Day 141 Nat'l Emergency: 6th Grade Memories

Buried deeply in a pandemic-fueled tribute article in Monday’s New York Times to the “soothing comfort” Johnny Carson infused in “The Tonight Show” was a reference to the TV host’s master talent of extracting interesting tidbits during small talk with guests. Aside from engaging in long interviews on weighty subjects, Carson might “suddenly decide to ask every guest on an episode what they recall about their sixth-grade teacher” (https://nyti.ms/32TpirK).

If you’re like me (btw, proper grammar would be “as I am,” but I tend to write colloquially, not always per the Queen’s English), you would have paused and reflected on your sixth-grade teacher, presuming, of course, you have any such memories. Gilda, for example, cannot recollect who her teacher was but she does remember being named valedictorian of her graduating sixth grade class at Public School 182 in the East New York section of Brooklyn. She also recalls attending a sixth grade prom, sixth grade being the end of public elementary school before the transition to junior high school. 

I had four teachers in sixth grade. As I attended Yeshiva Rambam in Brooklyn, a Modern Orthodox Hebrew day school, through eighth grade, we had separate teachers for Hebrew and English studies, mostly women for the latter, rabbis for Hebrew classes except in first and second grades. In sixth grade we had one Hebrew teacher whose name I cannot remember, and separate teachers for mathematics, English language and social studies. It was my social studies instructor who left a lasting impression.

Perhaps it was because Mrs. Saperstein was the first teacher that looked young. She was tall and attractive, with short hair.

As the 1959-60 academic year coincided with the run-up to the presidential election, Mrs. Saperstein structured a candidates’ debate among the students. She chose to focus on eight hopefuls: Hubert Humphrey, John F. Kennedy, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, Adlai Stevenson, Lyndon B. Johnson and two more whose names escape me. I was assigned to represent Rockefeller.

Rockefeller might have been my governor but I knew little about him. So I tapped into my human Google equivalent—my father. Though he had lived in America for just 20 years at the time, Dad was politically informed. 

The day of the “debate” is rather fuzzy in my brain. I can see myself on the left as the eight candidates stood before our classmates. I think by the time my turn as Rocky approached class was almost over so my speech was gratefully cut short. Much like the governor’s campaign which he abandoned shortly thereafter, easing the way for Nixon to secure the Republican Party nomination.

For another of Mrs. Saperstein’s projects I was assigned to report on Bolivia. For that I consulted the Encyclopedia Americana my parents had recently bought. 

All I remember from that exercise is that Bolivia was named for Simón Bolívar, a Venezuelan freedom fighter who liberated the region from Spanish rule, that part of the country lies in the Andes Mountains, that La Paz is the highest administrative capital in the world, that tin mining was a major segment of the economy, and that Lake Titicaca is part of the border with Peru and is the highest commercially navigable lake in the world as well as being the largest lake in South America. 

Beyond that I retained very little knowledge about Bolivia.

Mrs. Saperstein didn’t last very long at Yeshiva Rambam. Within two years she left, with not even a mention in our 1962 graduation yearbook. 

Trump Is Running to be Alienator-in-Chief

It is hard keeping up with the alienator-in-chief. He’s not the presumptive AIC. He won the actual title from the moment he declared his candidacy for president. Or maybe four years ago with his advocacy of the birther movement to delegitimize the presidency of Barack Obama.

Donald Trump believes in shooting the messenger while ignoring the message. His preferred tactic is to ridicule anyone opposed to him, as if diminishing their stature would somehow reduce or eliminate criticism of his actions or words. His latest salvo pins the label of “devil” onto Hillary Clinton. If that doesn’t stick, maybe he will mine literature and biblical history for some equally dismissive appellation, such as Lady Macbeth, Cruella de Vil, Jezebel or Salome. 

To small-minded America, to those who hate his opponents, to those whose bigotry he has given cover to, Trump’s in-your-face tactic exudes strength and refreshing leadership, qualities that politically correct politicians do not harbor, they believe. Should he win, and obviously I hope he does not, Trump would be the alienator-in-chief of an alienated nation.

At what point, however, will Trump say something so outrageous that even his most ardent supporters see him as the boob he is, unfit for the highest office in the land? Would it not be a delicious irony if Trump was taken down by a Muslim?

Sadly, I don’t think the Khan affair surrounding Trump’s defamation of the family of a Muslim American U.S. Army captain killed in Iraq will be his undoing. Trumpsters—I can’t claim authorship of this term for Trump supporters, though I swear I had not heard it before it popped into my head recently—anyway, Trumpsters are so entwined in his candidacy that rational arguments cannot and do not work on them. 

