#1,018: Pardon Me!

Audio Block

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

                              Emilie Todd and Benjamin Hardin Helm, 1857. 

   President Joseph R. Biden, Jr’s. recent pardon of his son Hunter has a lot of people talking. According to recent polling done by the now-80 year old Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research at the University of Chicago, only about 2 in 10 Americans approve of the President’s decision to pardon his son after earlier promising he would do no such thing.  The survey found that a relatively small share of Americans “strongly” or “somewhat” approve of the pardon, which came after the younger Biden was convicted on gun and tax charges. About half said they “strongly” or “somewhat” disapprove, and about 2 in 10 neither approve nor disapprove.  Unsurprisingly, a higher percentage of Republicans - both office-holders and everyday voters - found fault with Biden’s act than Democrats. As soon as the pardon was announced, the President-Elect took to Truth Social, slamming Biden for what he called "an abuse and miscarriage of Justice! Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?" he wrote. Steven Cheung, the President-Elect’s communications director, told Newsweek, "The failed witch hunts against President Trump have proven that the Democrat-controlled DOJ and other radical prosecutors are guilty of weaponizing the justice system."

   Political commentator Ben Shapiro slammed the president for his decision to issue the pardon, saying that Biden "has always been a venal liar who utilized his political power to pursue familial gain. So of course he's pardoning Hunter. He was always going to pardon Hunter. Hunter was the bagman." Shapiro and many other voices on the right have seized on the timeframe of Hunter's pardon to note that it starts before he joined Ukrainian gas company Burisma's board of directors. Shapiro later posted a video trying to connect the dots on this narrative.

Ezra Klein, a popular New York Times opinion columnist, acknowledged that "it's terrible politics and precedent," but argued that "the Trump team has been brutally clear they want revenge on their enemies, they are obsessed with Hunter in particular, and that would weigh like hell on me if I were his father and could protect him." Klein also joked about the "Dark Brandon" memes and endorsed the suggestion that Hunter Biden should appear on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast.

Political pollster Nate Silver had harsh words for the president, writing on X that he "voted for Harris despite feeling like Democrats indulged in a lot of bad behavior that voters were rational to publish. After the White House lying about the Hunter pardon I'm not sure how much more I can tolerate."  Silver also called for voters to reject "any Democrat in 2028 who doesn't repudiate the pardon within 48 hours." He also accused the White House of "consistently" lying about Biden's plan to abide by the court's decision on Hunter Biden's cases and called Biden "a selfish and senile old man."

Many Republicans, including members of both the House and Senate appear to believe that Biden’s pardon of son Hunter was, historically speaking, absolutely nonpareil; that no other POTUS had ever pardoned a member of his own family.  If they really, truly believe this  (which I doubt) when the lights go down and they put their heads on the pillow, then they had best go back and relearn high school-level American history.  For not only did their once-and-future leader pardon his מַחֲטוּנִים* billionaire real estate mogul Charles Kushner in December 2020; he recently announced that he was nominating him to become America’s next Ambassador to France.  (*Pronounced mechute’n), this is a basically untranslatable Yiddish term, meaning something like “your child’s father-in-law” which, in the eyes of Jewish custom, makes Jared’s father a flesh-and-blood member of the Trump family).  And to make sure we’re all on the same page, remember that In 2005, Charles Kushner was convicted of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering. After learning that his brother-in-law was cooperating with federal investigators, Charles Kushner hired a sex worker to lure him into a hotel room with a hidden camera and then sent the recording of the encounter to his sister.  The senior Kushner pleaded guilty to 18 counts, including tax evasion and witness tampering. He was sentenced to two years in prison and was ordered to pay $508,900 to the Federal Election Commission. After his release - and before he received his pardon -  he returned to the real estate business.

So we can add IT to Biden as presidents who have pardoned family members.  But we’re not even halfway there.  In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln  issued a posthumous pardon to Confederate General Benjamin Hardin  Helm, who was the late husband of Emilie Todd Helm, (that’s them in the picture above). Emilie Todd was the half-sister of Lincoln’s wife, thereby making the general Lincoln’s brother-in-law. General Helm was the last commander of the “Orphan Brigade”* and was killed at the Battle of Chickamauga. Lincoln had originally offered Emilie Todd's husband a position in the Union Army, but he chose to raise a regiment for the Confederacy.  (*The “Orphan Brigade was made up of Kentucky regiments that were "orphans" because Kentucky's secession movement failed, leaving them without a "home state" in the Confederacy.)  Nonetheless, Lincoln pardoned him, thus permitting his widow (who after his death moved to the White House), to sell her homestead and Kentucky-grown tobacco on the open market.  

Ironically, Abraham Lincoln also pardoned Joseph Robinette Biden’s Great Great Grandfather, Moses Robinette on September 1, 1864.  In 1861, Robinette, who was working as a veterinary surgeon for the Army of the Potomac’s reserve artillery had been convicted of a number of offenses including attempted murder. Found guilty in 1864, he was sent to the Dry Tortugas islands of Florida to serve out his 2-year sentence. When the attempted murder charge was overturned, Robinette’s case was brought to Lincoln’s attention.  Within a matter of weeks, the nation’s 16th POTUS pardoned “Doc” Robinette.

Rounding out the list of presidents who have pardoned family members is Bill Clinton, our 42nd Commander-in-Chief. On one of his last days in office, he issued a pardon for his half-brother Roger Clinton, Jr., who, in 1985, had been tried, convicted and served federal time for possession and drug-trafficking. The conviction came on the heels of a sting operation operation looking into conspiracy to distribute cocaine. During the time his brother served as POTUS, Roger’s Secret Service code name was “Headache,” due to his unpredictable behavior.

   I for one am a bit torn about Joe Biden pardoning Hunter.  On the one hand, this man has lived through more family tragedy than perhaps anyone in public life: those of a certain age well remember the president’s shared anguish over his two sons, after the boys survived a car crash that killed Biden's first wife and a daughter more than a half-century ago. Or to those who heard the president regularly lament the death of his older son, Beau, from cancer, or voice concerns — largely in private — about Hunter’s sobriety and health after years of deep addiction. But on the other, for months prior to the November election President Biden said he would not, under any circumstance, pardon his remaining son: “No one is above the law.”  His stunning reversal is hard for a majority of Americans to swallow, myself included.  But this pardon is not the sum total of everything one need to know about Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.  For Republicans, this reversal gives them license to self-righteously proclaim to anyone and everyone who will listen and agree, that this pardon will, when all is said and done, be the only thing history will remember about Joe Biden.  This is stuff and nonsense.  American history is replete with presidents who have granted pardons that are far more questionable and downright dishonest:

• In 1869, President Andrew Johnson pardoned Dr. Samuel Mudd, who had been sentenced for assisting Abraham Lincoln’s assassin John Wilkes Booth.  It is likely that Mudd earned his pardon from Ft. Jefferson n part because of his efforts to halt the spread of an outbreak of deadly yellow fever at the prison.  (In 1936, 20th Century Fox produced a film loosely based on Mudd’s life. The Prisoner of Shark Island, directed by John Ford, and starring Warner Baxter. 

• In 1922, President Calvin Coolidge granted an unconditional pardon to Lothar Witzke, a citizen of the Weimar Republic who had been imprisoned in the United States for his involvement in a 1916 bombing attack on New York Harbor that left seven dead. After being Coolidge’s pardon, Witzke was deported to Germany where he received a hero’s welcome. 

• In 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant effectively pardoned most members of the Confederacy when he signed the Amnesty Act. This allowed former Confederacy members to once again vote and hold office. Tensions were still high across the United States and Grant viewed the act as a way to promote unity.  Believe it or not, the incoming administration has used this act in defense of their stated goal of pardoning all the jailed or arrested January 6 perpetrators.

• On September 8, 1974, President Gerald R. Ford signed what is hands down, the most controversial pardon in American history: that of Richard Nixon. The former president received a full, unconditional pardon for his role in the Watergate Scandal, which resulted in his resignation. Nixon is the only former president to receive a pardon.

• IT’s mass pardons of such convicted loyalists as Roger Stone, Paul Manifort, Michael Flynn and former Maricopa County (AZ) Sheriff Joe Arpaio The last of these was perhaps IT’s most controversial pardon. Arpaio was convicted of contempt of court for illegally detaining people without reasonable evidence after being ordered to cease these practices. Civil rights groups protested the pardon as they viewed Arpaio's actions as unconstitutional attacks on immigrants. to name but a few.

Those who believe that Joe Biden’s pardoning of his son (despite his earlier statements to the contrary) will be all that history remembers him for are delusional. Historians (presidential and otherwise) tend to have a far broader and more all-encompassing view of our nation’s chief executives than political operatives, staunch loyalists and the so-called “partisan base.”  I’ve got to believe that Joe Biden doesn’t sleep as well at night as the man who will replace him come January 20, 2025.  Biden, when all is said and done, is a man of heart, faith, inherent kindness and conscience.  He is, in the words of Mark Twain, “. . . the sort of man who speaks a language that the deaf can hear and the blind can see.”t A perfect man?  No, of course not.  But within his soul he is at least a man who cares about doing for others, rather than mostly - if not strictly - for himself.  His successor, on the other hand, sleeps well and does not worry a farthing about what history’s  . . . let alone G-d’s . . . judgement of him will be.  In his mind it really doesn’t matter, for he will be dead and all those mansions, towers and golf courses bearing his name will be the only legacy that matters.  However much he will ultimately eviscerate democracy while enriching both himself and his billionaire backers is of no concern to him, for he lives only in the moment, only for himself. 

   Will IT ever get his comeuppance?  Will it ever dawn on a majority of the American voting public that the man they elected with precisely 49.78% of the popular vote is a grifter, a conman, what British humorist Sir P.G. Wodehouse would have called a “gumboil of a human being”?  I hope so.  2026 is going to be as crucial - if not more so - than 2024.  Already, Democrats are raising money and seeking candidates in order to take back both the House and the Senate in the next mid-term elections . . . assuming there will be elections. 

If I sound a bit harried and pessimistic, please, PARDON ME!

 Copyright024 Kurt Franklin Stone        

#1,006: 51 Days and Counting . . .

