"Patriotism"

This is being sent on the evening of July 3, as my wife and I plan to drive to Massachusetts tomorrow morning to attend a family softball game, which was originally played in 1889. To the best of my knowledge, every game over those 135 years has ended in a tie.

……………………………………………………………

 

In the midst of celebrating the birth of our country, we should take a few minutes to consider how fortunate we are to be here. According to Freedom in the World 2023, only about 20% of the world’s population live in free countries. And median income in the U.S. is about ten times higher than for the world as a whole. We are far from perfect, but we keep striving; we should be thankful for the United States of America. It is okay to be patriotic.

 

I wish you a joyous 4^th of July!

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Patriotism”

July 4, 2024

 

“Spirit, that made those heroes dare

To die, and leave their children free,

Bid time and Nature gently spare

The shaft we raise to them and thee.”

                                                                                                                                Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

                                                                                                                                Concord Hymn, 1837

 

“The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened

than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”

                                                                                                                                Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

                                                                                                                                Democracy in America, 1835

 

Today we celebrate our nation’s 248th birthday. It is the day when, traditionally, patriotism rises to its highest level of the year. Yet, many Americans are conflicted in their attitudes toward their country. We are divided to a greater extent than at any time since the Civil War. Identity politics has become ubiquitous. Anti-Semitism is experienced on college campuses. We cannot even agree on the definition of a woman. We are told that democracy is under threat: The Left cites January 6 and the behavior of Donald Trump and his claim that he will be a dictator for the first day. The Right speaks to the “weaponization” of the intelligence services – the Russian collusion fabrication by the Clinton campaign in 2016, and the statement by 51 intelligence officers, in 2020, that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation.

 

Patriotism, to those on the political extremes, is dependent upon who holds power. In 1905, addressing this concern, Mark Twain wrote an essay “The Czar’s Soliloquy” for North American Review: “True patriotism, real patriotism: loyalty, not to a Family and a Fiction, but loyalty to the Nation itself.” Twain was commenting on Tsar Nicholas’ habit of ignoring the needs of his people while meditating for an hour every morning after his bath. While Twain wrote 120 years ago about a monarchy that no longer exists, his words are applicable today. Patriotism is not based on family, personal biases or party affiliation, but of love for country – in our case the United States, with its history, complexities and opportunities.

 

Of course excessive patriotism – the wrapping of oneself in the flag – is off-putting and has been condemned by many. On April 7, 1775 James Boswell wrote that Samuel Johnson, taking a swipe at then prevalent jingoism, pronounced patriotism to be the last refuge of the scoundrel. A hundred and forty years later, disillusioned by the horrors of trench warfare on the Western Front, Wilfred Owen (1893-1918) wrote the poem “Dulce et Decorum Est,” which ends with these haunting lines:

 

“My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old lie: Dolce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.”[1]

 

Nevertheless, patriotism is critical for the success of a nation. However, we seem to have lost our way. Divisive politics, with its emphasis on racial and gender identity rather than on a shared identity as Americans, has made us angry and sad. Following the recent debate many concluded that the “Biden-Trump reality show,” as Daniel DePetris put it recently in The Spectator, “is a reflection of our decline and an indictment on waning US global power.” But is it? I am not so sure. We are unique in the annals of nations. We are not British, French, Latvian, Chinese, Japanese, Israeli, Jordanian, Nigerian, Algerian, Angolan, Peruvian or Ecuadorian. We are all of them and many more. And, while we are each unique, with myriad skills and varying abilities, we are “We the people,” as the preamble to the Constitution begins. We live in a country founded under Judeo-Christian principles and governed by laws, not men. We have a Bill of Rights that guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and religion, and a Constitution that provides equality before the law. We are free to peacefully protest what impinges on our beliefs. A secret ballot assures we can vote our conscience without fear of retaliation. We live in an economic system that allows individuals to rise as far as aspiration, talent, effort (and luck) take them. We have survived a British invasion in 1812, a Civil War, two world wars and four assassinations. As for our democracy: “It won’t be dismantled so easily,” wrote Matthew Hennessey in an op-ed in last Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal.

