Saturday, February 26, 2022

"March"

                                                                   Sydney M. Williams

Essay from Essex

“March”

February 26, 2022

 

“It was one of those March days, when the sun shines hot and the wind

blows cold; when it is summer in the light and winter in the shade.”

                                                                                                                                Charles Dickens (1812-1870)

                                                                                                                                Great Expectations, 1861

 

March is named for Mars, the Roman god of war, fitting for a month that “comes in like a lion,” to cite an old English proverb. It was named after Mars because it was the month when military campaigns re-started following a winter hiatus. While it is supposed to “go out like a lamb,” it does not always comply.

 

It is the month that brings us spring when the sun crosses the equator on its trip north. Nascent plants and warmer days fill expectations that “April’s showers will bring May’s flowers.” However, like Eliot’s April, March can be cruel. The “Blizzard of ‘88” (1888 that is, on March 12-15) dropped 40 to 60 inches of snow on New England and shut down New York City. 105 years later, the “Storm of the Century,” over the same three days, brought hurricane-force winds, with gusts hitting 144 mph on top of Mount Washington. Typically, however, March is neither fierce as a lion nor docile as a lamb. It is more like a puppy, bounding about outside one moment, then lying by the fireplace the next.

 

In rural New Hampshire, where I grew up, the state’s public relations people – anxious for Massachusetts’ dollars – claimed New Hampshire’s skiing was best in March. While I agreed, for many residents the month was better known for mud, a time when the ground was no longer frozen and new grasses had yet to germinate: “The frothing, squirting, spurting, liquid mud that gurgles along the road,” as Mary Borden wrote in her World War I poem, “The Song of Mud.” On the other hand, March is the month when sap starts running, when above-freezing days follow freezing nights. At Hogback Mountain in Vermont, March skiers were offered a taffy-like snow candy made from placing boiling maple syrup on clean white snow.

 

On the lighter side, the month reminds us of Lewis Carroll’s March Hare, and the old English term, “mad as a March hare.” The latter, having nothing to do with basketball’s March madness, is derived from the long breeding season which, I suppose, might put either gender out of sorts. Hares, with their furry tails and elongated ears and hind legs, are of the same family as rabbits. I have always understood the latter to be promiscuous, but never thought of them as mad; though it is possible that sexual frustration, brought on by long, unconsummated courtships, could drive either a buck or a doe to madness. Certainly, the bunnies who once populated Playboy Clubs had cause to get mad at intemperate customers, but it is not because of ill-tempers they are remembered.

 

We cannot control the weather, so we must accept what March brings. I no longer ski, so will miss out on maple snow candy. Happily married, I have no interest in courtship, so March madness should not be in my future. And if I avoid tramping through the woods, mud should not be a hazard. I do, though, look forward to budding leaves, the peeping of peepers, sighting my first turtle and the return of songbirds.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, February 23, 2022

"Political Stakes"

 This essay was begun before Russia’s threat on Ukraine’s border became front page news. Putin’s actions validate the thesis that the political stakes are high, that the risks are existential, and that the United States and its Western European allies must change tactics from promoting “social justice” to affirming and defending a belief in classical liberal democracy. 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Political Stakes”

February 23, 2022

 

“Imagine a political system so radical as to promise to move more of the poorest 20%

of the population into the richest 20% than remain in the poorest bracket within the

decade? You don’t have to imagine it. It’s called the United States of America.”

                                                                                                                                                Thomas Sowell (1930 -)

 

The Cold War lasted for 42 years, from 1947 until 1989. It pitted the United States against the Soviet Union, along with respective allies. It ended with the fall of the Iron Curtain, and when a wave of (mostly) peaceful revolutions overthrew Communist governments in the Eastern Bloc. Three years later Francis Fukuyama published The End of History and the Last Man, which argued the universal acceptance of Western liberal democracies represented the final form of human government. The intervening years have shown how wrong he was. He appears to have misunderstood geo-politics, and he underestimated human desire for power and control. 

 

Today, liberal Western democracies face a new challenge: an autocracy epitomized by China, where power is concentrated in the 205 members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, a Party that comprises less than seven percent of the population of the world’s most populous country. Joining the Communist Party can take several years and is generally open only to those with Han ethnicity. Xi Jinping is the current, paramount leader. He serves as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Chairman of the Central Military Commission and President of the People’s Republic of China. China’s Communist Party is not diversified, equitable or inclusive. According to Statista, 88% of its members are ethnic Han. There are only nine women who sit on the Central Committee, a committee composed of 205 members. Its parliament, the world’s largest, stands at 2,924 members and which, according to CNBC, includes 100 billionaires. The 209 wealthiest members have an average wealth of $300 million. This is a country where the mean adult net worth is less than $68,000, and where GDP per capita is one sixth of that in the U.S. 

