Saturday, July 18, 2026

"What Day Is It?"

 I am always amazed that so many of our American youth fail to recognize how good is the life they have. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it fair to all? Again, of course not. Our nation is – and always has been – a work in progress. But we all have choices and opportunities, which many people in other nations do not have. And we all have responsibilities, to ourselves and to others. When we look back at the lives of our parents and grandparents, the ease and comfort of our lives is something they could not have foreseen. Innovation and progress are bi-products of those fortunate to live in a capitalistic society, in a nation of laws, governed by men and women chosen by the free people who live here. 

 

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

 

Enough sermonizing, however. As I get older, I find myself increasingly interested in whimsy, thus the attached essay. The photograph is of a deer who recently visited our daughter and her family in Rye, New York. Lying next to a tombstone carved by my mother a hundred years ago for one of her dogs, the deer – perhaps Bambi’s mother? – is unconcerned as to what day it is.

 

Sydney M. Williams



 

More Essays from Essex

“What Day Is It?”

July 18, 2026

 

“What day is it?” asked Pooh.

“It’s today.” squeaked Piglet.

“My favorite day.” Said Pooh.

A.A. Milne

                                                                                                        From the 1999 direct-to-DVD video

                                                                                                         “Sing a Song with Pooh Bear”

 

A few days ago I was speaking with an old high school classmate about the title of a whimsical essay I was pondering: “What Day Is It?” He told me that his wife, upon awakening on the first morning of her retirement as Chief Justice of Colorado’s Supreme Court, asked the same question. It is one many of us ask when relieved of the harness of an occupation.

 

Time is a funny thing. Retired, I can lounge in a chair, listen to birds sing as clouds float by, wondering what’s for dinner and thinking I have all the time in the world, which at 85 I do not. Yet there are atomic clocks, which are used with defense systems, and for bank payments and stock trades, etc., that must coordinate with other atomic clocks and must be accurate within 100 millionth of a second. And we retirees are indifferent as to what day it is!

 

Like Alice in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, I am confused. The White Queen speaks to Alice on rules about jam – that we can have jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but not today: “It’s jam every other day; today isn’t any other day, you know.” It is confusing! Tomorrow, today will be yesterday! 

 

When working, I had a routine. The alarm would go off at 5:00am weekday mornings. After ablutions, I would drive to the station for the, roughly, forty-five-minute trip to the office. I always knew what day of the week it was. I had to. Monday was a fresh start, a day of infinite possibilities. Thursday was Friday in disguise – you could taste the oncoming weekend. On Saturday, I could sleep in. 

 

Now, in retirement, there is no need to sleep in, because I did so yesterday. One has time to consider momentous questions. For instance, why are there seven days to a week? Why is Monday called Monday and Wednesday, Wednesday? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it was the Roman Emperor Constantine who established, in the 4thCentury AD, the calendar we use, one based on the same seven celestial bodies used by the Babylonians 4300 years ago – the sun, the moon, and the five visible planets.

 

But do I really care that Sunday was named after the sun, or that Thursday was named after the Nordic god Thor, the counter-part to the Roman god Jupiter? No. When someone asks me, what day is it? I answer: it’s a day that ends in a “y.” 

 

“What day is it?” It isn’t yesterday, and it’s not tomorrow. I am reminded, once again, of Lewis Carroll and Father William: “Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?/ Be off, or I’ll kick you down-stairs!”

Labels: , ,

Monday, March 3, 2025

"Doubt and Skepticism"

 Friday’s disastrous meeting in the White House is a reminder of how doubt and skepticism can help us observers, and our political leaders. Certainly, there was enough blame for each of the three participants – President Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, and Vice President J.D. Vance – to take a share. Besides watching a re-run of the events on YouTube, I read twenty interpretations of the afternoon’s events, from all perspectives. Yet, I am still unsure how best to allocate blame. It is common knowledge that Mr. Trump is thin-skinned and likes to be praised. Mr. Zelensky is stubborn and theatrical – look at how he dresses. Mr. Vance is smart but immature, at least in matters of diplomacy.