 

We should honor the memory of those who fought, died and won our independence 241 years ago – among them recent immigrants to what would become the United States of America. And we must never forget the men and women who fought and died in subsequent wars to keep this nation’s (and other nations’) people free. We should laud the Founders, imperfect though they were, for their vision embedded in the Declaration of Independence. We should study the history of our country, its perfections and its blemishes, and we should understand the three distinct branches of our government and how it operates. We should support the right of every individual to speak for what they believe. We can disagree, but we should not disparage. We should be respectful, not blasphemous. No matter our heritage, race, gender, religion, political affiliation, or economic class, we pledge allegiance to our “flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” As David Wolpe, emeritus rabbi of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, wrote in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, “There are people of good heart and good will, of soulfulness and love, all over this great nation.” Americans, wear your patriotism with pride. 

 

HAPPY 4^th!

 

---

---

[1] It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country. Owen was killed in France one week before the Armistice.

"Threat to Democracy"

 There are many things that need concern us. One, that gets little attention from mainstream media, is the decline in population among Western nations. A recent report from the Gatestone Institute, pointed out that more children are born in Nigeria each year than in Europe, which has more than three times the population. In fact, the number of babies born in Nigeria each year is roughly equal to the number born each year in Europe and the United States.

 

While these statistics will not affect people my age, the world our grandchildren and great grandchildren inherit will be markedly different than what we have known. Will it be better or worse? No one knows, but it is food for thought.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Threat to Democracy”

September 26, 2022

 

“…the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough

to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well

enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government.”

                                                                                                                                Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945)

                                                                                                                                Radio “fireside chat”

                                                                                                                                April 14, 1938

 

Accusations of “threats to democracy,” are being tossed around with the abandon of rolls being thrown at a Drones Club dinner. This has especially been true from the “anointed” left toward their conservative opponents. They see a fascist behind every Republican. “With…democracy itself in the balance…” wrote Sara Burnett and John Hanna of the Associated Press in a recent article on Governor’s races taking on new prominence. CNN’s S.E. (Sarah Elizabeth) Cupp recently wrote of the ascendancy of right wing nationalism and “in some cases fascism,” in which she grouped Donald Trump with Jair Bolsonaro and Viktor Orban, and Liz Truss with Marine Le Pen. Hillary Clinton recently compared a Trump campaign event in Ohio to a Nazi rally, I guess “deplorables” wasn’t strong enough.

 

Catchy slogans are ubiquitous in politics. Most, unsurprisingly, have a positive slant: “Why not the best?” – Carter in ’76; “Morning in America!” – Reagan in ’80. A few carry an accusatory tone: “It’s the economy, stupid!” – Clinton in ‘92. Others are egotistical: “We are the ones we have been waiting for!” – Obama in 2008. And then there was Trump’s upbeat slogan in 2016, “Make America great again,” which Democrats, using the acronym “MAGA,” have turned into a pejorative in 2022.

 

Like the Left’s call for net-zero-emissions (which in reality is a regressive tax), the words “Republicans represent a threat to democracy” serve as a red herring, to detract from real issues, like inflation, the economy, immigration, jobs, crime, school choice, and the student mental health crisis. Yet democracy is fragile, so should be watched and handled with care. Our Constitution provides for a government based on the rule of law, with checks and balances cast in three co-equal branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The purpose – to make it difficult for any individual to wrest control. As early as September 1787, Benjamin Franklin allegedly responded to a query about the new government, that it was “a Republic, if you can keep it.”  In the same year, in “Federalist 26,” Alexander Hamilton addressed the debate between legislative power and individual liberty. In the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville saw the threat of tyranny from unchecked demands of individuals and groups. A Civil War was fought in the early 1860s to combat slavery, but also to preserve the union. The American political system is not supposed to be efficient. It is designed for debate and collaboration, aimed at reaching a consensus. While advocacy is expected from political parties, constraints on government are critical for continued individual liberty.

