The inspiration for this blog came in part from John Sayles’ wonderful 1995 film, Lone Star.  Set in a small Texas city, with Anglo, Mexican-American, and African-American populations, the story segues from the past to the present and back again.  It portrays characters both as they are now and as they were in previous generations.  Good and evil deeds are unearthed.  The male protagonist, an honorable sheriff, discovers his father’s villainy, even though the father had helped overthrow an even worse sheriff before him.  We learn that an overbearing restaurant owner, who berates her Mexican staff for “not speaking English” and condemns “wet backs” who enter the United States against the law, crossed the Rio Grande illegally herself.  The female protagonist, her daughter and a teacher, ends the film by saying, “Forget the Alamo.”

     This sparked what I have been thinking about the Middle East, most particularly the Hamas-Israeli War.  History in that region goes back for millennia.  No one ever forgets the wrongs done to them in the past.  But this feuding prevents any solution today.  Here are two current examples.  What Hamas did to Israeli civilians –- killing and taking well over a hundred of them hostage –- was horrific.  But it was not a Holocaust, that is destruction or slaughter on a mass scale.  For Israelis and their government to call it that, as they have and continue to do, prevents any resolution of the conflict.

     Conversely, the oft-quoted Palestinian slogan, “From the river [Jordan] to the sea [the Mediterranean],” which refers to Palestinian territory, also implies that Israel, which occupies the same area, should not exist.  This saying also prevents any resolution of the current war.

     I have spent my life teaching and writing history.  I think historically and believe that people need to know history to understand the present.  But not in this case!  To resolve this horrible war, I believe history needs to be forgotten.  Instead of repeating old grievances, treat your opponents as human beings.  They have the same needs and emotions as you.  That is the only successful way to deal with this dreadful situation.  If Israelis conceive of this struggle as a “Holocaust,” they can ignore the discrepancy between the hundreds of Israelis Hamas killed and the tens of thousands –- many of them children – that they have.  If Gazans keep declaring “From the river to the sea,” they give tacit approval to eradicating Israel completely.       

     Instead, I believe that both sides need to forget history and focus on the present.  Treat your opponents as human beings, as human as you yourselves are.  I think that will provide the only possible solution to this ghastly war.

Back in 1970, during the Vietnam War, then President Nixon ordered that the United States attack Cambodia.  In response, many students on campuses across the nation went on strike.  At Kent State University in Ohio, the National Guard was brought in to quell disturbances.  They fired at students and killed four of them.  Nine others were wounded.  The photo of a female student, screaming as she knelt over the body of dead classmate, was widely broadcast.  Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young’s song, “Four Dead in Ohio,” followed shortly after.  Soon over 4,000,000 students went on strike at 700 colleges, universities, and high schools.  34 college presidents wrote Nixon protesting the war.

     I was a graduate student at Columbia then, teaching two classes.  I and many others refused to hold classes on campus.  A few months later, two more students were killed at Jackson State University, a black institution in Mississippi.  These deaths did not receive the nearly the same amount of publicity as those of white students, causing black leaders to protest.  That was one of the many ways in which the Vietnam War impacted college campuses.

     What about now?  The Hamas attack on Israel occurred on October 7.  On the 18th, Inna Venikov, a Republican NYC council member, brought a gun, openly carried, to a pro-Palestinian rally at Brooklyn College, where I taught for many years.  She was arrested, found to have a “concealed carry” permit and a gun that didn’t work and so, was released.  The group Students for Justice in Palestine was suspended at Brandeis, Columbia, and George Washington Universities.  Three college presidents at the City University of New York then prevented students from holding pro-Palestinian rallies on their campuses.

     In early November, students at UCLA held such a demonstration, which Republicans then denounced.  Christopher Wray, head of the FBI, declared that antisemitism had reached “historic levels” and warned of attacks on both Jews and Muslims.  The White House amplified attempts to fight such attacks, but prioritized those against Jews.  “Israelism,” a film questioning Zionism, was not allowed to be shown at Hunter College and the University of Pennsylvania.  Some campuses celebrated Hamas.  On others, Jewish and Muslim students were threatened.  Jewish donors began taking back money they had previously given.

