect to it. Ever notice how nearly every Warner Brothers film of the 1930s and 40s (save Westerns) had at least one kitchen scene in which there was a framed photo of FDR on the wall? Or that Hollywood stars came out in force to raise funds during both world wars and signed on to give up-and-coming stars pointers on proper diction and deportment?

I don’t know if President Biden is a movie fan, let alone knows much Hollywood history. If not, I am here to tell him that he is in good company . . . this “Box Office Poison” nonsense. Let me explain. Back on May 4, 1938, the Independent Theater Owners Association prublished a red-bordered, full-page ad in the Hollywood Reporter bearing the title WAKE UP! Hollywood Producers. The hit job, written by the association’s president, Harry Brandt, began:

Practically all of the major studios are burdened with stars—whose public appeal is negligible—receiving tremendous salaries necessitated by contractual obligations. Having these stars under contract, and paying them sizeable sums weekly, the studios find themselves in the unhappy position to having put these box office deterrents in expensive pictures in the hope that some return on the investment might be had. This condition is not only burdensome to the studios and its stockholders but is likewise no boon to exhibitors who in the final analysis, suffer by the non-drawing power of these players. . .

The article went on to provide a list of major motion picture stars who, in Brandt’s opinion, were “Box Office Poison.” Among them, unbelievably, were such fan favorites as Katharine Hepburn, Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford, John Barrymore and Fred Astaire. While it is true that several of these actors had starred in relative “stinkers” in the preceding year or two

Hepburn in Quality Street and Holiday;
Garbo in The Painted Veil and Conquest;
Fred Astaire in A Damsel in Distress and
Joan Crawford in The Shining Hour and Mannequin

They were all able to quickly bounce back and remain at the top of their game for decades to come:

In 1939 Garbo starred in Ninotchka, for which she received a Best Actress Oscar nomination;
Hepburn would return to Broadway, starring in The Philadelphia Story, buy its rights, sell the rights to MGM, star in the film and continue acting with her “name above the title” for another 50+ years
Within 8 years, Joan Crawford would win a Best Actress Oscar for Mildred Pierce and then continue acting for another 30 years
Fred Astaire would make another 40 films including Easter Parade, On the Beach, and Finian’s Rainbow.

What these stars had in common - besides G-d-given talent - was indefatigable drive, a work ethic to beat the band, self-confidence and what today might be termed a “posse” . . . people who believed in them with all their hearts and souls. They also had proven track records of accomplishment and the ability, when seemingly down and out, to, in the words of Jerome Kern/Dorothy Fields song sung by Fred Astaire in his 1936 hit Swing Time: “Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start all over again.”

At a time when many of the nation’s editorial boards and everyday voters are urging Joe Biden to throw in the towel and hand off the Democratic nomination to another, younger, more appealing candidate I urge extreme caution. This would be foolhardy . . . and for several reasons. First, to wait until August 19 - the date the Chicago convention begins - would mean going 8 weeks without a standard bearer. It would also mean that during those 8 weeks, a handful of potential replacements would be spending the lion’s share of their time raising hundreds of millions of dollars, introducing themselves to the American voting public, and fending off all the lies being spread about them by the MAGA machine. Then too, they would all have to be hiring staff on contingency, working 24/7 on putting together a platform , and putting their daytime jobs on hold.

But most - and worst - of all, it would be virtually benching the one candidate who has the best chance of saving democracy from autocracy. My recommendation to President Biden (such unmitigated chutzpah on my part!) is that he raise the temperature by continually reminding the public that the alternative that America faces is a country led by a man who does not know the first thing about governing; a man who is a convicted felon; a man who demands not advisors and aides but toadies and sycophants; a man who is in thrall to the world’s worst despots and covers up all his failures by blaming them on others. At the same time, President Biden must continue telling the truth about what he and a divided government have been able to accomplish on behalf of the American people and indeed the world.

Believe me, when I tell you that I haven’t slept much since the debate. I have been going over and over in my mind whether to recommend finding a new nominee or sticking with Joe Biden. I know there will be plenty who disagree with me, but I’m going to redouble my efforts on behalf of Uncle Joe. No one else has the knowledge, wisdom, and experience as Joe Biden. No one else has a team as dedicated to making government work for all of us as Joe Biden. No one else can defeat the Felon of Fifth Avenue, the Misanthrope of Mar-a-Lago.

So far as what we, the Democratic base and those who are yet undecided can do is first, to make a small contribution to the Biden/Harris campaign (https://joebiden.com/donate-by-mail/). Each contribution provides a bit of money and a vote of confidence. The money is reportable; the vote of confidence is invaluable. Second, don’t give up on Joe Biden. He is not box office poison. He is a man who has devoted most of his life to working with and on behalf of the vast majority of Americans who take promises seriously, believe wholeheartedly that a return to the past cannot and will not improve the future, and greatly prefers a gentleman to a rank bully.

6 Comments 0 Likes

categories / 2024

#993: Far, Far Worse Than Smoot-Hawley?

June 23, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

Hopefully, by the time you finish reading this week’s post, you will be able to answer the following 3 questions:

Willis Hawley (1864-1941) & Reed Smoot (1864-1941)

What are the 3 ways the federal government can raise revenue?
Who were Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley (that’s them in the photo), and what’s the only thing they are remembered for?
What is the definition of “stagflation?”

If, by the end of this post you can successfully answer these 3 questions, you will know a hell of a lot more about American political history and economic theory than the Republican Party’s putative presidential nominee.

As MSNBC news anchor Stephanie Ruhle says every weeknight on her 11:00 pm show, Let’s get smarter! But before we do, permit me to confess that I am neither an economist, nor anything more than an amateur when it comes to macroeconomics or monetary theory. Rather, I have spent a lifetime being unceasingly curious about all things intellectual, and had the good fortune to study with a couple of masters in my early years at university: Daniel Burbidge Suits, professor emeritus of economics who specialized in the field of Economic Growth Theory and Models, as well as renowned American political history professors Page Smith and Laurence Vesey. Then too, I have, over the years, devoured just about every word the exalted Richard Hofstadter, Michael Beschloss, and Doris Kearns Goodwin ever wrote.

(I guess that makes me a librarian’s best friend . . . one of the only advantages of being afflicted with Crohn’s Disease. How’s that? Well, in Hebrew, the answer to that question is רק הנאורים יבינו - namely, “only the enlightened will understand.”)

And so, without further ado, let’s roll up our sleeves, don our eyeshades, and get down to the business of learning something about taxes, tariffs, and Trump . . .

First and foremost, the federal government finances its operations with taxes, fees, and other receipts collected from many different sectors of the economy. In the last fiscal year, federal receipts totaled about $4.4 trillion, or 16.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The largest sources of revenues are individual income taxes (49%) and payroll taxes (36%) followed by corporate income taxes (9%).

Another source of revenue comes from tariffs. Tariffs are a form of tax applied on imports from other countries. Most economists say the costs are largely passed on to consumers. Countries have used them to protect domestic industries, such as agriculture and renewable energy, as well as to retaliate against other states’ unfair trade practices. And, if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election, thus giving him the power to (among many, other heretofore unthinkable things) make his economic vision a reality: instituting an "all-tariff policy" which would enable the U.S. to get rid of its income tax. Egad! The man actually wants to replace individual and corporate income taxes with tariffs!

Almost every country imposes some tariffs. In general, wealthy countries maintain low tariffs compared to developing countries. There are several reasons why: developing countries might have more fragile industries that they wish to protect, or they might have fewer sources of government revenue. The United States, for instance, maintained high tariffs for decades, until income taxes supplanted tariffs as the most important source of revenue in the 1930s. After World War II, tariffs continued to decline as the United States emphasized trade expansion as a central plank of its global strategy.

Trump’s insane quest for a policy of “all-tariffs-all-the-time,” (which he floated at last week’s gathering of the spineless on Capitol Hill) garnered nary a snicker - let alone a raised eyebrow - from the confederacy of dunces wildly applauding their leader. I’ve got to wonder if any of them - even if but for a nanosecond - heard a voice whispering “Smoot-Hawley . . . remember Smoot-Hawley. It was an unmitigated disaster back in 1930; it will be worse than a catastrophe in 2025.”

Smoot what? Hawley who? Reed Smoot (1862-1941) was a Republican Senator from Utah from 1903-1933; was also the first apostle of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (Mormon) to be a national political figure. In 1930, he was chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee. Smoot's election to the Senate in 1903 by the Utah legislature sparked a bitter four-year battle in the Senate on whether Smoot was eligible and should be allowed to serve. Many Americans were suspicious of the LDS Church because of its earlier polygamous practices. In addition, some senators thought Smoot's position as a Mormon apostle would disqualify him from representing all his constituents. Many were convinced that his association with the church disqualified him from serving in the United States Senate.

Willis C. Hawley served as a Republican Representative from Oregon from 1907-1933. Although not what one might call a “shining star” within the House, he somehow rose to the Chairmanship of that chamber’s most powerful committee, Ways and Means, for the 70th and 71st Congress. From that powerful perch, he joined with Senator Smoot to coauthor the eponymous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. Signed into law by President Herbert Hoover against the advice of almost every titan of industry (including Henry Ford, who stayed overnight with President Hoover to repeat his belief that the bill was “an economic stupidity,” and Albert Henry Wiggin, head of the Chase National Bank of New York), Smoot Hawley (the last consequential tariff measure Congress ever passed) contributed mightily to the early loss of confidence on Wall Street and signaled U.S. isolationism. By raising the average tariff by some 20 percent, it also prompted retaliation from foreign governments, and many overseas banks began to fail. Within two years some two dozen countries adopted similar “beggar-thy-neighbor” duties, worsening an already beleaguered world economy and reducing global trade. U.S. imports from - and exports to - Europe fell by some two-thirds between 1929 and 1932, while overall global trade declined by similar levels in the four years that the legislation was in effect. It was also but one more nail in the political careers of Smoot, Hawley and President Herbert Hoover, all of whom were roundly defeated for reelection in 1932.

Historically, Smoot-Hawley would become to American economic legislation what Dred Scott v. Sandford and Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization are to Supreme Court Decisions: the worst of the worst. In 1934 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, reducing tariff levels and promoting trade liberalization and cooperation with foreign governments. Some historians have argued that this particular tariff, by deepening the Great Depression, may have contributed to the rise of political extremism, enabling leaders such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini to increase their political strength and gain power.

As noted above, Smoot-Hawley was the last time major tariff legislation was enacted by Congress. Ever since, tariff policy has moved from the legislative to the executive branch. Ironically, another Hawley, Republican Senator Josh Hawley, the MAGA Maniac from Missouri, recently introduced S.1537, the “Raising Tariffs on Imports from China Act of 2024,” legislation. According to a report from Reuters, Senator Hawley’s proposal would raise the base tariff rate on Chinese cars by 100% (especially “EVs” - electric vehicles) from the current 2.5%, effectively putting a 125% tariff on imported Chinese vehicles. It also seeks to apply a 100% tariff to cars assembled in Mexico by China-based automakers. Besides being a disciple of “Trump’s Tariff Czar” Robert Lighthizer, the man who never met a levy he did not love, Hawley’s gambit is that this legislative ploy (which to date hasn’t signed up a single cosponsor) might get him a Vice Presidential nod. Just what is it about the family name “Hawley?”

Now, what Donald Trump proposes is, in my relatively untutored opinion, far, far worse than Smoot-Hawley. Suggesting that this "all-tariffs-all-the-time” bilge would put dollars into the pockets of the middle class is, like his tax cut, both a fraud and an outright lie . . . not to mention something which could easily pull the rest of the developed world into economic chaos. As I understand it, tariffs hike consumer prices because companies pass on the cost of the tariffs they pay. Tariffs currently account for $88.3 billion of the $4.4 trillion in revenues the U.S. government reported in fiscal year 2023. Income taxes brought in about $2.2 trillion, the Treasury Department reported. To bring tariff revenues even close to income tax levels would require a dramatic spike in import taxes, much, much higher than Trump’s proposed 10%.

His proposed 10% tax on all imports, and 60% tax on all imports from China, specifically, would also raise costs for average Americans, according to the analysis, amounting to a $2,500 annual tax hike for the typical family. That sum includes annual tax increases of $250 on electronics, $160 on clothing, $120 on oil and $110 on food.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has also said he would use revenues from import taxes to extend his 2017 tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, which are set to expire. That would mean the top 0.1% of Americans would experience a tax cut of about $325,000 a year while middle-income families, after extending the tax cuts, would see a $1,600 net tax increase.

Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist and a Nobel Prize winner in economics, did some quick math and posted on X that a "first-pass estimate" suggests Trump's proposal "would require an *average* tariff rate of 133 percent.” If Trump had his way, taxes on middle-income households would rise by $5,100 to $8,300 a year, according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal advocacy group. By contrast, the top 0.1% of households would see their taxes cut by about $1.5 million a year, per the analysis, which notes that it would not be mathematically possible to replace all income taxes with tariffs alone.

