"Two Hundred and Fifty Years!"

 Happy Mothers’ Day!

 

Yesterday was the 81^st Anniversary of the unconditional surrender of Germany. That victory was followed by the re-building of Europe, led by the generosity of the United States through the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine.

 

.............................................................................

 

I recognize that Independence Day is almost two months in the future, but I don’t believe it is too early to be thinking of the magnitude of what was created in Philadelphia in 1776. 

 

Two hundred and fifty years is a long time. Two hundred and fifty years from now it will be 2276, a future as unimaginable to us as 2026 would have been to the Founders in 1776. Yet here we are, and with luck and forbearance our great-grandchildrens’ great-grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren, may be around to celebrate the quincentenary of the Declaration of Independence.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Two Hundred and Fifty Years!”

May 9, 2026

 

“Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.”

                                                                                                                George Washington (1732-1799)

                                                                                                                Letter to James Madison

                                                                                                                March 2, 1788

 

On July 4 we will celebrate the semiquincentennial (250^th anniversary) of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. This is not a celebration of the start of Revolution, which began more than a year earlier in Lexington and Concord. Nor is it to celebrate the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781. And it is not to commemorate the signing of the Constitution, which occurred in September 1787, nor to mark the ratification of the Bill of Rights by the thirteen states in June 1788. And this year’s festivities are not to memorialize the inauguration of George Washington as the new Nation’s first President in April 1789. 

 

It is the Declaration of Independence we celebrate. It represented the severance of the colonies’ obedience to the British Empire. In a speech at the University of Texas in Austin on April 15, 2026 Justice Clarence Thomas stated: “The Constitution is the means of government; it is the Declaration that announces the ends of government.” Fifty-six delegates from thirteen British colonies put their signatures to a document that terminated the political bonds that had connected them to the British Empire, then the most powerful in the world. In doing so, they pledged to each other “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Had the Revolution failed, it is likely that all fifty-six would have been hung for treason.

 

The Declaration was unique at the time (and is still so today), in that the delegates believed that “Truths” were “self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Recognizing the wisdom of James Madison, “...if men were angels, no government would be necessary,” the Declaration calls for a government to be established to secure those rights, one created by consent of the governed, and one that “...should not be changed for light and transient Causes.” The bulk of the Declaration is a list grievances, and it ends with the declaration “that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States.” 

 

Of course, given the time and place, all fifty-six delegates were white men of British heritage. Eight were immigrants, but all from the British Isles. They had an average age of forty-four, which seems young, but average life expectancy at the time was under forty. Nevertheless, there was diversity. Among them were lawyers, planters, doctors, merchants and farmers. They included both slave holders and abolitionists. While most were Protestants, their numbers included two Quakers and a Catholic.

 

From the perspective of 250 years, we can find fault with some of the men, but we should judge those who created this document by the standards of their time, and we should be cognizant of change over time. We should recognize regional differences, that travel was primitive by our standards. For example, in 1776 it took anywhere from two to four weeks to travel from Williamsburg, Virginia to Boston, Massachusetts. The Declaration was drafted by five men from five different colonies: Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, John Adams of Massachusetts, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Robert Livingston of New York, and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania. Drafting took weeks and debate was often raucous. 

 

All fifty-six delegates were sons of the Enlightenment, which by the late 18^th Century was in its final innings, with reason and science rejecting blind faith; yet the Founders believed God – not the state – to be guarantor of our unalienable rights. That belief held true for most of our Nation’s existence. In the June 7, 1944 issue of The New York Times (the day after D-Day) the editors wrote of the U.S.: “This nation was born in the only revolution in history made in the name of God.” Belief in a Higher Being persisted over the years. In November 1863, President Abraham Lincoln invoked God in his Gettysburg Address: “...that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” On June 26, 1876, celebrating the Centennial, President Ulysses Grant spoke in Washington: “...acknowledgement should be made to Almighty God for the protection and the bounties which He has vouchsafed to our beloved country.”  President Calvin Coolidge, in speaking on the Nation’s sesquicentennial on July 5, 1926, spoke of the “miracle of the birth of a new nation.” And President Gerald Ford, on the occasion of the Bicentennial Ceremony on July 4, 1976, said: “The Declaration is the Polaris of our political order – the fixed star of freedom. It is impervious to change because it states moral truths that are eternal.”