 

All three made mistakes in that Oval Office meeting, but especially, in my opinion, Mr. Vance. He should have kept quiet. In debate or argument, Mr. Trump, right or wrong, does not need defending. He often digs himself into a hole, but just as often extracts himself. Mr. Zelensky would have been better served to have kept quiet, not argue with Mr. Vance, and let the offered deal play out. Mr. Trump, as everyone knows, shoots from the hip, but he is also quick to walk back what he has said. I feel confident he knows that Putin is a dictator and that Zelensky is not. Was he wrong to imply otherwise? Of course. But did Mr. Zelensky believe he could win over Mr. Trump by publicly disagreeing with him and his Vice President? It would seem so. Contrast Mr. Zelensky’s behavior with that of Emanuel Macron and Keir Starmer when they met with Mr. Trump.

 

Nevertheless, there is doubt in my mind as to who bears most responsibility.

 

I hope you find this essay of interest.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Doubt and Skepticism”
March 3, 2025

 

“The greater the artist, the greater the doubt. Perfect

confidence is granted to the less talented as a consolation prize.”

                                                                                                                                Robert Hughes (1938-2012)

                                                                                                                                Australian author & art critic

                                                                                                                                “Modernism’s Patriarch”

                                                                                                                                Time Magazine, June 10, 1996

 

“Our doubts are traitors and cause us to miss

the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.” 

                                                                                                                                Lucio speaking to Isabella

                                                                                                                                Measure for Measure, 1604

                                                                                                                                William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

 

As the two epigraphs infer, doubt is personal. In her Unabridged Journals of Sylvia Plath, the American poet wrote “The worst enemy to creativity is self-doubt.” On the other hand, in The Selected Letters of Tennessee Wiliams, the playwright is quoted: “I don’t believe anyone ever suspects how completely unsure I am of my work…”

 

………………………………………………………….

 

Doubt, including self-doubt, and skepticism are not synonymous but are related. Doubt can be defined as uncertainty regarding one’s abilities (as Lucio infers). It also serves as questioning one’s judgement (as Robert Hughes suggests). It is intuitive, reflecting a lack of knowledge, as Thomas wanted proof of Jesus’ resurrection. On the other hand, a skeptic is one with an open mind who questions the truth of something stated or alleged, or at least who defers judgement until more facts are available.

 

This is not to argue that belief in one’s self is uncommon. When a youth, I was not skeptical about much and had few self-doubts. Many of us were raised on the American folktale, The Little Engine that Could. Theodore Roosevelt, allegedly, expressed a similar sentiment: “Believe you can and you’re halfway there.” All good advice, so long as it does not morph into cockiness, arrogance, or conceit. As I grew older, I read and thought more, I became more skeptical. I recall, when a teenager, the president of a brokerage firm who told me that the longer he worked in the business the less he felt he knew about finance.

 

Self-doubt is often a positive. Fyodor Dostoevsky struggled with doubt. In an 1855 letter to his friend Natalya Fonvizina, he wrote: “…the mind which does not labor will wither.”[1]Recently, I had a conversation with an old school friend, now living in Denver, and told him of my struggle with this essay. He reminded me of “Pascal’s Wager”[2] – that even if one cannot definitively prove the existence of God, it is better to believe in Him, as the potential benefits outweigh the risks of being wrong. Believe you can do it, he said.

 

But it is for our political environment I am most concerned, where skepticism has been overwhelmed by a tidal wave of hubris. In a 1901 letter to the Swiss professor of Greek and history Jost Winteler, the 22-year-old Albert Einstein wrote: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” In our hyper politically-polarized world, neither doubt nor skepticism is widely extant. Instead there is an attitude of “either you’re with me or you’re against me.” This fractionalization has set brother against brother and friend against friend. Conservative students are hesitant about speaking out. In schools and universities, speech that is deemed “harmful” is disallowed. The dogmatism of progressives on the left and ardent Trump supporters on the right are notably void of skepticism.

 

At the risk of widening even further the gulf between conservatives and progressives, I place most (but not all) of the blame on progressives. Certainly, there are some on the right who don MAGA hats, pump fists in the air and, incoherently, raise their voices for Mr. Trump. However, most on the left do not just disagree with Donald Trump, they hate him, and they let hatred drive their responses; reason falls victim to emotion. In part, their aversion to Mr. Trump lies in his muddled syntax. Like Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter, Mr. Trump speaks in unintelligible riddles. Whether he is negotiating a deal, reflecting whomever he most recently spoke to, or speaking from ignorance, I don’t pretend to know. But I suspect he is neither as stupid nor as uncompassionate as he sometimes sounds. His opponents would be wise to let skepticism replace their instinct for immediate condemnation. 