     A group I’ve belonged to for many years, Historians for Peace and Democracy, decided to present a resolution “In Defense of the Right to Learn” at the American Historical Association’s meeting in early January.  Cory James Young, a historian at the University of Iowa, sent in a letter in its support defending pro-Palestinian students.  I wrote him and the group that I thought Jewish students should be added, since they were also being threatened (by campus signs of “Holocaust 2.0” among others).  He agreed.  The final resolution called for supporting accuracy in teaching, organizing campuses not to attack history or historians, defending academic freedom, and encouraging the right to learn.

     One problem that arose in the ‘70s and also today is whether or not universities should prohibit or punish what students or student organizations declare.  During the Vietnam War a faculty committee at the University of Chicago issued the Kalvan Report, arguing that universities should not censor their students and instead should sustain “an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry.”  “A good university,” it maintained, “like Socrates, will be upsetting.”

     This issue was raised in the U.S. Congress a few days ago, when Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik asked three college presidents if they would condemn those advocating “genocide” for Jews.  Moustafa Bayoumi, in the Brooklyn College English Department, correctly called this “the dead cat on the table” strategy.  That means that when you want to distract people from real issues (like Trump, whom Stefanik has consistently supported), you throw a “dead cat” –- an issue that demands attention -- in its place.  What Stefanik, and every other Congress member failed to mention was that “genocide” of Jews has not been advocated on any campus.  The presidents equivocated, instead of exposing this fallacy and saying they would handle it if it arose.  One of them has had to resign for her failure to condemn this supposed threat.

     This event brings to mind the famous issue of “not yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.”  This statement was made by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a Supreme Court decision of 1919.  The case, Schenk vs. the U.S., ruled that speech protesting the national draft was not protected by the First Amendment.  (Obviously, you are allowed to shout “fire” if the theatre actually is on fire.)  Much later, during the Vietnam War in 1969, the court ruled that such speech could be penalized only if it produces or incites “imminent lawless action.”  

     This decision provides an important precedent for today’s campuses and their presidents.  As the Brown University philosophy professor Felicia Nimue Ackerman wrote, “Of course, the tactics of Students for Justice in Palestine ‘can provoke discomfort’ on college campuses.  So what?  Although some S.J.P. tactics, such as impeding student access to classes, are unacceptable, discomfort is inevitable institutions dedicated to the free expression of ideas.”  I completely agree.

    For almost a year I’ve been writing a memoir which has consumed most of my creative energy.  I’m now working on the eighth and final chapter.  The first one, “History,” begins with a description of a postcard I’d saved for decades.  It portrays a girl of about 10 who looks just as I did then, with black hair held back by a band.  She’s reading a book and all you can see is the title “History.”  A caption says, “I’m not cynical, I’ve just been taking notes.”  I then delineate how history has shaped my thinking and career.  The second chapter, “Family,” briefly traces the 19th-century roots of my ancestors in the United States –- my father’s family settled in Shreveport, LA; my mother’s in Johnstown, PA.  It then focuses on my immediate family life in New York City.  “Marriage” first describes my marriage to Art Anderson, whom I wed in 1965, when I was twenty-two, and left in 1976.  It then goes through my long relationship with Stanley Malinovich, whom I met in 1984.  “Sex” deals with the period in between, when I (and many others) were very active sexually.  “Friends” goes through the important friendships in my life, beginning with Judy Zinsser, whom I met in 9th grade and still am close to today.  It ends by describing a few lost friendships.  “Therapy and Medicine” deals both with two therapists I consulted and the many times that medicine has saved my life.  “Politics” describes my activism from childhood until today.  And the last one, “Living,” discusses what has enabled me to keep on going.