Former Treasury Secretary (1999-2001), President of Harvard University (2001-2006) and the Charles W. Eliot University Professor and director of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government flatly stated that Donald Trump’s proposal, besides being the worst in all American history, is “. . . a prescription for the mother of all stagflations.” What is “stagflation,” and why is it so incredibly dangerous?

“Stagflation” is a not easily achievable economic amalgam of stagnant (zero) economic growth combined with high inflation and high unemployment all at the same time. The U.S.'s last memory of stagflation was in the 1970s when double-digit inflation and unemployment rates scarred the economy. To combat it, then Fed Chair Paul Volker hiked rates to 20 percent, a drastic and unprecedented move that forced the U.S. economy into a 16-month recession through November 1982. And this is what Trump’s economic plan is for America should he be reelected? In the (supposed) words of that master of the malaprop, Sam Goldwyn, “Include me out!”

There are tons of reasons why Donald J. Trump must be kept far, far away from the White House. The entire alphabet argues in favor of putting him in a padded cell: A(ttitude), B(igotry), C(upidity), D(emeaning). E(gomaniacal), F(atuous), G(ross), H(ateful), I(nsufferable), J(ejune), K(ooky), L(ethal), M(endacious), N(oisome). O(bnoxious), P(eurile), Q(uisling), R(epugnant), S(hifty). T(errifying), U(nstable), V(icious), W(hiny), X(enophobic), Y(obbish) and finally, Z(ombielike).

Class dismissed!

4 Comments 1 Likes

categories / 2024, The Economy, All Politics All the Time

#992: I'd Swap MTG, Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace, Matt Gaetz and the Rest of the Congressional Clown Car For Florence Kahn Any Day of the Week. . .and Twice on Sunday

June 16, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

Back in the early 1980s, when Chuck Schumer was an unknown, very junior member of the House of Representatives, a savvy political journalist glimpsed into his or her crystal ball and prognosticated: It won’t be long before the most dangerous place in American politics will be the 5 or 6 feet between a television camera and the very young, very brash freshman representative from Brooklyn’s 16th Congressional District.

It turns out, of course, that the journalist hit the nail on the head. For not only has Chuck Schumer been one of the most oft-quoted members of Congress for the past forty years; he is the Senate Majority Leader - the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in all American history. Over the past half-century (Schumer was originally elected to two terms in the New York State Assembly starting in 1975), Schumer has been far, far more than a show-horse; he has long been a doer. He has long been a successful legislative leader whether in the majority or minority. Schumer’s fingerprints are easily visible on some of the most important bills enacted over the years including the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) and the Violence Against Women Act (1994), as well as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka “Obama Care” 2010), which he played a decisive roil in steering it through committee and on to passage. Throughout his career, he has sponsored or cosponsored more than 2,300 pieces of legislation.

Schumer has long evinced the kind of mind, work ethic, collegiality, and understanding of the political process that easily sets him apart from the current crop of fatuous third-stringers currently striding the Halls of Congress . . . people like Senators Tuberville and Britt, Hawley, and Johnson, as well as Representatives Greene and Boebert, Gaetz, Luna, and Donalds, Gosar, Good, and Mace.

Over more than 3 decades, I have researched, written and published more than 215 biographic sketches and articles on the nearly 225 Jewish men and women who have served in the United States Congress. One of my very favorites, without question, is Florence 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 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” was, until its name was officially changed to the “Presidio Wall Playground” in 2019, the nation’s largest urban park. (The name change came because Julius, it turned out, was also one of the members in Congress who helped extend the racist Chinese Exclusion Act [originally passed in 1882] to 1902. As a result of this, in 2019, the citizens of San Francisco demanded the name change.)

Florence’s husband, the German-born Julius (1861-1924) was originally a pretty well-known actor who trod the boards in his new country for a number of years. His wife Florence encouraged him to go to study law; by the early 1890s, he was a practicing attorney and, with his wife’s guidance got himself elected to the California State Assembly in 1892. She managed his first Congressional campaign in 1899 and worked as his Chief of Staff and campaign manager until he died in 1924. During his quarter-century in the House, Kahn became an expert on foreign affairs and, although a Republican, became President Woodrow Wilson’s guaranteeing American involvement in what was then called “The Great War.”

Born in Salt Lake City, Utah on November 9, 1866, Florence’s parents, who had emigrated from Poland, 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 one which likely wouldn’t get a laugh from members of the current Congressional “Clown Car Caucus” - 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, Rep. Kahn answered, “Yes I would . . . if you 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 rather 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.”

The various members of “Clown Car Caucus” 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 classic (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 . . . 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, Clarence Odbody, (played to perfection by Henry Travers who’s in the photo alongside Stewart) coming to Earth to help him, with the promise of earning his wings. He shows George 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 people who are daily making the world more dangerous, less civil, and stupefyingly more intolerant by march, marching to the beat of their 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!

I’ll take the likes of Florence Prag Kahn over the clowns any day of the week . . . and twice on Sunday!

2 Comments 1 Likes

categories / All Politics All the Time, 2024, The Congressional Minyan

#990: The Verdict?

June 04, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

Sidney Lumet’s 1982 film The Verdict, based on a novel by celebrated attorney Barry Reed, has long been considered one of the greatest trial-based films of all time. It’s no wonder for the simple reason that the movie had it all: a dream cast (Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, and James Mason) a gripping screenplay by the young David Mamet, an equally gripping plotline, real flesh-and-blood characters, and world-class directing. In a deceptively simple tale, Newman plays hard-drinking Frank Galvin, who is a cynical lawyer on the skids. Then a vital, young woman dies in a Catholic hospital, and Frank smells blood. Suddenly, with something to fight for, Frank comes alive, exploding in the courtroom, taking on both the hospital and the Catholic Church. Tellingly, the original final draft of David Mamet's screenplay contained no verdict. Producer Richard D. Zanuck commented that without a verdict, the title would require a question mark on advertising materials making it "The Verdict?". Director Sidney Lumet convinced Mamet to add a verdict so that the film could have a third-act dénouement. Hence, it became The Verdict . . . plain, simple, and declarative.

Having read the first paragraph of this week’s essay, you are no doubt aware that it is not about a great motion picture. If it were, you would be reading it on my other blog, Tales From, Hollywood & Vine. And you no doubt have already noticed that I am using the original title for the movie . . . The Verdicts. Indeed, this piece is about both the verdict handed down by a jury of 12 Manhattanites against the former POTUS - 12 men and women found Trump GUILTY on each of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a case stemming from a payment that silenced porn star Stormy Daniels - as well as what the verdict of Judge Juan Merchan will be when he announces the sentence against Donald Trump on July 11, as well as what verdict the American public will give come November 5 - precisely 153 days from now. Just as a wide swath of the American public - those who actually paid attention throughout the trial’s 7 weeks held their breath awaiting the jury’s decision - so too are an even wider swath of the public waiting to see what verdict the public will issue; will it matter that Donald Trump is a convicted felon?

As the jury foreperson called out each guilty verdict, the former president became transformed. He was no longer a man to whom the laws of gravity no longer applied, but a defendant in a courtroom like any other; one who now faces the indignities of sentencing—potentially including prison time. He has said that he plans to appeal, and an appeals court could eventually toss out the conviction—but that would be a long ways away, almost certainly after voters have finished casting their ballots in November. And even if an appeal succeeds, there is no undoing the moment when the country first saw a former president convicted of crimes in a court of law. Then too, in the just-finished trial, Trump was entering as a non-felon. Now he will enter a series of trials - in 2 Federal cases in Washington, D.C., and one in Georgia - he enters the courtroom a convicted felon. And that, my loyal readers, can make all the difference in the world.

Trump did not help himself one iota when, exiting the courtroom, the first former POTUS found guilty of committing felonies, continued right where he left off: calling the trial “the Biden trials” and a “kangaroo court,” proclaiming his innocence, and accusing both judge and jury of being biased political hacks and a couple of dozen other things. Perhaps no one told him that attacking the judge who holds your very future in his hands is not the smartest move on the chessboard.

My personal feeling about the decision was best summed up by New York City Councilmember Yusef Salaam, one of the Exonerated Five, a group of Black and Latino men who were wrongly convicted of raping a jogger in Central Park when they were teenagers. In his official statement he said: “Even though Donald Trump wanted us executed even when it was proven that we were innocent, I do not take pleasure at today’s verdict.” He added: “We should be proud that today the system worked. But we should be somber that we Americans have an ex-president who has been found guilty on 34 separate felony charges.”

Amen.

While some Democrats were singing a Hallelujah chorus as a result of the verdict, WinREd, a major conservative money-raising website, proudly announced that it had crashed due to so many contributions being made to Donald Trump. They claimed that within the first 24 hours after Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts, his supporters sent in more than $34 million worth of donations. What percentage of this take will go to his presidential campaign - as opposed to paying his attorneys - is anyone’s guess.

There is no doubt that Trump and his legal team will appeal Judge Merchan’s sentencing decision, regardless of what it may be. Just yesterday Trump said that he would accept home confinement or jail time, but in the same breath warned "I think it'd be tough for the public to take. You know, at a certain point, there's a breaking point." There is a faintly “dog whistle-like” quality to this statement, reminiscent of Trump’s September 2020 “Stand back and stand by” message to the “Proud Boys” and other white supremacists. I for one shivered at hearing this. Remember, according to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), “Recent [gun] purchasers and owners who always or nearly always carried firearms in public were more supportive of and willing to engage in political violence than other subsets of firearm owners.” One suspects that Trump and his team didn’t need a scientific study to understand this . . .

It is the Trump team’s hope - and expectation - that the appeals process will eventually reach the United States Supreme Court who, they fully believe, will overturn the verdict. But that likely would not happen until well after November 5, the day of the national elections. Many leading Democrats and legal scholars have already pointedly spoken about the inherent problem of this particular SCOTUS weighing in on a Trump appeal. This court has a deeply conservative majority; 3 of its 4 newest members were named by Donald Trump, the only president who, having lost the popular vote, was nonetheless able to appoint 3 justices. For quite some time, various legal scholars - some liberal, some conservative - have been calling for Justices Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves from any and all cases involving Donald Trump. Both have publicly refused to recuse. In matter of fact, there is no binding Supreme Court ethics code to force them to do so. The roll of the Chief Justice is murky; he has nothing more than the power of moral and political persuasion. Good luck to him.

A recent New York Times op-ed by Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), likely Congress’ leading Constitutional scholar, suggested that there well be a legal way to recuse the two justices, " . . . not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law." In his essay, Rep. Raskin who, prior to entering Congress spent 25 years teaching Constitution Law at American Unviersity, wrote: The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455. Raskin explained the clause thusly: “Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The only justices in the federal judiciary are the ones on the Supreme Court. This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command.

Yet another verdict to be determined.

Precisely what lasting effect Donald Trump’s recent conviction will have on the 2024 election is, at this point, nearly impossible to gauge. To say that his hardcore supporters will steadfastly remain in his corner goes without saying; to them, he is still the guy, who 2 weeks before the 2016 Iowa caucuses proclaimed he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and he "wouldn't lose any voters." Not that long ago, his legal team suggested in federal court that a president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and — unless he was impeached and convicted by Congress — be immune from criminal prosecution. This issue of presidential immunity is currently awaiting a public pronouncement by the SOCTUS. No one knows for sure what effect Trump’s 34-count conviction will have on those voters who self-identify as “Independent.” Let’s face it: we live in an age where there are as many polling firms as there are stars in the heavens (to murder an old MGM tagline).

At the moment, we are living in David Mamet’s original version of the 1982 film - which garnered 5 Academy Award Nominations - The Verdict? Whether or not reality will eventually mirror the Sidney Lumet/Richard D. Zanuck version (sans question mark) is anyone’s guess. Don’t pay attention to the daily polls; they only project the stats their financial backers pay for. We are the only jury that counts. We are the ones who will ultimately add that “third act dénouement.” It is up to we, the jury, to remove that question mark (e.g., “The Verdict?), and make the title plain, simple, and at last, declarative.

THE VERDICT!

3 Comments 1 Likes

categories / 2024, All Politics All the Time, The American Judiciary

#988: Character Counts

May 19, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

As per the Cambridge Dictionary, “gentleman” (dʒen·təl·mən) is defined as a man who is polite and behaves well toward other people. According to the Nobel Prize-winning author/poet/playwright George Bernard Shaw (pictured at left), “A gentleman is one who puts more into the world than he takes out.” According to my late father, Henry E. Stone, who was was widely-known as an exemplar of that unique breed, a gentleman is well-mannered, and can effortlessly navigate social and professional settings with confidence and proficiency. Deeply honored to be his son, I have always believed that a gentleman strives to do the right thing . . . even when no one is watching. To me, being a gentleman is a lifestyle. You must live it, not just simply act like one when needed. To be a gentleman (or its female equivalent, a “lady”) is to possess the essence of character.

