"A Good Education Has Never Been More Important"

The photo is one I found on the internet, which I thought pertinent to the subject of this essay.

It is never fun watching markets dissolve, but I still believe that Israel and the U.S., in confronting Iran, have done the right thing, especially as we have been joined by most of the Arab states. With their continued work on an atomic weapon and with missiles capable of hitting Diego Garcia 2500 miles away, that means Iran could as easily hit Vienna or Athens. They do represent a threat to world peace. They need to be stopped.

 

This essay represents something I have been thinking of for some time.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“A Good Education Has Never Been More Important”

March 28, 2026

 

“The objective of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives.”

                                                                                                                Attributed to Robert Maynard Hutchins (1899-1977)

                                                                                                                Former Chancellor & President, University of Chicago

 

There is an old Chinese proverb that is appropriate in this age of AI, increased dependency on government, wokeism, and at a time when education needs a re-boot: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” While we all are dependent on others, especially for love and companionship, a free individual is not one dependent on the state except in the case of dire and exceptional need. Reason and soundness must replace foolish ignorance.

 

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

 

It is not simply artificial intelligence that makes our age unique and so badly in need of the ability to reason logically and to think independently, it is also the fact that extremism has kidnapped our politics, and that ignorance and foolishness have laid waste to common sense and made our cultural heritage something to shun rather than to celebrate. 

 

If Mark Ziuckerberg needs a robotic assistant, what about us? Do we need some piece of machinery to remind us to send flowers on Mother’s Day, book lunch on Tuesday, and reply to this morning’s e-mails? That might simplify our lives, but are not personal connection and human empathy important? How much of our personal lives do we want to lay off on a piece of software that might be hackable? Will our AI assistant, to get in our good graces, heap false praise on what we have done or are about to do? Or will it provide the analytic criticism needed to improve our performance? Efficiency without empathy does not necessarily lead to a happy life. Will we lose our ability to sense emotion and to think critically if we rely on artificial intelligence? These are questions best considered when one has read widely.

 

Without a classical liberal arts education that includes biology, we are at risk of accepting as fact that men can be woman (or vice versa) if they so choose – that one’s sex is not a matter of science but of choice. Consider who benefits from such allegations. It is not only certain male athletes, but clinics willing to perform gender-affirming surgeries. Skepticism is a bi-product of a good education. Remember how Paul Ehrlich amassed a fortune, stating as fact that millions would die because of a planet unable to feed its population. In the years since 1968, when The Population Bomb was published (and which sold over two million copies in its first three years), the world population has more than doubled, while the percent of the population suffering from hunger has declined. Millions of people accepted his conclusions without questioning.

 

And think of climate wars. It was in elementary school that we were first taught of how Earth had warmed and cooled over the millennia – from the Tyrannosaurus Rex during the Cretaceous Period to the Wooly Mammoth during the Pleistocene Epoch. That is not to say we can ignore our environment or changes in climate. The Earth does not sit still, and man has a responsibility to all forms of life and to the planet he lives on. Yet we are scolded by supercilious tree-huggers if we drive a gas-powered vehicle, use more than a gallon of water to flush the toilet, or fail to re-cycle the plastic yogurt cover. Personally, I am conscious of the environment and I re-cycle, but I don’t like to be scolded by a bigot who scoots off in his private jet, or on their 200-foot yacht. A good education teaches one to differentiate between a policy based on facts and prescriptions based on ideologies.

 

Political extremism has become ubiquitous. In both parties, extremists control the message. A few minutes spent listening to a speech by President Trump or a response by Senator Chuck Schumer reminds one of the lament that starts Rudyard Kipling’s Ballad: “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” The one exception to this polarization appears to be the Supreme Court – the only adult branch of government. Thus far in the 2025-26 term, which began in October 2025, the Court has released 20 opinions, five of which were 9-0 decisions. If Ketanji Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas can agree 25% of the time, why can’t Congress?

 

Over the long-term extremism never succeeds – there are simply not enough extremists. But we also know from Iran that extremists in government can persevere for many years. Forty-seven years of rule by fanatic mullahs have caused millions to suffer and tens-of-thousands to die. It is the study of history that provides perspective. In a recent issue of The Spectator – in an article titled “Those Who Believe in Liberalism Must Now Fight For It” – Adrian Wooldridge wrote: “The best resource we have in preventing a return to the 1930s is the memory of the 1930s.” The best way to understand the present is to read of the past.