While public figures on both sides of the political spectrum sees Trump as a neo-dictator in style and substance, Trumpsters only see positive aspects of his authoritarian style. Like dumpster divers who believe hidden gems can be found among the detritus of society, Trumpsters view him as the fulfillment of their dream for a new American revolution that lowers taxes, removes the burden of government regulations, strengthens the already strongest military in the world while signaling Russia that NATO isn’t to be considered a deterrent to its Baltic and Black Seas expansionist desires, reduces entitlement programs but god forbid does not touch their Social Security or Medicare, builds a protective wall around our country to keep out criminal illegal aliens and cheap goods that will now be built in America but cost more, restores law and order by putting minorities back in their place behind white America, and appoints judges that will halt, maybe even reverse, the last 60 years of progress toward social equality in the country.

Trump is a factual chameleon, changing positions day to day, denying statements made in print and the airwaves. Yet Trumpsters don’t care about the truth. 

Apparently, neither do Republican Party leaders. They may cringe at what he says, but they are betting their future, and that of the country, on their ability to control him should he take the oath of office. They are as foolish as the voters and government leaders who thought they’d be able to contain Hitler, Mussolini, Hamas, and other dictatorial movements. Trump’s pronouncements, as offensive as many may be, such as limiting entry to America by select foreigners, oftentimes are within constitutional grounds. The CIA director has said he would not re-institute torture, but if Trump wants to, no doubt he would find some acolyte who would do his bidding.

In Monday’s New York Times Paul Krugman refuted reasons why Republicans cannot support Hillary Clinton (http://nyti.ms/2aVCiQN) . He cited three areas they find fault with her: economic policies, national security and the fear of executive overreach. In each case Krugman argued Trump would be worse. As cogent as his arguments were, he failed to mention the key impact this election may have on the coming decades. The next president will most likely nominate two to four Supreme Court justices. Presidents set policy for four to eight years. Justices influence lives for decades. 

Perhaps that is why GOP poobahs like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and John McCain and Mike Pence have not abandoned their support of Trump. To their shame and lack of patriotic duty. 

Five and six years ago I wrote that Profiles in Courage should be required reading for public officials. It is John F. Kennedy’s 1955 Pulitzer Prize-winning account of eight U.S. senators who, at different times in the history of the Republic, acted on their conscience rather than succumb to political pressure to conform to party politics or the majority of their constituents. They did so at great risk to their careers, in the interest of serving country first.

Republicans want to go back to the “good old days.” Those days included times when public servants truly put the public good ahead of their own self-interests.

Here’s your election witticism of the day, courtesy of whowhatwhy.org:

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation. —James Freeman Clarke

What We Want, What We Need

What we need and what we want in a president sometimes doesn’t mesh. We need someone reflective, not rash, who sets a strong policy course but who is willing to adapt to changing circumstances. What we want is someone bold, righteously aggressive, presidential in demeanor, a good talker.

What we don’t want is someone perceived as weak, someone we visualize waiting for the tumblers to fall into place in their brain before they spew out the answer they think we want to hear. We want sharp, quick command of facts (even if, in reality, we are given falsities or half-facts—it’s the appearance, unfortunately, that matters most to most of us). We don’t want a lot of ums, ahs, and aaaands. 

Which is to say, during tonight’s second presidential debate, actually less of a debate than a conversation with the American public, Barack Obama must show HE is THE president, that his command of the facts and themes of this election are at his fingertips and upon his tongue, that he will vigorously defend his administration, blasting away at misrepresentations and driving home the inconsistencies and warts of his challenger, Mitt Romney, a self-declared “extreme conservative” who has been campaigning of late as a moderate. 

Romney’s given ample ammunition for exposure—Obama must ignite those charges with the same conviction and steely resolve he demonstrated in ordering the assassinations of Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda operatives. Al-Qaeda wants to destroy Western civilization. It is not too extreme for a progressive to say conservatives want to destroy America as it is today and return it to a time when government did not provide a safety net for its citizens, a time when the quality and quantity of health care depended on the quantity of dollars in your pocketbook, when equality of opportunity rarely extended beyond rich white menfolk. 

Some might say I am being too extreme, that Republicans simply want to transfer government back down to the levels closest to the people, from federal to state to local municipalities. One need only look to the meningitis epidemic coursing through the country to see the danger inherent in placing trust in such a transfer. The compounding pharmacy that distributed the lethal doses of tainted serum was under state, not federal, supervision. Do we really want to shift environmental oversight of our air, land and waterways to the states? Immigration rights? Health care? Do we want a system where one’s protection is based on the wheel of fortune of which state one was born in? 