 

We witness this arrogant audacity from media disciples of both parties, especially on televised cable evening news programs, podcasts and video-sharing sites like YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion and Twitch. Social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) make it easier for viewers to limit their news to only that with which they agree. Do Rachel Maddow or Jesse Waters ever have moments of doubt, of questioning their loudly proclaimed ideologies? 

 

There are, of course, situations when conviction should be paramount – love for family, belief in freedom, and faith in God. “You are braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think,” said Christopher Robin to Pooh. But generally, skepticism is healthy and doubt drives creativity.

 

True conservatives tend to be skeptics. In 1967, the prescient Daniel Patrick Moynihan was invited to speak to the Harvard chapter of Phi Beta Kappa: “Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from life what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government agencies to do good.” Conservatives are concerned of the power that accrues to political leaders and for the tendency of the state to expand inexorably. This concern is not only because of the difficulty of paying for ever more programs, but because such growth threatens individualism, the bed-rock of conservative thought. Doubt and skepticism are generally associated with reflection, not spontaneity.

 

“Skepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind” are words attributed to educator John Dewey. Like chastity, as the philosopher George Santayana is alleged to have once said, it [skepticism] should not be relinquished too readily. Truth (the holy grail of the skeptic) is illusive, perhaps never to be discovered; it is the search that is important.  

 

 

 

 

 

 







[1] As quoted by Gary Saul Morson, professor of Slavic languages at Northwestern University, in the February 28 issue of The Wall Street Journal.

[2] Blaise Pascal, 17th Century French philosopher.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, June 5, 2024

"The Verdict - Some Thoughts"

 It is unusual for me to send an essay in the afternoon, but circumstances make it more palatable. Early tomorrow morning, my wife and I have a Pilates class. Friday morning I am hoping to send an Essay from Essex, “Things Our Grandchildren Will Never Know.” Later that morning, we are driving up to my 65th high school reunion.

 

…………………………………………………………

 

Eighty years ago tomorrow about 133,000 Allied troops sailed across the English Channel on approximately 7,000 vessels, accompanied by 11,000 planes to attack five beaches on the Normandy coast – Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword. The purpose: to liberate Europe from Nazism. They were met by around 50,000 German troops who manned machine guns above the beaches, firing down on disembarking soldiers who also had to contend with heavy equipment and mined beaches. 4,414 Allied soldiers died on that first day, including 2,501 Americans – men who gave their lives on blood-soaked beaches thousands of miles from families and homes, so that others – people they never met – might live freely. The commemoration tomorrow marks one of the greatest sacrifices any people have ever made. 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“The Verdict – Some Thoughts”

June 5, 2024

 

“’Let the jury consider the verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’”

                                                                                                                           Alice in Wonderland, 1946 (my copy)

                                                                                                                            Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

 

While the charges against Donald Trump were more severe than stealing tarts, there is no question that the trial was politicized. And there is a question as to whether he received due process, as explained by David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley[1] in the June 5, 2024 edition of The Wall Street Journal. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump was convicted by a jury of twelve ordinary people, seven men and five women, a panel of jurors agreed to by both prosecution and defense. Like it or not, their decision is something we should respect. As British Member of Parliament Daniel Hannani wrote recently in The Telegraph: “Laws on their own are not enough. A free society rests also on conventions, precedents, unwritten rules. Losers are expected to accept the result, winners to exercise restraint.”

 

But jurors are not omniscient and judges have biases, which is why our legal process allows for appeals, and one can certainly expect Mr. Trump’s lawyers to appeal the decision, and we are free to argue as to whether the charges should have been brought in the first place. The law is not perfect, but justice is supposed to be blind; it should not be weaponized for political gain. Regardless, a civilized society must accept a trial’s outcome, just as it must accept the decision of elections, else anarchy reigns and totalitarianism looms. There is a process that should be followed.

 

The outcome of the trial in “deep blue” Manhattan was predictable; though many of us hoped for a Henry Fonda-like character from 12 Angry Men to appear among the jurors, to at least create a hung jury. That did not happen. However, the consequences of the decision to try Mr. Trump in the first place may have the most long-lasting effect. Alvin Bragg, the New York County District Attorney who led the prosecution, had campaigned for office by claiming, in words reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s Lavrentiy Beria (or emanations from the Queen of Hearts), that he would prosecute Donald Trump – first the man, then the crime. He did, and he won. But did he let the genie of more political dissension escape from the bottle?