Alas, in today’s world, to be a gentleman is, for the masses, often considered to be a sign of weakness; a limp-wristed response to reality. Bravado and braggadocio, condescension and cruelty, the hydra-headed marks of the boor, have increasingly become the norm . . . especially in many forms of public life. Just this past week we witnessed the boorish clown-car insanity of Georgia Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene during a House Oversight Committee, in which she clashed with Democrats Jasmine Crockett and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez over . . . over what? Over Greene’s comment to Rep. Crockett that hit out at Texas Democrat: "I think your fake eyelashes are messing up your reading." New York Democratic Rep. Ocasio Cortez immediately came to her colleague’s defense, calling Greene's remark "absolutely unacceptable," thus prompting the Republican firebrand to respond: "Are your feelings hurt? Aw." It devolved from there. Chairman James Corner, a Kentucky Republican, branded Greene's remarks "un-decorous" and she agreed the comment could be struck from the record but refused to apologize. Later, in a thinly veiled attack on Greene, Crockett said: "If someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody's bleach blonde, bad-built butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?" (Historically speaking, Congress has never been what one might call a paragon of etiquette. This coming Wednesday marks the 168th anniversary of South Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks caning of Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner until the latter lost consciousness.)

On the same day that Reps. Greene, Crockett, and Ocasio-Cortez went after one another before the nation’s cameras, President Biden and FPOTUS Trump agreed to meet for two campaign debates — the first on June 27, hosted by CNN and the second on Sept. 10, hosted by ABC. Included in their apparent agreement were two changes from previous norms: first, the debates would be done in an empty hall, and second, when one candidate’s time expired, their mic would be automatically silenced.

Shortly after their agreement was announced, Trump senior campaign advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles sent Biden campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon a memorandum, challenging Biden to agree to at least two additional debates, suggesting one be held each month, with events in June, July, August and September. “Additional dates will allow voters to have maximum exposure to the records and future visions of each candidate,” the two Trump advisors wrote.

Trump later posted on Truth Social that he had agreed to a third debate, this one hosted by Fox. “Please let this TRUTH serve to represent that I hereby accept debating Crooked Joe Biden on Fox News. The date will be Wednesday, October 2nd. The Hosts will be Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. Thank you, DJT!” he wrote.

Biden campaign chair O’Malley Dillon responded with a statement accusing Trump of having “a long history of playing games with debates: complaining about the rules, breaking those rules, pulling out at the last minute, or not showing up at all. No more games. No more chaos, no more debate about debates. We’ll see Donald Trump on June 27th in Atlanta – if he shows up,” she wrote.

If I were a betting man (which I am not), I would wager that Trump and his team will pick a fight or find a flaw which will give them a reason to back out of any and all debates. The former President will of course pin the blame on the man he can no longer refer to as “Sleepy Joe.” (Trump’s continually nodding off during his most recent trial has driven a stake into the heart of this childish epithet.) In theory, if not in practice, Trump’s debating Biden without his gang of fans could potentially be as disastrous for him as taking the witness stand in his own defense; being a boor, he simply has no “off” button. Biden, on the other hand, is a gentleman with more than a half-century’s worth of political experience under his belt. Unlike the former POTUS, he understands, in the ironic words of Oscar Wilde, “A gentleman never insults anyone unintentionally.”

It never ceases to amaze me how many Trump fans seem to really, truly believe that Joe Biden is “the worst, most corrupt President in the history of the United States.” Whether they do in reality is anyone’s guess; it is impossible to know what anyone thinks or believes when they put their head on the pillow at the end of a long day. But “worst?” “Most corrupt?” Do they know anything about the presidencies of James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, or Franklin Pierce? Are they unaware of the utter corruption of the Harding and Nixon administrations? Are they willing to unquestionably accept the rantings of a former president who possesses less experience and character than any of the other 44 Chief Executives? The dumbing down of the American electorate is frightening to behold . . .

This past Friday, the White House Press Office issued a 216-word release. It announced that President Biden had just declared seven counties in Texas to be major disaster areas due to “severe storms, straight-line winds, tornadoes, and flooding beginning on April 26, 2024, and continuing.” The declaration President Biden signed was both simple and straightforward; nowhere in its 216 words was there even a hint, a scintilla of any partisan political gamesmanship.

The disaster declaration focused solely on the causes and victims of the disaster. There was no implied or express demand that the Texas governor pay homage to President Biden or that Texans “remember” Biden’s generosity in the upcoming election. Turning disaster aid into an opportunity for transactional grift was an invention of Donald Trump.

Nor did President Biden comment on the fact that the period from April to May in Texas was previously known as “spring,” but is now an unrelenting series of “severe storms, floods, tornadoes, and straight-line winds.” See Texas 2036, Texas' weather is getting wilder. While the effects of climate change in Texas deserve discussion, using the grant of emergency aid as a platform to do so would be insensitive and opportunistic. Texans are suffering because of natural disasters. They deserve relief from the federal government. President Biden granted it without hesitation or political agenda. That’s the way disaster declarations should be issued. That’s the way a President is supposed to act.

President Biden’s declaration was that of a caring human being seeking to do what is correct. This marks him as a man of character . . . a gentleman who, despite being far from perfect (who amongst us is?) deserves to be treated with respect. As a gentleman, it is simply not in his nature to hurl epithets and nasty nicknames at members of the (dis)loyal opposition. Then too, as a gentleman, it is not in his character to self-aggrandize whenever he does that which is simply the just and right thing to do. But please, do not mistake him for being a weakling, a dotard, or an inept politician.

He is a man of character and, please believe me, character really, truly counts.

4 Comments 1 Likes

categories / 2024

#987: How Many "Trials of the Century" Can one Century Have?

May 14, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

Back in the late 1990s, I taught an 8-week film class at Florida Atlantic University entitled “How Many ‘Trials of the Century’ Can One Century Have?” The course had a dual purpose: first, to introduce students to what, in my opinion, were 4 of the most prominent and salacious crimes/trials of the 20th century, and second, to screen a Hollywood film based on said crime/trial. The four cases and their subsequent films were:

Nathan Leopold (1904-1971) & Richard Loeb (1905-1936)

1. The 1913 Leo Frank case, in which a young Northern Jew Leo Frank) was tried for the murder of a young Southern girl named Mary Phagen; 23 years later Warner Brothers produced a film based on the base called “They Won’t Forget,” starring Claude Rains, Edward Norris and newcomer Lana Turner. In real life, Frank, who was exonerated by Georgia Governor John M. Slaton, was taken out of his cell and lynched. His “trial of the century,” and subsequent murder led to the creation of the Anti-Defamation Committee.

2. The 1924 Leopold and Loeb case in which 2 wealthy, brillant, Chicago-area teenagers who were already college graduates, killed 14-year old Bobby Frank, inspired by the concept of “the perfect crime” and philosopher Frederick Nietzsche's concept of the "superman" — the idea that it is possible to rise above good and evil. This horrendous crime and ensuing trial, were turned into the riveting 1959 film “Compulsion,” starring Orson Welles, Bradford Dillman and and Dean Stockwell. (Yes, there was an earlier film based on this notorious trial, Alfred Hitchcock’s groundbreaking 1948 '“Rope,” but this one was not screened for the course in question.

3. The 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial,” in which a Tennessee high school science teacher was arrested for breaking the law by introducing his students to Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution.” This would be translated onto film by the phenomenally-talented Stanley Kramer as “Inherit the Wind,” starring those two magnificent cinematic warhorses Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.

4. The Trial of Adolph Eichman for crimes against humanity. The movie version “The Man in the Glass Booth“, was directed by Arthur Hiller from a novel by actor/writer Robert Shaw (“The Sting”), this highly fictionalized 1975 thriller portrays the trial of the Nazi’s chief originator of “The Final Solution.” Starring Maximilian Schell (who was nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor), Laurence Pressman and Lois Nettleton.

There were also several so-called “Trials of the Century” that never made it into the movies, including:

The 3 Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle trials in March/April 1922 in which the beloved (and soon to be both reviled and blacklisted) silent movie comedian stood accused of murdering young starlet Virginia Rappe at a booze-soaked party in San Francisco’s St. Francis Hotel;
The “Army-McCarthy” hearings, a 36-day television spectacular that held the attention of an estimated 80 million television viewers (many watching the trials at their local saloon or TV store) for an amazing 6 weeks from April 22 to June 17, 1954. This was the first time that television offered “gavel-to-gavel” coverage of a trial. It served to be the Wisconsin senator’s undoing: within 3 years, the once-feared McCarthy took to the bottle, was censured by his colleagues and died at age 48. Although no theatrical film has been made of this “trial of the century,” there is Emile de Antonia’s brilliant 1964 documentary, Point of Order!, in which de Antonia culled from extant kinescopes what is, to this day, the definitive documentary record of America's first great televised political spectacle.
The O.J. Simpson murder trial. Need we say more?

So far, in the first 24 years of the twenty-first century, there have already been quite a few “Trials of the Century.” Eerily, most of them have one thing in common: the name D-O-N-A-L-D T-R-U-M-P. Among the most widely-covered and widely-viewed trials and Congressional hearings have been:

· Trump’s dealings with the Russians during the 2016 presidential election (the Mueller hearings);

· Trump’s first and second impeachment hearings, and

· The hearings into the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

All of these hearings were nationally televised and watched, at least in part, by millions of viewers. But unlike say, the Kefauver Hearings, which spent more than a year investigating organized crime in Interstate Commerce (1950-1951), and the Army-McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, both of which were broadcast by precisely 2 national networks, the various Trump hearings and now, trials, are and were accompanied by a plethora of on-air commentaries, broadcast by numerous partisan cable outlets. In essence, those who were and are, generally speaking, pro-Trump fans, can view coverage produced and carried by media that makes their hero the victim of a partisan witch-hunt, while those who are mostly anti-Trump (sitting on the fence . . . all 23 of them), can have their views and opinions both validated and buttressed by the cables they most commonly watch.

Donald Trump’s current trial - in which he stands accused of paying off former adult film star Stormy Daniels $130,000 in hush money so that their alleged sexual relationship wouldn’t negatively affect his 2016 run for the White House - is rara avis: there are, by New York State law, no television cameras permitted inside the courtroom. Out on the street . . . well, that’s a different story. Hence, a judicial proceeding which has all the ingredients - conspiracy, money, the former POTUS and a porn star - could have and should have had the highest Nielsen ratings of all time. But no: the thousand-and-one talking heads and their teams of TV attorneys (many of whom are, in fact, former federal prosecutors) are reduced to talking about - rather than reporting on - the latest "trial of the century. Reputable media figures spend the lion’s share of their on-camera mornings, afternoons, and evenings opining on whether or not the former president is sleeping through the trial due to his not being able to get his daily Diet Coke fix; on which Republican Vice Presidential wannabes (Senators Tuberville, Scott and Vance and who knows, perhaps Vivek Ramaswamy) and going to be with him in court; on why not a peep – let alone a supportive visit – from his wife; on whether the jury is going to like Michael Cohen; on whether or not Judge Juan Merchan, tiring of merely fining the FOTUS a grand every time he opens his big yap, will finally send him to jail . . . and on and on.

What precise effect this latest “trial of the century” will have on Donald Trump the candidate is anyone’s guess; the impact it is having on Donald Trump the man is already quite palpable. Never known for having the firmest grip on reality, the former president shows, in my humble opinion, increasing signs of moral and psychological disengagement. Is it any wonder? Here we have an out-of-shape, morbidly obese 77-year-old (he’ll turn 78 on June 14) who has long subsisted on little sleep, a diet of fast food burgers, fries, and at least a dozen Diet Cokes a day; a man who, despite wearing a mask of extreme bravado, sees himself as a perpetual target of victimization. Of late, he has been forced to sit in a courtroom without making a sound or showing outward emotion. In his mind’s eye, he is likely seeing himself in an orange jumpsuit, denied a staff to cater to his every whim and need, and - even worse - being told where to be and what to do all day long by people he considers to be his inferiors. (I have to believe he’s having nightmares about not being able to get his hair styled and colored every morning, noon, and night. God forbid someone takes a surreptitious snap of him without the bird’s nest atop his pate!) Is it any wonder that, when gets the chance to give a campaign speech, he rambles on for an hour and a half, now speaking about how the Chinese Government is putting together an army of Chinese immigrants here in the United States and then going off on a bizarre tangent, praising the fictional Hannibal Lecter (“The late, great Hannibal Lecter is a wonderful man. He oftentimes would have a friend for dinner,”). Even his supporters started walking out on These are definitely not the thoughts or words of a man who has both feet on the ground . . . let alone one who is running for the most powerful job on earth.

So you tell me: how many more “trials of the century” is Donald Trump going to go through before this year . . . let alone this decade . . . is over?

2 Comments 0 Likes

categories / 2024, American History

#986: Déjà Vu All Over Again

May 07, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

We begin with a 1970 song by one of the rock world’s first “supergroups,” CSNY (Crosby, Stills, Nash Young). Entitled “Four Dead in Ohio,” it is a classic protest song Neil Young reportedly took less than an hour to compose. For those of a certain age, it embodies a wide-ranging panoply of a time long gone . . . and now, more than a half-century later, being born anew.