 

These men and others conceived of and created a government that still stands. It is a government composed of three separate but equal branches, designed to prevent the concentration of power. It is a nation based on law, not men. It is a government that honors individual liberty, values meritocracy, regardless of gender, skin color, or religion. And it is a government accountable to the people.

 

Today, as we remember our Country’s forefathers, belief in God is waning; there is concern that our democratic institutions are failing. Our politicians have become polarized. Our news outlets no longer report dispassionately but rather speak and write passionately in favor of one side or the other. Identity politics have divided us into victims and victimizers, the oppressed and oppressors. Sixty-two years after the Civil Rights Act was passed there are politicians who wield racism as a political tool. And, frighteningly, anti-Semitism is on the rise. There are threats, from both the left and the right, to the principles that infused the fifty-six men who met in Philadelphia 250 years ago to debate their (and our) future.  

 

Yet the draw of the United States remains strong: It is the preferred destination for migrants. Among the world’s major developed nations, its population ranks at the top in terms of diversity. Its universities are among the best in the world. Capitalism allows innovation to soar, productivity to gain, and standards of living to reach heights unimaginable to our forefathers. There is no country in the world with a population over ten million who ranks as high as the U.S. in terms of GDP per capita. Despite political bickering between Parties, and the cynicism and partisanship that that bickering gives birth to, political power has swung back and forth. In the 126 years since 1900, Republicans have served as President for 66 years and Democrats for 60. Democrats have controlled both the House and the Senate more often than Republicans but not by a large margin. Likewise, the Supreme Court has leant both towards conservatives and progressives. This dynamic indicates a country where political change is, in fact, moderate and welcomed – unlike the situations in countries from where migrants emigrate. 

 

The United States is not perfect. It is (and always has been) a work in progress. The challenge, as James Madison warned, is that men are not angels, neither the governed nor governors. It is why individual liberty and limited government, with separation of powers, have been critical to our success; it is why no branch of government should have superiority over another, and why rule of law has prevailed. Despite constant challenges, the architects of the Declaration of Independence produced a document that has guided our country for two and a half centuries. The Declaration set in motion the birth of a nation that is (and has been) exceptional, one unique in the annals of history. Those of us who live here are truly blessed.

"Our Revolutionary Origins & Today's Paternalism"

The photo – ‘Old Glory’ flying over the Old Lyme Beach Club on the evening of July 17, 2025.

 

Sydney M. Williams

https://swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Our Revolutionary Origins & Today’s Paternalism”

July 21, 2025

 

“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution

was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people;

a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations… This radical change in the

principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

                                                                                                                  Letter from John Adams to Hezekiah Niles

                                                                                                                  February 13, 1818

 

In this year of the semiquincentennial of our Declaration of Independence, have we swapped individual independence for dependence on government paternalism? 

 

Threats to democracy, a current rallying cry of the Left, have been a constant since our founding. They have come from both the right and the left. They fade, however, when exposed to unfettered free debate, and an unbiased study of the classics and our history. Today, supported by main-stream media, the Left puts the blame for such threats square on Republicans, especially those of the MAGA variety. Disallowing dissension, they wave their hands, and with crocodile tears flowing and with Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress they cite the deportation of illegal migrants, including those with criminal records, piggish billionaires, corrupt corporations and cuts to government services. It is ironic that Mr. Trump is accused of being authoritarian, when his attempts to reduce the size of government are at odds with Democrats who prefer a larger, more paternal government.

 

Beginning with Franklin Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ ninety years ago, through Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ in the 1960s, to Barack Obama’s ‘Cradle to Grave Care’ thirteen years ago, the United States has moved irrevocably toward a more paternalistic state. My point is not to argue that all federal welfare programs are wrong and should be abolished, but to point out that major entitlement programs consumed about 50% of the 2023 federal budget and are growing faster than all other programs. With total federal debt at $36.6 trillion and rising, interest expense already consumes over 13% of the federal budget, entitlement programs will be unaffordable for future generations. As well, some programs discourage aspiration, hard work, self-sufficiency and independence. Welfare reform is badly needed.    