 

Yet, our enemies see us as divided, in retreat globally and undergoing self-flagellation. What do immigrants make of Vice President Kamala Harris’, the daughter of immigrants, recent statement: “The truth is: There is segregation in America, xenophobia exists in America. Antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia all exist.” One cannot deny that among 330 million inhabitants one could find examples to substantiate her claim. But do the words of a few nuts define our nation? In every country there is good and evil, there are saints and devils. On February 17, reporting on Ms. Harris’ observation, National Review said: “If they wish, American citizens may be neutral on the virtues of their country. The Vice President doesn’t have that luxury.” Her statement served as aid to our enemies who want the rest of the world to perceive the U.S. as hypocritical, as divided by race and gender. Moreover, Ms. Harris, a woman of mixed heritage and daughter of immigrants, has risen to the nation’s second highest office. Is she a victim?

 

One asks: Why do immigrants choose to come to the United States, Western Europe, Australia and Canada and not to China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or Cuba? Why did Ms. Harris’ parents come here rather than Russia, Iran or Cuba? Where are the Chinese protesting China’s internment of Uyghers? Where are the Russians protesting Russia’s new-found imperialism? Where are the protesters complaining of wealth and income gaps in China, Russia, Iran, North Korea or Cuba?

 

What we face is a new cold war – which we pray does not become heated – between forces of darkness, led by China and other totalitarian states, and forces of freedom led by the United States and other liberal democracies. We must be alert and able to respond to weapons they will use: strengthened militaries, cyber warfare, which could affect banks and electric grids, biological weapons and, perhaps most important, insidious and infectious propaganda designed to undermine our culture. The outcome may not affect those of us in our 80s, but it certainly will have consequences for our children and grandchildren.

 

But the United States will continue to stand as a beacon to other nations: if our government continues to protect our inalienable rights; if it functions under the rule of law; if it offers opportunities for individuals to use their individual drive and abilities to better their conditions; if it promotes freedom not mandates; if it rids itself of the scourge that is wokeism, and if it once again recognizes its unique position in the world.

 

Speaking to the desire of some in government to impose more controls, Kimberly Fiorello, a Republican Connecticut State Legislator representing Greenwich and Stamford, penned an op-ed in the February 18, 2022 issue of the Greenwich Sentinel in which she argued November’s election will not be about Democrat versus Republican. “In 2022, it is about more freedom versus more government control.” What is true for Connecticut is true for the world.  It is freedom, which lights the lamp that distinguishes democracies from autocracies. An interview by Richard Milne with Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, in last weekend’s edition of the Financial Times, highlights the concern of smaller, more vulnerable nations: “That memory of the terror and deprivations of Soviet rule, and a desire to never return to those days, explains why Estonia has consistently warned the west about the dangers of a revanchist Russia.”  

 

Among these concerns, there has been suggestion that woke Progressivism, which mimics the ideology, tactics and goals of totalitarianism, may have reached its zenith: The parents’ revolt in Virginia resulted in the election of Republican Glenn Youngkin as governor; in November voters in Minneapolis rejected the overhaul of their police department; Eric Adams, a former chief of police, defeated Kathryn Garcia in the New York City mayoral Democratic primary last summer; the Build Back Better bill failed in the Senate, and a recent vote in San Francisco recalled three progressive schoolboard members. We must build on those successes, as we and the world confront ever-more dangerous, political alternatives, represented by the autocracies of China and Russia.

 

Thomas Sowell is correct, in the rubric quoted above. The United States, in the history of nations, has been unique in its radical, and positive, experiment.  It is the country that created and led an international order following World War II, an order now at risk. As we retreat from leadership, we leave open spheres to be influenced by China and Russia. The risk we face is truly existential – a new cold war that could end the nation and a way of life we have known, a country in which individuals, through aptitude, determination and effort, regardless of connections, race or gender, have risen from poverty to success. In this new war, the political stakes are high. It is imperative we keep lit the lamp of freedom, which gives hope to millions.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 16, 2022

"Trust - In Government Bureaucrats or in the People?"

 Mark Twain, who for several years lived in Hartford, Connecticut, is alleged to have said: “If you don’t like the weather in New England now, just wait a few minutes.” That was true this past weekend here in Connecticut. On Saturday, a beautiful sunny day with temperatures in the mid 50s, my wife and I saw two bluebirds in a field near where we live. On Sunday I brushed four inches of snow off my forlorn Lexus.