During last week’s vice presidential debate the candidates were asked how their Roman Catholic faith affected their public life, particularly as it pertained to the right to have an abortion. They both gave from-the-heart responses, but I was more touched by Joe Biden’s answer as it first voiced the Church’s central mission to help the less fortunate. Biden then expressed the theme enunciated by John F. Kennedy back in 1960 as he sought to be the nation’s first Catholic elected to national office, namely, that he would not impose his religious beliefs on those who did not share his faith.

I have no doubt Mitt Romney will try to project an image of moderation tonight. He’ll try to be an endearing, thoughtful, compassionate candidate whose only mission is to save America from a decline he sees as inevitable if Obama is re-elected. He’ll be smooth talking. He is, after all, versed in being a salesman, be it for his religion or for his former company, Bain Capital. Salesmen are smooth talkers. They’ll tell you what you want to hear (which isn’t always the truth). They’ll work hard to close the deal. 

We’ll see just how much Obama wants to keep his job by how well he does tonight. He doesn’t have to cop an in-your-face attitude toward Romney. He has to look engaged. He has to prime specifics about his accomplishments—saving the auto industry, getting a middle class tax cut as part of the economic stimulus bill, passing Obamacare, killing Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, restoring American prestige across the world, lowering unemployment, creating a positive environment for private sector jobs, protecting consumers, passing financial oversight regulations even as the stock market has doubled since he took office—while strongly contrasting Romney’s prior statements to the comforting, warm uncle positions Mitt will espouse tonight. Use Romney’s own words to, quoting Shakespeare, “hoist him with his own petard.”

Game Change, True From the Heart

Gilda and I watched a very good but very disturbing movie over the weekend. It made us angry and distressed. “Game Change” is a HBO film based on the book of the same name about the 2008 presidential campaign, specifically about the decision by Sen. John McCain to pick Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate and the consequences of that selection.

No doubt, Palin lit up the campaign trail. She electrified the conservative Republican base. She performed well in the vice presidential debate with Sen. Joe Biden. But, as the movie revealed, her appearances were performances, staged answers to conceal her almost complete lack of knowledge about the federal government, the economic crisis enveloping the country and foreign affairs. It was disturbing and distressing to think this woman could have been a heartbeat away from being president. It angered us that political hacks put party, not country, first. It disappointed us that so many of our fellow Americans could be hoodwinked into believing she was qualified.

It’s almost four years later and the level of deceit—even outright lies—politicians are willing to engage in taxes our ability to believe in them. Last year about this time, when Planned Parenthood was under attack as it still is, Arizona senator Jon Kyl asserted on the Senate floor that 90% of Planned Parenthood’s money is used to provide abortions. When the truth was revealed, that the figure is really just 3%, Kyl did not see fit to issue a retraction or apology. Rather, his spokesperson said the “remark was not intended to be a factual statement.”

Before losing the Puerto Rican primary last weekend, Rick Santorum said while campaigning on the island that before it could attain statehood it must comply with federal law, “that English (not Spanish) needs to be the principal language.” Trouble is, there is no such law. Santorum tried to contain the damage of his remark, but it is becoming painfully obvious from other statements the former Pennsylvania senator has made that he rarely thinks through how his comments will be received or perceived (for example, his statement that he almost puked when reading a copy of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on the separation of church and state).

He speaks from the heart, his handlers say. At least that is how his press secretary whitewashed the following Santorum explanation as to why he opposes socialized medicine:

“In the Netherlands people wear a different bracelet if you’re elderly and the bracelet is, “Do not euthanize me.” Half the people who are euthanized every year, and it’s 10% of all deaths, in the Netherlands, half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are old and sick.” (Here’s a clip of his comments: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/dutch-puzzled-by-santorums-false-claim-they-practise-forced-euthanasia/)

As the article with the clip states, Santorum’s claims are highly inaccurate. Perhaps Stephen Colbert summed it up best last Thursday when he opined, “Yes, in Rick Santorum’s heart, Dutch doctors push old people up to windmills and let the blades chop their heads off. And then they grind them into a paste and use that paste to plug cracks in the dikes, and turn their skulls into wooden shoes.

“The point is, as long as it’s in your heart, it is true.”

Game Change, True From the Heart

Gilda and I watched a very good but very disturbing movie over the weekend. It made us angry and distressed. “Game Change” is a HBO film based on the book of the same name about the 2008 presidential campaign, specifically about the decision by Sen. John McCain to pick Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate and the consequences of that selection.