 

While I keep a skeptical eye on MAGA Republicans, Democrats should look in the mirror as regards threats to democracy. Their demand for conformity can be seen in the expanding interest in Socialism, the ultimate in paternalism. From Bernie Sanders in the Senate to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the House, Democrat Socialists of America (DSA) rose from the ashes of the early 20th Century Socialist Party of America. Today it has 90,000 members, including an aspiring candidate for mayor of New York City, a young man who followed a privileged path to power. Socialists oppose capitalism and the personal freedom that allowed the talented and aspirant, regardless of economic and social class, to rise in our country – the magnets that attract so many to our shores.

 

Socialists abhor the concept of personal freedom; they want government to control the lives of its citizens, as well as the means of production. It is not a government of, by and for the people – it is a false promise of equal outcomes – an impossible dream. It is the political leaders in Socialist/Communist countries that are the principal beneficiaries of government, as can be seen in China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. It is they who place at risk those individual values that helped make the United States what it is – a love for freedom, a belief in the future, a willingness to work hard, honesty, and compassion for those unable to care for themselves. It is paternalism, in all its forms, that is a threat to democracy. While most Americans celebrated the July 4^th with parades, fireworks and cookouts, a few thousand American Socialists met in Chicago at an event called Socialism 2025 – a four-day conference that brought together Socialists and radical activists from around the country.

 

In this vein, the upcoming New York City Mayoral election is something to watch. A self-described Socialist and anti-Semite has become the Democrat nominee for a city that includes over two million Jews. Zohran Mamdani refuses to condemn the phrase “Globalize the Intifada,” a phrase that calls for the annihilation of Israel. Socialism is rooted in its opposition to capitalism and a belief in the concept that government should be all-powerful. Diversity to these people is limited to skin color, gender, and sexual orientation. It does not include differences in opinions, which threaten their paternalistic preferences.

 

……………………………………………….......

 

The 56 delegates from thirteen British colonies who signed the Declaration of Independence were subjects of the British Empire. In signing the document, they committed treason, putting their lives at risk. It was a revolutionary act, in the midst of a war that had begun a year earlier at a bridge in Concord, and would end five years later with Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown. The consequence was the birth of the United States, a country based on the concept that all men are created equal – that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights 

 

Our Declaration of Independence was a revolutionary response to the authoritarianism of British rule. Our Declaration acknowledged self-evident truths. It preceded our Constitution, which created a government that did, among other guarantees, assure the right to speak freely, to practice the religion of one’s choice, to protect against unreasonable search and to provide a defense against foreign enemies; the Constitution bestows on every citizen equality before the law, due process and a trial by one’s peers. It celebrates the individual. It is not paternalistic. It assumes that freedom is desired, even when requiring dedication, effort and sacrifice. The rise of Socialism is a return to authoritarian paternalism, disguised as compassionate and virtuous. Those are attributes of individuals and should be encouraged; they do not apply to governments.

 

"Missing - Trust in Government, Media and in the People"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.b;ogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Missing – Trust in Government, Media and in the People”

July 21, 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

 

On a sunny but cool day in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, four months after the July 1863 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 experiment that is the United States is based upon the individual citizen being the ultimate source of power, expressed through their representatives in municipalities, states and the U.S. Congress. Granted, in times of emergency, presidents, governors and mayors have assumed exceptional powers, as did Lincoln when, in 1863, he signed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863. Nevertheless, fundamental to democracy is trust by government in the people to make the right decisions – that they know best their self-interests. Also fundamental to democracy is trust by the people in the political process. Today, trust is missing.

 

A Pew Research Center study, Public Trust in Government: 1958-2022, tells a dismal story. Over those years trust in government declined from 73% on December 1, 1958 to 20% on May 1, 2022. While there were modest increases during the Reagan and Clinton years and a spike in the immediate post-9/11 period, the trend has been down for most of those years the study covers. The decline has been across both political parties and among Independents. Interestingly, according to Pew, trust in government is lowest among whites and highest among Asians.