 

As the first prosecution of a presidential candidate, the trial set a precedent and will be studied for years by legal scholars. Perhaps we have crossed a Rubicon? We will have, if it becomes standard to try political opponents, in order to keep them off the campaign trail and the ballot. We will have forsaken our liberal constitutional heritage, and we will have destroyed democracy. For just as no one is above the law, the law must be exercised evenly and equitably. There is risk that we have entered a time when political victors find it okay to try and jail their opponents – a practice common in totalitarian states like Communist China, Venezuela, and Cuba, and as it was in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in years gone by.

 

Both political parties have violated norms and to the extent that both candidates reflect the United States today, one can understand why so many feel dispirited. We once looked up to our political leaders. Can we now? Are Biden and Trump men we admire? We were once taught manners and rules of behavior; we were taught to be self-sufficient if and when able; to be responsible for our behavior; to be respectful and tolerant of others, and to practice humility and restraint when personal success was ours. Do these characteristics apply to either man? These are values once learned in homes and in schools. They should be restored.  

 

Nevertheless, I remain optimistic about our country, that reason and commonsense will prevail, that when we reflect on the uniqueness of this nation and how fortunate are we to live here, we will give thanks. But it cannot be denied that hatred has infused our society, preventing courteous discourse and reasoned debate. Our culture has become invidious. As part of a poll of 18-30-year-old registered voters, Blueprint Polling found that 65% of those polled agreed strongly or somewhat that “nearly all politicians are corrupt, and make money from their political power” – only 7% disagreed. Using public funds for private gain is the mark of a banana republic, not a representative democracy. Each side blames the other. We once thought of ourselves, first as Americans and only secondly as members of a specific political party, or of a particular ethnicity or gender. Identity politics has been a curse.

 

While our nation is not as fractured as it was in 1861, it is moving in that direction. While Democrats achieved their goal of having former President Trump convicted as a felon before the election, in doing so they further divided an already ruptured nation. Justice will not be served until appeals are made – almost certainly after the election. Nevertheless, it is fitting at this time to repeat the closing paragraph of Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural: "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

 

While this trial and its verdict, in my opinion, is a blight on our country, the United States is unique among nations. It is a “land of opportunity,” which is why so many seek these shores. We should take pride in our country. Something that we often forget is that those of us who live here are fortunate. Never forget that.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 11, 2023

"So, Who's the Liberal?"

 

Despite headlines of portending doom and schadenfreude-laden Cassandras who thrive on tales of woe, 2023 has had a decent first ten days. While internal squabbling has made House Republicans look amateurish, we should never forget that our Representatives are not expected to always march together in sync. Stocks are up about a percent and a half, the yield on the Ten-year has declined about 25 basis points, the VIX has declined modestly, and the Dollar has retained its strength. On Monday, the UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization issued a report in which they found a “significant thickening” of the ozone layer (“a bit of good news for the planet”), suggesting that perhaps our grandchildren will have a world in which they can live. Topping things off, the January 2023 issue of The Spectator published an article, “The great anti-ESG backlash,” foretelling the end of a policy that has brought political correctness to investing and bank lending, a policy that Warren Buffett has called “asinine.” And, at least for a few months, we will be rid (or mostly rid) of politicians politicking. 

 

Onward, as Charon was wont to say, as his ferry slipped its mooring on the river Hades.

 

Sydney M. Williams

https://swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“So, Who’s the Liberal?”

January 11, 2023

 

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 

“it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

 

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

 

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

                                                                                                                                Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

                                                                                                                                Through the Looking Glass, 1871

 

The word liberal reminds one of Humpty Dumpty’s proclamation. It means different things to different people. The word is polysemous. To the Left it means big government, which actively supports social change. To the Right it refers to less government interference, the endorsement of individual rights, civil liberties, and free markets. The word stems from the Latin, liber, meaning free or unimpeded. In Lewis Carroll’s story, the word that caused the skirmish was glory, when used as a verb. “They’ve a temper – some of them, particularly verbs,” Humpty Dumpty says to a puzzled Alice. The word liberal is not temperamental (at least as far as I know), but it can self-camouflage, to ambush the unsuspecting. 

 

Over the years, the Left has usurped the word. so that for most the word refers to those who prefer a large role for government in their lives, while conservatives have become deplorables, birthers, conspirators, or just plain racists or right-wing nuts. We on the right should seize the word back. In his 1953 book The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk wrote of Edmund Burke (1729-1797), of how he defended the liberties of Englishmen against their king and of Americans against king and parliament. He defended those liberties not because they were innovations, “…but because they were ancient prerogatives, guaranteed by immemorial usage. Burke was liberal because he was conservative.” (Highlights mine.)

