Not very edible

“Sleeping Cat'' (1657), (engraving), by Cornelis de Visscher, in the show “Ink and Time: European Prints from the Wetmore Collection,’’ at the Fairfield (Conn.) Art Museum through Dec. 21.

Image courtesy: Fairfield University Art Museum.

The museum explains that the show is “a group of woodcuts, engravings and etchings from the 15th through 18th centuries. Through three centuries of work, viewers can see the evolution of styles, tastes and depictions of life over time. This show also offers a window into the evolution of art collection, as the rise of printmaking represented a time of prosperity for artists, who could now sell their work en masse, and represented a time when the general public could access and afford fine art. ‘‘

Chris Powell: Connecticut’s abortion barbarians

U.S. abortions by gestational age in 2016.

MANCHESTER, Conn.

Now that the issue has been returned to the states and democracy, abortion extremism has revived throughout the country. In some states this extremism aims to make abortion virtually impossible, limiting it to the earliest weeks of pregnancy, sometimes before women may realize they are pregnant. But in Connecticut the extremism goes the other way.

A few days ago Connecticut abortion extremism manifested itself at the state Department of Public Health, which held a hearing on its proposal to repeal three state regulations that pose only slight impediments to abortion, regulations that did not bother advocates of "reproductive rights" back when the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was in force. Indeed, for decades Connecticut has modeled its abortion law on the principle proclaimed by Roe -- that abortion should be an individual right prior to fetal viability but subject to state regulation after, because society has an interest in the unborn when they are able to live outside the womb.

As constitutional law Roe was questionable, as even some advocates of abortion rights acknowledged, but it amounted to a political compromise that commanded majority support nationally, though not in all states.

The Supreme Court's reversal of Roe has changed nothing in Connecticut. There is no movement here to outlaw or seriously restrict abortion, though the public probably would support legislation to require parental consent for abortions for minors, since such abortions conceal rape.

To the contrary, as shown by the health department's proposal to repeal those three regulations, the political movement about abortion in Connecticut is, in its own words, to "go beyond Roe" -- to legitimize late-term abortion, abortion of viable fetuses, in all circumstances. 

The department would repeal the regulation arising from the Roe principle that authorizes abortion in the last trimester of pregnancy only to protect the mother's life or health. 

This regulation is actually only the pretense of concern for unborn life, since no government authority is checking on late-term abortions and since protecting a pregnant woman's health is construed to include her mental health. In advance of childbirth it's impossible to disprove a woman's claim that delivering her child will drive her insane, absurd as such a claim may seem. 

But even the regulation's pretense of concern for viable fetuses is too much for Connecticut's abortion extremists.

Another regulation proposed for repeal requires abortion providers to try to save of life of a fetus -- that is, a child -- who survives an abortion. Connecticut's abortion extremists want to erase any hint of an abortion survivor's humanity. An infant bleeding and gasping for breath is to be coldly left to die in the presence of doctors, nurses, the law, and its own mother -- barbarity.

Also proposed for repeal is the regulation that authorizes medical personnel to refuse to participate in abortions for religious reasons. As Connecticut essentially declares abortion the highest public good, all conscience is to be trampled.

The foremost advocate of repealing the regulations, state Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, D-West Hartford, leader of the abortion extremists in the General Assembly -- they style themselves the Reproductive Rights Caucus -- maintains that the regulation protecting the consciences of medical personnel is unnecessary because federal law already protects them. But Gilchrest would not advocate repealing the regulation if she wasn't hoping that someday abortion extremists will gain control of the federal government, repeal the law, and let Connecticut drive anti-abortion doctors and nurses out of their profession.  

Gov. Ned Lamont told the Hartford Courant he wasn't fully informed about the move to repeal the abortion regulations and would be looking into it. But he added perceptively, "I hope it's not a solution looking for a problem."  

That's just what it is. For the only problem here is that some people think that while Connecticut is more liberal on abortion than all states except Vermont and Oregon, which have no gestational limits, the state still doesn't exalt abortion enough. 