 

We will be away visiting grandchildren over the next six nights, while their parents fly off, as our bluebirds apparently did not.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.b;ogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Trust – In Government Bureaucrats or in the People?”

February 16, 2022

 

“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers

of the society but the people themselves…”

                                                                                                                Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

                                                                                                                Letter to William Charles Jarvis

                                                                                                                20 September 1820

 

In 1863, on a cool, sunny November day in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, four months after the Battle of Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln gave a four-minute address. In it he reminded the audience: “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The freedom we experience in this 233-year-old experiment, which is the United States, is based upon the individual citizen being the ultimate source of power, expressed through their representatives in municipalities, states and Washington, D.C. Granted, in times of emergency, presidents and governors have assumed exceptional powers, as did Lincoln when he signed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863. Nevertheless, fundamental to our democracy is a belief that the people have a greater understanding of their self-interests than do the politicians, bureaucrats and experts who operate the machinery of government. It is, collectively, the wisdom of the people that combine to produce the political strength of our communities, states and nation.

 

All elections are important and as usual we are being told that the current one is critical, because the two sides are so far apart in how they define individual freedom and in their visions for the future. Democrats, too often, believe that government bureaucrats and “experts” can better decide what people should do than individuals themselves: lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, what courses should be taught children in public schools, what forms of energy we should consume, and what opinions should be allowed on social media. Republicans, in general, believe that people make wise choices when offered alternatives: to mask or not; to take a vaccine or not; to have their children learn Critical Race Theory or not; to buy a hybrid, a gas-guzzler or an electric vehicle. They want options in school choice and be able to weigh alternatives.

 

While personally I believe in vaccines and feel certain that masks can, at a minimum, reduce the spread of germs, I have a stronger conviction in common sense – stay home if one has a temperature; when in the grocery store, be alert for (and avoid) those who appear to have a cold; don’t get too close to people, (though I make an exception with my wife, children and grandchildren). Democracy is threatened by those who want to control our daily lives and shut down debate. Democracy needs the freedom that diversity of thought brings. Born on campuses, wokeism has fledged onto Wall Street, into businesses, courts, entertainment, sports and politics. Woke censorship threatens liberty. Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, in a 1970 speech, said: “Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, debate and dissent.”

 

Politicians act most responsibly when they are closest to the voters who elected them. Democracy works best in local elections, where power is “held,” as Peggy Noonan wrote in last Saturday’s The Wall Street Journal, “closest to the individual and the family…” It is least effective in gerrymandered districts where one party has control and political minorities have no or minimal voice. Government has grown far bigger than the Founders envisioned. Perhaps that was inevitable, as populations soared and societal needs, such as defense, retirement, healthcare, education and social programs, increased. But each generation of politicians should be conscious of bureaucratic dysfunction and the potential for corruption as the size of government increases. Bureaucrats, whose careers depend on ever-expanding government, have little incentive to support those who want to limit spending and, thus, their career opportunities. The insidiousness of invasive government could be seen in last Friday’s release of details from the Durham Investigation, which showed that Mr. Trump was spied upon – something he has long claimed – not only during the 2016 campaign, but while he was in the White House. And mainstream media censored this news by ignoring it. 

 

Individually, we have all made poor decisions, but, in aggregate and over the years, a belief in the wisdom of the people is what distinguishes a democracy from an autocracy. Political correctness and identity politics are taking us in new and dangerous directions, which has led many to believe that a professional class of bureaucratic experts can be trusted to make better decisions than pesky voters. Two years after COVID-19, the governors of twenty-six states still exercise emergency powers. Is this warranted?

 

Granted, there is a fine line between personal, individual liberty and anarchy. But it is a line we have navigated for over 200 years. The word anarchy is derived from the Greek word meaning “having no ruler,” a belief system that rejects governmental authority. That is not the case of those of us who argue for greater individual freedom. We believe in government, but one that is limited and non-intrusive. Our differences lie in opposing opinions as to who to trust more with power – unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats or the people? We are commanded to follow the science, but what does that mean when we have experts who offer contradictory opinions? Which should we follow? Individuals should have choices. Science, by definition, is never settled. Like democracy, it is always a work in progress. In a perfect world, the media would help us reach independent conclusions by offering more than one side of a story, but, sadly, that is not the case, as they have become propaganda arms for their preferred political philosophies.

 

I, for one, trust the people, whether it is truckers in Canada or parents in Virginia.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, February 12, 2022

Burrowing into Books - "Mrs. Dalloway," Virginia Woolf

                                                                 Sydney M. Williams 

Burrowing into Books

Mrs. Dalloway, Virginia Woolf

February 12, 2022

 

“She felt very young; at the same time unspeakably aged.