 

Trust in government begins with elections. There are two aspects of the electoral process: Voter registration should be easy, accessible and secure. And registrars should be certain that the candidate is who she or he claims to be and is eligible to vote. Some form of ID should be required, as it is in Connecticut. In general, Democrats claim the registration process is too onerous, and Republicans claim that too many who are not legally eligible are permitted to vote. We can argue as to whether voting is a right or a privilege, but the process should be easy, fair and honest. This should not be difficult to resolve; it simply takes both sides to admit to mutual concerns.

 

The 2020 election, held during the Covid-19 pandemic, manifested the problems of not voting at one’s precinct or by traditional absentee ballot. Complicated rules, the use of ballot drop-boxes (now declared illegal by Wisconsin’s Supreme Court) and ballot harvesting, a questionable practice used by some states, lent credence to those who questioned the 2020 results. As well, early voting, in my opinion, is a mistake. Politicians use the practice to encourage voters to go to the polls after a rousing campaign speech, at a time when emotions, not rationality, dictate decisions. Taking time to consider candidates and their policies is preferable. One should always be able to vote by absentee ballot if circumstances dictate. Nevertheless, if the process of voting is not trusted, people will not trust the politicians elected to office.

 

And they don’t. An ABC/Ipsos Poll conducted In January showed that only 20% of the public say they are confident about our electoral system, down from 37% in 2021, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll. While Republicans are less confident of election integrity than Democrats or Independents, only 30% of Democrats and 20% of Independents trust our system of elections – a sad commentary on the world’s oldest democracy. 

 

Politicians, and the media who cover them take no prisoners. There is no civility, no Robert’s Rules of behavior, no “according to Hoyle.” The news we get today on television would be unrecognizable to Lowell Thomas, John Cameron Swayze, Walter Cronkite, or Eric Sevareid. In terms of trust in the media, a Reuters poll from last July found the United States ranked last of 46 countries surveyed. (A Gallup poll released three days ago showed further declines in Americans’ confidence regarding news sources.) This is a self-inflicted wound. For example, hard as it is to believe, but the Washington Post and The New York Times received Pulitzers for their reporting on the alleged “Russian collusion,” which claimed Mr. Trump colluded with Mr. Putin during the 2016 Presidential campaign. When the Mueller investigation found no such collusion, the prizes were not rescinded nor was any apology issued. This was not investigative journalism; it was propaganda. People watch, listen to and read news that supports their opinions. 

 

The nation is divided, a consequence of politicians compartmentalizing the electorate for easier access and abetted by a media that sees extremism as an easier route to profits. The January 6 committee exemplifies the problem. No matter one’s feelings about Donald Trump and the intent of those in the mob that descended on the Capitol, this is not an impartial investigation into the events of that day. It is a one-sided inquisition, without due process. Members of the committee were selected by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with no input from Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy. Witnesses were not cross examined. The committee is manifestation of why there is so little trust in government.

 

The wide and excessive use of mandates by government in reaction to Covid-19 suggested a lack of trust in people to behave in their own self-interest. It is not that people always decide correctly, but on balance they do, for the instinct to survive is strong. In foreign policy, relations with allies depend on mutual trust. Once lost, trust is hard to retrieve. Think Afghanistan and a failure to follow up on the Abraham Accords.

 

What will turn the situation around? I don’t know and am not sure it can be turned. We do not get straight news from the press. And the corruption in Washington’s swamp is well known. The number of politicians who have used public office for private gain is legion – the temptation is too great. The highest paid journalists on the right and on the left are those who are most extreme. John Adams wrote to a John Taylor in 1814 that “there has never been a democracy that did not commit suicide.” Man, including those in politics and the media, is an imperfect creature, subject to vanity, pride, selfishness, greed and dishonesty. It is why the Founders insisted on a government with checks and balances.

 

Now, the loss of trust signals our decline. It is sad because trust is instinctive – we are born with it – and it is not limited to humans. A puppy trusts its mother to protect and feed him, as does a new-born foal, or a newly hatched osprey. And a new-born baby trusts its mother to protect and nurture it. Trust is inherent in families, schools, sports, business transactions. “Trust but verify” was a term President Reagan used regarding nuclear disarmament, which showed rationality. But trust goes deeper. It may be an abstraction, but it is the fundamental building block of a democracy. Without it, we revert to anarchy or dictatorship.