Does the governor agree with the barbarians? Since the health department answers  to  him, it will be answering  for  him if it decides to "go beyond Roe."

----- 

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years (CPowell@cox.net).  

Jet fuel from Maine wood?

Over the Maine woods. Maine is the most forested state, and its woods products play an important role in its economy.

Edited from a New England Council (NEC) report

University of Maine researchers have received a $10 million federal grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to investigate the use of low-value wood to produce jet fuel and fish feed.

The NEC reported that “Wood contains organic compounds called lignins that can be converted into fuel and sugars that can be fermented into fish-feed proteins. Developing new products using wood that has been considered waste could create additional revenue streams, maximize the value of the forestland, avoid changes in land use, and encourage more effective forest management.’’

“The new funding is key to developing creative and sustainable markets for underutilized forest biomass while prioritizing the inclusive values that are important to advancing equitable rural development in Maine,” said Clayton Wheeler, director of UMaine’s Forest Bioproducts Research Institute.

Gillette's real estate plan amidst the scruffy look

1922 advertisment

Adapted from Robert Whitcomb’s “Digital Diary,’’ in GoLocal24.com

Gillette, the razor-blade company owned by Proctor & Gamble, is setting a good example by planning to set aside about a third of new buildings on its 31-acre site in Boston’s Fort Point neighborhood for housing, which of course in badly needed in “The Hub.’’ Other buildings will be for labs, offices and retail. But around half of the acreage will be for park-like open space.

All this is because Gillette is moving its Boston blade-making  to a P&G site in Andover, Mass. Driving by the “World Shaving Headquarters’’ on the Southeast Expressway (often called the Distressway) brings back memories of frustration in traffic jams.

I have wondered how Gillette and the other companies making razors for males are doing these days  when more and more men have beards, or at least three-day facial-hair growth, which makes some guys look like they’ve been on a three-day bender and look difficult to maintain in a stylishly scruffy style. The allure of the latter mystifies me, much as I dislike shaving myself; it can hurt a little. Is the aim of some to express manliness amidst  a sense of identity insecurity?   Hey, look at me! I’ve got testosterone!

Some details on the project.

Here's an answer to the sales question.

The famous always semi-shaved Yasir Arafat (1929-2004), the Palestinian leader.

FDR talking to his ‘multitude of old friends’ in New England

FDR in the early '30's

Speech by Democratic presidential candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt in Boston on Oct. 31, 1932

Governor Ely, Mayor Curley, my friends of Massachusetts:

I am glad that a moment ago I had the privilege of standing under the flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  There is a reason why I am particularly proud and happy of that.  It is because, my friends, exactly one-half of me -- my mother's half -- comes from Massachusetts.

This trip to New England, I assure you, has brought back many happy memories.  I have had a wonderful day from the early morning when I left the old school which I once attended and, where, I am told, I received some kind of culture, all the way up through Lawrence and Haverhill, and then on through New Hampshire and to Portland, Maine; and then this afternoon, coming back through the cities of Maine, New Hampshire and back into Massachusetts.  I am more than ever convinced that those three States that I have visited today are going to be found in the Democratic column on November 8th.

I have met a multitude of old friends, with whom I have been associated in public life for more years than I care to tell you.  If I were to start referring to each of them by name, I should have to call the roll of Massachusetts Democracy, and a good many of the Republicans as well.  I appreciate the fact that today, a week before the election, we have a united party -- a party which, in securing a great victory on November 8th, will be supported not only by Democrats but by free-spirited Republican and independent voters.  My only regret is that I could not have been here last Thursday night when Governor Smith was here.  Anyway, the very day that he was here I had a good long talk with him, and I heard about the splendid and deserved welcome you gave him here in Boston.

Other memories, too, have come from far back beyond my earliest political experience.  As a boy, I came to this State for education.  To that education I look back with open and sincere pride and gratitude.

Then I came and lived not very far from here at a great institution for the freeing of the human mind from ignorance, from bigotry of the mind and the spirit.  Knowledge -- that is, education in its true sense -- is our best protection against unreasoning prejudice and panic-making fear, whether engendered by special interests, illiberal minorities, or panic-stricken leaders who seek to perpetuate the power which they have misused.