 

None of us can predict the future. Change is coming, but that has always been true. The best way to deal with the world we face is with a good education – whether its change wrought by AI, dealing with (sometimes well-intentioned but always misplaced) wokeism, or political extremism. Sadly our public schools, especially those in inner cities, are governed by unions more interested in growing membership than in the students they are supposed to educate, and too many of our universities, with costs having risen about three times the rate of inflation over the past fifty years, are more focused on diversity than on excellence. 

 

A good education is a life-long pursuit, and it is the encouragement of that, as Mr. Hutchins is quoted in the epigraph, which should be the job of schools, universities and parents. We should never stop learning. An educated individual understands the risks of open borders, as well as the primacy of legal immigration. She or he realizes and perils of mercantilism and socialism, while recognizing the advantages of capitalism. They know the differences between equality and equity, and between diversity and assimilation. Years ago Sy Syms developed his iconic marketing slogan: “An educated consumer is our best customer.” An educated electorate is the best defense of democracy.

 

My argument in favor of education is not because I believe a university degree will assure a higher paying job. It may or may not. It is because I believe a liberal arts education will make one a more informed citizen, one better able to navigate disruption caused by technology or anything else, to make sense of polarized political views, and to appreciate our history, our form of government, and our cultural heritage.

"AI - A View from a Tech Ignoramus"

I do much of my thinking while taking solitary walks. Nature both soothes and opens the mind. I often find myself debating issues, looking for answers where none appear obvious. Walking through woods, meandering past a swamp, or crossing an open field I find helps see more clearly. We are fortunate in this part of Connecticut, and at Essex Meadows especially, to have nature close at hand. The photo depicts one of the trails on Essex Meadows’ property, a path that crosses a Birch-laden field – one I took recently while thinking of the complexities of artificial intelligence.

 

Sydney M. Williams

https://swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day 

“AI – A View from a Tech Ignoramus”

July 7, 2025

 

“These systems absorb everything from their

training, including man’s darkest tendencies.”

                                                                                                                Cameron Berg & Judd Rosenblatt

                                                                                                                “The Monster Inside Chat GPT”

                                                                                                                The Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2025

 

To borrow an expression, Artificial Intelligence is all the rage, especially Generative AI and large language models. Estimates of total investments in data centers, GPUs (graphics processing units), training centers and cloud-based applications will reach somewhere between $300 billion and $600 billion in 2025, or roughly half the total U.S. defense budget. One source suggests total data center power consumption for all of 2025 could reach 23 gigawatts, twice the total energy consumption of the Netherlands. The June 28-29, 2025 issue of The Wall Street Journal ran an article on how CEOs of “tech goliaths and heavy-weight venture capitalists are cozying up to a few dozen nerdy researchers,” as their specialized knowledge will be “key to cashing in on the artificial-intelligence revolution.” A few companies are offering pay packages for the highly skilled that can reach seven and eight figures. 

 

There is no question that much good will come from AI, like keeping truckers awake on long-haul trips, performing medical procedures, making warehouses more efficient, speeding up assembly lines, providing stock portfolio selections, or editing essays such as the ones I write. AI will generate content for publishers and news outlets, and make more efficient accountants, lawyers and financial advisors. It may prevent accidents on the freeway. However in the short term, like with any new technology, jobs will be lost. But in the longer term, also as with past technological advancements, new jobs will be created, for the economy is dynamic and new markets will be uncovered. And we cannot ignore that while AI may be able to write a Shakespearean-like sonnet or paint a Picasso-like canvas, AI will never be Shakespeare or Picasso. 

 

If I were sixty years younger – even without a talent for linear algebra and probability theory – I would be thinking of how to use AI in my job, home and every-day life – as a tool, not as a substitute for creativity or intuition, as long as it did my bidding and did not lead me. In full disclosure, I do not use AI, as I don’t want it to influence how I think or what I write. There are people who believe that AI is not just a tool, people like Yuval Noah Harari, professor of History at Hebrew University and author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, who see AI “as an agent, in the sense that it can make decisions independent of us.”