 

To associate the Republican Party with fascism is absurd. Granted, there are extremists in the Republican Party, just as there are extremists in the Democrat Party. But in neither case do they constitute a majority. Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene may not seem, to most of us, to reflect American values, but they do represent distinct voices within America. 

 

Democrats have divided Republicans into many “Trumpers” and few “non-Trumpers.” But the truth is more complicated. Most Republicans believe in the sanctity of an individual who is responsible and accountable. They believe in conserving what has worked in our culture, while welcoming change that improves people’s lives. In terms of change, they are gradualists, not revolutionaries. Economically, they believe in free-market capitalism with limited regulation and favor progressive taxes that are not secretly regressive, like those imposed by limiting energy production or promoting gambling. They believe choice in schools should not be limited to the wealthy. They believe that respect for our borders is necessary, and that a strong military is required. They believe in the rule of law, not men. They believe we are all equal in our rights as citizens, but recognize we are not equal in our abilities and aspirations. Many of us liked much of what Trump accomplished, while disliking his character. But of this, I feel certain, he was never a “threat to democracy.” He was watched too closely and too critically.  Unarmed protesters invading the Capitol was wrong, and Trump was wrong not to call them off. But if armed capitol police had been there in force and done their job, the rioters would have been stopped before they entered the Capitol. If this had been a dangerous insurrection, why did the Dow Jones Industrial Averages, a barometer of such activity, rise modestly on January 6, 7, and 8? Regardless, Republican Vice President Michael Pence acceded to the law. 

 

Threats to democracy occur when individuals or parties seize the reins of government and use their power, with the backing of the media, to destroy opponents. Combatting that trend, Alan Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat has been willing to accept conservative Republicans as clients when he believes their rights are in jeopardy. He recently wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that it is wrong for Biden administration officials “to abuse the law, particularly the criminal justice system, against our political opponents.” 

  

There is much that concerns me, such as the Left’s threats to do away with the Senate filibuster and expand the Supreme Court. I worry about political and “woke” indoctrination, along with the elevation of victimhood, in our schools and colleges. I worry about the subordination of our Judeo-Christian values to some relative moral standard. I worry – but have no answers – about bureaucrats’ self interest in supporting the Party that assures their continued employment. I worry about unscrupulous politicians colluding with independent agencies to pursue personal and Party agendas, such as we saw with Lois Lerner and the IRS in 2015, and in the Department of Justice today, where, like the Soviet’s Laventiy Beria, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James first named the suspect, then searched for the crime.

 

But I am not seriously concerned about a “threat to democracy.” The hyperbolic words reflect the partisanship of our time. While I am not so naïve as to expect I will ever read unbiased newspapers or watch cable or network news that gives equal airtime to each side, I do not worry about democracy, so long as the Washington Post and the New York Post publish what they each claim to be news, and as long as Fox News, CNN, and PBS promote their versions of events. We are free to read and watch what we choose. We are divided, but we have not yet been rendered asunder. 

 

As long as we remember FDR’s words in the rubric that heads this essay, and recall Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg in late 1863, that we are “a government of the people, by the people and for the people,” our nation will remain free and democratic, even when diffuse and spirited.

"The Ugliness of Politics - Is It Necessary?"

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“The Ugliness of Politics – Is It Necessary?”

December 27, 2021

 

“Politics is about power, the power to make people 

do what you want them to do, so that you gain leverage.”

                                                                                                                Bruce Thornton

                                                                                                                www.frontpagemag.com

                                                                                                                December 15, 2021

 

Democrats, who have failed on so many fronts in the first eleven months of the Biden Administration – immigration, inflation, COVID-19, crime, Afghanistan, China and Russia – have resurrected their nemesis Donald Trump, as a foil to promote their claim that the Republican Party “has,” in the words of Dan Kennedy of Northeastern University, “embraced authoritarianism and voter suppression” – a red herring to deflect attention from Democrats’ efforts for self-empowerment. Trump is demonized because, more than anyone, he is seen as standing athwart the federal regulatory Leviathan progressives have erected.