How many different synonyms can you come up with to describe what Vice President Kamala Harris did to FPOTUS IT at last Tuesday night’s nationally-televised presidential debate, watched by nearly 70 million Americans . . . not to mention people around the world? Was it “a drubbing,” “a shellacking,” or a whupping”? Did she “annihilate,” “trounce,” “route” or “destroy” him? Will it be known to future generations as “IT’s Waterloo?”

Indeed, V.P. Harris came across as being composed, intelligent, articulate, deeply knowledgeable, and - daresay we - PRESIDENTIAL, while IT was his normal self: petulant, puerile, waspish, racist and filled to overflowing with half-truths, mistruths and absurd - not to mention “dangerous” - fabrications. From the very moment the 5’4 1/4” Harris (wearing flat shoes) confidently strode across the debate stage, firmly grasped the hand of the 6’3” IT and introduced herself (“Good evening, I’m Kamala Harris”), one sensed that she already had him in her hip pocket.

Besides the obvious disparities in their physical height, Harris proved to be the bigger, taller candidate . . . and the most truthful.  This is not to say that the Vice President was spot-on honest throughout the full 90 minutes.  Several small fibs or disparities did manage to pass the V.P.’s  lips:

• Harris: “Economists have said that that Trump sales tax would actually result, for middle-class families, in about $4,000 more a year.”  This may be a high estimate.  IT suggested he wants to impose a 10 percent tax on every imported good entering the United States and a 60 percent tax on every imported good from China. The pro-trade Peterson Institute for International Economics has estimated that this would cost a typical U.S. household in the middle of the income distribution about $1,700 in after-tax income. That’s because tariffs are typically passed on to consumers by importers — a standard economic concept that IT rejects.

• Harris: “What you’re going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025, that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected.”  to which IT responded “I have nothing to do as you know, and as she knows better than anyone, I have nothing to do with Project 2025 that’s out there.”  Project 2025 is not an official campaign document, and Democrats, including Vice President Harris, have been called out for sometimes falsely suggesting policies that are not in it, such as on Social Security and the definition of family. It’s a Heritage Foundation report called “Mandate for Leadership,” a 922-page manifesto filled with detailed conservative proposals that is popularly labeled Project 2025. But there are definitely Trump connections.

• Harris: “Let’s talk about fracking because we’re here in Pennsylvania. I made that very clear in 2020, I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as vice president of United States. And in fact, I was the tiebreaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking.”  This is “spin.”  What Harris said in the vice-presidential debate in 2020, “Joe Biden will not ban fracking. He has been very clear about that.” Later in the debate, she reiterated that “the American people know that Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact. That is a fact.”  In other words, V.P. Harris was stating Biden’s position — but not making clear her own. When she was still running for president months earlier, Harris took a firm stand against fracking.

By comparison, IT, immediately put on the defensive by his opponent, and  largely abandoning his pre-arranged debate strategy, made more than four times more false or suspect claims than the Vice President.  Some of them were outright whoppers:

• IT: “I have no sales tax. That’s an incorrect statement. She knows that we’re doing tariffs on other countries. Other countries are going to finally, after 75 years, pay us back for all that we’ve done for the world, and the tariff will be substantial in some cases.” IT is flat wrong to claim that the entire tariff is paid by a foreign country.  There is no controversy among economists, who agree that tariffs — essentially a tax on domestic consumption — are paid by importers, such as U.S. companies, which in turn pass on most or all of the costs to consumers or producers who may use imported materials in their products.

• IT: "You believe in things like we're not going to frack, we're not going to take fossil fuel, we're not going to do things that are going to be strong, whether you like it or not . . . . Germany tried that, and within one year, they were back to building normal energy plants."  This was such an undeniably false statement that Germany’s Federal Foreign Office took the unique  step of issuing a rebuttal:  “Like it or not: Germany's energy system is fully operational, with more than 50% renewables, and we are shutting down – not building – coal & nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest."

• Harris: “I’m going to tell you that I have traveled the world as vice president of the United States, and world leaders are laughing at Donald Trump.” ITs response drew blank stares around the globe: “Let me just tell you about world leaders. Viktor Orbán, one of the most respected men — they call him a ‘strongman.’ He’s a tough person. Smart. Prime Minister of Hungary. They said why is the whole world blowing up? Three years ago it wasn’t. Why is it blowing up? He said because you need Trump back as president. They were afraid of him.”

• IT speaking on crime during the Biden/Harris years: “They allowed terrorists. They allowed common street criminals. They allowed people to come in, drug dealers to come into our country. And they’re now in the United States and told by their countries like Venezuela, don’t ever come back, or we’re going to kill you. Do you know that crime in Venezuela and crime in countries all over the world is way down?”  This is false. There is no reliable data on crime in Venezuela — the government stopped publishing official data in 2015 — but at campaign rallies, IT says crime has dropped “a staggering 67 percent” in Venezuela, while at other times he has put the drop in crime at “72 percent in a year.” It’s unclear where he gets these numbers.

Then there is the one big fat lie that will outlive It, his running mate Vontz, as well as their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren:

• Speaking of the perils of “unbridled immigration: “A lot of towns don’t want to talk about it because they’re so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” IT is channeling right-wing social media sensations. On Springfield, Ohio, he is referencing a ridiculous social media hoax, supposedly centered on Haitian immigrants eating cats and other animals, that has spawned thousands of memes across right-wing social media. There is no evidence that Haitians are doing this.  And yet, despite  a welter of proof that this charge is utter hogwash,  bomb threats have closed down Springfield schools and forced to local hospitals - Kettering Health and Mercy Health - to go on lock down.  Threats have continued to come even after the woman who started the rumors acknowledged to  NBC News that they were unfounded and publicly apologized. 

  This past Friday, President Biden lashed out at IT during a White House event celebrating Black excellence, stating “I want to take a moment to say something [about the] Haitian American community that’s under attack in our country right now.  It’s simply wrong. There’s no place in America. This has to stop, what he’s doing. It has to stop!”

Here in 2024, IT has pledged that on “day one,” he will deport the Haitians of Springfield, Ohio “back to Venezuela”; in September 2016, then-Republican presidential candidate IT came to Miami’s Little Haiti and told an assembled crowd: “I’m running to represent Haitian-Americans.  I really want to be your greatest champion, and I will be your champion.” I guess IT presumes that those who eat cats and dogs, suffer from acute memory  loss.

Not surprisingly, a vast majority of the legitimate media proclaimed Kamala Harris the winner in a landslide.  It immediately proclaimed himself the overwhelming victor and declared that as a result, he would no longer consider engaging in a second debate.  In making his declaration, he used a boxing metaphor: “When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, “I WANT A REMATCH.  Polls clearly show that I won the debate against Comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ Radical Left Candidate, on Tuesday night, and she immediately called for a Second Debate (sic).”

Despite the relative boost Kamala Harris received among independent and undecided voters as a result of her formidable debate victory; despite the greater polling numbers she is receiving among women and some minorities (such as Haitians and South Asians) she is still pretty much in a statistical dead heat with her Republican opponent. DO NOT PAY TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO DAILY OR EVEN WEEKLY POLL NUMBERS, I beg you.  Many pollsters are paid to report what a candidate wants them to report; there are but a few reliable and scientifically accurate polls out there these days.  Among those I find most trustworthy are:

• The New York Times/Siena College

• ABC News/The Washington Post

• Marquette University Law School

• YOUGOV

• Monmouth University Polling Institute 

• Maris College and

• Suffolk University.

  Among the worst are:

• Florida International University/Univision

• The Florida Poll and

• University of North Florida/Bob Graham Center for Public Service.
  

The way things go nowadays, people who support the Harris/Walz ticket cannot believe for one moment that anyone - knowing what we know about IT/Vontz - could ever support them come November. Then too, those who are ardent supporters of the latter - again, despite what they know about them - could ever in a million years vote for Harris/Walz. In politics, things are never that cut and dried. The path to victory is never paved with prayers or pronouncements; rather, they are the product of door-knocking, phone ringing, postcard writing and $$$. The path to loss is paved with people who give up, convincing themselves that their vote won’t amount to a hill of beans. I’ve lived and practiced politics long enough to know generally speaking, this is not true.

We have 51 days to go . . . 51 days to make our voices and our dreams a reality.

Do remember the words of Louis D. Brandeis, the greatest of all Supreme Court Justices: “The most important office, and the one which all of us can and should fill, is that of private citizen.”

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#1,005: A Critical Insight from John Cheever

                                           John Cheever: the "Chekhov of the Suburbs"

Vice President Kamala Harris and FPOTUS IT will be far away from the public eye for the next 36 hours. Instead, they will be spending their time huddled with their closest debate advisors, putting the final facts and strategic flourishes in place for Tuesday’s first - and perhaps only - nationally televised face-to-face rhetorical joust hosted by ABC News.  The bell will ring at precisely 9:00 PM. EDT.  After much behind closed doors sturm und drang,  the debate rules will be the same as when IT and President Biden debated on CNN back on June 27: an empty hall, mics which are automatically muted at the end of each candidate’s allotted time; Democrat on audience right, Republican on audience left. 

It is a fool’s errand to bet heavily on whether IT or Kamala Harris is going to win. From the point of emotion and innate political bias, I of course believe Harris has all the tools to force IT to look and sound less stable than an inmate of the Asylum of Charenton (think of the notorious provocateur the Marquis de Sade). In order for her to win, she must call out every one of ITs lies, be both brief and succinct on policy proposals, and leave him to do what he normally does best (which is, of course, worst) . . . rant, rave and call names. 