 

It is amusing to consider how the definition of liberal has morphed over time, so that today’s social liberals consider themselves the sole owners of the word, “even as,” Daniel Henninger wrote in last Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, “they surrender to the state an array of long assumed freedoms – of opinion, speech, and privacy.” Classical liberals believe that such rights, along with “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” are natural; they are God-given. The purpose of government is to secure and ensure those rights, not to dictate social behavior.  

 

While classical (conservative) liberals emphasize the freedom of the individual to achieve his or her goals, they recognize the necessity of government in maintaining order, in protecting us from enemies, in providing a quality high school education, in ensuring a sound currency, in adjudicating differences, and in making sure that the sick and the elderly – those who cannot care for themselves – live comfortable lives. At the same time, they emphasize the dignity of work, personal independence, self-determination, personal responsibility and accountability, and the importance of thinking for oneself.

 

On the Left there are social liberals who see the state’s role as being ubiquitous, that equality should include outcomes as well as opportunities, that ease of voting should trump security of the polls (they are equally important), and that healthcare should be free for all. Their efforts have encouraged the growth of the administrative state, creating agencies with expansive legislative, regulatory, and judicial powers. Have they pushed liberalism too far? In Monday’s Wall Street Journal, Andy Kessler wrote: “Liberals, implied in the name, say they are for freedom, but are they? The progressive wing is full of authoritarians telling others what to do or how to think: America is a racist country. Wear a mask. Limit charter schools. Bees are fish (in California.)” Regulatory bodies, created by Congress and managed by unelected bureaucrats, are not accountable to the people. Their powers, however, can be unleashed – or restrained – by whomever is President. Recently courts have begun to push back, questioning, for example, the doctrine of “deference to regulators.” It is the Left that comprises the bulk of college professors and administrators, and they decide what speech and which speakers are acceptable. Social liberals control the teachers’ unions and most of mainstream and social media. In Up from Liberalism (1959), Williams Buckley (1925-2008) wrote: “Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them that there are other points of view.” Are liberals open to contrary opinions? Am I? I hope so.

 

Is it liberal to call those who question the efficacy of a vaccine anti-vaxxers? Is it liberal to denounce as deniers those who question the contention that man is the primary (or sole) reason for climate change? Is it liberal for a university liberal arts professor to deny a speaker who does not hew to a preferred political ideology? Can a liberal believe in tradition and custom? I am not sure about a social liberal, but a classical liberal would answer yes, when the question refers to long-established modes of behavior: accepted manners, respect for others, humility, and charity. But he or she would not if it meant providing advantages to preferred groups – racial, national, or ethnic – whether it is America in the 1950s or in the 2020s. Is it liberal to replace merit and achievement with identity essentialism? I think not.

 

Who is a liberal? It depends, as Lewis Carroll wrote, on who is using the word. But well-intentioned authoritarianism, whether from the Right or the Left, is not liberalism. A school friend, now living in Denver and with whom I reconnected fourteen years ago at our fiftieth reunion, writes a clever, satirical piece, The Apocryphal Press. He puts to rest the old belief among conservatives that the Left is devoid of humor. Today, we are good friends, yet we stand at opposite ends of the political spectrum. We both describe ourselves as liberals. And yet, while I believe my friend when he professes to be liberal, I see nothing liberal about policies his side backs: universities that deny conservatives the right to be heard, schools that teach gender identification to pre-teens, biased media organizations, corporations that require adherence to woke dogma, social policies that disrupt or discourage family formations, and an administration that demands social media companies comply with demands regarding vaccinations and that still fails to enforce immigration laws at the border. And I see nothing liberal about politicians – on both sides of the aisle – who lie about their backgrounds.

 

So, who is a liberal? Perhaps they have become endangered, at least in Washington.


Labels: , , , , ,

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: , ,

Thursday, October 28, 2021

"Who's in Charge?"

I have a copy of the book of cartoons I referenced. While still amusing, despite almost eighty years, the cartoons are a reminder that we need the ability to laugh at ourselves, not to take ourselves too seriously, something becoming more difficult in this age of political correctness. 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Who’s in Charge?”

October 28, 2021

 

“Who’s in charge here?”