 

There is something bizarre about supposedly intelligent and well-informed columnists like Dana Milbank of The Washington Post and Jason Linkins of The New Republic, when they claim threats to democracy emanate from the Party that embraces limited government, free markets, deregulation and low taxes, rather than from the Party that supports greater regulation, higher taxes, packing the Supreme Court, nationalizing voting and (in New York City) allowing non-citizens to vote, while urging conformity, and censoring conservative speech on college campuses. The lead essay in the January 2022 issue of The Spectator concludes: “The transformation of free societies by bureaucratic stealth, corporatization, and end-of-world doom-mongering pose greater dangers to America democracy than do China or climate change.” Yet Barton Gellman of The Atlantic, in contradiction to common sense, calls Democrats “protectors of democracy.” 

 

Partisan progressive reporters have made the ludicrous charge that current media coverage of Mr. Biden is more negative than it was of Mr. Trump in his last year in office, an allegation my youngest grandchild would recognize as absurd. The accusation is a Trojan Horse to camouflage their own biases, displayed for four years in the discredited Russian collusion story, and now in a transformation of last January 6, from a protest that got out of hand into an alleged insurrection. Political criticism should be welcomed. But in this new world, criticism of Republicans is encouraged, while criticism of Democrats is treasonous. Jason Linkins headlined an article in The New Republic: “Is Criticizing Joe Biden a Danger to Democracy?” While he did admit that “blind fealty” is a hallmark of dictatorships (which it is), he overrode that admonition when he wrote: “…the GOP is the enemy of democracy, full stop…” Trump is an easy target. He speaks Brooklynese; he is an overweight, incurable narcissist, who speaks without thinking. Republicans have supporters in the media who are unfair in their treatment of Democrats, but the situation is David versus Goliath-like, with progressives controlling most of mainstream media, big tech companies, Wall Street, schools, universities, government bureaucracies, cultural institutions and professional sports. 

 

The arrogance of political elites toward those with differing opinions is mind-numbing. That White House press secretary Jen Psaki belittles those who ask tough questions is legion. Recently, she called Senator Joe Manchin a liar when he said “no” to the Build Back Better legislation. If Ms. Psaki had read The Wall Street Journal, National Review, The New York Sun or The New York Post over the past few months, she would have seen that Senator Manchin’s reservations regarding the legislation were well aired. In the preface to his unfinished book (published posthumously in 1856), The Old Regime and the French Revolution, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: “…a man’s admiration of absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him.” That is what we are seeing among the progressive branch of Democrats.

 

Trump can be personally insulting, but he is not condescending. But we did see condescension in the words of Barack Obama when, in 2008, he spoke at a fund raiser in San Francisco about working class voters in an industrialized Pennsylvania town: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” And we saw it in 2016, when Hillary Clinton lashed out at Donald Trump’s supporters, as a “basket of deplorables.” We see that condescension in Nancy Pelosi’s and Chuck Schumer’s briefings We see it in the treatment of COVID-19. We are told to “follow the science,” with no admission that science evolves. The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) – authored by Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford and Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and which focused on protection of the most vulnerable while encouraging the non-vulnerable to resume life as normal – expressed “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing Covid-19 policies.” The document, which was signed by 60,000 infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, was ridiculed as “fringe” by Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institute of Health (NIH) and called “nonsense and dangerous” by Dr. Anthony Fauci. (Dr. Collins later resigned as director of the NIH after government documents suggested he lied to Congress when he claimed his agency did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Lab.)

 

Progressives who dominate the Democrat Party – more through fear than numbers – distort our past and forecast a dystopian future. The Founders, they tell us, were old white men who founded a nation based on oppression and slavery. They argue that 156 years after the end of the Civil War, a war fought to end slavery, we remain a “systemically racist” nation. We are, they claim, a nation comprised of victims and victimizers. As for our future, without adoption of their statist agendas and policies, racial tensions will increase, gender discrimination will persist, and man-caused climate change will bring an end to our world. A salad bowl has replaced the mixing bowl, as a metaphor for the American experience. Ignoring the economic consequences, Cassandras argue the world needs fewer not more people, and that capitalism creates economic unfairness. Yet, according to an NBC poll, cited by Frank Bruni in The New York Times in November, 71% of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track, a sense of pessimism reflected in Census Bureau numbers that showed the U.S.’s population gain in 2020 was the lowest increase on record. 