The V.P. seems to have more room for growth than Trump. According to the New York Times’ Lisa Lerer: Twenty-eight percent of voters said they feel like they need to learn more about her, compared to 9 percent who say the same about Trump. It’s a reminder of how even though she is vice president, she remains less defined as a candidate.  From a point of adding new voters, Harris is in much better shape than IT.  He has long been stuck at a maximum of 47% of the electorate: in 2016 he received 46.1% of the vote (62,984,828) to Hillary Clinton’s 48.2% (65,853,514); in 2020, although receiving 74,223,975 votes, his share of the vote only rose to 46.8%, as compared to 51.3% (81,283,501) for Joseph Biden. In other words, as he enters Tuesday’s debate, IT needs to either impress new groups of voters to support him or give a reason for heretofore Democratic voters to switch their votes.  The only place where Kamala Harris  currently trails IT is in the number of people who have developed some knowledge about who she is and what she stands for. The first rule of presidential elections is to gain new voters; to open wide the tent flaps in order to admit a greater array of people.  From what I’ve seen over the past several weeks, this is precisely what the Harris/Walz campaign has been doing . . . and tirelessly so.  By comparison, the IT/Vontz/MAGA crowd doesn’t seem to want the support of anyone who hasn’t been a member of the cult all along .  How much more counterintuitive can you get?

                                                             And in this corner . . . 

What viewers are most likely to see this Tuesday night are the vast differences between Harris and IT in presidential style, deportment, humanity and intelligence.  We will see the difference between a genuine smile and a hurtful smirk.  We will also likely be witness to two utterly different portraits or visions of America.  In one, we will be presented as a land of endless possibilities that has managed to grow its economy, lessen unemployment, lower major crime, take a generous bite out of inflation, grow wages and once again improve its leadership role in the world of nations . . . a country doing its best to meet its challenges by calling on the best within all of us.  In the other, we will be portrayed as a defeated nation caught in the throes of economic chaos; one being overrun by the dregs of humanity who steal into our shores in order to steal away our jobs, raise our crime rate and ultimately destroy the world we once knew.

 This second approach is utter civic neurosis; making victims of the masses and insisting that our enemies are everywhere.  It afflicts not only the politics that come from one side of the aisle; it has infiltrated and become endemic in a wide swath of society.  IT and the MAGA maniacs are consistently “discovering” the “flaws,” “evil inconsistencies’ and “less-than-human weaknesses” of virtually everyone who is not loyal to their cause, who does not look like, act like or agree with the “true believers.”  They simply refuse to see goodness in others . . . 

Which brings us to the late writer John Cheever (1912-1982), often called the “Chekhov of the Suburbs.  One of the best and most entertainingly literate of all 20th-century American novelists and short story writers, Cheever’s WASPY fiction is mostly set in the Upper East Side of Manhattan; the Westchester suburbs; old New England villages, and based on various South Shore towns around Quincy, Massachusetts, where he was born.  And although his world and his characters are pretty much foreign to this Jewish Hollywood Brat, I have always found great universal wisdom and understanding in his entire oeuvre. 

  In one of Cheever’s best short stories, “The Worm in the Apple,” the narrator fixates on the seemingly perfect Crutchman family. The narrator suspects they must have flaws beneath their idyllic suburban existence, represented by the hidden ‘worm’ in the apple. The story satirizes the portrayal of perfection in American life, particularly in the 1950s, that golden period of American expansion and confidence.

(BTW: Por those who do not wish to read the entire story [approximately 750 words] I have recorded a version which you may listen to below)

The story’s opening paragraph sets the stage:

The Crutchmans were so very, very happy and so temperate in all their habits and so pleased with everything that came their way that one was bound to suspect a worm in their rosy apple and that the extraordinary rosiness of the fruit was only meant to conceal the gravity and the depth of the infection. Their house, for instance, on Hill Street with all those big glass windows. Who but someone suffering from a guilt complex would want so much light to pour into their rooms? And all the wall-to-wall carpeting as if an inch of bare floor (there was none) would touch on some deep memory of unrequition and loneliness. And there was a certain necrophilic ardor to their gardening. Why be so intense about digging holes and planting seeds and watching them come up? Why this morbid concern with the earth? She was a pretty woman with that striking pallor you so often find in maniacs. Larry was a big man who used to garden without a shirt, which may have shown a tendency to infantile exhibitionism.

The setting, as often in a John Cheever story, is well-heeled American suburbia: the neighborhood is called, suggestively, Shady Hill. The narrator discusses the Crutchmans, a ‘very, very happy’ American family comprised of  husband and wife Larry and Helen and their two children, Rachel and Tom. Through the course of the short narrative, the narrator dissects the Crutchmans’ meticulously decorated home, their expensive car, and their seemingly harmonious family life. Each detail is scrutinised carefully in the hope of finding ‘the worm in the apple’: the one corrupt flaw in the family’s otherwise happy life.

For example, the narrator wonders if the fact that Helen, the wife, is far richer than her husband is a cause of resentment for Larry, who could easily lose his sense of purpose when he is not the breadwinner of the family. But the narrator admits that no proof of such resentment can be found. The narrator also combs over other details of the family’s life: does the husband have a drink problem, or are there issues with their children? But every line of enquiry yields a dead end.

As the narrative progresses, the narrator’s attempts to uncover this ‘worm in the apple’, this hidden darkness in the Crutchman family, becomes increasingly desperate. In the end, the narrative voice shifts from the present tense to the future imperfect: he imagines whole futures for the two children, which contain unsavory or unhappy elements.

The story ends with the narrator confessing that the Crutchman family continues to live happily, with no indication of any worm in the apple of in their lives or their relationships. Despite the narrator’s intense scrutiny, the Crutchmans remain an enigma, leaving the reader to ponder the nature of appearances, hidden truths, and the human desire to find flaws in others.

  Without question, Cheever provides a critical insight - both for his own time (the story was first published in 1958) - and, perhaps, even more so for ours.  For today today, there is so much societal insecurity and civic neurosis that many people are intent upon finding flaws (both potentially fatal and decidedly human) in neighbors, leaders and just plain folks.  While this intention doesn’t provide a whit of cure for whatever it is that ails us, it does seem to lower the social, academic or political playing field by enveloping us in the knowledge that nobody’s perfect . . . something we should have known all along.  If you want to view human imperfection, look into your own mirror. 

What Cheever chose to get across through both irony and satire is a kernel of knowledge that can be of great use in our present time of collective ennui: that most people are shaped as much by their achievements and good intentions as they are by their frailties and failures. 

I fully expect IT to be overwhelmingly guided during tomorrow night’s debate by the latter: turning the Vice President’s  every human flaw, inconsistency or misstep into the embodiment of evil . . . all the while putting on display for the ten thousandth time the fact that he is a thoroughly damaged, deraigned soul who should be kept as far away from the seat of power as a rabid dog from a playground filled with children. 

Like Cheever’s narrator who is initially fixated on finding the worm in the apple of the Crutchman family, far too many are entranced by “discovering” the worst in those who seek to lead, uplift or inspire. Let IT go on and on about the sins, flaws and failings of all those who dare to disagree with him; those who refuse to see in him either the messiah or the ultimate victim. It goes without saying that he is neither; to be either one or the other or both, he would have to be delusional.

As we watch tomorrow night’s debate, let’s keep our feet up, cuppa tea at the ready and John Cheever’s narrator in our frontal lobes. . . .our emotional and behavioral control center.

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#1,003: Neurodivergence, Empathy and Teachable Moments

          Hope, Gus, "Coach" and Gwen Walz

Without question, the just-concluded Democratic National Convention has set a new standard for televised political extravaganzas. I mean, it had everything: the best, most gifted, and thought-provoking political speakers on the planet; flawless - and I mean absolutely FLAWLESS - direction and choreography; the most imaginative, toe-tapping, hip-hopping roll call of the states ever experienced; a level of exhaustive energy not felt for decades; spot-on video clips; boundless joy, innumerable hugs, hope, laughter, and empathic tears; a billion-and-one red-white-and-blue balloons . . . and, of course, Coach and Gwen Walz’s two children, Gus, and the perfectly-named Hope.  Who will ever forget Hope making a heart shape with her hands and Gus pointing with unbridled happiness and tears in his eyes, repeatedly shouting out “THAT’S MY DAD!!” as they watched their father give his acceptance speech.

Remarkably, within the span of a mere 4 televised evenings, the Democrats managed to steal much of what had long been the Republican brand: becoming the party of “freedom,” “family values” and “patriotism.” This left many MAGA-ites – from IT on down – deeply shaken, angry, perplexed and much farther back on their political heels than they might have imagined even a week earlier.  So how has the Party of IT responded? Simple:  When you are in doubt and the polls are beginning to turn against you, lace up your gloves, toss out the Marquis of Queensberry Rules (a set of guidelines for fair, stand-up boxing matches), and revert to type, rabbit-punching, hitting well below the belt, and generally replacing gentlemanly fisticuffs with dire falsehoods and classless calumnies.   As for IT, he doesn’t know what to make of - or do about - Kamala Harris. He’s tried to play around with how to pronounce her name,  and what nickname to saddle her with (the most recent being “Comrade Kamala”); he’s called her “stupid” and claimed that all the crime in San Francisco is due to her having been The City’s D.A. (that was a long, long time ago). BTW: I prefer calling Kamala by the name her children call her: Mamaleh, which is Yiddish for “little mother.”

Perhaps the weirdest of all weirdnesses coming out of the convention stemmed from the National Assembly of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) which has been citing one of the most reviled Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions in American history (1857’s Dred Scott v. Sanford) to justify its case that Vice President Harris should be deemed ineligible to run under the U.S. Constitution.

        Chief Justice Roger Taney & Dred Scott

An attorney associated with NFRA cited Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, which pertains to only natural-born U.S. citizens being eligible to serve as president. The NFRA argued that the phrase "natural born citizen" is defined as "a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth."  Egads!  The serious application of this clause would have made multiple U.S. presidents ineligible to hold office, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, among others. The NFRA attorney, Dallas-based Santiago Reich. pointed out that because those presidents' parents were born on land classified as British colonies at the time, they would not meet the standard the NFRA set to define as natural-born citizenship.

It should be noted that the Dred Scott decision was overturned entirely by both the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and its text cannot be meaningfully cited for any reason whatsoever . . . especially for doing a “birthing redux” over Kamala Harris.  And by the way, IT, in addition to claiming that V,P, Harris is employing a.i. to  make her “empty” rallies look like they are standing-room only (!),  has also, of late, claimed “I am better looking than Kamala.”

Might I make a suggestion?  Take a long look in the mirror.