In the spring of 1968, a whole lot of American college students - yours truly included - were spending less and less time in class and far far more marching and protesting the war in Vietnam and the military draft. Those of a certain age will well remember the chant “Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” and “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, N.L.F. (the National Liberation Front) is gonna win!” Protests were alive on College campuses from Columbia to Berkeley, and from Michigan and Chicago to Harvard, Yale and Duke. The spring was awash with sounds of Phil Ochs, Tom Paxton, Arlo Guthrie and Country Joe and the Fish, the smell of pot, the antics of Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, long hair, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Tom Hayden and eventually, the trial of The “Chicago 7” (or 8).

This generation of political activists may well have been the most productive in all American history. Its fervency, activism, and memorable pranks (some will recall when Abbie Hoffman threw tons of money onto the floor of the New York Stock Exchange or when throngs of “Yippie” protestors nominated “Pigasus” [also known as “Pigasus the Immortal” and “Pigasus J. Pig”] for POTUS at the 1968 Chicago Democratic National

Convention). played a major in lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, forcing an American president (LBJ) to dramatically announce on nationwide TV that he would not run for reelection, and bred a generation of politically-minded parents and grandparents who to this day are still fighting the good fight for climate change, and the rights of women, voters and those of color. In 1970, the year that CSNY came out with “Four Dead in Ohio,” things had become grim. President Richard Nixon (who was elected POTUS by turning the college students into the focus of his call for “law and order”), launched a “secret” bombardment of Cambodia, in which U.S. forces dropped up to 540,000 tons of bombs, which in turn led to the deaths of an estimated 150,000 to 500,000 civilians. This time around, student protesters were livid times ten. It led to a massive march on Washington, the closing down of many universities, and death . . . the killings of students at Kent State in Ohio and Jacksonville State in Mississippi. The most poignant photo of the time was that of young Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over the body of student Jeffrey Miller, killed by the Ohio National Guard.

Eventually, the music grew dark (“The Eve of Destruction”), some of the protest leaders went into business (Jerry Rubin became a multimillion dollar stockbroker, and Drummond M. Pike founded the Tides Foundation, a “passthrough” for funding progressive political causes). Others went in to mainstream politics (SDS founder Tom Hayden was elected to both the California Assembly and Senate, and Berkeley’s Ron Dellums served 13 terms in the United States Congress where he eventually rose to become Chair of the House Armed Services Committee). Many, like Columbia University SDS leader Mark Rudd, became professors. Crosby, Stills and Nash (minus Neil Young) continued turning out hit songs “Teach Your Children,” “Southern Cross,” “Love the One Your With”) record albums (“After the Storm,” :Live it Up,” "Looking Forward”) and touring for the next half century. In 2023, David Crosby passed away at age 81; Stills and Nash are pretty much retired at, respectively, ages 79 and 82. In 2010, Graham Nash was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) for services to music and to charity; in 2021, Neil Young sold 50% of his of the rights to his back catalog to a British investment company for an estimated $150 million. The “baby” of the group, the now 78-year old Young still does an occasional concert. . .

Many, many pages have been turned since the anti-war, anti-draft protests of the 1960s and early 1970s. Today, even though protests are once again being carried out mostly on the same college campuses as in an earlier time - Columbia to Yale, Michigan to Ohio, and Berkeley to UCLA - the issues, the underlying narrative, the look, and the sound are radically different. In the earlier era, mostly long-haired college-age students were protesting an optional, America-based war, they believed represented a miscarriage of justice and international law. The earlier student leaders were, to a great extent, both literate and knowledgeable about the sides, and history of the conflict. Their protests were memorialized in tense lyrics accompanied by twanging guitars and tight harmonies. Today, their grandchildren are hiding faces under keffiyehs, chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” “Globalize the Intifada” and calling for the utter destruction of Israel - America’s staunchest ally in the Middle East. Unlike their grandparents, they show an appalling lack of knowledge about history and Middle-Eastern realpolitik - of understanding the how, when and why of Israel’s creation, let alone the simultaneous "creation” of the "Palestinian people.” And as for their musical memorialization? Sorry, but rap and/or hip-hop just won’t cut it; for me its simply too atonal . . . full of sound and fury, signifying G-d only knows what. Comparing hip-hop to CSNY is like holding Gravity’s Rainbow in one hand, The Great Gatsby in the other.

While I, an American Jew, cannot support and certainly do not condone the Netanyahu government’s overwhelmingly lethal response to the deadly October 7th attack on Israel by Hamas militants, I - unlike many of the student protestors who liken Israel to the Third Reich - understand the enormity of the loss Israel suffered. With a population of about 9.73 million, Israel is about one-34th the size of the United States, which has about 335.55 million people. This means that the reported death toll of more than 1,400 Israelis from the Hamas terrorist attacks is proportional to about 48,300 Americans. The official U.S. count of Americans who died on Sept. 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center was “a mere” 2,977. These facts and statistics (which Twain referred to, respectively, as first, “stubborn things,” and then “pliable”) are either totally unknown or totally unimportant to the today’s protesters.

Terrorists Fighting Under the Banner of Hamas

Have tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of Muslims died at the hands of annihilators over the past decades? Yes, of course. But another truth unknown to the protesters who liken Israel to the Storm Troopers of World War II is this: that far, far more Arabs men, women and children (whether they be Iranian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian, Libyan, Sudanese, or what today we term “Palestinian”) have been plundered, raped, tortured and murdered by fellow Muslims going to war under banners bearing the names حماس (Hamas), حزب الله (Hezbollah), الشباب (Al-Shabab) or الفلسطينيحركة الجهاد الإسلامي (harakat aljihad al'iislamii alfilastinii - Palestinian Islamic Jihad) among others. Have these students even thought about the fact that stockpiling weapons of death and destruction in, around and under schools, hospitals and mosques have virtually nothing to do with creating a Palestinian State and everything to do with the total annihilation and dismemberment of the Jewish State . . . not to mention growing rich in the process? Oh, if only were like low-hanging fruit . . . ripe and ready for the picking.

In many regards, the protesters of the Viet Nam era and those of post-October 7 are similar: in their fervor, their anger and utter certainty that they are on the right side of history. Both, according to those who find solace in conspiracy theories are - and were - accused of being brainwashed, useful idiots and dupes funded by immoral international cabals; Marxists (or Leninists, Stalinists, Maoist or Viet Minh) in the case of the 1960s and 70s) or billionaire backers of mayhem and disunion (most notably the omnipresent George Soros as well as President Joe Biden’s wealthiest backers) today. And while it is likely true that “outside agitators” - as they used to be known - play an important role in the campus protests of two different eras, it seems to me that today’s crop have swallowed far more bilge and blather than their grandparents. Case in point: the demand that America’s colleges and universities punish the “Jews and Zionists” by divesting their endowments of any and all Israel-related holdings. Here, the students are doing the bidding of the “BDS Movement” (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) which “works to end international support for Israel's oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.” To listen to the students, one would imagine that Columbia, Harvard, Chicago, Duke, Stanford and Berkeley (among many others) have extensive holdings in Israeli companies - most notably those that manufacture weapons of war. Truth to tell, this assumption is, as Grannie Annie would have it, “full of canal water.” According to a densely researched, fully-vetted piece in last Friday’s Washington Post, University endowments show few signs of direct Israel, defense holdings. From the little I know about the subject, the lion’s share of any holdings in Israeli businesses are likely to be in the area of pharmaceutical/medical high-tech. I wonder how many protestors’ parents and grandparents are alive because of medicines and/or medical devices that were created in Israel . . . ?

There is one ”Déjà Vu All Over Again” that is already causing me sleepless nights: the upcoming Democratic National Convention. As mentioned, as in 1968, it will once again be held in Chicago. Some will remember the opening lyrics from CSNY’s “Chicago”

Though your brother's bound and gagged
And they've chained him to a chair
Won't you please come to Chicago
Just to sing

In a land that's known as freedom
How can such a thing be fair
Won't you please come to Chicago
For the help that we can bring

We can change the world
Re-arrange the world
It's dying ... to get better

Yes, as ever, CSNY provided a tuneful harmony for a historic event . . . which ultimately became an utter debacle. Outside the International Amphitheatre, thousands of students, deeply aggrieved and in angry mourning for the deaths of Dr. Martin Luthor King, Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, took to the streets, only to be met by Mayor Richard Daily’s armed police force (we called them “Storm Troopers”). Inside the Hall, Democratic regulars waved placards proclaiming fealty for both Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Mayor Daily. What got the lion’s share of the media coverage wasn’t the goings-on inside the building; it was the urban warfare that Walter Cronkite (CBS), David Brinkley (NBC), and Frank Reynolds (ABC) gave near round-the-clock coverage to. It turned enough Americans against the Democrats that Republican nominee Richard Nixon (who had lost a presidential race to JFK in 1962) beat Humphrey 43.4%-42.7%. Had it not been for 3rd party candidate George Wallace (who captured nearly 10 million popular and 46 electoral votes), Nixon’s “law and order” would have swept him to a landslide victory. Nixon, of course, would then go on to oversee a ramping up of the war in Vietnam, the bombing of Cambodia and eventually the most corrupt and unlawful administration in all American history. Both he and his Vice President (Spiro Agnew) would resign their respective offices in order to avoid being imprisoned. Arguably, the students who descended upon Chicago played a large role in that election.

The Déjà Vu All Over Again is, of course, what role our modern-day protestors might have on the outcome of the 2024 election. If they come to Chicago loaded for bear, shouting, screaming and enacting scenes of urban theatre in front of not a mere 3, but a thousand-and-one social media outlets, some proclaiming RFK, Jr. to be their champion, we could well see Donald Trump’s “law and order” campaign be swept into office by the thinnest of margins . . . ultimately leading to an administration so corrupt, so anarchic and autocratic as to make what happened during the Nixon years seem like a lawful paradise. And if, G-d forbid, this occurs, it will once again be the victory of the craven and corrupt over America’s youth.

I began this piece with Crosby, Still, Nash, and Young in their role as the musical chroniclers of generational angst. I end with CSNY (with an assist from the Grateful Dead’s Jerry Garcia on pedal steel guitar) in their role as prophets of hope and understanding:

Teach, your children well

You, who are on the road
Must have a code you try to live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a goodbye

Teach your children well
Their father's hell did slowly go by
Feed them on your dreams
The one they pick's the one you'll know by

Don't you ever ask them why
If they told you, you would cry
So just look at them and sigh
And know they love you

And you, of tender years
Can't know the fears your elders grew by
Help them with your youth
They seek the truth before they can die

Teach your parents well
Their children's hell will slowly go by
And feed them on your dreams
The one they pick's the one you'll know by

Don't you ever ask them why
If they told you, you would cry
So just look at them and sigh
And know they love you

Ooh, and know they love you
And know they love you, yeah
And know they love you.

3 Comments 0 Likes

categories / 2024, American History, anti-Semitism

#985: As Goes Florida, So Goes . . . ?

April 29, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

Mark Twain, that most revered and authentic of all American writers, had the ability to cloak profundity in the garment of wit, better than anyone who ever took pen to paper. And, like all true geniuses, he made it look oh so easy and utterly natural . . . like Ted Williams swinging a bat or Lord Olivier playing King Lear. Twain’s great gift was used to entertain, to make us laugh and above all, to make the reader pause and think. Yes, some of his chapters and paragraphs are, by today’s political standards, decidedly “un-PC.” But this should by no means keep anyone from drinking deeply from the well of his artistry. The man really, truly, understood the human condition with all of its wens and warts.

My five all-time favorite Twain aphorisms are:

The two most important days of your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.
Life is short. Break the rules. Forgive quickly. Kiss slowly. Love Truly. Laugh uncontrollably. Never regret anything that makes you smile.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn no other way.
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read. And, to my way of thinking, the best of the bunch:
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
I can hear you asking “What in the world do the best of Mark Twain’s epigrams have to do with the title of this week’s blog As Goes Florida, So Goes . . .” As Grandpa Doc would say, “Vell . . . I’ll tell ‘ya.” (In truth, Doc didn’t have an accent; he occasionally would adopt one to make a point or begin a story). The story here is that I was doing my research for this week’s blog, which was meant to discuss some of the wackier, inane new laws passed by our overwhelmingly MAGA-supporting legislature and signed by Governor “Rhonda Santis.” In the midst of reading some of several of the most noxious bills, I found myself wanting to know if all this crappola was keeping people from moving to the Sunshine State. This query quickly expanded to the question of which states were gaining and which were losing, the greatest numbers of people over the past two years. Coming upon an article on the topic published in MarketWatch.com (a subsidiary of Dow Jones & Company, a property of News Corp, along with The Wall Street Journal and Barron's), I learned that the top 3 states losing people were:
- California (A net migration of -407, 633)
- New York ( −283,792) and
- New Mexico ( -177,710), while the 3 biggest gainers were:
- Florida ( +205,163)
- Texas ( +144,032) and
- North Carolina ( +99,406).

The rest of the states reporting net positive migration are, in order, Arizona, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Nevada and Idaho. With the possible exceptions of Arizona, Georgia and Nevada, the rest of the positive-migration states are solidly, irredeemably, hardcore MAGA in their politics and legislatures. (I for one refuse to call it ‘the MAGA wing’ of the Republican Party for I, unlike many, cannot find a solitary remnant of what used to be nicknamed the GOP . . . they are all MAGA). And, from where I sit, this bodes poorly for the future of politics in these United States. For MAGA-controlled legislatures, serving under MAGA-supporting governors, who appoint MAGA-istic Federalist Society judges, can jointly enact just about any measure they please coming out of the autocratic playbook coauthored by the likes of Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Susie Wiles, and Stephen Miller.