 

…………………………………………………..

 

What is wanted in this fractious political environment, where sanctimonious politicians belittle opponents and politicize issues like infectious diseases and climate change, is an injection of common sense, leavened with the good feelings and optimism of a President Reagan, who spoke of a bright future, a “shining city on a hill.” The reality is that the United States is a good nation with a diversity of free people, who have been infused by progressives with self-hatred and self-doubt. In truth, we are a mixing bowl, not a salad bowl. In 2015, 17% of marriages were interracial, up from 3% in 1967. In that same year, 39% of U.S.-born Hispanic and 46% of U.S.-born Asian marriages were between spouses of different races and ethnicities. In 1960, about 5% of U.S. women had a college degree. In 2020, that number was 38.3 percent. In 1992, among working blacks, 15.9% held a bachelor’s degree. By 2018, that number had increased to 31.2 percent. The U.S. has never claimed to be perfect, but its attractions and promises make it the most sought-after nation in the world for immigrants. We can achieve an era of good feelings. But our republic, based on ancient Western ideals, cannot be left to professionals. It requires the participation of the people.

 

In the December 27, 2021 issue of National Review, Peter Wood wrote: “The West, in its ideals, is a universal culture open to all, but always on the condition that those who hope to enter it recognize its unceasing demand to reach for those ideals that promise unity...” Political ugliness doesn’t have to prevail. We can, and we should, be optimistic for the future. But it requires study, confidence, effort and wisdom.

"Lockdown v. COVID-19"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Lockdown v. COVID-19”

April 15, 2020

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

                                                                                    Hanlon’s Razor

Murphy’s Law Book Two, 1980

                                                                                    Attributed to Robert J. Hanlon

                                                                                    Scranton, Pennsylvania

                                                           

The world has seen other pandemics, but the response to COVID-19 has been unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It is said we should not put a price on a life. Yet, that happens every day. Emergency rooms constantly make life and death decisions. When a hospital suspends a cancer treatment in favor of a COVID-19 patient, a life and death decision has been made. The closing of a food processing plant in Iowa or the downsizing of a shipping facility in Newark, both for fear of spreading COVID-19 are decisions that will likely cause starvation in underdeveloped countries. Every action has a consequence.

Experts in the field of epidemiology scare us through words. On Monday evening, listening to the president of New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. David Reich, I grew fearful. He spoke of pathogens and their mutability, and of molecular biology and infections. He lost me in his vocabulary. A friend sent a blog written by Dr. Erin Bromage who teaches at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. Dr. Bromage wrote of how a single cough releases 3,000 droplets that travel across a room at 50 mph, while a sneeze releases 30,000 droplets that travel across the same room at up to 200 mph. If an infected person coughs or sneezes, 200,000,000 virus particles could be released. It’s enough to scare the bejesus out of the most fearless – that is until one realizes that any expert, in using unfamiliar words, can frighten someone less knowledgeable. As well, we ignore the fact that in our lifetimes, we have been exposed to trillions of virus particles. Perspective and common sense are needed. For example, each cubic meter of air contains ten trillion molecules, and each human is host to about 300 parasitic worms and 70 species of protozoa, many of which are employed in fighting infections. We are complicated beings who through millions of years of evolution have developed sophisticated immune systems. There is much we know, but more we don’t.

As accurate as what Dr. Reich said and what Dr. Bromage wrote, they do not change the fact that politicians unleashed an even deadlier response. We count those who die from COVID-19, but we ignore those who suffer and die from despair, depression and loneliness. It is balance we should seek. John Kass, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune recently wrote: “All I see is the imposition of extremes. Those of us who want to get the country back to work are portrayed as selfish fools who Just Want People to Die. And those who never want the lockdown to end are dismissed as fearful Coronavirus ‘Karens,’ peering through their windows, calling the police if they see someone walking on the street without a mask.”