She sliced like a knife through everything; at the same time was outside, looking on.”

                                                                                                                                Mrs. Dalloway, 1925

                                                                                                                                Virginia Woolf (1882-1941)

 

In this short novel – 166 pages in my edition – Virginia Woolf provided vignettes and flashbacks, in kaleidoscopic fashion, to tell the story of one day in the life of Clarissa Dalloway: “She was not old yet. She had just broken into her fifty-second year.” We learn that she is preparing for a party that evening. The novel’s opening sentence – “Mrs. Dalloway said she would buy the flowers herself” – is almost as well-known as that of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice – “It is a truth universally acknowledged…”

 

The story takes place on a June day in London, in 1923. The Great War has been over for five years, except for those who suffered. A reminder of its devastation is Septimus Warren Smith and his Italian wife Rezia: “he had gone to France to save England.” Now home, his mood – a consequence of “shell shock” – swings from mourning his friend Evans, who was killed in Italy a few days before the Armistice, to febrile joy. His suicide serves as contrast to the gala of Mrs. Dalloway’s party. 

 

Mrs. Dalloway’s home was near Westminster Bridge where she lived with her MP husband Richard and seventeen-year-old daughter. Richard: “…he liked continuity, and the sense of handing on the traditions of the past.” Elizabeth: “…charming to look at,” but “she never seemed excited.” We hear Clarissa reminisce, as she crosses Green Park to Piccadilly, walks past Hatchards to Mulberry’s florist on Bond Street. It is the passage of time – punctuated by Big Ben’s chimes – that dominate the story. Earlier, Clarissa received Peter Walsh, a beau from her youth who had spent the intervening years in India. She invites him to her party. Separately, an old friend Sally Seaton, now Lady Rosseter comes by and is also invited to the party. These visits and the memories they evoke provide flashbacks to the turn of the Century when as young people they gathered at Clarissa’s family’s country home, Bourton, for parties and games.

 

The party includes old friends and Parliamentary acquaintances of Richard, including the Prime Minister: “He looked so ordinary. You might have stood behind him and bought biscuits…” Peter Walsh observes that no one looked at him, yet they “felt to the marrow…this symbol of what they all stood for, English society.” Others at the party are described, in Virginia Woolf’s inimical voice: Sir Harry, “…who had produced more bad pictures than any other two Academicians in the whole of St. John’s Wood.” Professor Brierly, “…his innocence blent with snobbery.” Lord Gayton, “Ponies mouths quivered at the end of his reins.” Clarissa, according to Richard, was criticized unfairly for her parties, though he thought they were foolish, as excitement was bad for her heart. Her childhood friends thought she enjoyed having famous people about. But they were wrong; her parties were celebrations of life: “What she liked was simply life. ‘That’s what I do it for,’ she said, speaking aloud, to life.”

 

This is a short novel, providing the reader vivid images and witty commentary on an age and time gone by.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 9, 2022

"It's Still the Culture, Stupid"

                                                                     Sydney M. Williams

                                                        30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314 

Essex, CT 06426

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“It’s Still the Culture, Stupid”

February 9, 2022

 

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised

for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”

                                                                                                                C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)

                                                                                                                God in the Dock: Essays on Theology, 1948

 

Just over a year and a half ago, June 8, 2020, I wrote a TOTD, “It’s the Culture Stupid.” It was two weeks after George Floyd died under Derek Chauvin’s knee. I wrote: “…the permitting of protesters in the wake of George Floyd’s killing was right. The failure to confront and arrest violent rioters and looters was wrong.” It is that failure to distinguish between right and wrong – a failure to punish wrongdoers and to reward virtue – that haunts our nation and its people. Driven by a sanctimonious and intolerant “woke” community, the situation has worsened over the past twenty months.

 

In 1992, while advising Bill Clinton on his Presidential campaign against George H.W. Bush, James Carville coined the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.” The economy had entered recession in July-August 1990 but had recovered by the end of the first quarter of 1991. However, job creation lagged, so the recovery became known as the “jobless recovery.” Unemployment continued to rise into mid-year 1992, which provided Mr. Carville the opportunity to conceive a phrase recalled thirty years later.