     All of these except the last one have been read and commented on by the wonderful German Women’s History Study Group, going strong since the 1980s.  They’ve been immensely helpful, even though little of this manuscript deals with German women’s history.  For instance, they told me that I couldn’t just say, “It was the seventies” in the Sex chapter, since everyone younger than me wouldn’t understand what that meant.  When I finish, I’ll need to rewrite everything.  But rewriting is easier than writing.  I still need a good title.  And when I’m done, I’ll need an agent and may well ask you for help with that.

     In the meantime, I’m very impressed with Bernie Sander’s remarks on the current Israeli-Palestinian crisis.  Sanders, the long-term Vermont senator, is my age and like me, a non-religious Jew.  Here’s his statement:

Hamas’ terrorist assault on Israel will have horrific short- and long-term consequences.

As a result of this attack, thousands of Israelis and Palestinians – including many women and children – have been killed and injured. That toll will rise. The gunning down of young Israelis at a music festival is an image the world will not soon forget.

Longer term, this attack is a major setback for any hope of peace and reconciliation in the region – and justice for the Palestinian people. For years, people of good will throughout the world, including some brave Israelis, have struggled against the blockade of Gaza, the daily humiliations of occupation in the West Bank, and the horrendous living conditions faced by so many Palestinians. For many, it is no secret that Gaza has been an open-air prison, with millions of people struggling to secure basic necessities. Hamas’ terrorism will make it much more difficult to address that tragic reality and will embolden extremists on both sides, continuing the cycle of violence.

Right now, the international community must focus on reducing humanitarian suffering and protecting innocent people on both sides of this conflict. The targeting of civilians is a war crime, no matter who does it. Israel’s blanket denial of food, water, and other necessities to Gaza is a serious violation of international law and will do nothing but harm innocent civilians. The United States has rightly offered solidarity and support to Israel in responding to Hamas’ attack. But we must also insist on restraint from Israeli forces attacking Gaza and work to secure UN humanitarian access. Let us not forget that half of the two million people in Gaza are children. Children and innocent people do not deserve to be punished for the acts of Hamas.

     Two prominent youth activists — gun safety advocate David Hogg and Kevin Lata, 26-year-old Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost's 2022 campaign manager — are launching a new organization called Leaders We Deserve seeking to put more young people in elected office.  "A big part of this...is electing young people that have the values of our generation, that understand the anxiety of not knowing if you’re going to be able to survive math class," Lata told NBC News.  "Running for office is so hard, I mean, it's it's gotta be one of the hardest things there is to do and for a young person it's even harder." Lata added that "young people just don't necessarily have the political connections or fundraising connections. So the idea is ... we'll help raise money for them. We will work to try to help get them, get connected with reporters to write stories about their races ... just like work really closely to help them build out the mechanics of the campaign."

     I just learned about this group today.  I sent them $50 and am supporting them monthly.  Of course, gun control is another issue that especially concerns young people!  Attention to it can help them decide to vote.

     The Republican Party recently declared that they plan to oppose any measure to curtail climate change.  Climate change affects all of us, but especially young people, who will have to spend their lives dealing with its consequences.  In addition, Republicans have continued their attacks on gay, trans, and non-binary people.  This is another issue where young people completely disagree with this “strategy.”  For recent generations, sexual orientation is a non-issue, a simple fact of someone’s identity, which they have no problem with.  Finally, young people, as well as most Americans, are in favor of legal abortion.  And young people, who of course can get pregnant, are particularly affected by its criminalization.  Republican opposition to abortion has largely succeeded by suppressing voting rights, gerrymandering, and making it more difficult to change state constitutions, as is currently going on in Ohio. 