"The Boy Who Cried Wolf"

 Two lessons come with Republican Glenn Youngkin’s victory in Virginia: One, Republicans should stick to issues, such as education, which are more important to voters than personalities, and two, endorsements by Donald Trump are fine, as long as he does not campaign in the candidate’s district.

 

New Jersey, as I write, is still too close to call.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Boy Who Cried Wolf”

November 3, 2021

 

“Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you

start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible.”

                                                                                                       Michael Crichton (1942-2008)

                                                                                                       American author & filmmaker

                                                                                                       Michelin Lecture, Caltech, January 17, 2003

 

The moral of Aesop’s fable of the boy who cried wolf is that false cries for help mean real calls for help will be ignored. A climate apocalypse has been forecast for years, sometimes by the well-intentioned but naïve looking to do good, but often by the cynical seeking political or personal advantage. 

 

Two years ago, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, recognizing that global temperatures are indeed rising, compiled a list of dire climate predictions that did not happen. Here is a sample: In 1969, the Nobel winning German scientist, Paul Ehrlich predicted that everybody would “disappear in a cloud of blue steam.” In 1974 Time Magazine warned that “space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast.” The New York Times in 1978 reported that an “international team of specialists” feared the world would experience a never-ending “cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere.” Over the next ten years, Cassandras changed their forecasts from cooling to warming: An Associated Press headline from 1989 read, quoting UN officials: “Rising seas could obliterate nations.” And who could forget Al Gore’s 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth, in which he predicted that Artic ice would be gone in seven years. Today, doomsayers blame every forest fire, drought and hurricane on anthropological-caused climate change.

 

I am not a climate change denier. In fact, I know of no one who is. The term is used by climate disciples to belittle heretics who dare question the dogma that man alone is at fault for a warming planet. They are ruthless in their treatment of those skeptical of their professed causes of a changing climate. In National Geographic’s film Before the Flood, Bjørn Lomborg is listed as one of the ten most prominent “climate deniers.” Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and, in my opinion, the most reasonable voice on the subject. He begins every interview by repeating that he believes the Earth is warming. His sin is that he uses empirical evidence, logic and common sense to demonstrate that claimed apocalyptic consequences are more hyperbole than factual, which he explains in his 2020 book False Alarm. Fostering panic over climate change gets Progressives elected, sells books and movies and abets corporate welfare for renewable sources of energy. But for the rest of us, it does more harm than good.

 

Nobody really knows the costs of climate change, but it is not cheap. “Analysts,” according to an article in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal, “say as much as $150 trillion is likely needed over the next three decades to fund renewable energy projects, upgrade electric grids, mothball fossil fuel plants, seed new agricultural technologies, and pay for damages tied to climate change.” The questions have always been: What are the economic and social costs of doing nothing versus the economic and social costs of holding the rise in temperature below two degrees Celsius? And, is that possible? Regardless, funds will be needed. The job of convincing the world’s banks of the urgency of adjusting their loan portfolios to accommodate what politicians are calling for has fallen to Mark Carney, former head of central banks in Canada and the UK, and now the United Nation’s point man on climate-change finance.

 

It was the Industrial Revolution, which raised living standards for all fortunate to live in countries affected, that caused man-made emissions of CO2. And it has been that wealth over the years that has enabled the problem to be addressed. Assuring future economic growth is the best antidote to the problems of climate change (and of poverty). Policies that hinder growth, such as raising the cost of energy, whether in developing or developed nations, will harm living standards. We should all take responsibility for how we live our lives, which means being environmentally sensitive. But leaders must avoid fomenting a class war. We must recognize that the poor, whether individuals or nations, need affordable sources of energy to improve lives. Feel-good corporate welfare, in contrast, funds favored businesses in exchange for political support and boondoggles that are more spectacle than substance. 