                                                                                                                    Herblock (Herbert Lawrence Block – 1909-2001)

                                                                                                                     Editorial cartoon, Washington Post, July 18, 1979

 

My parents had a book of cartoons titled, Who’s in Charge Here? Written in 1943, it is a compilation of cartoons by George Price (1901-1995) who had started drawing for The New Yorker in 1929 and continued doing so into his 80s. While Herblock’s cartoon was aimed at President Carter, the message could be directed at today’s White House. As last Saturday’s lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal put it: “…all Presidents stumble in speech. But Mr. Biden’s frequent public confusion about the major issues of the day is a reason for the growing public concern.” If Mr. Biden is mentally unfit, who is in charge?

 

Mr. Biden’s incoherence and mental lapses should concern us. Roger Kimball, the American art critic and conservative social commentator recently posed a rhetorical question: “Is it more worrisome that Joe Biden might not be in charge, or that he actually is in charge?” The White House website states that the power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States. Including members of the armed forces, the Branch employs more than four million Americans, more than any private company, and a number that exceeds the population of the United States when George Washington became our first President. (In total, according to the Brookings Institute, the federal government employs nine million.) The White House website reads: “The President is both head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.” It is arguably the most powerful position in the world. The American people deserve to know who is in charge.  

 

It does not appear to be Joe Biden whose political reputation extends back over fifty years. During last year’s campaign, he ran as the moderate alternative to Senator’s Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. He promised, like his predecessor Warren Harding 100 years earlier, a return to “normalcy.” However, his support of Critical Race Theory and gender-neutral pronouns, and his recent proposals for a “Green New Deal,” universal basic income, a wealth tax and a five trillion-dollar budget satisfy the most radical Progressives in Congress. They remind us of Barack Obama’s pledge in late October 2008 in Columbia, Missouri, shortly before his election: “…we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” While Mr. Obama later walked back those comments, they preordained Mr. Biden’s intent to “transform” our culture, schools and economy.

 

Despite his despicable behavior to Judge Robert Bork, when he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1987, Mr. Biden, through most of his career, shied from extremism. He is, though, prone to gaffes, plagiarism and disrespectful behavior, all excused by a mainstream media more interested in promoting an agenda than in reporting hard news. He has used political connections to enrich himself and his family. His affinity for coming close to women – touching them and sniffing their hair – earned him the sobriquet “Creepy Uncle Joe.” He has been condescending about and to blacks. In 2007, he was quoted in the New York Observer regarding Barack Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean that’s a storybook, man.” In 2012, during the Presidential race, he told a largely black audience that Mitt Romney’s economic policies would “put y’all back in chains.” To Charlemagne the God on “The Breakfast Club, an American syndicated radio show, during the 2020 Presidential race, Mr. Biden said: “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or for Trump, then you ain’t black.”

 

With the exception of Donald Trump, who was falsely accused of Russian collusion by Democrats and mainstream media, Mr. Biden has become more unpopular more quickly than any President in recent history. Rasmussen puts his approval ratings at 43% and disapproval at 56%. His list of failures is long: Regulatory and monetary policies that have given rise to nascent but rampant inflation. The cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline and restrictions on fracking and offshore drilling have made the U.S. no longer energy independent and have given rise to higher gasoline and heating fuel prices. COVID restrictions kept children out of schools, and they have abetted a labor-starved supply chain, which created product shortages and kept millions of Americans sidelined. His Attorney General has accused parents of school children of being domestic terrorists. His mixed messaging about masks and vaccine mandates have created confusion with families, in places of work and in schools. In opening our southern border, he has permitted a record number of immigrants to illegally enter our country. “Defund the police” has resulted in high crime and murder rates, especially in minority sections of cities, along with low morale and an historic exodus of police officers. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan resulted in unnecessary deaths and abandoned 450 Americans to the Taliban; and it sent a message of American weakness abroad, giving rise to an obstreperous Russia and militant China. A vacuum of leadership overseas has allowed Iran to move forward on nuclear weapons and encouraged Europe to work more closely with Russia and China. Mr. Biden’s inarticulateness and refusal to answer questions have left millions in the dark as to who is piloting the ship. Given Biden’s recent polls, it is unsurprising why whoever is manipulating the puppet strings does not want to be identified. But that does not mean some one (or some cabal) is not in charge. 