 

Mark Zuckerberg,  CEO of Meta Platforms, sees AI as a solution to friendless Americans, that algorithms can be personalized, as in the 2013 film Her starring Scarlett Johannsson, a film that explored the nature of love and connection in a technologically advanced world. Alexandra Samuel, a technology researcher and author, wrote in last Monday’s The Wall Street Journal that “Viv,” a word-predicting machine, is the best career coach she ever had. She wrote of how the software that runs AI can be programmed, through training and sourcing. It can mimic most anything, including a preferred world view, one that may be politically correct but factually inaccurate. In our technologically-borderless world, what’s to prevent a foreign government from influencing the naive? The possibilities are frightening. In schools and colleges, Chat GPT may make the completion of a homework assignment easier, but it is likely to impede the critical thought process. We don’t want a nation of cynics, but neither do we want a country of Pollyanna’s.

 

It was an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that best captured my concerns: “What Would Hayek Think of AI?” In it two professors from Northwestern University wrote of how researchers from Google praised an AI system that helped people find common ground on divisive political issues, based on the belief that conflicts stem primarily from failures in communication, rather than from a recognition that differences are more likely to come from distinctions in values. In the opinion of the two professors, the Google researchers they wrote about have a “misunderstanding of complexity itself.” The professors feared that such tools in government could lead to central planning. They point out: “Vladimir Lenin and his successors failed catastrophically because, as Friedrich Hayek observed, knowledge is inherently decentralized and dispersed throughout society.” It is why democracies do better than autocracies and why capitalism has proved superior to socialism – it is the “Invisible Hand” of Adam Smith, that the decisions of millions of people, individually (and independently) arrived at, are more beneficial to society than those of professional bureaucrats. AI can help in the decision process, but it cannot replace the diffused judgement and wisdom as reflected in the verdicts of millions of people, as they make purchases and select political leaders. 

 

I have never used AI, so my concerns may be meaningless, and I am probably in over my head. But I worry about harmful consequences. I think of the Greek legend of Prometheus who gave knowledge to humans, so was punished by Zeus, and of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a sapient creature created from different body parts, a monster who created mayhem and committed murder. Eleven years ago when AI was in its infancy, Stephen Hawking, the late English theoretical physicist, told the BBC: “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race…It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded.” Hawking may be right. A lot has changed since 2014. AI is more technologically advanced, and it has become more human-like, possibly realizing some of Hawkins’ concerns. Perhaps government will erect guard rails, or will devise a way to control its growth. I don’t know. But in that, I am reminded of the title of Edwin Fadiman’s 1971 book: Who Will Watch the Watchers.  

 

Much will depend on education – on our schools and universities. The world will always need philosophers, artists and musicians, perhaps now more than ever. Learning to think critically, to be skeptical, to question judgements and opinions, has never been so important, as is the teaching of history and literature – to read unbiased stories of our past and to appreciate great minds. The well-read individual is less likely to succumb to the siren call of Artificial Intelligence – at least to not forget that AI is a machine, an invention for the benefit of mankind, not an invention to replace, or substitute for, mankind.

"Rsik"

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Risk”

May 12, 2021

 

“If no one ever took risks, Michelangelo would have painted the Sistine floor.”

                                                                                                                                                Neil Simon (1927-2018)

 

Recently, while walking around Boone Hall Plantation and Gardens, in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, my son and his family came across an alligator. They watched it, but wisely did not approach it. Risk aversion can be a wise decision. Seth Klarman, president of Baupost Group once wrote: “In contrast to speculators preoccupation with rapid gains, value investors demonstrate risk aversion by trying to avoid loss.” But as Paul Singer, another wise investor, remarked regarding the role of government in our economy: “…the forces of risk aversion and constant conflict serve to stultify and narrow the range of ideas up for debate.” We must walk the line, avoiding obvious risks, but being unafraid to speak out and take risks. “Security,” wrote Helen Keller, “is mostly a superstition. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.” Eleanor Roosevelt’s advice: “Do one thing every day that scares you.”