Getting back to the Chicago convention:  One aspect that will shore up and outlive any mistakes or miscues which might occur in the campaign’s final weeks (for they are inevitable) is its celebration and presentation of the loving Emhoff/Harris and Walz families . . . all of whom . . . children, parents, nieces, nephews . . . onstage and in the audience, hugging, smiling, tearing up and cheering on the two candidates.  Perhaps the biggest star of the entire convention was 17-year old Gus Walz, who melted millions of hearts. Already, there are tee-shirts, campaign buttons and banners emblazoned with simple messages like  “I’m voting for Gus’ Dad,” “Coach Walz: That’s My Dad!” and "Team Gus!”  In addition to capturing all those hearts with his obvious ingenuousness, he has created a learning moment for millions: learning about what makes him both different and truly special.  Gus has already put the words neurodivergent and neurodivergence into numerous vocabularies.  For those who have yet to do their research, you should know that neurodivergent isn’t a medical term. Instead, it’s a way to describe people using words other than “normal” and “abnormal.” That’s important because so far as I know, there’s no single definition of “normal” for how the human brain works. Like a person’s fingerprints, no two brains — not even those of identical twins — are exactly the same. Because of that, there’s no definition of “normal” capabilities for the human brain. (BTW: The word for people who aren’t neurodivergent is “neurotypical.” That means their strengths and challenges aren't affected by any kind of difference that changes how their brains work.)

People like Gus have different strengths and challenges from people whose brains don’t have those differences. The possible differences include medical disorders, learning disabilities and other conditions. The possible strengths include better memory, being able to mentally picture three-dimensional (3D) objects easily, the ability to solve complex mathematical calculations in their head, and many more. From what we saw of Gus, especially on the night his father gave his major address, one obvious  aspect of his neurodirgence is that he wears his heart on his sleeve; he is incapable of pretense . . . what he feels, he shows. 

 Alas, not everyone found Gus’ status (it’s not a condition) and tears to be a teaching/learning moment. Conservative mouthpieces/influencers Ann Coulter and Jay Weber, among others, saw fit to mock and deride the young man. Coulter, writing about the Democratic National Convention on her X (formerly Twitter) account railed on and on about Democrats referring to Republican V.P. candidate JD Vance as “weird.” “Talk about weird,” Coulter posted in reference to Gus on her X account. After tons of negative responses, she did remove it. Then there’s conservative Wisconsin radio host Jay Weber, whose offensive response posted on X was widely condemned: “Sorry, but this is embarrassing for both father and son," Weber wrote. "If the Walzs represent today's American man, this country is screwed; 'Meet my son, Gus. He's a blubbering bitch boy. His mother and I are very proud.'" As with Coulter, Weber’s post was also deleted. His apology? "I didn't realize the kid was disabled, and have taken the post down."

                 IT and Reporter Serve Kovaleski

Of course, these two insensitive cranks were only following in IT’s footsteps; back in November 2015, IT mocked Politico reporter Serge Kovaleski during an interminable speech in which the then-candidate was defending the contention that "thousands and thousands of people" cheered the September 11th terrorist attack in Jersey City, New Jersey.  Turns out that Kovaleski was one of the reporters who had disproved IT’s batty contention.  “Written by a nice reporter, IT began. “Now the poor guy. You ought to see this guy."  He then "into an impression which involved gyrating his arms wildly and imitating the unusual angle at which Kovaleski's hand sometimes rests," according to Politico. (NB: Mr. Kovaleski suffers from arthrogryposis, which according to the National Organization of Rare Disorders, can affect the function and range of motion of joints and can cause muscles to atrophy.)

Weird leader, weird followers. Or, as we used to say back in our schoolyard days: monkey see, monkey do.

Is it any wonder that more and more people are questioning IT’s humanity, let alone lucidity?  One need not agree with a presidential ticket’s every position or proposal (and for those who say that Harris/Walz did not present anything of the sort in Chicago, do remember that in the main, that’s not the purpose of a national convention) in order to support it.  Many voters seem to have forgotten that character, humanity and magnanimity of spirit are just as important - if not more so - than what Plato would have called “The shadows on the cave wall.”  Just because someone proclaims him or herself to be “pro-family values,” “pro-life,” “pro-freedom,” and a host of other seemingly positives does not make it so.  The presentation of self often provides the greater keys - the more critical teachable moments - than bluster or bombast. Everyone on earth has something to teach . . . even if it is just what not to  be or what not to say.

In sum, doing justice, loving mercy and walking with humility (to paraphrase Micah 6:8) is the key . . . not mockery, mendacity or  malevolence. 

I don’t know  about you, but I’m voting for Mamaleh and Gus’ Dad, 

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#998: The Patriot

From time to time I have had to put a nearly completed blog post into cold storage because history beckons. Such is the case this week. This week’s essay-that-was, The Theology of Ecology, may or may not be revived in the coming weeks or months. Obviously, President Joe Biden’s announcement that he is no longer running in 2024 and instead, wholeheartedly endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris, is an event of epic proportions that must, of necessity, put anything else on the back burner. In thumbing through my mental files, I find that Biden’s selfless act - putting country and party above himself - finds but a single parallel in all American political history: G. Washington’s decision not to run for a third term . . . which was his for the asking. (Indeed, one of the truly inspired documents in all American history is Washington’s Farewell Address, a letter to the people co-written by Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.)

Like President Biden, the “Father of his country” decided that running for reelection (in Washington’s case, a third term) would simply not be the right and proper thing to do; it would set an undemocratic precedent. Unlike George Washington, of course, President Biden’s reelection was anything but a sure thing.  Similar to Washington, Biden decided that what is best for democracy and the country’s future is Donald Trump’s not winning the 2024 election. After more than half a century serving the American people as a Senator, Vice President, and President, Biden is both an idealist and a realist - a man who can read the tea leaves.  Once again, he has shown himself to be a class act.  It could not have been an easy thing to do.  He has long been both a leader of consequence and a man whose faith is apparent not so much through his words, as by his deeds.  

The differences between Joe Biden and Donald Trump in both temperament and personal makeup are about as stark and bipolar as any two people who have ever occupied the American political stage. Biden is as he has always been: a gentleman who was likely the first to call the former president upon hearing that he had been shot. Trump, on the other hand, shortly after learning that Biden was ending his re-election campaign, posted on social media a forceful attack denouncing his rival, calling him ignorant, mentally unfit, and the “very worst president in the history of the United States.” Over the next hours, he posted several more.  And just this morning the FPOTUS wrote on his social media site, Truth Social, “It’s a new day and Joe Biden doesn’t remember quitting the race yesterday!”  Who could ask for anything less? 

Although Joe Biden is going to continue his presidency until noon, January 20, 2025 (despite virtually every Republican urging that he resign today) I firmly believe that his place in history is assured; future historians will be very kind to him, his administration, and what he was able to accomplish in an era of bullies and bitter partisanship.

During his 3 ½ years as Chief Executive, Biden has revived the American economy to where it is the envy of the world. He has passed the most significant infrastructure legislation since the New Deal and a climate-change package that is unparalleled.  Our energy production is at an all-time high and we are, for the first time in G-d knows when, a net exporter of oil.  This is not to say that he has accomplished everything he set out to do; far from it. Part of the blame rests on the shoulders of the MAGA maniacs in Congress who, following their cult leader’s command, refuse to give Joe Biden any victories lest he and the Democrats be given credit in the next election.

As I near the end of this brief post, Vice President Kamala Harris has just arrived in Delaware for  her first visit to the national headquarters for what, until yesterday, was the Biden-Harris campaign.  In the first 24 hours since Joe Biden endorsed V.P. Harris for the Democratic nomination, dozens upon dozens of leading Democrats have also endorsed her (one notable exception: Barack Obama, who has a history of not issuing endorsements).  In those first 24 hours, the Harris campaign has raised more than $80 million.  Precisely what Donald Trump and his staff think about Harris becoming their opponent is anyone’s guess.  What we do know is that even before President Joe Biden’s long-speculated withdrawal from the presidential race, Trump floated the possibility of suing to block Democrats from having anyone other than Biden on the ballot in November.  But election administration and legal experts said the timing of Biden’s exit on Sunday makes it unlikely that any Republican ballot access challenges will succeed, with some calling the idea “ridiculous” and “frivolous.”  I have to wonder if the second debate will ever take place.  Imagine the scene: a former District Attorney and Attorney General debating a convicted felon . . . 

I doff my cap to Joe Biden for all he has accomplished; for significantly lowering the decibel level of public life and above all, for showing people from Maine to California what it means to be both a gentleman and a true patriot.    

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

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

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)

1. What are the 3 ways the federal government can raise revenue?

2. Who were Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley (that’s them in the photo), and what’s the only thing they are remembered for?

3. 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.”

        Senator Reed Smoot (R-UT)

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.

            Rep. Willis C. Hawley (R. Ore)

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.

             Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO)

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!

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#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

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer 

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. 

        The “JK” Playground in San Francisco

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.) 

       Rep. Julius Kahn (2861-1924)

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.”

  Florence Prag Kahn (1866-1948)

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!

Copyright©2024 Kurt F. Stone

#991: Contraception and the Future of Medical Research

Of all the many “hats” I have worn over the past half-century - rabbi, political historian and speech-writer, author, blogger and essayist, occasional actor, professional “Hollywood Brat,” and medical ethicist - it’s this last one which has always given me the greatest sense of purpose, pleasure, and pride. Why? Well, simply put, it’s the one pursuit that has always given me the feeling that perhaps - just perhaps - I’m making a difference. I mean, week in, week out for more years than I can remember, I have been charged with the task of vetting medical research “informed consent” forms (ICFs) whose purpose is to safeguard the rights of men, women, and children who might well become volunteer participants in serious clinical trials.  It is my job - along with a host of brilliant medical specialists, surgeons, scientists, and bioengineers who work for the Institutional Review company called Advarra - to further the aims of medical research in fields ranging from oncology and infectious diseases to gynecology, gastroenterology, and dozens of other ologies in the pursuit of progress.  Indeed, it is the greatest of all honors to be the enemies of those who reject science . . . who believe that Dr. Anthony Fauci is a criminal who should be put in jail for crimes against humanity.  We who gladly labor in the vineyards of medical ethics are the ones, after all, who were instrumental in making sure that various COVID-19 vaccines got into the veins of people in record time . . . thus saving tens of millions of lives.