 

A meeting of the G-20 in Rome last weekend preceded the United Nations’ 26^th Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow. Leaders of five countries (China, Russia, Mexico, Japan and Saudi Arabia) failed to show up. Those five countries represent just over 40% of all CO2 emissions, according to worldometer. The meeting in Glasgow brought together between 20,000 and 25,000 politicians, officials and businesspeople from about 140 nations, fifty fewer than met in Paris in 2015. Nevertheless, London’s Daily Record estimated on Sunday that “more than 400 private jets will blast 13,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere…which will produce more global warming gas than 1600 Scots burn through in a year.” 

 

In Rome, President Biden brought with him seven cabinet officers, including Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior and Transportation. He traveled in an 85-car motorcade for a one-on-one meeting with the Pope. All vehicles had been shipped to Italy, with some shipped on to Scotland before heading back to the U.S. Perhaps such grandeur was felt necessary, but it seemed excessive and insensitive when the subject was man-caused climate change. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would have united in condemning such a monarchial display by the President.

 

With the exception of a trade agreement with the EU on steel and aluminum, most news reports said the Rome meetings failed to live up to expectations. In an interview with the Associated Press, Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa said of the G20 meeting in Rome: “The world’s biggest economies comprehensively failed to put climate change on the top of the agenda ahead of COP26 in Glasgow.”

 

On the Glasgow conference’s opening day, Jeremiah’s continued with dire predictions. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who hosted the meeting, likened the challenge to a James Bond “doomsday,” saying time was running out to save the world from global warming: “this is not a movie – and the doomsday device is real.” He warned that, in the worst-case predictions, cities like Miami, Alexandria and Shanghai could be lost “beneath the waves.” Johnson was followed by Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the UN. He said we are “digging our own grave.” The Prince of Wales, told the world leaders that “time has quite literally run out.” At some point, doomsayers will be right. The Earth had a beginning. It will have an end. Scientists have estimated that that time is probably a billion or two billion years in the future, based on a six or seven-billion-year life.  A changing climate is a prospect for which we must be prepared. But rather than giving a false sense of hope that we can forestall the inevitable, we should focus on adaption. What happens if we hit net zero in terms of CO2 emissions and climate continues to warm…or cool? Those who issue calls of doom would be wise to re-read the story of the boy who cried wolf.

"The Derek Chauvin Verdict - Three Lessons"

                                                                  Sydney M. Williams 

Thought of the Day

“The Derek Chauvin Verdict – Three Lessons”

April 21, 2021

 

This is spontaneously written; so please excuse it if it is not well expressed.

 

The first lesson is that police, if they use excessive force that turns lethal, will be held accountable. The police operate in a milieu that most of us would find difficult, if not impossible. Decisions, often, must be made in split seconds. But they are human, and mistakes can be made. And, as in every other profession, there are “bad apples.” But how many of you would want to swap professions with a policeman? Without a police force anarchy would reign. Nevertheless, they must be held accountable and, whenever possible, exercise restraint.

 

The second lesson is for the youth of our country. Avoid the use of illegal drugs, for they lead to crime and crime to apprehension by police. George Floyd would not have been arrested had he not been on drugs and had not tried to pass a counterfeit bill. Young people must develop a purpose; they must recognize the value of diligence, hard work and respect for others, including the law.

 

The third lesson is for politicians and the media: Trust the jury system and don’t interfere in its process. Interference can lead to a mistrial. Of course, there are rigged juries, corrupt lawyers and judges. But, on balance our system of a jury of one’s peers has worked well. Members of the jury are the only ones who have listened to the entire trial and then debated the merits of the prosecution and defense. Trust them to do the right thing. Trust them but watch them.

 

Everyone charged with a crime deserves a defense. In 1770, John Adams, then a thirty-four-year-old lawyer in Boston and a committed patriot, agreed to defend eight British soldiers and their officer in charge for murdering five colonists in what was called the “Boston Massacre.” The British soldiers were acquitted. It was the law that acquitted them. Our Country is not perfect, but it is more equitable, just and fairer than most any other. Most of us, no matter our origins, would rather live here than in any other country.

"Uncommon Common Sense"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Uncommon Common Sense”

January 19, 2020

“Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom.”