 

Every day we make hundreds, perhaps thousands, of decisions that involve risk. Many, if not most, are subconscious – standing on one leg to put on our trousers, reaching high for a coffee cup, ignoring the slippery spot on the floor, crossing a street. Do we take the short cut over the mountain, or the longer but safer route? Determining risk is a measurement of success versus failure. In investing, businesses calculate the potential for profit against the possibility of loss, which is why the Biden Administration’s proposal to strip Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson and Johnson of their patent protections for COVID-19 vaccines add risk to all future investments drug companies make in research. If patent protection can be breached, what does that say to those who invest in scientific research, and to those who risk everything in the creative arts, all of which are supposed to be protected by intellectual property rights? 

 

At a time when hesitancy has caused the number of daily vaccinations to decline by almost two thirds, the President, who was fully vaccinated in December, should not have worn a mask when outside and not surrounded by others. Yet he did just that last week when he and his wife left Jimmy and Roslyn Carter’s home. The message: the vaccine does not assure safety. When the FDA ordered Emergent BioSolutions to suspend production of Johnson & Johnson’s single dose vaccine because seven out of seven million vaccinated patients developed life-threatening blood clots, was the risk worth the cost of scaring people off being vaccinated? On Jimmy Kimmel’s show last week, Dr. Anthony Fauci said he was frustrated that nearly 26% of the population won’t get the vaccine, yet he said he would not dine in an indoor restaurant, despite being fully vaccinated. What kind of a message was he sending? Being vaccinated will not eliminate all risk of getting COVID-19, but it greatly reduces it. Responsible leaders lead, not inject fear.

 

While COVID-19 made us more risk averse health-wise, we have become more precipitate in our willingness to take financial risk. Financial and commodity markets soared over the past twelve months, especially products like crypto currencies, with the price of Bitcoins having risen over 500% from $8815.23 on May 12, 2020, to $56,871 yesterday. Given its volatility, is it possible to gauge what a cup of coffee or a tank of gas will cost in Bitcoins tomorrow or in two months? Over the past year, the value of Tesla stock has risen 280%, from $161.88 to $617.20 yesterday. While the company’s growth rate has been phenomenal, has not risk for the investor increased with a price to earnings ratio over 500 times? During that same time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 44%%, from 23,764.78 a year ago to 34,269.16 yesterday. Over the past year, copper prices are up 100% and wheat is up 22%, suggesting inflation may well be in our future. Stock markets reflect future economic growth and imply a discounted rate for forecasted earning. US GDP is forecast to be up 6.5% in 2021 and 3.1% in 2022. Based on consensus earnings estimates, the S&P 500 is selling at 22X 2021 earnings and 19X 2022 earnings. How does one measure risk in valuations and the likelihood that forecasted earnings will be correct? With Treasury borrowing record amounts, what interest rate should be used in discounting future earnings? In the May 1, 2021 issue of The Credit Strategist, Michael Lewitt wrote: “We are in a bubble because valuations of virtually every asset class are untethered from economic fundamentals.” However, the decision to sell assumes one can successfully time markets. But, as Laszlo Birinyi in his May Market Commentary wrote, “…since 2009 [with the S&P 500 up 280%], there have been 3,082 trading days, but just 60 of those days have accounted for the entire gain in the market.” Who among us is that astute?

 

Government believes it can remove risk in people’s lives and achieve equity, by focusing on equality of outcomes, rather than equal opportunities. But does not an anti-meritocratic, government-led diversity policy risk unintended results? Historically, individuals were free to make choices, assume responsibility, and then reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of their decision. In the Republican response to President Biden’s State of the Union address two weeks ago, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) made the point: “The beauty of the American Dream is that families get to define it for themselves.” In mediating risk, will the opportunity to better one’s life be diminished? To live freely is to accept risk. When does cradle-to-grave security interfere with the freedom to create individual opportunities?

 

We should not live in fear, yet a well-intentioned government intent on protecting us makes people Eloi-like. Schools and colleges have created an environment – now passed on to businesses, government offices, Hollywood and the media – where to challenge the consensus is to risk retribution or worse. Whites are told to view themselves as oppressors, to atone for the past sin of black slavery. To disagree is to risk condemnation. To question whether a trans woman should compete in female sports is to risk rebuke. To question Critical Race Theory, which itself is discriminatory, is to be tagged a racist. Is aversion to risk in expressing opinions what we want for our children, students, employees and citizens?