     When you read the Supreme Court majority opinions in the Dobbs case, which overturned Roe v. Wade, they are truly shocking.  Samuel Alito cited Matthew Hale as an authority.  Hale was a 17th-century jurist who believed that women should be burned as witches and executed if they attempted to end a pregnancy (which wasn’t even a crime then).  The other majority judges cited every single anti-abortion statute even established.  They failed to mention that the vast majority of these were passed in the late 19th century, when the nascent American Medical Association was attempting to oust midwives from the birthing process.  Not one of them mentioned the negative side of outlawing abortion: most hospitals housed “septic abortion wards” and nearly 1000 women died from illegal abortions each year.  Outlawing abortion only ends safe abortions.

     Given young people’s opposition to Republican positions on climate change, sexual orientation, and abortion, I think progressives should put their energy and money into encouraging young people to vote.  I’ve long supported voting rights organizations (another Republican strategy, and a sign that they’re on the losing side, is to curtail voting rights) and I’ve written them all this weekend.  They include MoveOn, Indivisible, and the Voter Action Project.

     I’ve written before about how I think Republicans are pursuing a losing strategy.  But to make sure they lose, let’s work to get out the vote among young people!                                

     A week ago, on July 6, Judge Lyle Frank of the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued a Temporary Restraining Order against New York City’s attempt to implement a new healthcare plan for retirees which would force us off Medicare and on to Aetna’s Medicare (Dis)Advantage Plan.

     His argument began by saying that retirees won on the merits of the case, since the city had promised its workers that they would receive a Medicare supplemental plan when they retired so it could not now re-neg on that promise.  The city used the word “will” in the Administrative code, so Judge Frank argued that is “to this Court a promise that is forward looking.”  Also, New York City promised that “the City will pay the entire cost of health insurance coverage for city employees, retirees, and their dependents.”  Retirees worked for city agencies, hospitals, schools and universities and as police, firefighters, and sanitation workers as well.

     Then, the court held that many retirees do not know if their doctors will accept the new Aetna plan.  Since many of the almost 300,000 city retirees are “elderly and infirm” AND the attorney for Aetna acknowledged that “there would very likely be situations where medical care deemed to be needed by a doctor for a retiree could be turned down,” the judge concluded that “irreparable harm would result.  There can be no more specific irreparable harm than this.” 

     Therefore, everything is put on hold.  Instead of having to decide whether to go with Aetna or pay for the Medicare supplemental plan ourselves (which would cost about $6000 a year) by July 10, we now can wait and see.  The implementation of this plan on September 1st is also postponed.

     The city and Aetna will almost certainly appeal this decision.  But a lawyer friend has told me that this opinion “is very strong.”  In the meantime, we need to support the retirees’ attorneys and be ready to swing into action again.  But it’s a great decision and a weight has lifted off our shoulders.  It’s difficult enough being old (and at least 10 retirees are over 100) without having to figure out new health plans and programs.  La lutta continua!

This is a talk I recorded for the 50th anniversary of the Berkshire Conference on the History of Women. I was on the plenary session to speak on Transnationalism, but only given a few minutes to do so. I was so concerned about time that although I used Ernestine Rose as the example of a transnational person, I forgot to mention that she was an ardent feminist (then called a “woman’s rights woman”), an abolitionist and a free-thinker.

     I haven’t written a blog lately because I’ve been too busy writing about another issue:  New York City’s decision to remove its nearly 300,000 retirees from Medicare and force us onto Aetna Medicare (Dis)Advantage.  This is one of the many ways Mayor Eric Adams is hoping to cut costs.  I’m amazed both by the effrontery of the move and by the lack of response to it, except among retirees.

     I worked for the City University of New York for 33 years.  Part of my, and every other city worker’s contract, was that we would go on Medicare when we were 65.  We all pay for Medicare from our Social Security payments (the amount is deducted before you receive the monthly Social Security checks –- a surprise to me and many others).  The city subsidized the drug benefits.  I remember a cartoon from years ago where a right-wing person was shouting, “Hands off my Medicare!”