Think I’m going a bit too far? Well, consider just a few of the things happening here in Florida, the state I have been hanging out in since July 6, 1982:

We have a state Surgeon General/Secretary of Health, Joseph Lapado, M.D., PhD., who is anti COVID and MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccines - among other things - and has totally politicized medicine here in the Sunshine State. As someone who has been gainfully employed on two of the best Institutional Review Boards in America for nearly 30 years, and have reviewed hundreds upon hundreds of clinical trials in the fields of infectious diseases, oncology and epidemiology, I am simply amazed (and scared witless) at the man’s ability to place partisan politics way, way ahead of provable science and medicine. Whatever happened to “First, do no harm?”
Here in Florida, as of July, 2023, we have a gun law which allows Florida residents to carry concealed weapons without benefit of a license - let alone taking a single safety course - with impunity. This is perfectly in keeping with the MAGA reading of the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment; they firmly believe than any limitation on guns is unconstitutional.
Just this past week, the 63rd anniversary of the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, (a failed invasion of Cuba supported by the CIA) Gov. DeSantis signed a bill (SB 1264) requiring the teaching of “the dangers and evils of communism” in Florida public schools from grades 1-12. Coming on the heels of so many Republicans in both the House and Senate voting against sending aid to the Ukraine - which is fighting against the Communist expansion of Putin’s Russia - one wonders if DeSantis and his Florida colleagues are living back in the 1950s, when fighting Communism and individuals they deemed to be Communists - AKA “liberals” or “progressives” - was the sine qua non of “true" Americanism.
Less than 2 weeks ago, DeSantis signed a bill into law allowing “volunteer chaplains” to counsel students in traditional public and charter schools, despite warnings from a pastors group, the ACLU and the Satanic Temple that it would violate the First Amendment. In signing the bill, the governor said: “There are some students [who] need some soul prep, and that can make all the difference in the world. And so these chaplains … come in and provide services.” DeSantis said the law, set to go effect in July, would stand up to court challenges because the program was voluntary and parents would have to provide consent for their children to meet with the chaplains. “No one’s being forced to do anything, but to exclude religious groups from campus, that is discrimination,” he said. “You’re basically saying that God has no place. That’s wrong. That’s not what our Founding Fathers intended.” And this guy is a graduate of Yale and earned a law degree at Harvard! His “understanding” of the Founders and the Constitution’s 1st Amendment guarantees is steeped not in knowledge, but in partisan politics. (n.b.: The new law uses the title ‘chaplain’ but requires none of the specialized training that health care facilities, the military, and most prisons require of chaplains.)
Florida ranks second (behind Texas) in the greatest number of banned books. In the most recent ranking by World Population Review, the Sunshine State instituted bans on 565 books in 21 of the state’s school districts. Governor DeSantis is one of the main people leading the charge against called “critical race theory” (CRT). Many of the books that he and his acolytes have targeted have to do with issues related to race. It is important to note that critical race theory is not taught outside of upper-level college and law school classes.
Florida ranks just behind Michigan in the states with the highest annual premiums for auto insurance; it is the 4th highest in the cost of homeowner’s insurance (if you can find it), and 4th most expensive for annual healthcare coverage.
And to add injury to insult, in less than 48 hours, Florida’s new 6-week abortion ban will go into effect. This past April 1, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution's privacy protections do not extend to abortion, overturning decades of legal precedent and effectively triggering the more restrictive law. On November 5, 2024, Florida voters will vote on a citizen-initiated Constitutional Amendment (#4) which will legalize abortion. Its text states, in part: “The initiative would provide a constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability (estimated to be around 24 weeks) or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider.” The fact that proactive citizens managed to collect more than 1 million signatures to place this measure on the November ballot is the good news. The not-so-good news? It will take a supermajority for it to pass, and there is already a measure on the November ballot that would increase the supermajority voter approval requirement for constitutional amendments from 60% to 66.67%.

So, keeping all the above in mind, why do so many people pick up and move to Florida? For the sunshine? Because it has no state income tax? Because the governor has his own militia? You tell me. If this is the future of even half of America, we are in dire straits. It used to be said, somewhat tongue-in-cheek that "As goes New Hampshire, so goes the rest of the nation.” What the surreality that is currently Florida portends for the rest of the nation is anyone’s guess.

Let us give the final word to Mark Twain (from his Autobiography, Vol. 1): “Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattels, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction.”

2 Comments 1 Likes

categories / 2024, All Politics All the Time, American History, The Coming Autocracy

#983: It’s Lysistrata Time

April 14, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

Vicomte Gabriel de Roton (‘Notor)’s 1898 take on Lysistrata

Up until last week, most people of sound mind and more-or-less progressive beliefs, considered June 24, 2022 - the day SCOTUS handed down their retrograde decision in Dobbs v. Jackson - the lowest point in American jurisprudence since the 1867 decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, which held that . . . “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court.”

But as of last Tuesday, April the 9th, an absolute new low in American jurisprudence was reached: the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated an 1864 law that would ban nearly all abortions. One should keep in mind that until this decision, abortions were legal in Arizona until 15 weeks; the 1864 law banned abortions in toto. Can you say “forward into the past?” For many of us the answer would have to be to be “Yes, we can.” In 1864, Arizona was a mere territory; there were no paved roads leading to the state Capitol. Its first set of laws - called the Howell Code, contained some pretty antediluvian laws which, if reinstated today, could theoretically drag the state - if not the entire country - back to the dark ages. (Eerily, April 9th is also the day - back in 1865 - when General Robert E. Lee surrendered his Confederate troops to the Union's Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia, marking thus the beginning of the end of the grinding four-year-long American Civil. Brrr!)

According to the 1864 law, "a person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years." This sits perfectly well with the most fanatical supporters of the so-called “Pro-Life” movement. For those who have supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade for decades on end for mostly political reasons, it is beginning to cause them sleepless nights; they are beginning to wake up and recognize that they’ve uncorked a bottle from which a malevolent genie has escaped. They are soon going to be facing a significant majority of the distaff voting public who will neither support nor cast ballots for anyone who blindly and ignorantly supports the position that the government has the ultimate right to control women’s bodies, thus delimiting their freedom.

Aristophanes: author of “Lysistrata” (446-386 BCE)

So what is to be done? What can tens upon tens of millions of women do to politically outmaneuver a bunch of men who seek to control their bodies, their lives, and their very destinies? I think the answer - believe it or not - may just lie in a Greek comedy first performed 2,435 years ago (that’s 411 BCE) named after its protagonist: LYSISTRATA. Written by the brilliant comedic satirist Aristophanes, known variously to history as “The Father of Comedy” or “The Prince of Ancient Comedy,” Lysistrata (λυσιστράτη literally “The one who disbands armies”) is a woman who, along with her friends Lampito, Calorice (Lysistrata’s lieutenant) and Myrhinne (a conventional woman of Athens) organize the entire Athenian sisterhood to end the then 30-year Peloponnesian War, a long (431-405 BCE) and destructive war between Athens and Sparta. How do the women do it? Briefly, the women first storm and take over the Athenian Acropolis, thereby controlling the funds required to keep the war going. Next, they proclaim to all the bellicose men of the land that unless the conflict is brought to an immediate end, they - the women - will henceforth deny any sexual congress which, the women well know, is the only thing their men truly and deeply desire. The men get the message, and before too long, the war comes to an end . . .

A modern theater-going audience or readership can understandably ask “What’s so funny? What makes this a comedy?" First must understand both the classical definition of comedy and the time in which the play Lysistrata was first mounted. To the classical mind, comedy is a genre that places characters in amusing - even preposterous - situations for the sake of humor. To be a comedy, a piece must end on a happy or ‘up’ note . . . whereas tragedy is the precise opposite; the downfall of a great person. In keeping with this definition, Lysistrata is unquestionably a comedy. Secondly, one must realize that for hundreds of years, Lysistrata - like all stage plays - was performed by a cast made up solely of men for an audience made up mostly of men. It must have been successful; it is still being staged nearly 2,500 hundred years later. Too bad that Aristophanes hasn’t been collecting royalties all these years!

For years, Lysistrata was considered to be so controversial, salacious, and risqué. that it was - and in many cases still is - banned from public libraries. It is hardly surprising to learn that it was banned by both the Nazis and the Greek Junta (the “Colonels”) that ruled Greece from 1967 to 1974. In the U.S. Lysistrata was banned for many, many years under terms of the Comstock Law of 1873 . . . which, hauntingly, is once again in the news. This is the federal law that made it “ . . . a crime to sell or distribute materials that could be used for contraception or abortion, to send such materials or information about such materials through the federal mail system, or to import such materials from abroad.” Back in 1873 it was motivated by growing societal concerns over obscenity, abortion, pre-marital and extra-marital sex, the institution of marriage, the changing role of women in society, and increased procreation by the lower classes.

Sound familiar? It should; many rightwing legislators and jurists are looking to breathe life back into it and prop up a growing movement to ban the mailing, marketing, or use of such progesterone blockers as Mifepristone Misoprostol. and Methotrexate - FDA-approved drugs that are used - among other indications - for medical abortions.

I for one find it both fascinating and horrifying that a 151-year-old act could be used to ban both abortifacient drugs and a classic Greek comedy that satirically suggests a remedy for ridiculousness. And so, to all those - both sisters and brothers - who firmly believe that the government must stay out of our bedrooms or wax theologically over when life begins, please recognize what a powerful and deeply motivating set of issues we possess to unite, fight and expel all misogynists from their platforms of power. And, although the actions of Lysistrata and her sisters long may be little more than an hour’s bit of cheeky satire, their message, their passion, and their ultimate victory are hopefully here to stay.

2 Comments 0 Likes

categories / 2024, Satire

#981: Splitting Rails and Telling Tales

April 03, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

Audio Block

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

Question: What do actors Ralph Ince, Sam Drane, George Billings, Joseph Henabery, Francis Ford, Walter Houston, Henry Fonda, Raymond Massey, John Carradine, Bing Crosby, Gregory Peck, Jason Robards, Jr., Hal Holbrook, John Anderson, Sam Waterston, Kris Kristofferson, Brendon Fraser, Kevin Sorbo, and Daniel Day-Lewis (among many, many others) all have in common?

Henry Fonda in “Young Mr. Lincoln,” 1939, 20th Century Fox

Answer: They all, at one time or another, played Abraham Lincoln on the silver screen. Most film historians agree that ever since the turn of the century (4 score years after Honest Abe’s assassination) until today, there have be more films (at least 200) about America’s 16th President than any other person in human history. And of all the actors to portray Honest Abe on screen, only one - the British born and bred Daniel Day Lewis - took the Oscar for Best Actor.

(There are also more biographies about Lincoln than any other American, including G. Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Donald J. Trump - for which the pestilential predecessor is thoroughly pissed).

From both a cinematic and a literary point of view, Lincoln was - and continues to be - simply too good to be true - just what the doctor ordered: angular and self-taught; an American with a life straight out of Horatio Alger (who, by the way, would not publish his first “boy’s novel” - Paul Prescott's Charge: A Story for Boys - until 1865, the year of Lincoln’s tragic death); he was witty and wise, a great leader and a martyred prophet; a man of mythic proportion who is considered to be the greatest of all American presidents. And, to top it all off, at 6’4”, the tallest of all 46 of that illustrious group.

With his top hat on, Lincoln stood nearly 7’ tall

The mythology surrounding the life of Abraham Lincoln - the kid from Hardin County, Kentucky of a thoroughly undistinguished Virginia family who grew up splitting rails for fences, and keeping store at New Salem, Illinois, who was a captain in the Black Hawk War, spent eight years in the Illinois legislature, read law and rode the circuit of courts for many years is pretty much the absolute truth. (He did, by the way, wind up being one of the most in-demand and highest-paid railroad attorneys in the country, who could afford to have his suits made by Brooks Brothers.)

His law partner said of him, “His ambition was a little engine that knew no rest.” It is utterly remarkable that the hagiography surrounding his early life should be so truthful. It reminds me of the John Cheever short story The Worm in the Apple, in which the narrator discovers that the Crutchmans, a family that seems too perfect to be real, must be hiding a proverbial “worm in their apple” are, in fact, just as good as they seem to be.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln did suffer tremendous emotional and psychological loss in the death of his true love, Anne Rutledge, and yes, his future wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, was a difficult person - a harridan by all accounts - which led to her husband’s melancholy (manic depression); nonetheless, he went on to become a brilliant and utterly valorous leader. And oh, how he could spin a tale!

In 1890, a quarter century after Lincoln’s assassination, journalist Alexander McClure, editor of the Philadelphia Times, and one of the founders of the Republican Party, published a large tome entitled Lincoln’s Yarns and Stories. The book contains hundreds of marvelous tales told by a master. Here’s one of my favorites, which still brings a loud guffaw. It’s entitled Done With the Bible. He never told a better one:

A country meeting-house, that was used once a month, was quite a distance from any other house.