 This past Wednesday (June 5, 2024), while spending the better part of the day vetting several Informed Consent Forms (ICFs) dealing with trials concerning various diseases and syndromes, I was keeping an eye on a computer “crawler” keeping me up-to-date on a particular vote in the U.S. Senate; one dealing with the future of contraception. In order to understand just what it was that the Senate was voting on this past Wednesday, one must first recall something Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion overturning Roe v Wade (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al ): “[The Court] should reconsider” all three decisions, saying it had a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents (Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision that declared married couples had a right to contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case invalidating sodomy laws and making same-sex sexual activity legal across the country; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing the right of gay couples to marry.) Then, Justice Thomas wrote, after “overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions” protected the rights they established.

The bill the senate was voting on this past Wednesday, was the Right to Contraception Act (S1999), sponsored by Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey and cosponsored by nearly every Democrat in that body. Its purpose in being brought to the floor for an up-or-down vote at this particular time was as clear as clear can be: to force Senate Republicans (as well as those in the House where there is a companion bill) to go on the record as to whether they are for or against permitting women to have legal access to virtually any form of birth control (sans complete sexual abstention). From a political point of view - and in an election year - it was a great idea: make Republicans accountable. According to the national poll 538, “, . . . around 90 percent of Americans said condoms and birth control pills should be legal in “all” or “most” cases, and 81 percent said the same of IUDs (intrauterine devices). And, there is very little difference in support for the legality of each of these contraceptives across party lines.’ It seemed like a slam dunk for the Democrats.’

But what did the Republicans do? Instead of voting against Senator Markey’s bill and exposing themselves as a bunch of retrograde Luddites, they voted to block action on the legislation. Senate Republicans, aware that contraception access is overwhelmingly popular even with their own voters, pretended their “no” votes were meaningless. “This is a show vote. It’s not serious. It doesn’t mean anything,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. More than 20 GOP senators signed a statement from Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., declaring “There is no threat to access to contraception… and it’s disgusting that Democrats are fearmongering on this important issue to score cheap political points.” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., baselessly claimed the bill could be applied to protect access to abortion pills. He also scoffed at the notion that Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that struck down state criminal bans on the sale of birth control to married couples, is in danger. “Nobody’s gonna overturn Griswold,” he said. “No way.”

 What’s that old retort from childhood? Liar, liar, pants on fire . . . “  I have to believe that those Republicans old enough to remember this verse also remember its response: I don’t care, I don’t care; I can buy another pair.  The final vote was 51-39 on this procedural issue that required at least 60 senators in order to move forward. But they are unwilling to go on the record; to put their votes where their mouths are, thus facing the political consequences of their cowardice. In the main, GOP lawmakers said the measure was too broad as well as unnecessary. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Maine Sen. Susan Collins, both Republicans, broke with their party and voted to advance the legislation. Ohio Republican U.S. Sen. JD Vance didn’t vote.

At the precise moment the crawler on the bottom of one of my computer screens flashed the news about the failed vote, I was vetting an informed consent document on the efficacy of administering an injection of a particular drug SubQ (into the fatty tissue just beneath the skin, as opposed to IV -  directly into the vein) for subjects with Multiple Sclerosis - a long-lasting (chronic) disease of the central nervous system which is thought to be an autoimmune disorder . . . a condition in which the body attacks itself by mistake.  The object of the study I was working on was to see if a SubQ injection is as safe and clinically efficacious as the same drug when infused or injected into a vein. 

As my eyes moved over to the screen with the crawler, I was reading through the section dealing with pregnancy; both the inclusionary and exclusionary criteria, and what forms of birth control must be used by women (and men) if they are going to be participants in the study.  (n.b.: there are currently more than 1 million people living with MS in the United States; women are three times more likely than men to be diagnosed with this potentially debilitating condition.)  

Just about any and every Informed Consent Form (ICF) contains a rather lengthy and all-encompassing section dealing with pregnancy.  In most cases, pregnancy (or the ability to get a partner pregnant) is an exclusion . . . unless the potential subject of the trial or study uses one or more forms of birth control.  Then the form will continue with a long list of various acceptable methods of control.

As I was scanning this section, half my brain was thinking about the vote just concluded in the U.S. Senate.  Then it dawned on me: if birth control is (G-d forbid) outlawed, it likely lead to the utter dismantling of most future medical research.  How so? Well, if one cannot prevent pregnancy (except via total abstinence) one cannot participate in most - if not all - clinical trials; and without the ability to conduct ethical, well-monitored medical research, few if any new drugs or treatments will ever see the light of day.  I wonder if any of these “pro-birth” (my preferred term for what has heretofore been called "pro-life”) conservatives and anti-science conspiratorialists have considered this chillingly ironic political sequela (a medical term defined as “A pathological condition resulting from a prior disease, injury, or attack.”)  As much as I would like to give the anti-birth control, anti science crowd the benefit of the doubt - i.e. that they haven’t considered the very serious real-life consequences of their political actions - I cannot; the fact of the matter is that the further they progress, the more medical science - and thus all of us - retrogress. 

Not a day goes by without hearing that in 2024, Democracy, freedom, and the right to choose are all on the ballot.  Those making this breathless statement are telling the truth.  Now we can add another truth: in 2024, the future of both science and medicine are also on the ballot.  Think wisely; be proactive; the future is ours to protect, so that we may all be protected in and from the future. 

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#990: The Verdict?

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.

       NYC Councilman Yusef Salaam 

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!

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

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

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.”

Coyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#984: A Movement Or Just a Moment?

At the outset, let me make one thing robustly clear: that despite the fact Speaker Mike Johnson successfully managed to get the House to pass 4 crucial bills - aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, plus a TikTok ban and Iranian sanctions - our political differences are wider than the Grand Canyon and deeper than the Mariana Trench. Simply stated, we view reality through radically different eyes. Nonetheless, I doff my cap to him and applaud the political courage it took to do the right thing. Indeed, in addressing the press just after the bills passed said, most simply, that “History will judge it well.”  I couldn’t agree with him more.  I can’t remember the last time I heard a House Republican use the word “history” in referencing their mission or motivation. 

Three cheers must also go to Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies.  Those who understand how Congress truly works – on those rare occasions when it does - know that the most important measures cannot be enacted without a lot of closed-door interaction between both party’s leadership teams.  In comparison to Speaker Johnson’s task this past Saturday, Leader Jeffries’ was, relatively speaking, far easier.  Although 33 of the 99 progressive Democrats wound up voting against aid to Israel, Jeffries knew that the rest of his caucus would vote in its favor . . . and that virtually the entire Democratic Caucus (210 in number) would vote “yay” on aid to Ukraine and Taiwan.  Not so Speaker Johnson: he heads up (it’s hard to say “leads”) a caucus in which an unwieldy minority is as contentious and hide-bound as a congregation of contrarians. And. mind you, most of these naysayers and bomb-throwers are the living embodiment of what another murderous Vladimir (Lenin) termed “useful idiots.”  As things turned out, 44 of 48 members of the so-called “Freedom Caucus” (a.k.a. the “Clown Car Caucus) wound up voting against aid to Ukraine.  

BTW: It should be noted that the Republicans - both “Institutionalists” and “Freedom Caucus” members voted overwhelmingly (193-18) for aid to Israel, 182-16 for aid to Taiwan, and 186-21 for the TikTok ban/sanctions for Iran.  All in all, a very good day; indeed, likely the most memorable of the 118th Congress.

So why the swift change in Speaker Johnson’s political weltanschauung?  He certainly wasn’t pushing aid to Ukraine in order to buttress his position as Speaker;  truth to tell, by working with Leader Jeffries and the Democrats he merely increased the bile stuck in the throats of Reps. Gosar (R-AZ), Thomas Masssie (R-KY) and their leader, the mouth that roars, Rep. Marjorie Taylor (“Moscow Marge”) Greene of Georgia.  The three have publicly  threatened that if Johnson won’t resign his position, they will do everything in their power to remove him from office . . . ala Kevin McCarthy. Greene’s kvetchiest kvetch is that by leading the charge for funding the Ukrainians, Speaker Johnson has in one fell swoop become both a RINO (“Republican in Name Only”) and a fire-breathing liberal. From statements he has made, Johnson doesn’t seem overly concerned about being ousted.  Could this mean he has already received assurances from Minority Leader Jeffries that should the tyrannical triad try to give  him, Johnson, the heave-ho, that the Democrats will provide enough votes to keep him in as leader of the House?  No one knows for sure; this isn’t the kind of thing to be bandied about in public . . . But then too, when even Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post fails to side with Rep. Greene, it is a plausible sign that something’s afoot. 

Isn’t this the same Mike Johnson who just a little more than a week ago made a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago to shore up support from Donald of Orange?” Yes it is, without question.  But perhaps the Speaker is a better chess player than the former POTUS.  In dividing the bill passed by the Senate into four separate measures, Johnson was essentially laying the groundwork for passing all four.  And it worked . . . along with a lot of help from Jeffries and the Democrats.  Now it is on to the Senate, where it will be quickly passed (over the dead body of Ohio Senator J.D. Vance) and then hustled over to the White House where it will sit on the Resolute Desk (also known as the “Hayes Desk”) for just  a minute or two before it is signed into law by President Joseph Biden.  Score one for Speaker Johnson; score one for President Biden; score one for the 118th Congress; and above all, score one for American prestige in the eyes of our allies.  

Am I the only one who has yet to hear a peep from our former Commander-in-Chief?  I keep waiting for him to say that in  his heart of hearts he really, truly favored funding the Ukrainians in their war against Putin.  As implausible as that may seem,  remember this: the man is a world-class liar.  In truth, he hasn’t uttered a word.  It brings to mind one of best Sherlock Holmes stories, “The Adventure of Silver Blaze.” In it, Holmes solves the theft of a prize racehorse by focusing on what didn’t happen rather than what did. In so doing, Holmes (or more precisely, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) gave us the phrase “the dog that didn’t bark.”   In the case of Donald Trump, don’t wait for the bark . . . he’s too busy glowering at all  the  witnesses and evidence against him in a Manhattan courthouse.