 

One result of this preference for a collective emphasis on conformity and government-ensured safety over freedom and personal choice has been a rise in pessimism for the future. A Gallop Poll last year found that pride in the U.S. is the lowest in two decades. A Pew Research survey in 2019 noted that by 2050 the U.S. will be worse off in many ways, including the national debt, political division and the cost of health care. That pessimism has manifested itself in record low fertility rates. For 2020, according to data from the CDC released last week, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.64, the lowest since tracking began in the 1930s. (A TFR of 2.1 is needed for a population to remain constant.) This was not simply a response to COVID-19, as total births have been declining since 2007, the last year the TFR was above replacement. By 2050, it is expected that the number of people over 65 will exceed those under 18. People who fear the future don’t have children. How do we recover the optimism of our Founders who risked so much?

 

Fifty-seven years ago, Caroline and I took a risk in getting married. I had done my military service but was still in college, with no idea as to how I would make a living. Despite a future we could not see, we had faith in each other. The road ahead held challenges and included potholes, but we believed in ourselves and in the Country in which we were blessed to be born, raised and where we lived. So, my advice: Be not afraid to take risks, just not foolish ones, like petting an alligator. “In a world that is changing really quickly,” said Mark Zuckerberg, “the only strategy that is guaranteed to fail is not taking risks.” Margaret Thatcher once wrote: “Discipline yourself to do what you know is right and important, although difficult. It is the high road to pride, self-esteem and personal satisfaction.” My advice: Be self-reliant, responsible, and accountable. Do not let government dictate choices or deter you from taking sensible risks to improve your lot. Look ahead, optimistically, with clear, wide-open eyes.

"Risk"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Risk”

July 15, 2020

“Only those who will risk going too far

can possibly find out how far one can go.”

                                                                                    T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)

                                                                                    Preface

Transit to Venus by Harry Crosby, 1931

Risk is confrontation with fear. Seventy years ago, my wife, as a young girl, would put on her roller skates and, with her older brother, sail down paths in New York’s Central Park. They went unaccompanied. At the same time, on a rocky farm in southern New Hampshire, I would get on my horse, along with a brother and/or sister, and gallop off along trails through the woods, also unaccompanied by an adult. Any concern our parents may have had, they kept to themselves. They loved us as much as we love our children. We were told to be careful; we respected their advice. Nevertheless, we took risks.

Immigrants, from the early 17^th Century to today’s migrants, did and do take risks. The earliest immigrants had no idea what they would find when they set sail across an unmapped sea, yet they were willing to take a chance that a better and freer life could be had than the one left behind. Social media, communications and government largesse have mitigated those risks, but emigration is still a leap into the unknown.

Success is impossible without risk. Entrepreneurs take risks, as do writers, musicians and artists. However, in all societies, risk-taking is never ubiquitous. Success comes to the talented and the aspirant – and those willing to take risks. The result is a society unequal in outcomes, but a fair one. What makes for a fair society are equal opportunities and the willingness to take risks, to grab the ladder’s rungs and make one’s way up, step by step. Consider the obstacles overcome by Americans like Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Thomas. At birth, neither had material advantage. Both were born in rural poverty. What they had was diligence, a desire for self-improvement and a willingness to take risks. They both recognized that victimhood was not the answer. While they were endowed with aspiration, dedication and intellectual talent, they knew they had to take risks and work harder than their peers.

Risks associated with COVID-19 have caused businesses to shutter and jobs to be lost. Yet the risk of COVID-19 is not unitary. The risk of serious illness or death varies depending on age and comorbidities. When we avoid the risk of infection, we risk financial and mental health well-being. Fear of contacting the disease has caused authorities to re-think the opening schools, as they balance the risk of the virus spreading against the risk of limited learning, social isolation and unemployed parents. In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, John Hasnas, an ethics professor at Georgetown wrote about his decision to return to the classroom this fall: “There is no alternative to learning to live with the risk of infection as generations before us lived with similar dangers. COVID-19 is part of life.” COVID-19 does represent a risk, but we must either live with it or hide from it.

Risk and opportunity are ever-present. My youth preceded the concept of “helicoptering” parents. Hand-held electronic devices have now replaced daydreams we once lived. Identity politics have swept the nation, dividing people into myriad categories, including victims and oppressors. But in the world when I grew up, being a victim was unacceptable. In school, bullies picked on the vulnerable. That happened to me until one day I took a risk and fought back. Being a “victim” removes the opportunity for improving one’s self. We should take chances and challenge the status quo. Eleanor Roosevelt once told us: “Do one thing every day that scares you.” Mark Zuckerberg said, “The biggest risk is not taking any risk.”