I hope I have learned the lesson that reason and tolerance have their place in all things; and I want to say frankly that they are never so appropriate as when they prevail in a political campaign.

I say this with some feeling because I express widespread opinion when I note that the dignity of the office of President of the United States has suffered during the past week.  The President began this campaign with the same attitude with which he has approached so many of the serious problems of the past three years.  He sought to create the impression that there was no campaign going on at all, just as he had sought to create the impression that all was well with the United States, and that there was no depression.

But, my friends, the people of this country spoiled these plans.  They demanded that the administration which they placed in power four years ago, and which has cost them so much, give an accounting.  They demanded this accounting in no uncertain terms.

This demand of the people has continued until it has become an overwhelming, irresistible drift of public opinion.  It is more than a drift.  It is a tempest.

As that storm of approval for the Democratic policies has grown, several moods have come over the utterances of the Republican leader.

First, they were plaintively apologetic.  Then the next move was indignation at the Congress of the United States.  Finally, they have in desperation resorted to the breeding of panic and fear.

At first the President refused to recognize that he was in a contest.  But as the people with each succeeding week have responded to our program with enthusiasm, he recognized that we were both candidates.  And then, dignity died.

At Indianapolis he spoke of my arguments, misquoting them.  But at Indianapolis he went further.  He abandoned argument for personalities.

In the presence of a situation like this, I am tempted to reply in kind.  But I shall not yield to the temptation to which the President yielded.  On the contrary, I reiterate my respect for his person and for his office.  But I shall not be deterred even by the President of the United States from the discussion of grave national issues and from submitting to the voters the truth about their national affairs, however unpleasant that truth may be.

The ballot is the indispensable instrument of a free people.  It should be the true expression of their will; and it is intolerable that the ballot should be coerced -- whatever the form of coercion, political or economic.

The autocratic will of no man -- be he President, or general, or captain of industry -- shall ever destroy the sacred right of the people themselves to determine for themselves who shall govern them. 

An hour ago, before I came to the Arena, I listened in for a few minutes to the first part of the speech of the President in New York tonight.  Once more he warned the people against changing -- against a new deal -- stating that it would mean changing the fundamental principles of America, what he called the sound principles that have been so long believed in this country.  My friends, my New Deal does not aim to change those principles.  It does aim to bring those principles into effect.

Secure in their undying belief in their great tradition and in the sanctity of a free ballot, the people of this country -- the employed, the partially employed and the unemployed, those who are fortunate enough to retain some of the means of economic well-being, and those from whom these cruel conditions have taken everything -- have stood with patience and fortitude in the face of adversity.

There they stand.  And they stand peacefully, even when they stand in the breadline.  Their complaints are not mingled with threats.  They are willing to listen to reason at all times.  Throughout this great crisis the stricken army of the unemployed has been patient, law-abiding, orderly, because it is hopeful.

But, the party that claims as its guiding tradition the patient and generous spirit of the immortal Abraham Lincoln, when confronted by an opposition which has given to this nation an orderly and constructive campaign for the past four months, has descended to an outpouring of misstatements, threats and intimidation.

The administration attempts to undermine reason through fear by telling us that the world will come to an end on November 8th if it is not returned to power for four years more.  Once more it is a leadership that is bankrupt, not only in ideals but in ideas.  It sadly misconceives the good sense and the self-reliance of our people.

These leaders tell us further that, in the event of change, the present administration will be unable to hold in check the economic forces that threaten us in the period between Election Day and inauguration day.  They threaten American business and American workers with dire destruction from November to March.

They crack the "whip of fear” over the backs of American voters, not only here but across the seas as well.

Ambassador Mellon, the representative of the United States at the Court of St. James's, an Ambassador who should represent the whole American people there -- every faith, the whole nation, Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike -- appeals to an English audience, on English soil, for the support of a party candidate 3000 miles away and invokes the same sinister threat and seeks to spread that threat to the rest of a civilized world.