The preacher, an old-line Baptist, was dressed in coarse linen pantaloons, and shirt of the same material. The pants, manufactured after the old fashion, with baggy legs, and a flap in the front, were made to attach to his frame without the aid of suspenders.

A single button held his shirt in position, and that was at the collar. He rose up in the pulpit, and with a loud voice announced his text thus: “I am the Christ whom I shall represent to-day.”

About this time a little blue lizard ran up his roomy pantaloons. The old preacher, not wishing to interrupt the steady flow of his sermon, slapped away on his leg, expecting to arrest the intruder, but his efforts were unavailing, and the little fellow kept on ascending higher and higher.

Continuing the sermon, the preacher loosened the central button which graced the waistband of his pantaloons, and with a kick off came that easy-fitting garment.

But, meanwhile, Mr. Lizard had passed the equatorial line of the waistband, and was calmly exploring that part of the preacher’s anatomy which lay underneath the back of his shirt.

Things were now growing interesting, but the sermon was still grinding on. The next movement on the preacher’s part was for the collar button, and with one sweep of his arm off came the tow linen shirt.

The congregation sat for an instant as if dazed; at length one old lady in the rear part of the room rose up, and, glancing at the excited object in the pulpit, shouted at the top of her voice: “If you represent Christ, then I’m done with the Bible.”

Sad to say, were Abraham Lincoln alive and running for the White House in 2024, he wouldn’t stand a chance of getting the nomination of the party he founded, let alone getting elected. Why? Well, first and foremost, he had, what laughingly used to be known in Hollywood as “A face made only for radio.” If you think Donald Trump’s bird’s nest hairdo, tailored paunch, and ersatz tan have been the butt of every late-night TV host’s opening monologue, imagine what they would have done with Abe. Then too, there was the matter of his earnestness; he spoke from the heart and refused to slosh about in the political muck ‘n mire like a majority of today’s supposed leaders. He had big dreams and knew how to turn most of them into reality. But most importantly, the average modern American, like the narrator in Cheever’s marvelous short story, is simply too damned cynical, gullible, uninformed, and politically naïve to see what an absolute jewel this man was.

Back in 1938, the great director John Ford approached the young Henry Fonda to star in his next film, “Young Mr. Lincoln.” For an up-and-coming actor like Fonda to star in a film directed by Ford, Produced by Darryl F. Zanuck, and penned by the preeminent screenwriter Lamar Trotti should have been a no-brainer. I mean we’re talking about John Ford here; a man who Fonda later described as “A son-of-bitch who happened to be a genius.” And yet, when first asked, Fonda turned Ford down flat.

“What are you,” Ford demanded. “Nuts? Don’t you realize how perfect you’d be for the part?”

“Sorry,” the 33-year-old Fonda replied. “Playing Abraham Lincoln . . . it’s like being asked to play Jesus! I just can’t do it.” Ford, not a man to beg, asked Fonda if he would at least pay a visit to the make-up and wardrobe departments and then do a very brief screen test. Fonda agreed . . . after all, who was he to deny the great Ford a small favor? Fonda went off and spent the better part of a day with makeup stylist Clay Campbell. costume director Sam Benson (who put 3-inch lifts in the 6’1” Fonda’s boots), and then filmed a two-minute scene. By the time Ford put his first in front of the camera lens (which was his custom instead of yelling “Cut!” or “Cease!,” Fonda wanted nothing more in the world than to play the young Lincoln.

And what a choice it turned out to be; the most honest of all American actors portraying the most honest of all American icons.

Do yourself a favor and get hold of a copy of this film; you’ll be glad you did. And who knows? Perhaps it might inspire you to be a bit less cynical, a bit less intolerant of human flaws in essentially good-hearted people who want to serve . . . to unite rather than divide, to split a rail and tell a tale.

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

2 Comments 1 Likes

categories / 2024, All Politics All the Time

#980: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

March 24, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

Believe it or not, back in 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was so busy being POTUS that he didn’t really acknowledge he was also in the midst of a presidential campaign until Monday, October 28th. . . a mere 8 days before the election. Republicans were hammering Roosevelt for what they claimed was the nation’s lack of military preparedness, and isolationists and anti-Semites were holding mass demonstrations against America getting involved in Europe. Democrats were alarmed enough to persuade FDR to take to the campaign trail in the final weeks before the election. The Republican nominee, Wendell Willkie, seemed to be gaining momentum. Roosevelt fought back in a speech at New York’s Madison Square Garden on Monday, Oct. 28.

On that date, FDR, perhaps the best pure politician to ever occupy the White House, made his case to the American people, creating a model for how a president can make American leadership abroad a selling point rather than a problem. He named names, and it connected with voters.

In the speech, Roosevelt deployed the full force of his rhetorical talents against three leading Republican isolationist leaders: Mass. Rep. (and future House Speaker) Joseph Martin, the then-House minority leader; N.Y. Rep. Bruce Barton, a conservative ad man and best-selling author who had founded the agency BBDO; and the patrician N.Y. Rep. Hamilton Fish III, who had opposed measures to rearm the nation and aid the victims of Hitler’s aggression.

In the first draft of the speech, the names — Barton, Fish and Martin — were listed in alphabetical order. But during one of their late-night writing sessions, FDR and his speechwriters, Robert Sherwood and Judge Samuel Rosenman (who first coined the term “The New Deal,” and whose daughter Lynn is the wife of Attorney General Merrick Garland), hit on a more rhythmic option: Martin, Barton and Fish. Roosevelt immediately seized on the new rhyming litany. As one aide later recalled, “The president repeated the sequence several times and indicated by swinging his finger how effective it would be with audiences.” Within 2 days, wherever Roosevelt campaigned (whistle-stop speeches), he repeated the rhyming meme to adoring crowds who would drown him out by repeatedly chanting “MARTIN, BARTON, AND FISH!” The 3 became akin to a triple-headed Uriah Heap to FDR’s David Copperfield. It worked well: Roosevelt trounced businessman Wendell Willkie by more than 5 million votes, capturing 41 of the 48 states.

MARTIN, BARTON, AND FISH! It should be noted that Wendell Willkie, unlike so many politicians (which he was decidedly not), and candidates for high office put patriotism before party; he supported FDR’s Lend-Lease program and backed legislation creating the nation’s first peacetime draft. Thanks to its passage, some 1.65 million men were in uniform when America finally entered the war in December 1941. Needless to say, Willkie’s true patriotism - plus the MARTIN, BARTON, AND FISH! chant - made FDR’s reelection to a third term all but inevitable. (It should be noted that Willkie planned on running against Roosevelt again in 1944, but was denied the nomination; he was anathema to a wide swathe of the GOP. He died at age of a massage heart attack at age 52, just weeks before the election.)

Today, it is all but impossible to find (with perhaps the exception of Liz Cheyney) a Republican who will put principle ahead of partisanship. Then too, it is nearly as impossible to imagine President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. employing a slogan that works as brilliantly as FDR’s MARTIN, BARTON, and FISH! Let’s face facts: as good a public speaker as Biden can be, he’s no FDR; indeed, since FDR, the only ones who come close are JFK, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. And of course, both the times and the society in which we live are incredibly different. When FDR spoke to the nation over radio, there were perhaps 5 or 6 microphones sitting in front of him. Today, a speech or campaign stop by Joe Biden has tens of dozens of journalists (some real, some as phony as a 3 dollar bill) videotaping his every word so they may be edited or put through A.I. (artificial intelligence) to make him look like fully-in-charge political figure or an ancient stumblebum who doesn’t know his right from his left.

My suggestion is that President Biden and his campaign staff “show some hair” (as we used to say back in the sixties) and, taking a page from the FDR playbook start putting names in cadence. Shaming and ridiculing the likes of “Gym” Jordan (Chair of the House Judiciary Committee), James Comer (Chair of the House Oversight Committee who never met a high-ranking Democratic member of the Executive Brranch he didn’t want to start impeachment proceedings against), Marjorie Taylor Greene (The Republican Party’s own Tricoteuse (Think Madame Defarge in Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities), “Legislative Terrorists” Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert, and, of course, Donald Trump himself. And although there is no euphonious twin for "MARTIN, BARTON, and FISH!, perhaps we can come close. How’s about:

JORDAN AND JOHNSON & TRUMP
GAETZ AND GOSAR & TRUMP
TUBERVILLE, HAWLEY & TRUMP
STEFANIK, SCALISE & TRUMP

If anyone reading this piece has their own meme of political names, please drop me an email . . .

Unquestionably, there are more members of Congress and their cult leader whose names can become as effective as MARTON, BARTON & FISH, or as historic as TINKERS TO EVERS TO CHANCE. The main point is to use them as derisive needles. And they have earned these needles. So many of the new class of MAGAite Republicans elected to office have not come to Congress to get things done on behalf of the American people, but rather to undo virtually anything and everything the legislative branch has done since the days long ago when FDR’s speechwriters shot arrows bearing the names of MARTIN, BARTON &FISH!

They have earned our scorn and contempt; they deserve to be forced through a gauntlet of ridicule. Who knows, may, just maybe, Donald Trump himself - whose existence is stretched between the Scylla of financial ruin and the Charybdis of global humiliation - might give vent to his final public tantrum.

Between Trump and his congressional sycophants, they just can’t keep from going against the public will; of proving time and again that they are as unqualified a group of “leaders” as this country has ever seen or known. In refusing to pass a bipartisan bill regarding America’s Southern border (which had great bipartisan support) or backing off support for the Ukraine (which they originally supported), they made the kind of headlines no one wants. Time and again they have shown that these MAGA Republicans (like Gaetz & Gosar or Jordan & Johnson, or Stefanik & Scalise) have only one criterion: following the marching orders of Donald Trump. Through their (in)actions, they are digging their own political graves.

Which is why this article came to be entitled “The Gift That Keeps on Giving.”

5 Comments 0 Likes

categories / All Politics All the Time, 2024

#978: Caffeine, Crucifixes and Cleavage

March 12, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

Over the past 96 hours - the time since Joseph R. Biden concluded his 3rd - and by all measures best - State of the Union (SOTU) of his presidency, things have been going pretty damn well for the Democrats. For not only did Biden receive nearly universal applause for his barnburner of a speech; he all but erased the nasty nickname “Sleepy Joe” from the airwaves. Those on the other side of the political aisle who have long portrayed him as a doddering octogenarian likely suffering from pre-senile dementia, are now accusing him of having been “over caffeinated” during his historic address. Even Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, long accustomed to trashing “Uncle Joe” with such front-page headlines as Where’s Joe?, He Said What?, Biden’s Secret Emails, and Glazed and Confused, were forced to damn him with faint praise with the two-word headline He’s Alive!” Of course, in smaller print the front page article says “Bitter exchanges over border,” and “Tax raid on the rich.” Sometimes you just can’t win for losing.

Within 24 hours of giving his SOTU address, the Biden campaign raised more than $10 million in donations from more than 116,000 supporters. Compare this to the Trump campaign/Republican National Committee, which is, as the saying goes, “Down on its uppers.” Most of their cash is going to pay for their boss’s legal bills. The very next day, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the U.S. economy added upwards of 275,000 new jobs in February, easily besting the Wall street Journal ‘s 200,000 prediction.

Does this mean that the MAGAites are going to stop accusing the President of being a doddering codger? Of course not; I’m sure they’ve already put together a edited version of Biden’s SOTU showing nothing but his rhetorical stumbles and coughs. The only thing they have to worry about is that the Dems also have their own edited takes on all times the “Predecessor” has stomped on his tongue or lapsed into incomprehensible Klingon-speak over just the past week. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander . . . but not so good for Democracy. Would the MAGA cultists on Capitol Hill give Joe Biden at least a couple of days off from their normal stridency? Of course not; as I write this, CSPAN is broadcasting a hearing on why Biden should be impeached for hiding secret documents.

But let’s go back to last Thursday night; what happened within minutes after President Biden’s resounding peroration: the rebuttal by 1st-term Alabama Senator Katie Britt. And what a tone-deaf address it was. She wasn’t as bad as then Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal when he gave the rebuttal back in 2009; she was far, far worse. She wasn’t as much of an amateurish joke as Florida Senator Marco “Water Bottle” Rubio in 2015; her appearance and deliverance (not to mention the June Cleaver kitchen mise en scène) were far too bizarre to be a mere joke. Even Arkansas Senator Sarah Huckabee Sanders did a better job last year . . . sticking almost exclusively to how President Biden and the Democrats were nothing more than tools of left-wing “woke” culture. Jindal Rubio, Huckabee Sanders and now Britt all came in with high expectations; their rebuttals were tryouts for future positions in future Republican administrations. All failed the test; none will ever be POTUS or even VPOTUS.