A diminution of risk is fueled by a culture of fear, a concept used by tyrannical types to achieve and hold power, whether in sports, business the military or government. It was a tactic used by Nazis to gain support for a regime that few dared confront.  In college, academic risk expands one’s mind. The provision of safe spaces by universities attenuates risk in that it spares students hearing or reading “harmful” words. As a consequence, students learn less and universities have become more authoritarian and less diverse, as have media and entertainment businesses.

General George Patton spoke of “calculated risks,” where the odds of success are measured, but where consequences can be deadly. Risk, definitionally, is risky. On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry spoke at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia, ending with his most famous words: “Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” A little more than a year later, fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence. The document ends “...we mutually pledge to each other our lives our fortunes and our sacred honor.” The United States would never have been born without the willingness of those men to take risks, which would have cost them their lives and their fortunes had the Revolution failed. Today, are we willing to assume the same risks to assure that liberty survives?

The question is more than rhetorical. Risk is more than a child galloping his horse down New Hampshire’s dirt roads or roller skating through Central Park without one’s parents. Free speech today is threatened by fear of reprisal. The stakes in speaking out against the superciliousness of the politically correct have never been higher. It should not be so. Speaking one’s mind should not involve risk. The arrogance of the Left has birthed a conformity of intolerance, as can be seen on university campuses, in corporate boardrooms, in federal bureaucracies and within the newsrooms of our nation’s radio, television and newspapers. Liberty depends on the willingness of people to speak and write freely, even when doing so involves personal risk.

"What Has Become of Us?"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“What Has Become of Us?”

October 31, 2019

“Have we lost our minds?”

                                                                                    Andrew Cuomo (1957-)

Governor, New York

                                                                                    October 26, 2019

While Governor Cuomo’s exclamation was in response to the increasing number of assaults by the mentally deranged in New York City, it is one that has applicability across our political landscape, not just for the unhinged way Leftist politicians treat truants and criminals in our cities, but in most all ways political. Have we all gone bonkers? I wince at President Trump’s coarseness and grimace as he Tweets as fast as a Shetland Pony sheds its winter coat. Then I listen to anti-Trumpers and their lemming-like hatred that betrays an emotional response rather than a reasoned reaction. Seen as a threat to the comfortably established elite, the majority of Democrats wanted to impeach Mr. Trump on November 9, 2016. And I wonder: What ever happened to e Pluribus Unum?

Phrases and words: Identity politics; victimization; equality; wokeness. Identity politics is segregation by a different and more politically correct name. Real victims are ignored, while perpetrators are mollycoddled as deserving of special care for having been “victims” of society governed by old, white men. Equality has morphed into homogenization, deflating the individual to an inflated collective. The cream in our public schools can no longer find its way to the top. Wokeness is a Tesla-like vehicle for social justice warriors.

Politicians, abetted by a media that has foregone any semblance of investigative independence, to become a propaganda arm of the Party they prefer. They have given new meanings to those phrases and words mentioned above. The consequence has been a shock to the Judeo-Christian culture in which most of us were raised, when Albert Einstein once wrote, and we all believed, that “only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.”

Here we are now, three years after the fact, yet a refusal to accept the outcome of the 2016 election persists. Civil discourse is a thing of the past. We have intelligence agencies that colluded against a Presidential candidate. Public schools, especially those in inner cities who keep a watchful (and jaundiced) eye on equality, teach to the lowest common denominator, which means that those who have been identified as “gifted and talented” cannot be separated, so taught differently and thus given a chance to disengage from the claws of mediocrity that entrap them. In many of these same cities, the homeless – some mentally sick, others addicted to drugs and/or alcohol and a few simply down on their luck – ply our parks and streets. Instead of offering the dignity of a job and asking proper behavior in return for food and shelter, we provide them free needles and let them soil streets, sidewalks and parks. In our desire to explain away criminal acts and civil misbehavior as a consequence of victimization, we ignore the plight of real victims. Men and women are tried in the press, without benefit of due process. The “broken windows” policy of policing, first described in 1982 by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling and based on the theory that if man lives in a neighborhood where property and people are respected crime rates will decline. It worked in New York City in the ‘90s and early 2000s but has been abandoned because of accusations that minorities were unfairly targeted. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: “How did we get so stupid so soon?”