     Medicare “Advantage” programs are commercial and designed to make money.  The city worked out some special provisions with Aetna, but in a lengthy two-hour Zoom session, Aetna failed to mention that it’s only in effect for five years.  After that, they can make whatever changes they want.  Also, the Aetna representative kept stressing that “If your doctors take Medicare, they’ll take us, because we pay the same amount.”  What he failed to mention is that Aetna requires a great deal more paperwork than Medicare, which many doctors don’t want to do.

     I’ve written every city official I could think of about this situation: Mayor Adams, Comptroller Brad Lander, my Council Member Shahana Hanif –- all to no avail.  I wrote the mayor, “You may think you can do what you want to us because we can’t strike, but we VOTE!”  I also wrote the New York Times.  They require that your letter be tied to a recent article and I pegged mine to one on how doctors suffer from Medicare Advantage programs.  Nothing happened.

     Time is of the essence here.  We have to decide what to do by June 30th.  The system changes on September 1st.   We recently got an email from the NYC Retirees Group, saying “Don’t panic, things may change.”  There’s a lawsuit in the works, etc.  One problem is that the mayor’s former workmates, the Police Union, voted in favor of this change, as did the Sanitation Workers.  All the rest of us: Fire Fighters, Hospital Workers, Teachers, and Professors, voted against it.

     Having consulted a lot with colleagues and retirees’ groups, I’ve pretty much decided to opt to stay on Medicare.  I’ll take out a Medigap policy for drugs with AARP.  Both my sister and some friends have that and like it.  But I sure hope there’s publicity about this issue and that things change before the middle of June.

     My favorite cartoon after the 2022 midterm elections was Barry Blitt’s New Yorker cover of November 21st.  It depicts a dejected elephant standing on a surf board aground on a beach.  The predicted “red wave” of a Republican victory never happened.  Instead, the Democrats lost a few seats in the House and retained control of the Senate – a feat not duplicated since FDR was president in 1934.

     After such a defeat, you might expect a party to rethink its strategy.  The Republicans did so in 2013, following Mitt Romney’s loss to President Obama, writing an “Autopsy Report.”  However, it was largely ignored and President Trump’s 2016 signaled its death – Trump despised the report.

     What about this time?  Since most candidates who backed Trump’s “big lie” that he really won the 2022 presidential election lost, one might expect them to have lost ground.  On the contrary.  Ultra right-wing Republicans now sit on vital House committees, following Kevin McCarthy’s pyrrhic victory to become Speaker of the House.  After 15 separate votes, McCarthy finally succeeded, but the price was very steep.  He had to agree that a single member could ask for a vote to unseat him.  He had to put hardline right wingers on important committees, like Intelligence and Judiciary.  And he has had to support George Santos, a proven congenital liar, who faked his degrees, jobs, and expertise on his resume, including the “fact” that he was “Jew-ish” (he wasn’t).  At the same time Santos omitted important facts, like his performances as a drag queen in Brazil.  But McCarthy needs to back him, because his margin in the House is so low.

     Meanwhile, what have the House Republicans done?  They have asserted that they want to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and the income tax, replacing it with a 30% sales tax.  This would fall largely on the middle and lower classes.  None of these policies is at all popular, except perhaps with the right-wing ultra-rich.  Finally, they are now threatening to withhold raising the deficit.  This involves not paying for monies already spent by the government.  To do so would greatly affect the faith and credit of the United States of America and end payments like social security, Medicare, and the salaries of U.S. representatives. 

     Does all this constitute a winning strategy?  I don’t think so and for the first and probably only time in my life, I find myself agreeing with Donald Trump, who urged his party not to cut social security, Medicare, or use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip against the Democrats.  President Biden has already declared he will not bargain over the deficit.

     If the Republicans keep this up, and there’s no indication that they won’t, I predict it will be a major losing strategy for what once was the “Grand Old Party.”  May it be so.

Here is my section of an event at Brooklyn College on October 18th.