 

Successful politics in a liberal democracy is always about compromise. It is what allows us to avoid being mired in an uncompromising past and prevents us from leaping unprepared into an unknown future. Compromise requires mutual respect and civility. But voters must know who represents us, not the cartoon figures provided by the media. Is Mr. Biden in charge, or is it another individual or an oligarchy that governs us? Not knowing is unfair to the American public. Consider how The New York Times and The Washington Post would report this story if it were a Republican President who had campaigned from his basement and now, as President, hides from the press. 

 

Perhaps I am wrong, and Mr. Biden has his mental faculties, and what we witness is simply a manifestation of his radical transformation. Perhaps. But most people do not become more radical as they age, and Mr. Biden will enter his eightieth year on November 20. It is more likely he is cognitively challenged, the extent of which is being kept from the American people. His interviews remind me of Lewis Carroll’s Alice (us) in her conversation with the inane Mad Hatter (Mr. Biden). The Hatter had Alice “very much confused. ‘I don’t think…’ [she says]. ‘Then you shouldn’t talk,’ said the Hatter.” Despite efforts by the Administration to confuse us with rants about climate, gender and race, we are beginning to think and to speak out, as parents in suburban Virginia have demonstrated.

 

However, the question remains unanswered: Who’s in charge?

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, January 31, 2021

"Reflections on Turning Eighty"Baltasar

 


Sydney M. Williams

 

Essays from Essex

“Reflections on Turning Eighty”

January 31. 2021

 

“At twenty, a man is a peacock; at thirty a lion; at forty a camel;

at fifty a serpent; at sixty a dog; at seventy an ape; at eighty, a nothing at all.”

                                                                                                                Attributed to Baltasar Gracián (1601-1658)

                                                                                                                Spanish Jesuit, writer and philosopher

 

On this date eighty years ago, my mother delivered a baby boy, with the assistance of Dr. Robert Salinger, at Grace New Haven Hospital. It was 3:00PM; the baby was named for his father.

 

All babies, it was once said, looked like Winston Churchill. Whether that was complimentary to Churchill or the baby, I never knew. But what was true for many was apparently also true for me. Two days before the commencement of Operation Dragoon on August 15, 1944 (the invasion of Southern France), my mother’s youngest brother, my Uncle Joe Hotchkiss, was in command of LST 601. Churchill was there to wish the men Godspeed. He stood aboard a barge that came down the column where Uncle Joe’s ship was anchored. My uncle wrote to his parents of Churchill: “Smiling and waving, he passed within fifty feet. He was in his blue playsuit looking just as much like little Sydney Williams as he could.” 

 

…………………………………………………………

 

Regarding the rubric quoted above, it hurts that a man who never made it to sixty should refer to one who has turned eighty as a “nothing at all.” Of course, when the average person meets 10,000 people in a lifetime it means I may have met approximately 0.00014% of the world’s population. Those I do know or have known may have something to say about me. The rest could care less whether I am a peacock, a camel or an ape. So perhaps Gracián was right, to most of the world I don’t exist.

 

Nevertheless, I do, and I feel good. I am healthy and blessed in my family and friends. Yesterday morning I did my regular (five days a week) series of exercises, which includes fifty crunches and twenty-five push-ups. Yet, my grandchildren look at me, knowing I am a relic of yesteryear. I can hear them reworking those lines from Lewis Carroll: “You are old Pop Pop Williams, my grandchild said, and your hair has become very white. And yet you incessantly stand on your head. Do you think at your age it is right?” Well, my hair has been white for fifty years, and I do not stand on my head. Staying upright is my focus! Nevertheless, I look forward, with chin out, to whatever the future offers. Bring it on, I say! 

 

Of course, there are things given up as one ages. For example, I gave up skiing in my seventies. One advantage of giving up something like skiing is that time and memory exaggerate past reality. I never danced down the deep powder on Vail’s Bolshoi Ballroom with the grace I see in my mind. But so what? It’s my memory. We all have a little Walter Mitty in us. And age has other advantages. It excuses one from the complexities of high tech. When I had trouble logging onto the portal my accountant wanted me to set up for my “organizer,” my complaint brought forth the following e-mail response: “Bonny, please send Sydney a paper organizer.”