We have coastal mayors and governors who tell us, in dystopian language, that we are facing imminent danger from man-caused climate change; that streets will soon be under water and fires will rage, unless we address these immediate apocalyptic climate threats, which always involve more spending. As Holman Jenkins wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal regarding the California fires: “PG&E can’t keep trees off its power lines but can supply exact numbers for how many LGBTQ workers it employs.” The coming Armageddon due to climate change is a rallying cry in political campaigns and an argument used when suing oil companies in these blue, coastal cities and states, yet the bonds these same entities issue carry little or no warnings of any climate scare. Can it be that these paragons of virtue are not so direct when it comes to the interest rate costs they would have to pay if honesty prevailed? An op-ed on this subject, written by Peter Schweizer of the Government Accountability Institute, was in this past week’s Wall Street Journal.  When a psychotic individual commits mass murder, we first blame the weapon and second cite the NRA as facilitator, yet, to my knowledge, no NRA member has been accused of mass killings. Cities with some of the toughest gun laws in the country have the most gun deaths. Gun safety, taught by the NRA, is never considered an option. Mark Zuckerberg is demonized for saying that Facebook is committed to supporting free expression, while Google is lionized for walking away from a U.S. defense contract based on ideological concerns. California has allowed the non-profit NCAA to pay student athletes. But, have they considered the negative effect on college athletic programs, like skiing, swimming, hockey, rowing, squash, softball, track and field that rely for funding on profitable sports like basketball and football? Where California goes, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey will follow. “How did we get so stupid so soon?”

Politicians use their index fingers to sense the direction of the wind, then go with the flow. It matters not the long-term consequences of their decisions. It is winning they want. If Socialism is wanted, even if misunderstood by the electorate and the politician, then Socialism it shall be.  Yet, as Anthony Trollope wrote about politics and politicians more than 150 years ago in Phineas Redux: “The best carriage horses are those which can steadily hold back against the coach as it trundles down the hill.” Like the three blind mice, Paul Krugman, Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristof (among dozens of similarly endowed columnists for the New York Times and Washington Post) chase after one another in their end-of-the-world prophecies if the Trump Presidency continues. Yet, minority employment is at record highs and overall unemployment at record lows. Even the third quarter GDP, which was expected to be slow, came in at plus 1.9 percent, better than expected, and above the average for Obama’s eight years. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) placed in charge of the impeachment inquiry (a rare event), bizarrely parodied before Congress the President’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – the phone call that was the basis for the impeachment inquiry in the first place.  “How did we get so stupid so soon?”

As Americans, we are fortunate to live in this extraordinary country, with its democratic government, free-market capitalist system, its people and natural resources. Yet, do we appreciate what we have? Michael Walzer, a professor emeritus at Princeton, writing in the Spring 2002 edition of ProQuest, said that maybe “…the guilt produced by living in such a country and enjoying its privileges makes it impossible to sustain a decent (intelligent, responsible, morally nuanced) politics.” Even the poorest among us live lives of luxury (central heat, flush toilets, prepared foods and cell phones) unimaginable by our forefathers. And now, progressives put all that at risk. California is the epicenter of progressive thinking. If it were to stand alone, the State would be the world’s fifth largest economy, producing 3.5% of the world’s GDP. Its people have had a living standard as high as any in the world and it produces just one percent of global emissions. But that lifestyle is at risk, as the State insists on policies harmful to the economy, yet helpful to the wealthy – rebates for electric vehicles – while detrimental to the poor and middle classes – gas and energy prices that are the highest in the United States, zoning that forces low and middle income people into long commutes and urban public schools that pay attention to union demands rather than the needs of students of poor and middle class families. In a First World State, they today have a Third World electrical system. The Left insists that progressive states like California, New York, Hawaii, Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Jersey are the future. “How did we get so stupid so soon?”

In The Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce described a politician as “an eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared,” a description which is indisputable. I look upon what we have wrought and recognize that the Founding Fathers would be aghast. I answer Governor Cuomo’s exclamative question, “Have we lost our minds?” with a resounding Yes!