No doubt, Palin lit up the campaign trail. She electrified the conservative Republican base. She performed well in the vice presidential debate with Sen. Joe Biden. But, as the movie revealed, her appearances were performances, staged answers to conceal her almost complete lack of knowledge about the federal government, the economic crisis enveloping the country and foreign affairs. It was disturbing and distressing to think this woman could have been a heartbeat away from being president. It angered us that political hacks put party, not country, first. It disappointed us that so many of our fellow Americans could be hoodwinked into believing she was qualified.

It’s almost four years later and the level of deceit—even outright lies—politicians are willing to engage in taxes our ability to believe in them. Last year about this time, when Planned Parenthood was under attack as it still is, Arizona senator Jon Kyl asserted on the Senate floor that 90% of Planned Parenthood’s money is used to provide abortions. When the truth was revealed, that the figure is really just 3%, Kyl did not see fit to issue a retraction or apology. Rather, his spokesperson said the “remark was not intended to be a factual statement.”

Before losing the Puerto Rican primary last weekend, Rick Santorum said while campaigning on the island that before it could attain statehood it must comply with federal law, “that English (not Spanish) needs to be the principal language.” Trouble is, there is no such law. Santorum tried to contain the damage of his remark, but it is becoming painfully obvious from other statements the former Pennsylvania senator has made that he rarely thinks through how his comments will be received or perceived (for example, his statement that he almost puked when reading a copy of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on the separation of church and state).

He speaks from the heart, his handlers say. At least that is how his press secretary whitewashed the following Santorum explanation as to why he opposes socialized medicine:

“In the Netherlands people wear a different bracelet if you’re elderly and the bracelet is, “Do not euthanize me.” Half the people who are euthanized every year, and it’s 10% of all deaths, in the Netherlands, half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are old and sick.” (Here’s a clip of his comments: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/dutch-puzzled-by-santorums-false-claim-they-practise-forced-euthanasia/)

As the article with the clip states, Santorum’s claims are highly inaccurate. Perhaps Stephen Colbert summed it up best last Thursday when he opined, “Yes, in Rick Santorum’s heart, Dutch doctors push old people up to windmills and let the blades chop their heads off. And then they grind them into a paste and use that paste to plug cracks in the dikes, and turn their skulls into wooden shoes.

“The point is, as long as it’s in your heart, it is true.”

Casting a Political Line to 2016

Let’s cast our political line a little deeper than November of this year, all the way to the Republican nominating convention of 2016.

(For the record, I’m assuming Republicans reluctantly will embrace Mitt Romney as their standard bearer this year. The rest of the country will not see the wisdom of the choice. Barack Obama will be re-elected.)

After another grueling primary battle in 2016, Republicans will pick...Rick Santorum, first because their hard core members will turn even more right wing following Obama’s presidency, and second, it has been Republican practice, for better and worse, to place the mantle of leadership on the next in line. They did it with Reagan after Ford, Bush 1 after Reagan, Dole after Bush 1, McCain after Bush 2 and now Romney after McCain. Unless they break the mold, the GOP will anoint this year’s runner-up, Santorum, as the favored son four years from now.

During these next four years, rather than soften his rhetoric, Santorum will stiffen his resolve to remake America into a Christian nation in law as well as custom. He will seek to reduce personal privilege when it conflicts with his dogma, in areas such as gay rights, contraception and abortion rights. It’s been widely reported the former Pennsylvania senator said he almost puked when recently reading the text of John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 speech outlining the separation of church and state that he, Kennedy, would follow if elected president. Though Santorum apologized for his graphic, insulting language, he did not recant his distaste for the doctrine Kennedy espoused.

It is interesting to note conservatives often cite the Founding Fathers when they look for foundational support for their beliefs. Yet when the Founders offer contrary evidence, they ignore them. So it is with Santorum’s failure to embrace Thomas Jefferson’s clear call in 1802 for a “wall of separation between church and state.” Perhaps Jefferson wasn’t of sufficient Founding Father status for Santorum to abide by his words.

Let’s be clear—no one is suggesting clergy of any faith cannot voice their opinions on issues confronting the country. Indeed, we have a long history of involved, though not always wise, clerics speaking out. In the 1930s, Father Coughlin spewed anti-Semitism from the airwaves; Reverend Falwell rallied a moral majority 40 years ago; the Berrigan Brother priests protested the Vietnam War, to name a few examples of religious leader involvement in the national dialogue.

A line must be drawn, however, when a religious leader seeks to impose his or her values on the rest of the nation. While polls show 98% of American Catholic women use some form of contraceptives, how disingenuous is it for the Catholic hierarchy, and Santorum, to want to curtail their use and to demean those who want to practice responsible family planning?