The actor Matthew McConaughey, in a recent interview, spoke of the need for unity to fight COVOD-19, as Americans unified during World War II to fight Nazism and Japanese Imperialism. But his analogy is false. World War II was fought to combat assaults on freedom and western culture. Today we fight a virus. As well, the economic differences between then and now are enormous. Unemployment in the U.S. in 1940 was 14.7 percent. By 1943 it had declined to 1.9 percent. That crisis put people to work. Unemployment in December 2019 was 3.5 percent. Today it has risen to 14.7 percent. This crisis has seen unemployment soar. Last weekend, the editors of the Wall Street Journal wrote, “…this is the fastest jobs collapse in modern history.” COVID-19 is a virus that attacks, most aggressively, specific segments of our population – the elderly and the health-impaired. That is not to say other segments are immune. They are not. But we should be unified in our intent to protect the most vulnerable; we should be unified in our efforts to get the economy back on track, and we should be unified in our desire to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to avoid what Alexis de Tocqueville warned as the “soft despotism” of unnecessary rules and regulations.

The economic consequences have been devastating. On April 14, CNBC estimated 7.5 million small businesses, 25% of all small businesses in the U.S., were at risk of closing. On the day earlier, MarketWatch, a website providing financial information, put the number at 43 percent. The valuation of all U.S. public equities has declined $6.5 trillion, negatively affecting 160 million Americans who have investments in retirement plans. A study released on May 4, 2020 by the nonprofit research institute JustFacts concluded: “…the total loss of life from all societal responses [world-wide] to this disease is likely to be more than ninety times greater than that prevented by the lockdowns.” They are referring, in particular, to food shortages in developing nations, a consequence of food processing plant shutdowns and disruptions to food deliveries. Consider borrowings. Three trillion dollars have already been appropriated by Congress. The House wants an additional three trillion dollars, a third of which would be earmarked for states to help bailout over-extended pension obligations. To put those dollars in perspective: during three and a half years of World War II, the U.S. spent $350 billion – $5 trillion in today’s dollars. We will spend more to fight this virus than we spent to conduct World War II.

The what of what happened is well known; it is the why that should focus our attention, and not only the why of the virus. Why shut the world down? Why take such draconian measures? Why did we listen to Cassandras using models with false inputs? We are told we must obey the science. But whose? Yours or mine? Are COVID-19 deaths undercounted or overcounted? Should we pay attention to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s flip or his flop? In the UK, according to the Office of National Statistics, all deaths in 2019 amounted to 0.0074% of the population; thus far this year (annualized through May3), they account for 0.0075% of the population. No politician likes to be called a Luddite, yet science is always a work in progress. Science has no horizon; it exists on an infinite continuum, limited only by curiosity, experimentation and risk. We have not reached the end of science, any more than we reached the end of history in 1991. Doctors agree that COVID-19 can be slowed but not contained. As Holman Jenkins wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “…pandemics in the past have ended not with the virus going away – the 1918, 1957 and 1968 strains are still with us.” We adapt to a virus’s existence.

COVID -19 is particularly toxic for the elderly and those with life-threatening diseases. Protecting the vulnerable should have been our first order. Instead, perverse incentives were offered to nursing homes to accept COVID-19 patients, thereby threatening existing patients. Hospitals were incentivized to place COVID-19 patients on ventilators, while the same hospitals were directed to suspend elective surgeries and care for cancer and heart patients, the two largest causes of death in the United States. Schools and colleges, filled with the young who are less susceptible to the ravages of the disease, were closed, as were open-air parks and beaches. A commonsensical approach was never employed. Instead, models with phony input data were used to justify oppressive measures. Jobs are determined to be either “essential” or “non-essential,” when every job is essential to him or her who is employed. As Heather MacDonald wrote in City Journal last month: “It is not the role of a state bureaucrat to decide how essential an enterprise is. That is a judgement for consumers to make. To its employees, every business is essential.” People’s rights to assemble in prayer were denied. To satisfy media and political scolds, the public good was sacrificed.