                                                                                                Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834)

                                                                                                Literary Remains, Volume 1

                                                                                                Edited Henry Nelson Coleridge, 1836

At some point in the mid 1950s I attended a party at Dr. Edwin Land’s summer home in Peterborough, New Hampshire. I was fifteen and Dr. Land’s thirteen-year-old daughter was my girlfriend. I found myself listening to three or four learned men trying to define horse sense. There was no unanimity. Having grown up with horses, I knew they were not the most intelligent of animals, but I also knew they had enough sense to seek shelter when it rained and come to the barn when hungry for grain. They had (and have) common sense. Horse sense and common sense are born of the same mother, though I was too intimidated to say anything 65 years ago. Webster’s agrees. Horse sense is defined: “the ability to make good judgements.” W. C. Fields also agreed, when he said that “horse sense is a thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people.” Besides providing a horse laugh, there is a lesson in that adage.

Coleridge was right. Wisdom is the exercise of common sense. Wisdom is rare, especially in politicians who choose political correctness (the world as they would like it to be, not as it is), identity politics (segregation over unity), and victimization (the passing of blame rather than the assuming of responsibility). Common sense bases judgements on empirical evidence, on “self-evident truths,” as Robert Curry wrote in his book Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World. Meanwhile, politicians appeal to emotions, not reason, for example getting attendees pumped at rallies, which common sense says is a reason not to allow early voting.

“Facts,” as John Adams is supposed to have said, “are stubborn things.”  Nobody in Washington seems to worry about deficit spending even in a period of economic growth, yet last year’s deficit of just under a trillion dollars is equal to $3,000 per person. The published national debt is an obligation of $80,000 for every man, woman and child in the nation. When one adds in the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security, per person debt rises to $380,000. Facts tell us that our population is aging – that the number of workers is shrinking, while the number of retirees is expanding. Yet, the six candidates for President in last week’s debate in Iowa were interested only in programs that would add to the deficit, add to the national debt and add to unfunded liabilities. Even the Republican Party, the party supposedly of thrift seems to care little about running a fiscally responsible administration. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: “How did we get so stupid so soon?”

Listening to those candidates in Iowa talk about the economy, one would conclude prospects are grim for lower income folks and depression is around the corner. They claimed things have worsened for lower income workers since Mr. Trump took office. Yet facts tell a different story. Unemployment, at 3.5%, is the lowest in fifty years. Employment for Blacks and Hispanics is the highest on record. Last year, income gains for the bottom tenth of workers rose faster than income gains for the top ten percent – something that never happened during the Obama years. Net worth gains for the bottom half of households have risen 47% since the 2016 election, according to the Wall Street Journal. U.S. GDP, in the first three years of the Trump administration, has risen 30% faster than it did during the last seven years of the Obama administration. And, take the Trump Tax Reform Bill: When Democrats shed crocodile tears over the unfairness of the Bill, were (are) they thinking of the 20% reduction in rates for median households, or were (are) they really concerned that deductions for state and local taxes were limited to $10,000? Keep in mind, for plutocrats in California, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut – those making two million dollars – the limit has cost each $100,000 or more. Between Democrats and Republicans debate, whose policies have done more for working people, and which party is appealing to common sense and which to sensibilities, as Jane Austen might have asked?  

Or take the killing of Qassim Soleimani. Here was a man that all facts demonstrated had been implicated in the deaths of thousands of Americans and even more Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Lebanese and even fellow Iranians. Yet, the Left found it more palatable to see him as a martyr, a Martin Luther King, or, at a minimum, an Iranian politician deserving of respect. His death became a rallying point to curb the ability of the American President to respond to imminent, or even not so imminent, threats. And what about the problems of illegal immigration, border walls and sanctuary cities? There are, by some estimates, thirty million illegals in this country. And there are those who do not see this as a problem, financially, socially and culturally? Does it not make sense to control immigration? It is not a question of not wanting immigrants. We need them for the jobs they perform  and for what they offer the Country. We need, in my opinion, more legal immigrants. But should not all of us want to control the process? A wall may not be the only (or even the best) answer, but it won’t increase the flow of illegals. Sanctuary cities break federal law. Would it be okay if a city in Idaho or Texas broke federal laws regarding the carrying of firearms? Or should mayors and governors enforce only those federal laws they like? Should judges be allowed to make laws, or should that be the responsibility of legislatures, or a referendum voted on by the people? Was not our government, a nation of laws, set up on the principle of three independent branches, with clear and distinct responsibilities – a legislature to enact laws, an executive to administer them and a judiciary to interpret them. Each branch serves as a check on the other two. Common sense says that the answers to these questions are not complicated. The problem is, as Will Rogers once said, “Common sense ain’t common.”