 

What we face is more onerous. Economies go through booms and busts, while cultures are fundamental to who we are. A self-important, moralizing wokeism offers a new and different threat. Traditionally, our culture has been embedded in families – passed down from one generation to the next. It is confirmed in civil behavior, in our schools, churches and communities. It is institutionalized in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and reflected in Constitutional amendments. It has been enhanced as our country absorbed immigrants from all over the world. But the underlying rules and customs that allowed this country to survive and to thrive should persist – that we are all, no matter our race, ethnicity or gender, created equal and have equal protection under the law, that private property is protected, that we live in a nation of laws not men, that we should be judged by our character, not the color of our skin or gender, and that success is a function of merit, ability, effort and diligence, and that civility, respect and tolerance are necessary for a free, civil and democratic society to exist. 

 

Wokeism threatens to undo this glue that has bound our nation. In schools, universities, museums, charities, businesses and even selections for the Supreme Court, wokeism makes judgements based on identity – racial, gender, ethnic – not merit or character. Its goal is to destroy traditional American culture. It claims that our nation is fundamentally racist, that its people are either victims or victimizers. It says that our founding was in 1619, when these colonies were part of the British Empire. It dismisses the concept of the nuclear family. It has led to lawlessness and the destruction of private property. It asserts that our planet is doomed unless we obey the liturgy of climate zealots. It ignores biological distinctions between men and women. It promotes equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunities. It argues that traits like hard work and adherence to the Golden Rule, are characteristics of white, male oppressors, so should be abandoned. It feeds on social media. Like totalitarian regimes everywhere, from Communism to Nazism, wokeism “is,” as Thomas Klingenstein wrote recently in The American Mind, “self-righteous and intolerant, built on lies and the silencing of those who challenge the lies.” 

 

Today, we face many problems: We know that fatherless children are disadvantaged and that crime-infested cities make life more difficult, especially for the poor, yet little is done to address the former or to fix the latter. The nation’s debt is $30 trillion, or $90,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States, a number that does not include even larger unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Low interest rates have mitigated the cost of that debt. But the inflation we experience will be addressed with higher interest rates, which will impact the cost of all debt – personal, corporate and government – thereby adding to the nation’s deficits. According to an October 22, 2021 article in The New York Times, illegal immigration in 2021 was the highest since at least 1960. A country that cannot, or will not, control its border is no longer a sovereign nation. We need immigrants to grow. We need their youth, their brains, their energy and enthusiasm, their desire to make a better life for themselves, their children, and their children’s children. But we need immigrants to enter the country legally. When undocumented, unvaccinated hordes enter, legal immigration is reduced.  

 

Our future rests on the young, yet American public schools are failing in international tests. While dollars spent per public school student in the U.S. are second only to Luxembourg, the nation ranks 13th in reading and 38th in math, among 79 countries surveyed. A focus on identity studies has meant less time devoted to the basics, and to understanding our unique history and government. Wokeism has co-opted teachers’ unions, depriving poor and middle-class families of school choice. Violent crime, especially in inner cities, has been on the rise, and it cannot be solely blamed on COVID restrictions and mandates, though those have not helped. Following George Floyd’s death, protests turned violent. In Seattle, Antifa-affiliated activists seized control of a city neighborhood and, once the police withdrew, declared an “autonomous zone.” U.S. murder rates in 2020 were up 30% and rose further in 2021. Over 300 people are killed or wounded every day by firearms. The left sees the culprit in a proliferation of guns and in a culture that permits the owning of weapons. The right sees the culprit in a culture of disrespect, incivility and intolerance, in a failure to enforce rules of behavior, whether at home, in schools, or on the street – that the problem lies not with the weapon but with he or she who pulls the trigger. 

 

This attack on our culture by those who foster “diversity, equity and inclusion” is an insidious undermining of the values that allowed this country to become the freest, most productive, richest nation on earth. It recalls the quote by C.S. Lewis, which heads this essay – that totalitarianism often rises from those who profess to do good, but who are intent on showing their virtue and empowering themselves. Respecting and protecting our culture should be our priority, lest we fall victim to this totalitarianism of do-gooders. 

 

The inability to distinguish truth reflects poorly on today’s molders of character – teachers, community leaders, ministers, journalists, politicians, but especially parents. We are a multicultural society, but that does not mean each race, ethnicity, creed or individual can define right and wrong according to their personal beliefs. Words like honor, respect, tolerance and civility have universally accepted definitions. They cannot be defined according to a claimed cultural tradition, else anarchy rules. The killing of a young girl for the shame brought to her family is not an “honor killing.” It is murder. Looters rampaging through a suburban Minneapolis Best Buy store is not “redistribution.” It is theft. Chaos has become the new normal. As Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote: “A pandemic of nihilism has been unleashed upon the land.”

Labels: , , ,