Many are quick to demonize Islamic countries for basing their laws on the Koran. How different would we be if we adhered to civil and criminal codes locked into the teachings of religious leaders instead of the rule of law we have followed since the inception of the republic?

Yes, it will be an interesting four years. Rick Santorum is only 53 years old (he’ll turn 54 May 10). He’s going to be with us a long time. He’s not going away.

Reading List

Over a delicious dinner at friends’ house Friday night, politics and international relations dominated conversation that at times grew loud. One of the more contentious issues was the role of elected officials. Should they legislate according to the campaign promises they made to their constituents, or should they feel free to vote their conscience if they discover a more judicious and patriotic path?

For Gilda and me the choice was clear—we choose leaders to lead, not to stay stagnant when the world around them is evolving. Should Southern representatives have remained anti-civil rights even as the voters who sent them to Washington and their state capitols continued their bigoted beliefs, Gilda asked?

It’s commonplace today for not just Democrats but Republicans as well to co-opt the legacy of John F. Kennedy. But in doing so they must embrace one of his sentinel works. Profiles in Courage is JFK’s 1955 Pulitzer Prize-winning account of eight U.S. senators who acted on their conscience rather than succumb to political pressure to conform to party politics or the majority of their constituents. They did so at great risk to their careers, in the interest of serving country first.

We find ourselves today in need of such statesmen. Instead of country first, it’s party first for too many of our chosen representatives. Instead of compromise, they are determined to humble their opposition, sowing conflict and animus not seen for generations, perhaps not since the great debates over slavery in the early decades of the 19th century. But even those debates yielded compromises. Today, compromise seems not to be part of the political lexicon.

Perhaps Profiles of Courage should be made mandatory reading for everyone in Washington and our 50 state capitols. Perhaps some who read it and take its lessons to heart will not win re-election because they have put country before their re-election effort. They will earn eternal gratitude. It’s a pipedream, I know, but it’s a worthy pipedream.


Here’s another must read for all—Since Yesterday by Frederick Lewis Allen. You might not have time to read this 1940 book about life during the Great Depression and how our government tried to help its citizens survive it, but surely you have a few minutes to read Joe Nocera’s column on it from Saturday’s NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/opinion/nocera-the-1930s-sure-sound-familiar.html?_r=1&hp

If Nocera is right about the lessons to be gleaned from Since Yesterday, we are in for rougher times given the mood in Washington to cut, cut, cut and not invest in our future.

Season of Discontent

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

This election season has been cast as the season of discontent, voters angry about rising taxes under President Obama (they’ve actually gone down on the federal level, truth be told), angry at Obamacare, angry about unemployment, angry about a stalled economy, angry about illegal immigration, angry about incumbent politicians more interested in grandstanding and fighting among themselves than solving our nation’s problems.

But in a very real sense this election is at least a short term referendum on our devotion to our fellow human beings, particularly the less fortunate. Too many people seem to be okay with the idea this would be a better country if we simply cut social services, if we ignored the decay in our infrastructure and our school systems, if we abandoned the democracy of health care for all, if we permitted wealth to accumulate in the hands of a select few while the rest of the populace suffers through decreasing assets.

If you didn’t see 60 Minutes on Sunday, you missed two excruciating reports. The first, by Scott Pelley, focused on Newton, Iowa, devastated by the loss of Maytag due to outsourcing and other businesses. Even the part-time mayor lost his full-time job when another company plant reduced its work force. Pelley concentrated on how the fallout from these closing and layoffs forced small business owners to cut staff to the bone, in turn forcing some to shut down completely. Anyone who has had to meet a payroll, to manage workers, knows any layoff is traumatic, more so for the employee, but also for the supervisor. Having to pare my staff by 25%, having to let go wage earners who were either the primary or sole providers for their families, made my decision to retire that much easier. If you watch Pelley’s report, you’ll see pain and anguish in the eyes of small businessmen and their families.

The second report, by Leslie Stahl, exposed the hypocrisy of the political system. Stahl interviewed David Stockman, architect of the Reagan tax cuts, the largest in history. Stockman chided Republicans for adopting a mantra of no new taxes and reducing current taxes at a time of deep budget deficits. He skewered them for wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, the top 2% of the country. Democrats, as well, came under attack for not being truthful about the need to raise taxes on the middle class.

In case you’re wondering, the quote at the top of the blog is nearly 50 years old. It’s part of the 1961 inaugural address written by John F. Kennedy and Theodore C. Sorensen. Sorensen died Sunday. Too many of his progressive thoughts might die as well if the country turns to the right in voting today as polls are predicting.