As much as I may pray that yesterday’s triumph in the House was the beginning of a movement, I know in my heart-of-hearts that it is a moment . . . a good one, to be sure.  And as much as I applaud Speaker Johnson for his strength and courage, I know that come next week, he will still be, at base, an ultra-conservative Christian Nationalist who fully supports a national ban on abortion; a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of the Second Amendment who cannot bring himself  to deny anyone’s right to stockpile their own assault weapons and nuclear devices; who wishes to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in order to balance the federal budget.  Let’s face facts: a predator  isn’t likely to change its markings.  Nonetheless, I will never cease praying that the carnivores, once they have stepped back from their predatory ways for even a moment, will see the “humanity” of the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the deep blue sea.

     To all of my fellow "Members of the Tribe,” I wish you and yours a kosher un a ziss’n Pesach.    

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#981: Splitting Rails and Telling Tales

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

#980: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

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.” 

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#978: Caffeine, Crucifixes and Cleavage

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

This is the way the rebuttal ends

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 . . .

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#977: Putin on 'da Blitz

(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.”

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

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

                           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.

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#793: Once Upon a Time In America

      Lullaby and Good Night . . . 

Once upon a time in America, a vast majority of television stations - like the people who watched them - shut down at midnight and got a good night’s sleep. For those who are of a certain age, as the current expression goes, the Indian-head test pattern on the left will bring back instant memories: once Jack Paar, Jeepers Creepers (for those living in L.A and watching channel 13 [KCOP]) or George “Here’s to a Better, Stronger America” Putnam (KTTV, channel 11) signed off, it was time to check out.  Or, as the ultra-conservative   Putnam would have it, “That’s the up-to-the-minute news, up to the minute, that’s all the news."

Unless memory is pulling a fast one on  yours truly, I recall fewer and more wholesome commercials.  Who amongst the “gang of a certain age” can help but identify:

• “Katy Winters” (real name Anne Starr Roberts) who was the face of “Secret” deodorant;

• "Bucky Beaver” (“Brusha, brusha, brusha, with the new Ipana”);

• Oscar Mayer” (“Here comes little Oscar [George Molchan] in his Weinermobile”); 

• “Mikey” (John Gilchrist, Jr,) of the single Life Cereal commercial (“He likes it! Hey Mikey!”) which seemingly ran forever, or

• Mr. Whipple (Dick Wilson) the hypocrite who just couldn’t help but "squeeze the Charmin” despite warnings to the opposite.  

Today, of course, there are literally thousands of stations, most broadcasting 24 hours a day, 168 hours every week. Many people go to bed (if not to sleep) with the blasted thing still on. Is it any wonder so many people are so exhausted? And, so far as commercials go, the wholesome Katy Winters’s, Bucky Beavers, Josephine the Plumbers, Madge the Manicurists and Clara Pellers (“Where’s the beef?”) have been replaced by Allstate’s “Mayhem Guy” (Dean Winters), the unnamed couple who are so proud they had UTIs (urinary tract infections) last year; that debunked con artist who wants nothing more than to rush you free of charge his “Miracle Spring Water” so that you will suddenly become richer than Croesus; and all those anonymous folks who have lost gazillions of pounds by taking (?), GOLO. I mean nowhere - but NOWHERE in this ad is there even a hint as to what in the world GOLO is: a product? A pill? A dietary regimen? A psychological ploy?

Once upon a time in America, every bit of “medical merchandise” on the tube was easily purchasable without a prescription . . . like Bactine, Band-Aids and Bromo Seltzer. Nowadays, we are inundated with information about prescription drugs and medicines that we should be informing out physicians about. For every systemic condition there is a new monoclonal antibody (drugs ending in “mab”), a new beta blocker (ending in “lol”) or new drugs to treat anxiety (ending in either “pam” or “lam”). And of course, half of each commercial fulfills its legal obligation to the FDA by telling us what possible adverse events (bad side effects) are possible. This is all well and good, but shouldn’t it be the other way around; that our doctors prescribed the medications?

My least favorite commercials are those which hide the truth behind miniscule wording on the bottom of the screen; from “law firms” that want nothing more than to help us file personal injury suits against anyone and everyone who has ever harmed us; those which promise to sell us guaranteed life insurance regardless of our health, bad habits or age . . . and all for less than a dollar a day; of products which, if we are among the first 250 to call, they can double our purchase (“simply add a handling fee”). Every once in a while, I record commercials such as these, then run them back and stop in order to read all the wording at the bottom of the screen; most make it clear that everything you hear should be taken with a rather large grain of salt. Occasionally, I even count the words; many of these “obviations” contain more words than my favorite Shakespearian Sonnet: #18 (“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?”) . . . which contains a mere 114. Once upon a time in America,

Once upon a time in America, most of the people we elected to solve problems and fix potholes did just that. Many followed the sage advice of President Harry S. Truman, who  taught us “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit,” In today’s America many, without every having known of Truman’s dictum  do exactly the opposite: “Sit on your hands and do nothing; doing something may give the opposition the ability to look good in the eyes of the  public; doing nothing gives you the opportunity to pin the blame on them for not having solved the problem. in the first place” 

Once upon a time in America, impeaching a public official - especially at the Federal level - was as rare as rocking horse manure. Ever since the days of President Bill Clinton, impeachment has become increasingly more de rigueur.  Where Nixon resigned before he could be impeached (knowing that he, in all likelihood, would be convicted), Clinton was impeached (though not convicted)  on two articles, charging him with perjury in his grand jury testimony and obstructing justice in his dealings with various potential witnesses.  In both of Donald Trump’s 2 impeachments, there was a wealth of evidence that he had committed “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” And yet, in both instances, the Senate failed to convict.  Nonetheless, Trump, most Congressional Republicans and the MAGA wing of the party have continued proclaiming that he never did anything wrong (despite thousands upon thousands of pages of testimony) and was merely the “victim of a political witch-hunt.”  And thus, one of history’s greatest self-proclaimed “victims” started getting front page headlines for being a casualty of partisan politics . . . along with all his followers.

The impeachment pandemic is still with us . . . and growing in both scope and baseless nothingness. (n.b.: if the term “baseless nothingness” rings a bell with you it can only mean that you’ve read your Nietzsche; he referred to it as ‘nihilism.’)  Case in point: on January 21, 2021 - a single day after Joseph Biden’s inauguration - Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene filed an article of impeachment against the nation’s 46th POTUS.  What sort of “High  Crime and/or Misdemeanor” could the poor fellow have committed in his first 24 hours in office?  You tell me. 

Precisely six months later, Donald Trump expressed interest in pursuing a scenario in which he would run for a Congressional seat in Florida in the 2022 House elections, get himself elected Speaker of the House, and then launch an impeachment inquiry against his successor.  (n.b.: If Trump or his associates knew anything about the U.S. Constitution, they would know that one need not be a member of the House in order to become Speaker. I wrote about this in March 2021 in a piece called “My Friend Marvin, in which I recommended somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that the House look to former Oklahoma Representative Mickey Edwards to become Speaker despite not being a member of that body.

                        Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkis

Following the withdrawal of American military forces from Afghanistan, the Fall of Kabul on August 15, 2021, and the subsequent attack on Kabul's airport, several Republicans, including Representatives Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Ronny Jackson, called for either the stripping of Biden's powers and duties via the 25th Amendment or removal of Biden from office via impeachment if Americans and allies were left behind and held hostage in Afghanistan by the Taliban.  At the time, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy pledged a “day of reckoning” against Biden. There were also Republican calls for Vice President Kamala Harris and other Biden Cabinet officials to be impeached and removed as well.

And now, in addition to all the hearings on President Biden’s son Hunter (who cannot be impeached because he has never been elected to any office) there comes the newest and, in my estimation, the most  frivolously brainless of all attempted impeachments: that of Alejandro Mayorkis, the nation’s 7th Secretary of Homeland Security.  After discussing the matter of impeaching Secretary Mayorkis for nearly a year, this past Sunday (January 28, 2024), House Republicans released two impeachment charges against the Cuban-born Mayorkis (he came to the  U.S. when he was 2).  accusing the Secretary of high crimes and misdemeanors for his implementation of US immigration policy. The first article charges Mayorkas with “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” by implementing a so-called “catch and release” policy, which allows many migrants awaiting court proceedings to remain in the United States without being detained.  It should be remembered that Republicans have, by and  large, despised Mayorkis since his time in the Obama Administration when it took him a mere 60 days to implement the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.  During his nearly 3 years as Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security during the Obama Administration, he led U.S. government efforts to rescue orphaned children following the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti and led the advancement of a crime victims unit that, for the first time, made it possible for the agency to issue the statutory maximum number of visas to victims of crime.   This has never sat well with Republican members of Congress.

On November 9, 2023, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a motion to impeach Mayorkas, citing a dereliction of duty and saying he "failed to maintain operational control of the [Southern] border." The motion to impeach failed to pass on November 13, with the House voting 209–201 to defer the resolution to the House Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Tennessee Republican Mark Green. Eight Republicans joined all Democrats in blocking the measure.

On January 28, 2024, House Republicans introduced two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, alleging "willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law" and breach of the public trust. Constitutional experts and Democrats asserted Republicans were using impeachment to address immigration policy disputes rather than for high crimes and misdemeanors, of which there was no evidence. One Legal scholar and law professor, Jonathan Turley, commented that the impeachment lacked a "cognizable basis" and that the inquiry had failed to show "conduct by the secretary that could be viewed as criminal or impeachable.” Former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff, a Republican, wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that "Republicans in the House should drop this impeachment charade and work with Mr. Mayorkas to deliver for the American people." On the eve of a committee vote on the impeachment articles, the conservative Wall Street Journal Editorial Board also questioned the reasoning for impeachment, writing "A policy dispute doesn't qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor."

On January 31, Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee approved the articles along party lines for referral to the full House. The rest remains to be seen.  However, it is obvious that as is succinctly stated in the cartoon above, the Republicans reason for seeking to impeach Secretary Mayorkis (a practicing Sephardic Jew) is to blame him for “doing nothing” about the crisis at America’s Southern border . . . which Republicans wish to use as a cudgel against Democrats in the 2024 presidential election.  