 

However, eighty doesn’t seem that old, when I look back at the speed with which the years have passed. Like a roll of paper towels, time unfolds at ever-increasing rates. Was it really seventy-seven years ago that I saw my father board a train in New Haven that took him to Texas and thence to Italy with the 10th Mountain Division? Can it be that Seventy-five years have passed since I enrolled at Miss Lindeman’s school in Peterborough, New Hampshire, or that sixty-five years have gone by since I met John Harper, my roommate at Williston Academy? Has it really been fifty-seven years since the Reverend Dr. J. Burton Thomas, pronounced Caroline and me man and wife at the Church of Our Heavenly Rest in New York?  Can our youngest child be turning fifty this year?  Our grandchildren were born yesterday, so why are five of them in college? Where has time gone? Photographs remind us of what once was, just as in our memories the people we once knew live on. In his 1958 book Things Fall Apart, the Nigerian author Chinua Achebe wrote: “A man’s life from birth to death was a series of transition rites, which brought him nearer and near to his ancestors.” There is truth in that. At night, before nodding off, my mind wanders back to earlier days.

 

When I turned 30, my wife threw a birthday party. There was a sense of youth left behind for the more serious job of being a parent: recklessness, out; responsibility, in. Indicative of the age, a fight broke out in the dining room over something, the importance of which has evaporated. At 40, Caroline threw another party – less rambunctious. Our children were getting older. There is a photo of me in a cowboy hat, with a silly, bourbon-induced, grin, contemplating the onset of middle age. There were no fisticuffs, just a bunch of men and women having fun. There have been three other parties celebrating the passage of the decades, with the time between each, while numerically the same, getting shorter.

 

When we’re living through it, time passes quickly. On the other hand, the eighty years before I was born seems long ago. Consider what those years brought and how far away they seem: The Civil War and the assassination of Lincoln. Custer’s Last stand in June 1876. The assassination of two more U.S. Presidents: James Garfield in Long Branch, NJ in 1881 and William McKinley in Buffalo in 1901. Teddy Roosevelt’s ride up San Juan Hill, in 1898. Kitty Hawk, NC in 1903, with the Wright Brothers first flight. Doughboys sent to France, in 1917, to “make the world safe for democracy;” not realizing the war would give rise to Mussolini and Hitler. The “Roaring 20s” and the Great Depression. Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 and the start of World War II.  

 

In a letter to Edward Dimmitt, in July 1901, Mark Twain wrote: “Life should begin with age and its privileges and accumulations, and end with youth and its capacity to splendidly enjoy such advantages.” I have been one to repeat the oft-quoted line that youth is wasted on the young, but I fear Twain is wrong for one fundamental reason – not knowing our fate helps keep us going.

 

Time is sobering, as it exhibits both the alpha and omega of life. In those eighty years before I was born, all but one of my great-great grandparents died, as did all but one of my great-grandparents. And my parents and grandparents were born. Since my birth, all have died, along with two sisters and one brother. In Hannah Rothschild’s book House of Trelawney, Tony Scott, an aging, bachelor art dealer, reminisces: “One of the worst things about aging is that if you stop, there’s a danger you might never get going again; muscles seize up and then every movement is uncomfortable.” We cannot let that happen. Walking with my wife in the woods around Essex Meadows is a life-saving antidote.

 

In his 2016 book of essays, Senior Moments, Willard Spiegelman wrote, darkly in my opinion: “We come into the world alone, with a cry. We exit alone, to confront the eternal silence. The fun, all the pleasure and adventure, lies in between.” More succinctly and less poetically, a friend used to make the same point: “It is not the destination in life that is important, but the trip.” But who knows? Perhaps the future is more exciting? John Kendrick Bangs suggested the party continues. In his 1896 book, Houseboat on the River Styx, he wrote of Charon, whose job was to transport ‘shades’ across the River Styx, from the land of the living to Hades. He takes command of the houseboat, which is filled with well-known personages, from myriad cultures and multiple centuries, who socialize together. The house committee includes Sir Walter Raleigh, Cassius, Demosthenes, Blackstone, Doctor Johnson and Confucius. Who wouldn’t want to mingle with that group? Bangs was having fun of course, but the dead do live on in the memories of those who knew them. After my Grandfather Hotchkiss died in 1947, my grandmother told me to remember him and to do so often. “For,” she said, “when you do, he will come alive, in your memory.” She was right. He does.

 

In “Morituri Salutamus,” Henry Wadsworth Longfellow spoke to his 50th reunion class at Bowdoin

 

“For age is opportunity no less

Than youth itself, though in another dress.

And as the evening twilight fades away

The sky is filled with stars, invisible by day.”

 

………………………………………………………

 

And on that note, with a future lit by stars, these reflections on completing eighty years come to a close. But I go on.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,