Britt’s response was so out-there that even as she was speaking, bloggers and podcasters were asking who would portray her on the next Saturday Night Live. Tom Nichols, (@RadioFreeTom) posted at 11:01 that night, There is no way that this Katie Britt address does not end up as part of the SNL cold open. Within minutes his comment had gone viral. The View’s cohost Alyssa Farah Griffin, referring to what she called Britt's ASMR freakiness called it "a disaster from start to finish," pointing out the bad optics of the senator choosing to film her speech in a kitchen — just in time for International Women’s Day. Not to be outdone, Joy Behar put in her own two cents: "Get some medication, Katie. I haven’t seen acting that bad since my wedding night," she joked. "So, which genius in that party decided that she was the perfect spokesperson? I’ve never seen mood swings like this. One minute she’s like [sobbing noise], then she’s like gonna take a knife and stab you. Then she’s laughing like an idiot. What is wrong with her? She’s like Sybil . . . the girl needs mood elevators." (NB: “ASMR,” which stands for autonomous sensory meridian response is a term used to describe a tingling, static-like, or goosebumps sensation in response to specific triggering audio or visual stimuli.)

For those who did not see it, actress Scarlett Johannson absolutely nailed Britt . . . both in look and delivery Her opening lines:

“My name is Katie Britt and I have the honor of serving the great people of Alabama. But tonight I’ll be auditioning the part of scary mom performing an original monologue called ‘This Country is Hell.”

The end of her 17-minute kitchen chat - in which she parroted Britt’s We see you. We hear you. We feel you,” had Johansson add And we smell you. We are inside you. We are inside your fridge. And what do we find there? MIGRANTS.

Where Johansson ‘s parody was both brilliant and hilarious, Senator Britt’s presentation was both haunting and toxic. To paraphrase the end of T.S. Elliott’s The Hollow Men:

This is the way the rebuttal ends

Not with a smile but a sniffle.

In many ways, Senator Britt was the ideal person to deliver the Republican response to Joe Biden. Her selection tells us a great deal about who the Party of the Predecessor is aiming to attract and what values they hoped her presence would imply:

Younger voters: At 41 (and the youngest woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate), she is but half the age of Joe Biden.
Women and especially mothers: Almost the first words out of her mouth were “I am a wife and most importantly, a mother . . .”
The Family Values Crowd: clearly wearing a crucifix, hanging somewhat ironically above just a hint of cleavage (like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert), talking about sitting around the kitchen table and discussing their concerns as a family, and standing in a kitchen which may well have been a “green screen” creation. (I mean, when was the last time you saw a real refrigerator without a single magnetized note, report card or photograph on it, or a countertop without a bowl of fruit or a plant?)

The past several days have brought into extraordinary and obvious focus the extreme differences between the newly-refashioned Republican (aka MAGA) Party and the Democrats. When it comes to platforms, the Democrats - whether one agrees in toto or not - at least have fully articulated specifics, and Republicans next to nothing other than bromides and wistful images of times long ago. Where Democrats have dreams they would love to create in an ideal world - dreams that for the most part benefit the many over the few - the Republicans have nightmares - nightmares in which Democracy is what they say it is.

Republicans want us to live in Katie Britt’s kitchen, as if it really exists and we could all afford it. They wish for the nuclear family to sit down to dinner every night - sans televisions, and I-phones and have mom serve a home-cooked meal while the children all say “please” and “thanks.” But this dream - as nostalgically nice as it may seem - would require a time machine . . . or a world which stands before a cosmic green screen,

If we’re ever going to take steps towards healing this world, we’ve got to begin with the search for what is best, and not worst, in one another. We will have to bring into sharper focus that which we demand of others as opposed to that which we are glad to overlook in ourselves. Otherwise, our war of words is going to become an open and bloody battlefield.

I conclude with a bit of wisdom my slightly older sister Erica sent me the other day. (With every passing year, she becomes wiser, wittier and more understanding)

Times zones are weird. In Europe it is today; in Australia it is tomorrow. And in Alabama, it is 1890 . . .

3 Comments 1 Likes

categories / 2024, All Politics All the Time

#977: Putin on 'da Blitz

March 05, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

(Note: The title of this essay is, for those in the know, a word-play on a popular 1927 song by the great Irvin Berlin entitled “Puttin’ on the Ritz,” a slang expression meaning “to dress very fashionably.” There are 2 versions of the song: the original late ‘20s rendition in which the “swells” are Black Harlemites, and the updated 1946 version in which the nabobs are Park Avenue dandies. The latter version is known for the lyric “Dressed up like a million-dollar trouper/Trying hard to look like Gary Cooper (super duper”).

Rally for the “Hollywood Ten” (Dalton Trumbo holding microphone)

For the past 7 weeks (with 1 week left to go), I have been presenting a film course at Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter campus, on films written by the masterful two-time Academy Award-winning screenwriter Dalton Trumbo. He was easily one of the best and most versatile wordsmiths in the 100+ year history of Hollywood. His masterpieces ranged from the romantic (Kitty Foyle and Roman Holiday) to film noir (He Ran All the Way and Gun Crazy), historic spectacle (Spartacus and Exodus), guts and glory war pictures (Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo) adventure (Papillon - his last) and two-hankie weepers (Our Vines Have Tender Grapes and The Brave One).

Despite his glowing track record, Trumbo - along with fellow screenwriters John Howard Lawson, Alvah Bessie, Herbert Cole, Ring Lardner, and Herbert Bieberman, as well as director Edward Dmytryk were sent to prison and essentially blacklisted from the Hollywood film industry as members of the “Hollywood Ten.” Their crime? Members of the House Un-American Activities Committee, as well as what used to be called “Ladies’ Groups”, leading Hollywood gossip columnists (Hedda Hopper, Louella Parsons, and Walter Winchell et al), and the Catholic Legion of Decency declared them to be “Communists,” “Communists sympathizers” and “Premature Anti-Fascists.” Eventually the net spread out by the so-called “defenders of 100% Americanism” ensnared hundreds - perhaps even thousands - of actors, editors, cinematographers, musical directors, and trade unionists; some went from the sound stages of Hollywood to the stages of Broadway or the microphones of radio; many lost their jobs, some packed up their families and went into exile; a handful even committed suicide.

Looking back on the politics of that dark, dark time, it is easy to see that the vast majority of those behind the “Reds Under the Beds” scare were staunch ultra-conservatives - largely midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats. Many were racist or anti-Semitic. Whether or not they really, truly believed all the rhetoric they spewed or had simply found anti-Communism to be a great tool with which to climb the political ladder, is still unknowable. Many reveled in having the ability to look into the eyes of a Hollywood personality and ask, for seemingly the millionth time “Are you now, or have you ever been, a Communist?”

Frequently, the evidence used against a witness to “prove” that they were a “Red” (or a “Pink,” in the vocabulary of the era) was as thin as a sheet of Kleenex. Case in point, Trumbo was asked if he wrote the film “Tender Comrade,” which, at one point, had Ginger Rogers say “Share and share alike . . . that’s the democratic way.” “Yes, Trumbo responded. When he explained that the term “Tender Comrade” came not from his pen but rather from a poem that the late Scottish novelist Robert Louis Stevenson (Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, Kidnapped and A Child’s Garden of Verses among other wonderful works) had written for his wife. Trumbo read aloud a few lines from Stevenson’s poem, simply entitled My Wife (1896): To my wife: Teacher, tender, comrade, wife. A fellow-farer in life . . . “ The Congressman who asked Trumbo the question then asked, “Was this Stevenson a Fellow Traveler like you?” Shades of Jim Jordan!

There is an old saw which states “The more things change, the more they remain the same.” The way things have been going these past several years, I must conclude that this adage must be tossed out. Why? 75 years ago, when Dalton Trumbo and his ilk were facing a Republican-led inquisition those sitting above them were staunchly anti-Communist. Anything - ANYTHING - that smacked of Joseph Stalin, Russia or collectivism, liberalism or universalism was the work of the Devil . . . evil incarnate. Today, large parts of the Republican Party (a.k.a. “The Party of Trump”) treat Vladimir Putin as if he were an ideological ally. Putin, by contrast, continues to treat the U.S. as an enemy. How the Trumps, Jordans, Tubbervilles, and (Mike) Johnsons of this world support the blitz against Democracy that comes from Putin’s Kremlin, Viktor Mihály Orbán’s Hungary and other autocrats with blood on their hands is incomprehensible.

For quite a few years, the loyal opposition has believed that the FPOTUS must walk in lockstep with Putin because the latter has some salacious scandal - with or without photos and video - with which to keep him in line. Whether true or not, I think it goes far, far deeper. As David Leonhardt and Ian Prasad Philbrick wrote in a recent piece in the New York Times: Trump and many other Republicans seem to feel ideological sympathies with Putin’s version of right-wing authoritarian nationalism. They see the world dividing between a liberal left and an illiberal right, with both themselves and Putin — along with Viktor Orban of Hungary and some other world leaders — in the second category.

Already, House Republicans have blocked further aid to Ukraine — a democracy and U.S. ally that Putin invaded. Without the aid, military experts say Russia will probably be able to take over more of Ukraine than it now holds.

If Trump wins a second term, he may go further. He has suggested that he might abandon the U.S. commitment to NATO, an alliance that exists to contain Russia and that Putin loathes. He recently invited Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries that don’t spend enough on their own defense. (Near the end of his first term, he tried to pull American troops out of Germany, but President Biden rescinded the decision.)

Trump has also avoided criticizing Putin for the mysterious death this month of his most prominent domestic critic, Aleksei Navalny, and has repeatedly praised Putin as a strong and smart leader. In a town hall last year, Trump refused to say whether he wanted Ukraine or Russia to win the war.

There are some caveats worth mentioning. Some skepticism about how much money the U.S. should send to Ukraine stems from practical questions about the war’s endgame. It’s also true that some prominent Republicans, especially in the Senate, are horrified by their party’s pro-Russian drift and are lobbying the House to pass Ukraine aid. “If your position is being cheered by Vladimir Putin, it’s time to reconsider your position,” Senator Mitt Romney of Utah said last month.

The shift in elite Republican opinion toward Russia and away from Ukraine has influenced public opinion.

Shortly after Russia invaded, about three-quarters of Republicans favored giving Ukraine military and economic aid, according to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Now, only about half do.

Republican voters are also less likely to hold favorable views of Zelensky. In one poll, most Trump-aligned Republicans even partly blamed him for the war. Republicans also support NATO at lower rates than Democrats and independents, a shift from the 1980s. These are the kinds of things that those speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party should be warning American voters about. Republican fascination with Putin and Russia is real. - and extraordinarily dangerous to the future of democracy.

And whether they realize it or not, the Russian autocrat is “Putin on ‘da blitz.”

6 Comments 0 Likes

categories / 2024, All Politics All the Time

#975: Heroism vs. Cowardice: Alexei Navalny vs Vladimir Putin, Joseph Biden vs Donald Trump and Mike Johnson

February 20, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

Alexei Navalny (June 4, 1976 — February 16, 2024)

The late Alexei Navalny - who died (murdered, actually) just a few days ago in an icy-cold Russian gulag - and former president Donald Trump, have precisely 2 things in common: first, both will be remembered by history (albeit for totally different reasons) until the end of time and second, neither man will ever be awarded the Nobel Prize. In the first instance, of course, Navalny has earned his eternal niche as a hero among heroes; a world-class political organizer who gave millions upon millions of people hope in a time and a place where human degradation was a - if, indeed, not “the” - operating principle of a brutal autocratic regime. Trump’s place, on the other hand, will always be part of a different archive: one sparsely peopled with history’s most malevolent, narcissistic, self-serving, self-deluded cowards.

(n.b.: It should be noted that since 1974, the Nobel Foundation’s charter disallows prizes, regardless of category, to be awarded posthumously).

Within hours of the announcement that Navalny had died “while taking a walk” around the frozen prison grounds, nearly every leader or person of political influence or importance in virtually every small ”d” democratic country expressed their profound sympathies to the fallen lawyer/activist’s family and followers, and utter outrage and contempt at Russian President Vladimir Putin, who unquestionably had Navalny killed. The one gaping hole in the litany of leaders expressing their thoughts, feelings, and outrage was Donald Trump and the vast, vast majority of Republicans in the U.S.A., who, either through sheer cowardice or a not-so-well-hidden admiration for the Russian autocrat and his thugs, decided to remain mum.

There can be no question that Mr. Navalny, Putin’s most strident and best-known nemesis, was murdered. Most of Putin’s victims “fall out” of second-floor windows or die from exotic poisons or nerve agents. (Indeed, less than 24 hours ago, Maksim Kuzmanov, a Russian pilot who defected to the Ukraine, was “shot dead” in Spain.”)

In addressing Navalny’s death, President Biden said,

Make no mistake: Putin is responsible for Navalny's death. What happened to Navalny is yet more proof of Putin's brutality. No one should be fooled, not in Russia, not at home, not anywhere in the world. . . What has happened to Navalny is yet more proof of Putin’s brutality. No one should be fooled — not in Russia, not at home, not anywhere in the world. Putin does not only target his [the] citizens of other countries, as we’ve seen what’s going on in Ukraine right now, he also inflicts terrible crimes on his own people.
And as people across Russia and around the world are mourning Navalny today because he was so many things that Putin was not: He was brave. He was principled. He was dedicated to building a Russia where the rule of law existed and of — where it applied to everybody. Navalny believed in that Russia — that Russia. He knew it was a cause worth fighting for and, obviously, even dying for.