But it is in the politicization of our changing climate where common sense is most needed, yet it is where it has been abandoned most ardently. Michael Moore and Al Gore made fortunes predicting catastrophes that never happened. Admittedly, there is a small coterie who do not believe that man has any affect on climate. But man is not the only cause of climate change. Why, for example, did global temperatures decline during the 1940s when the world was engulfed in the spewing of toxic gasses from bombs and vehicles during World War II. (According to a May 2007 edition of NewScientist, global temperatures dropped 0.02 degrees during the decade.) There are millions of people in our ivy-coated universities and colleges who do not seem to understand the power of nature. They appear unaware of the way in which the world has changed over millions of years, of tectonic shifts that have caused continents to shift, mountains to rise and shorelines to move – all long before man began spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Consider the energy produced from volcanoes, like the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington that produced energy equal to 1,600 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Or think of the fact that one average hurricane crossing the Atlantic produces the energy equivalent to approximately half the electrical generating capacity of the planet. Nature is still more powerful than man. Common sense says we shouldn’t live in the path of hurricanes or within the range of volcanoes, yet populations living in coastal areas continue to expand at a rate 50% above the national average. And, we should not forget, technology has improved conditions in the U.S. Since 2005, carbon emissions have fallen 14% while GDP has increased 50%. Why? It had nothing to do with the 2015 Paris Agreement. The reason had to do with technology– fracking and horizontal drilling that allowed cleaner natural gas to replace oil and the capture of carbon emissions from coal plants. Energy from solar and wind will continue, and we should encourage their expansion, but today they contribute less than ten percent of our energy needs.

My point is not to argue that climate change is not real. It is and always has been. Evidence suggests the Earth is in a warming period and storms, it is claimed, are more frequent. It is the politicization of the issue that has put emotion above reason. We should focus on the elimination of pollutants not because that will affect temperatures, but because a cleaner environment is healthier and more pleasant. To believe that man can halt the increase in temperatures or cause the oceans to stop rising is to believe the sun revolves around the Earth.

If the Earth continues to warm, and to the extent natural causes are in part to blame, are we not better off to focus on adaption than seeking blame? The Country, and ultimately the world, will move away from fossil fuels, but the move should not come at the expense of economic growth, as is happening in Europe where they have not only placed their economy at risk but also their security. Energy independence has empowered the U.S., made it safer and allowed us to face global tensions with more confidence. Consider the difference between the U.S. and Europe. With North Sea wells drying up, Europe imports its energy needs from Russia, the Middle East and Africa. Yet, we read that the amount of shale gas in Europe is thought to exceed that in the U.S. As well, they have given up on nuclear power. Is it not realistic to believe that European energy companies would be more environmentally friendly than those in Russia, the Middle East or Africa? It is a lack of common sense that prevents them from tapping their own resources and building nuclear power plants. A lack of energy independence has made Europe hostage to a hostile Russia and a volatile Middle East and Africa. In the meantime, with an aging and shrinking populations, their economies have been anemic since the 2008 credit crisis.

My father used to tell me to never argue with a dope, because a passerby could not distinguish one from the other. Thomas Paine is alleged to have said something similar: “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” Politics is the search for and the exercise of power. As it has descended into a morass of emotionalism and away from reason, it has made our lives increasingly divisive. Our universities should be bastions of search, reason and debate. Instead, they have become advocates for passion and histrionics. The same can be said about our media. The search for truth and sense has been abandoned. “Common sense is not so common,” Voltaire reminded us in his A Pocket Philosophical Dictionary. The responsibility of educators and pundits should be to make common sense more common.