Once upon a time in America, politicians placed progress above partisanship.  Apparently, this is no longer the case.  

We conclude with a thought from Republican Nikki Hayley, a woman who, although I would never vote for her, does seem to understand the nature of  politics in the modern age:

I think it's very important to get ego out of the room. I think it's important to realize it takes two hands to clap - stop the pointing, stop the blame game. I think we've seen enough of that, I think the country is tired of it. I think they want to see Washington function, they want to see action.

Once upon a time in America was indeed, a long time ago.

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#972: A Word to my Family, Friends, Classmates and Readers in California

I must admit that while I have not voted in any California election in nearly 48 years, my heart, soul and political attentions have always remained in the state of my birth and first quarter century. As I have long proudly averred, “while I may reside and cast my votes in Florida (or Ohio, Arkansas, Pennsylvania or Vermont) “I am still a ‘Hollywood Brat.’ I still follow California politics as closely as ever.

Down here in Florida, where I have “resided” for decades,  politics is pretty damn dismal.  It has become so lopsidedly, so militantly, so mindlessly conservative as to make one truly fear for the future of America.  Our Governor, “Rhonda Santis,” calls it “The Free State of Florida.”  And, mind you, he says this without a hint of irony.  “Free?”  This is a state which leads the nation in banned books, has a militia that statutorily is beholden only to the gubernator, is about to eliminate Sociology as a core course at all 9 state universities, (replacing it with a history class which includes “America’s founding, the horrors of slavery, the resulting Civil War and the Reconstruction era”) and outlawing women traveling to the Sunshine State in order to obtain an abortion, And just the other day, the legislature, which is currently in session, has decided to follow the wishes of their anti-woke leader, and take up legislation which will forbid all children under the age of 16 from being on social media . . . even if their parents approve.

Ah for the sanity of California. I’ll take Gavin Newsome over Rhonda Santis any day of the week and thrice on Shabbos!

“No one has ever successfully painted or photographed a redwood tree. The feeling they produce is not transferable. From them comes silence and awe”  John Steinbeck                                

Back home in California, politics are decidedly different. The state is firmly in Democratic hands from the governor’s office (Gavin Newsome, a possible future presidential candidate) to the state legislature (the Assembly is 62-18 Dem.; the 40-member Senate 80% Dem.); the 3 largest cities (L.A., San Francisco and San Diego) all have Democratic mayors, two of whom are women of color, the other a man of color). The state boasts the best system of public universities and colleges in the nation, and has the nation’s most awesome topography. Yes, California does have high taxes, high gas prices, very expensive homes and other assorted problems and challenges . . . but at least its leaders are doing their best to manage the world’s 4th largest economy. To people in the so-called “Red States” who equate California with “La La Land” and nothing more, let me inform you: this is an outright slander; indeed, we are far, far more.

1 week ago, 4 candidates for the United States Senate seat vacated with the death of the late Dianne Feinstein, engaged in a debate in front of a crowd at the University of Southern California.  Included in this debate were 3 Democratic members of Congress (Reps. Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Adam Schiff) and one Republican . . . former Dodger first baseman Steve Garvey.  Reps. Lee, Porter and Schiff have long served in Congress: each is a distinct person with a distinct personal history and easily capable of becoming a creditable senator: 

• The 77 year-old Barbara Lee has represented an East Bay (Oakland, Berkeley) district since 1998.  She is easily one of the most progressive members of Congress.  At one time, she was a homeless single mom doing her best to raise 2 children on public assistance and food stamps while earning a degree in Social Work at Mills College in Oakland, becoming a social worker and then getting elected to the California state legislature.  In the U.S. House, she was the only member of Congress to vote against the authorization of use of force following the September 11 attacks, and one of just 17 members of the House to vote  against a House resolution condemning the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement targeting Israel.  She is a strong advocate for gun control, has supported a number of efforts to reform cannabis laws in Congress, and has made affordable housing a top priority.

• Rep. Katie Porter, a 50-year old Iowa native, has represented an Orange County district since 2019.  She is a graduate of Phillips Academy, Yale and Harvard Law School.  While at Harvard, she studied bankruptcy law under future Senator Elizabeth Warren, and eventually became a tenured professor of law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law.  As a 3 term member of Congress, she has supported President Biden 98.2% of the time, and has become best known  for her pointed questioning of public officials and business leaders during congressional hearings, often using visual aids such as whiteboards.  Porter was recognized by the press as one of the first Democrats in a swing district to support an impeachment inquiry based on the findings of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation.  She wound up voting for both the first and second impeachments of Donald Trump.

• Now age 63, Adam Schiff, a graduate of Stanford and Harvard Law , Schiff  began his career as a highly successful Federal Prosecutor; In this position, Schiff came to public attention when he prosecuted the case against Richard Miller, a former FBI agent who spied for the Soviet Union. The first trial resulted in a hung jury; the second trial resulted in a conviction that was overturned on appeal. Miller was convicted in a third trial.  Schiff went on to serve a four-year term in the California State Senate where he authored “tough on crime” legislation which did not always get past a governor’s veto.  Defeating veteran Republican Joe Rogan, Schiiff was elected to the House in 2015, where he eventually rose to become Chair of the House Intelligence Committee (2013-2013), manager of the first Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump, and a key member of the January 6th Committee, which investigated Donald Trump’s attempt to overthrow the 2020 presidential election. His emotional 25-minute closing speech before the Senate vote for or against the conviction of Donald Trump, garnered Schiff a lot of praise from Democrats and “grudging respect” from Republicans.   Nonetheless, for his efforts, he was eventually censured by his House colleagues which, to this day, he says he “wears as a badge of honor.”:  Schiff is the only Jewish candidate in this race, and, has made his support for Israel’s right to defend itself against the terrorists of Hamas a major part of his candidacy.  Among the 3 members of Congress currently running for the senate nomination, he has clearly passed the greatest amount of legislation, and has garnered endorsements from Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi as well as the endorsements  of an overwhelming number of his colleagues in the California Congressional delegation. 

• Steve Garvey: the 75-year old former Major League baseball player who spent most of his professional career playing first base for the Los Angeles Dodgers.  Winner of the National  League’s 1974 MVP award, Garvey has been hinting about someday running for political office ever since.  Despite finishing his Major League Career with a lifetime .294 batting average, 2,699 hits, 272 homeruns and 1,308 RBIs, he has yet to be elected to baseball’s Hall of Fame.  During the recent televised debate,, Democrats Lee, Holmes and Schiff ganged up on him, trying to get him to state whether or not he would support Donald Trump (let alone vote for him in 2024). He refused.    Moreover, he refused to stake himself to any positions on the major political issues of the day.  Regrettably, the former baseball icon wound up looking more like a “deer in the headlights” than a serious candidate.

By law, California has a unique “open primary” voting system, wherein all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, run on the same primary ballot. Following the primary, the top-two vote getters - regardless of party affiliation - face off against one another in the November general election. This means that it is possible for 2 Democrats to be running against one another in the general election. In the case of this Senate race, Adam Schiff, prior to the debate, outpolled both representatives Lee and Porter, with Garvey a distant fourth.  In the first post-debate poll, the Emerson College Poll listed Adam Schiff at 25%, Steve Garvey 18%, Katie Porter 13% and Barbara Lee 8%.  If these figures remain reasonably stable until the primary election (March 5th), this would put Schiff and Garvey squaring off in November.  And in a state as liberal as California, that would make Adam Schiff all but assured of victory. From where I sit and type, this is a very good thing; Adam Schiff is clearly one of the shining stars in Washington, D.C.  He has succeeded at every level, is a thorough-going gentleman who can both take a punch and deliver a political uppercut with the best of ‘em. 

Steve Garvey will likely never make it into the Baseball Hall of Fame.  Although he had a stellar career both on the field and at the plate, he has never worked or served a day in office.  He is merely a millionaire celebrity whose last hurrah was way back in 1987. 

To my California family, friends, classmates and readers, please cast your vote for Adam Schiff - whether by mail [which will be going out February 5] or in person [on March 5].  He will hit the ground running (after all, he is both a marathoner and pentathlete), and continue ably representing his constituents for many years to come. He can easily fit into the shoes last worn by the late Dianne Feinstein.  I predict that one day  Adam will be the Senate Majority Leader . . . if some future Democratic POTUS doesn’t nominate him for Attorney General.

Copyright©2024 Kurt Franklin Stone

#966 Ken Paxton: Malefactor Of the Year

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

   Trust me: I would be far, far happier writing a piece about Taylor Swift, Time Magazine’s “Woman of the Year,” or Shohei Ohtani, the “second coming of Babe Ruth,” who just signed a 10-year. $700,000,000 contract with my (and my sister Erica’s) Los Angeles Dodgers, then one about Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whom I am designating the “Malefactor of the Year.” This title, akin to calling him “Paxton the Terrible,” is his lifetime achievement award for last year, this year, and unquestionably next year as well.

   For most Americans not living in the Lone Star State, the 60-year old Texas A.G. Ken Paxton (that’s him on the left) has, until just a a couple of days ago, been as unknown as Rob Bonta, Ashley Moody, Lynn Fitch or Michelle Henry, respectively, A.G.s of California, Florida, Mississippi and Pennsylvania.  Unlike the vast majority of America’s state attorneys general, Paxton has made quite a name for himself for mostly the wrong reasons. As but one  example, on December 8, 2022, Paxton sued the states of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, where certified results showed President-elect Joe Biden the victor over President Donald Trump, alleging a variety of unconstitutional actions in their presidential balloting, arguments that had already been rejected in other courts.  In Texas v. Pennsylvania, Paxton asked the United States Supreme Court to invalidate the states' sixty-two electoral votes. Because the suit was cast as a dispute between states, the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction, although it often declines to hear such suits.  This time, SCOTUS decided to take a look-see; within 3 days, they shot down Paxton’s suit, making him a bit of a legal laughing stock.