Biden concluded by saying: He was brave. He was principled. He was dedicated to building a Russia where the rule of law existed and where it applied to everybody.

Shortly after the President made his remarks, democratically-elected leaders from nations around the globe began issuing their own statements; echoing the Biden’s sentiments - both on the positive and the negative side of the equation; praising and eulogizing both Navalny’s patriotic charisma and heroic grit, while excoriating and condemning the homicidal psychopathy of Vladimir Putin . . . the man who murders anyone who gets in his way.

Finally . . . finally, 72 hours after Navalny’s murder, Donald Trump, head of the MAGA Party and putative Republican Party candidate for POTUS, made his first and, so far, only statement . . . in which he never so much as uttered the words “Russia” or “Putin.” Having written and delivered thousands of eulogies in my rabbinic career, I’ve got to tell you: this one was sui generis (iunprecidented): a eulogy in which the eulogizer speaks only about himself and not the deceased.

Here, in its entirety are the 63 words he wrote on Truth Social, of which only 2 are devoted to the deceased:

“The sudden death of Alexei Navalny has made me more and more aware of what is happening in our Country. It is a slow, steady progression, with CROOKED, Radical Left Politicians, Prosecutors, and Judges leading us down a path to destruction. Open Borders, Rigged Elections, and Grossly Unfair Courtroom Decisions are DESTROYING AMERICA. WE ARE A NATION IN DECLINE, A FAILING NATION! MAGA2024.

It makes one wonder what in the Hell Putin has on Trump that the latter won’t even utter the name of the former for fear that . . . what? It’s got to be a doozy. Meanwhile, Trump’s cultists, in keeping with their master’s tortured silence, have kept suit and, likewise, maintained their own craven, pigeon-hearted reticence. The assassination of Navalny comes as the GOP is under the thrall of Putin. Trump and congressional Republicans are doing Putin’s work by refusing to provide supplemental funding for Ukraine. MAGA poster boy Tucker Carlson provided a platform last week for Putin to spread his lies about Russia’s history and territorial claims—including his claim that Ukraine is “not really a separate country.” Even Putin was derisive of Tucker Carlson’s pathetic interview. Putin Says He Thought Tucker Carlson Would Ask Tougher Questions.

The heroism of Navalny highlights the craven cowardice of both Donald Trump and House Republicans. Speaker Mike Johnson. for his part, Johnson is damaging US foreign policy so he won’t have to provoke the ire of Trump’s strongest, most obnoxious devotee, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Remember, Johnson’s Speakership hangs by a thread that is even thinner and more fragile than the sword swinging about the head of Damocles. In his mind, should he do the right thing and bring the Ukraine/Israel aid bill to the floor, his head will be quickly become separated from the rest of his anatomy.

Against Mike Johnson’s cowardice (emblematic of all congressional Republicans) is the heroism of Alexei Navalny. In anticipation of his own assassination, Navalny left these words to those who remained behind:

“If they decide to kill me, then it means we are incredibly strong.

We need to utilize this power and not give up, to remember we are a huge power that is being oppressed . . . . We don’t realize how strong we actually are. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing,, so don’t be inactive.”

My friends and readers: go with the heroes and heroines (like Navalny’s widow Yulia, who has sworn to keep up his mission) and do everything in your power to fight the cowardice of the Trumps, Johnsons, Greenes and Tubervillles of this world . . . and always remember Alexei’s self-written epitaph.

3 Comments 0 Likes

categories / All Politics All the Time, The Coming Autocracy, 2024

#970: Riddle Me a Riddle

January 15, 2024 / Kurt F. Stone

(An introductory note: To the gentleman I spoke with at yesterday’s lecture on the making of “Citizen Kane,” please know that I wish you a successful operation later this week. R’fuah sh’layma” [a speedy recovery], KFS)

For more years than I care to remember, my typical workout “uniform” has consisted of a pair of grey fleece sweatpants, thick-soled deep black Sketchers, and an Obama/Biden tee-shirt from the 2008 presidential election emblazoned with the slogan “Yes We Can!” Back in 2008 and on through 2012, the tee shirt garnered quite a few “thumbs up” gestures from my fellow gym rats. After Trump’s victory in 2016, few people seemed to be bothered by the shirt’s sweaty message. During the pandemic years, I began noting a growing number of “thumbs down” - and even “middle finger” salutes; now that we’ve reached 2024, I am beginning to consider putting my beloved workout shirt into the back of my dresser drawer. It’s gotten that bad . . . and I live in one of the few bright blue counties in Florida!

As I write these words, we are a mere 48 hours away from the first figures hitting the airwaves from snowy, blowy Iowa where the nation’s first caucuses will be winding up. Whatever meteorological kinks and curves will be thrown into the final tally is beyond anyone’s comprehension. Suffice it to say that even if, as expected, there will be a lot of citizens remaining home, hunkering close to the fireplace, Donald Trump will emerge victorious. But regardless of the final statistical count, it is highly likely that Trump’s victory won’t provide him with as much of an electoral slingshot into the New Hampshire primary as he might have expected even a week ago. A week ago, network reporters blanketed Iowa, asking voters if, regardless of the non-electoral challenges currently facing Donald Trump that they would vote for him, the answers were overwhelmingly positive. Most of those interviewed by members of the national media proclaimed that they would vote for Trump because they trust him, think he is far, far better than anyone else for the economy, knows how to handle world affairs far, far better than Joe Biden, and know that he will be the one person who can keep the United States from a second Civil War.

Unlike voters in past elections, these Republicans aren’t voting for their candidate because of any specific policy proposals, for indeed, outside of pardoning the J6 “hostages,” dismantling the DOJ and FBI, and seeking retribution against anyone and everyone who has ever made their avatar’s life a living hell, there are no policies. The Trump MAGA campaign is well on its way toward becoming the most negative one in at least the past century. Instead of past memorable slogans such as "National Unity. Prosperity. Advancement” (T.R. 1904), "Happy Days are Here Again” (F.D.R. 1932), "The Buck Stops Here” (Truman, 1948), "A Time for Greatness” (J.F.K. 1960) and the aforementioned "Yes We Can” (Obama 2008), what do we have in 2024? It’s "Let’s Finish the Job” for Joe Biden and either "Make America Great Again” or "I Am Your Retribution” for Donald Trump. This pretty much says it all; about as much bipolarity as the Yankees and the Dodgers, the Hatfield’s and the McCoy’s, the Jets and the Sharks or, to put my head on the chopping block, between those who act and those merely react.

One of the most telling differences between the nation’s political “approaches” was just summed up in a recently-released Florida Atlantic University Poll which asked the state’s voters what personality trait they value the most in a presidential candidate. Empathy was dead last, at 4%. What’s worse is that since the survey’s margin of error was plus or minus three percentage points the true share of people who most want empathy could be close to zero. Among Democrats, it’s “integrity,” which was the top choice by far, 51%, followed by leadership (20%), intelligence (13%), stability (9%) and empathy (8%). Among Republicans, the top choice was “leadership,” at 56%, followed by integrity (34%), intelligence (7%), stability (3%) and empathy (0%). Go ahead; start fearing for the future of the United States.

The Trump campaign, consisting of he who my friend Alan Wald refers to as “The Orange Blob,” and said “Blob’s” 2 sons, are proclaiming over and over and over again that nothing - absolutely NOTHING - has been accomplished on Joe Biden’s watch while, in comparison, everything was just hunky-dory during the days of the Trump Administration. The litany of accomplishments which Don, Don, Jr., and Eric endlessly stress is that during the Trump Administration, there were “No wars and no terrorists attacks,” both inflation and gas prices were much lower, American leadership was respected around the globe, G-d was in His Heaven and all was right with the world (sorry, Mr. Browning). But since Biden became POTUS (for those who accept this lie, which a majority of Republicans do not), inflation has gone through the roof, thus wreaking havoc on most retirees retirement accounts; the price of gas and food has skyrocketed, and wars about all over the world. Most, if not all, of these claims can be disproven; they are both factually and morally incorrect.

Take just a few of these factually absurd claims: in a recent Fox News Town Hall forum in which Donald Trump held center stage (as opposed to being on the debate stage) he asserted: “We had no terrorist attacks at all during my four years.” “I had no wars. I’m the only president in 72 years, I didn’t have any wars.” For those who want to learn about precisely what did occur during his 4 years in the White House, check out the following Washington Post article. Then too, there is the Donald Trump, Jr. claim that there’s not a “single metric” by which “anyone” is better off now than they were three years ago. Say what? Three years ago – January 2021 – was the deadliest month of the pandemic up to that point – around 80,000 people died from complications connected to Covid-19 that month alone. CDC data shows that in the week ending 9 January 2021, 25,974 deaths were recorded. For the week ending 9 December 2023, that figure was 1,614. In January 2021, the unemployment rate stood at 6.3 per cent. By last month, that number was 3.7 per cent.

I took a break from completing this essay and went back to researching a clinical trial on a new devise to be used for people diagnosed with Stage 1 diabetes mellitus (caused by inherited factors). Without getting into the specifics of this trial (they are proprietary), I became rather excited about the prospects of effectively dealing with this costly killer. Then it dawned on me: one of the greatest things the Biden Administration has accomplished since he took office was the drastic lowering of the price of insulin for the millions of people suffering from diabetes. Believe it or not _ which MAGA Republicans definitely do not - since 2023, drug manufacturer Eli Lily - with a major push from both the Biden White House and a divided Congress - has lowered the price of Insulin by 70%, which can mean the difference between life and death for those who suffer. And yet, the Biden campaign has just begun talking about this supreme accomplishment, thus permitting Trump and his MAGA strategists to continue convincing their cult members (many of whom suffer from diabetes) that Biden has accomplished virtually nothing. These folks know nothing about all the infrastructure programs the Biden/Pelosi-led Democrats have passed which will create hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of good paying jobs in the private sector. But again, the MAGA Trumpsters refuse to cede a single accomplishment to Biden or the Democrats. Why? Because if they did, it might lose them a couple of votes.

Outside of having a boatload of personal grievances for which he seeks redress, Donald Trump has no platform. Oh, he is still running on building his wall along America’s southern border, repealing the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) “Drill Baby Drill” and hinting at having the U.S. leave NATO. If all of this sounds like the Trump platform from 2016 and 2020, that’s because it is - despite the fact that many things have changed during the first 3 years of the Biden Administration:

According to a recent Citibank report, “Total gross crude and other liquid exports hit a record of 11.128 million barrels per day, more than the total output of either Russia or Saudi Arabia,” Citi energy analysts wrote on March 1. “U.S. net crude imports fell to lows not seen since the 1950s.”
According to a recent report from KFF (formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation), “Republican voters are far less interested than Democrats in hearing the candidates talk about the health care law, according to new polling data . . . . Only 32 percent of self-identified Republican voters think it’s very important for candidates to talk about the future of the Affordable Care Act, the poll shows, compared to 70 percent of Democrats. . . . . [Moreover}, opposition to Obamacare is a loser with independents: 62 percent viewed the law favorably.
According to the Center for Economic Policy and Research’s founder and lead economist Dean Baker “We now have the greatest economy ever. I’m saying that because President Biden won’t, and everyone knows damn well that if Donald Trump was in the White House and we had the same economic situation, he would be boasting about the greatest economy ever all the time. Every Republican politician in the country would be touting the greatest economy ever. And all the political reporters would be writing stories about how the strong economy will make it difficult for the Democrats to beat Trump in the next election.”

These are neither lies nor fabrications . . . unless you are a MAGA devotee who fully believes that Donald Trump is the Second Coming. Those who are willing to read facts instead of ingest opinions, will find it terribly difficult to understand how the Trump minions can swallow such bilge. One possible reason is that they are just plain stupid and uneducated. (Sorry to be so damnably nasty and seemingly superior, but that’s just the way I understand things to be.)

So riddle me this riddle: how are progress and a track record of success against the odds ever going to best retrogression, bald-faced lies and a storied past that never truly existed? By working our tails off, going to the polls regardless of the weather or roadblocks, and redefining the meaning of just who is a patriotic American. America is just too precious for us - and for the world - to be taken over by the forces of autocracy and bigotry. Yes, there is a plague of victimization alive in this country; a plague that can never be cured through clinical research . . . for it is a plague created by the victims themselves.

Remember: There are just 269 days until Voting Day (November 5, 2024).

2 Comments 1 Likes

categories / 2024

#968: Don't Know Much About History

December 31, 2023 / Kurt F. Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Comments 0 Likes

categories / 2024, American History

#965: Oh What a Week . . .

December 04, 2023 / Kurt F. Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) she said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act.
In Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) O’Connor upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor’s opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) she broke with Chief Justice Rehnquist and other opponents of a woman’s right to choose as part of a 5-4 majority in affirming Roe v. Wade.
In Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) Justice O’Connor affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Vanessa Williams noted in a New York Times essay:

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

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

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

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

Oh what a week!

3 Comments 1 Likes

categories / All Politics All the Time, American History, 2024

Filtering by Category: 2024