Ken Paxton served 5 terms in the Texas Legislature (2003-2013) and 2 years in the Texas State Senate (2013-2015), before declaring his candidacy for A.G. During his years in the legislature he developed a reputation for being a hard-core conservative of the Tea Party stripe, and a full-throated Christian Nationalist, whose views and votes were based on his religious principles. Along with his wife Angela Allen Paxton (who currently serves as the Majority Leader of the Texas Senate), the popular political team helped to found Stonebriar Community Church, a Christian evangelical megachurch, in Frisco, Texas. On January 5 2015, Ken Paxton was sworn in as the 51st Attorney General of Texas, a position to which he was reelected in 2018 and 2022 - in which he beat his Democratic opponent by slightly more than 10 points.

As A.G., Ken Paxton has developed among voters a “you either love him or hate him” attitude. Devoutly, rabidly anti-abortion, he gave his employees a paid vacation day to "celebrate" the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and sought to block rules from the US Health and Human Services Department that would require hospitals to provide abortions to women when the procedure is necessary to save their lives. In 2018 Paxton initiated a lawsuit seeking to have the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) ruled unconstitutional in its entirety. Three years earlier (2015), Paxton created a human trafficking unit within the AG office. In 2019, he convinced Texas lawmakers to more than quadruple the human trafficking unit's annual funding. The year after, the unit did not secure a single human trafficking conviction and only four in 2020.

In 2018, Paxton falsely claimed that undocumented immigrants had committed over 600,000 crimes since 2011 in Texas. PolitiFact said that it had debunked the numbers before, and that the numbers exceeded the state's estimates by more than 400%. In October 2020, seven of Paxton's top aides published a letter to the office's Director of Human Resources, accusing Paxton of improper influence, abuse of office, bribery and other crimes, and said they had provided information to law enforcement and asked them to investigate. The Associated Press reported that the allegations involved Paxton illegally using his office to benefit real estate developer Nate Paul, who had donated $25,000 to Paxton's 2018 campaign.

But things were to get even worse for Ken Paxton: The Associated Press also reported that the allegations include the claim that Paxton had an extramarital affair with a woman, and that he had later advocated for that woman to be hired by Paul's company, World Class. Mr. Paul acknowledged employing the woman but denied that he had done so at Paxton's behest. Then, four of the former members of the Texas AG's Office sued the Office of the Attorney General, alleging that Paxton had fired them for reporting misconduct to law enforcement, a form of illegal retaliation under the state's Whistleblower Act. Paxton countersued, claiming that they hadn’t pursued their case in a lawful manner; the Texas Supreme Court and a court of appeals. both agreed that the 4 employees had done things correctly and overturned Paxton’s claim. He was fined $3.3 million and then tried to get the state to use taxpayer funds to pay the settlement; this too was overturned.

In spring 2023, the Texas House passed a bill of impeachment against Paxton, citing 16 separate charges. It was also decided that Paxton’s wife, the Texas Senate Majority Leader, had to recuse herself from the trial. After much back and forth between Paxton his attorneys, the State of Texas and the Texas Bar, Ken Paxton was acquitted on all 16 impeachment charges by the senate on September 23, 2023.

But the worst of Ken Paxton was yet to hit the surface . . . that which would make him a truly reviled person, both in the United States and much of the so-called “civilized world.”

But before we get to the latest and - in my opinion - the worst in the man I choose to name the “Malefactor of the Year,” a few words about the two people I’d greatly prefer to be writing about: singer/songwriter/billionaire philanthropist Taylor Swift and Shohei Ohtani who, barring serious injury, will likely be named the greatest (if not the richest) baseball player of all time.

To be perfectly honest, until I read about Taylor Swift being named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” she was just the name of a celebrity, nothing more, nothing less. (n.b. From its inception in 1927 until 1999, the award which Ms. Talyor wonwas called Time’s Man of the Year.” During these 72 years, only 3 women achieved this status: Wallace Simpson [1936], Queen Elizabeth II [1952] and Corazon Aquino [1986]. Since 1999 Melinda Gates [2005], Angela Merkel [2015] Greta Thunberg [2019] and Kamala Harris [jointly with Joe Biden in 2020] have had the honor bestowed upon them.. And now, in 2023, Taylor Swift.)

I have never knowingly heard a Taylor Swift song, and certainly cannot name even one. However, in performing research for this piece, I have discovered that she is all but universally considered to be a top-flight singer and songwriter, with 10 studio albums, 10 Grammys and more than 50 million album sales as of 2019 and 78 billion streams as of 2021. She is also the highest-grossing female touring act of all time. She is a world-class philanthropist who has made literally tens-of-dozens of donations of more than $1 million to various disaster relief projects and has paid for medical care for many of her concert-going fans. Swift is a self-made billionaire who has invested her earnings wisely in both people and property (which includes the Samuel Goldwyn estate at 1200 Laurel Lane in Beverly Hills). And oh yes, as of earlier this year, she is dating Kansas City Chiefs all-pro wide receiver Travis Kelce.

Since the day I first heard that the Dodgers were going to be moving from Brooklyn to Los Angeles (it must have been late 1957), I have, as we say in L.A., “been bleeding Dodger Blue.” And now, with the signing of two-way superstar Shohei Ohtani, we are deeper than royal. Imagine that: he’s going to be making $700 million over the next 10 years. Can any athlete be worth so much money just for playing a game? I mean, if he merely has an average (at least for him) season in 2024, he will be earning $522,388.00 per game, which is also $165,485.00 per at bat or, if he is merely pitching, $727,266.00 per inning. And to think, when Babe Ruth was at the height of his glory (1927-28), he only made $70,000.00, which is $1,237,756.90 in 2023 dollars (minus, of course, sales of merchandise, advertising, etc.). When asked if he realized that he, “The Sultan of Swat,” made more money in 1927 than President Coolidge Calvin Coolidge, he supposedly answered, “Well, I had a better season than he did.” (Actually, in 1927, President Coolidge was paid $75,000.00)

In answer to the question can any athlete be worth so much money just for playing a game?” the answer is “Yes!” The Dodgers are owned by Guggenheim Partners, whose board includes Mark Walter (the team’s CEO), Magic Johnson, Stan Kasten, and Tennis legend Billie Jean King. They didn’t get to be that rich by throwing money away. Obviously, they went over the figures and determined that Ohtani was worth $700 million to them . . . in increased ticket sales, cable television and network rates and assorted paraphernalia. For that, they land, as mentioned above, a young (29 years old this past July 5th)man who just may turn out to be the greatest player of all time. And . . . he’s handsome, very well-spoken (in Japanese and increasingly, English), and is a flawless gentleman. And by the way, his nickname is “Shotime” - how perfect for Hollywood.

We wind up this week’s piece by briefly discussing that which Texas A.G. Ken Paxton - as well as Texas Governor Greg Abbot and Lt. Governor Dan Patrick will long be remembered for standing in the way of Kate Cox, a 31-year-old native of Dallas to undergo an abortion. Cox had petitioned a state court this month for an exemption from the state’s strict laws to receive an abortion once it was determined that her 20-week-old fetus was diagnosed with full trisomy 18 (Edwards Syndrome). Life expectancy for children diagnosed with Edwards syndrome is short due to several life-threatening complications of the condition. Children who survive past their first year may face severe intellectual challenges. It can also, in some cases, prove fatal to the mother. Mrs. Cox’s doctors argued that carrying the fetus to term and giving birth via Caesarian section could be dangerous, possibly resulting in her losing the ability to have children in the future.

Texas District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble gave Cox a temporary restraining order this past Thursday, giving her, husband and her doctor immunity from prosecution to perform an abortion procedure. For a few moments, it looked like Mrs. Cox and her “team” could breathe a sigh of relief. But within less than an hour, Ken Paxton appealed to the Texas State Supreme Court, asking the court to halt the lower court’s ruling. In his appeal, Mr. Paxton urged the court to act “with all due speed,” and noted that and wrote that if an abortion was allowed, “Nothing can restore the unborn child’s life that will be lost as a result.” The court did act “with all due speed”: the very next day, the Texas Supremes said that, “without regard to the merits” of the arguments on either side, it had issued an administrative stay in the case, to give itself more time to issue a final ruling.

P:axton’s appeal to the Texas Supreme Court in Ms. Cox’s case followed his letter to three Houston hospitals where he warned that Dr. Karsan (Ms. Cox’s personal OB-GYN) is authorized to admit patients and could perform the abortion, was hereby warned that the judge’s order would not shield them from eventual prosecution or civil lawsuits. Lawyers for Dr. Karsan have said in legal filings that she believes her patient’s abortion is medically necessary to preserve her health and future fertility.

But regardless of what a board-certified OB-GYN says, Ken Paxton feels he knows better. As an ultra-conservative Republican, he demands that the government stay the hell out of people’s lives . . . except in any and all matters of sex, marriage, giving birth and what they read. And despite the fact that according to Texas law, there are exceptions which have been carved out in anti-abolition legislation when pregnancy is the result of rape or incest . . . or when the life of either the fetus or the mother is in jeopardy. According to “Dr.” Paxton, he does not deem carrying a 22-week-old fetus who has been diagnosed by real physicians with Edwards Syndrome is nothing to worry about. “Don’t worry about whether or not giving birth will kill you or make you infertile; don’t give a moment’s thought that you are going to give birth to an infant that will likely be blind, deaf and dumb, incapable of movement, experiencing excruciating pain and likely dying within anywhere between sixth months and a year. If and when it dies, that is just G-d’s will.”

What the Malefactor Of the Year is hoping for is that by the time the state Supreme Court finally hands down its ruling (whatever it may be), Kate Cox’s pregnancy will have proceeded well beyond the legal time limit for any abortion to take place.

In any event, Ken Paxton will have earned even more street cred with his Christian Nationalist crowd, thus allowing him to continue living a godly - if infuriatingly - immoral - life.

Copyright©2023 Kurt Franklin Stone

PLEASE NOTE THAT JUST BEFORE POSTING THIS, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO REPORTED THAT KATE COX AND HER HUSBAND HAD LEFT TEXAS TO SEEK FURTHER MEDICAL ATTENTION OUTSIDE OF TEXAS. PRECISELY WHERE IS NOT YET KNOWN. KFS

#965: Oh What a Week . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Vanessa Williams noted in a New York Times essay:

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

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

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

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

Oh what a week! 

Copyright2023 Kurt Franklin Stone