I read somewhere in a history book about a Roman Senator who threw himself into a chasm to save his country.  These gentlemen who represent us are of a new breed.  They are willing to throw their country into a chasm to save themselves.

There is another means of spreading fear -- through certain Republican industrial leaders.  I have said, without being controverted, that 5,000 men in effect control American industry.  These men, possessed of such great power, carry likewise a great responsibility.  It is their duty to use every precaution to see that this power is never used to destroy or to limit the sound public policy of the free and untrammeled exercise of the power of the ballot.

In violation of that duty, some of these 5,000 men who control industry are today invading the sacred political rights of those over whom they have economic power.  They are joining in the chorus of fear initiated by the President, by the Ambassador, by the Secretary of the Treasury, and by the Republican National Committee.

They are telling their employees that if they fail to support the administration of President Hoover, such jobs as these employees have will be in danger.  Such conduct is un-American and worthy of censure at the ballot box.  I wonder how some of those industrial leaders would feel if somebody else's "baby had the measles.”  In other words, would they agree that it would be equally reprehensible if any political leader were to seek reprisal against them -- against any coercing employer who used such means against political leaders?  Let us fight our political battles with political arguments, and not prey upon men's economic necessities.

After all, their threats are empty gestures.  You and I know that their industries have been sliding downhill.  You know, and I know, that the whole program of the present administration has been directed only to prevent a further slipping downhill.  You know, and I know, that therein lies the difference between the leaderships of the two parties.

You know, and I know, that the Democratic Party is not satisfied merely with arresting the present decline.  Of course we will do that to the best of our ability; but we are equally interested in seeking to build up and improve, and to put these industries in a position where their wheels will turn once more, and where opportunity will be given to them to reemploy the millions of workers that they have laid off under the administration of President Hoover.

It is not enough merely to stabilize, to lend money!  It is essential to increase purchasing power in order that goods may be sold.  There must be people capable of buying goods in order that goods may be manufactured and sold.  When that time comes, under our new leadership, these same gentlemen who now make their threats will be found doing business at the old stand as usual.

The American voter, the American working-man and working woman, the mill-worker of New England, the miner of the West, the railroad worker, the farmer, and the white-collar man will answer these silly, spiteful threats with their ballots on November 8th.

As I have pointed out before in this campaign, in a good many States and during many weeks, the fruits of depression, like the fruits of war, are going to be gathered in future generations.  It is not the pinch of suffering, the agony of uncertainty that the grown-up people are now feeling that count the most; it is the heritage that our children must anticipate that touches a more vital spot.  It is not today alone that counts.  Under-nourishment, poor standards of living and inadequate medical care of today will make themselves felt among our children for fifty years to come….

It is the same for you -- workers in industry and in business.  There are none of us who do not hope that our children can get a better break than we have had, that the chance for an education, for a reasonable start in life, may be passed on to our children, an opportunity for them built out of the hard work of our own hands.  We want them to have opportunity for profitable character building -- decent, wholesome living -- good work, and good play.  We want to know somehow that, while perfection does not come in this world, we do try to make things better for one generation to another….

Against this enemy every ounce of effort and every necessary penny of wealth must be raised as a defense.  It is not that we lack the knowledge of what to do.  The tragedy of the past years has been the failure of those who were responsible to translate high-sounding plans into practical action.  There's the rub.

The present leadership in Washington stands convicted, not because it did not have the means to plan, but fundamentally because it did not have the will to do.  That is why the American people on November 8th will register their firm conviction that this administration has utterly and entirely failed to meet the great emergency.

The American people are heart-sick people for "hope deferred maketh the heart sick.”

……

Now, my friends, we are considering unemployment tonight, and I am going to start by setting forth the positive policy which the President's Commission under the leadership of the Secretary of Commerce urged should be done.  There is a lot of it which is still good.

It was a 5-point program.  And as a program it was good.

First, it urged that government should reduce expenditures for public works during periods of prosperity, and that, during those periods, government should build up reserves with which to increase expenditures during periods of unemployment and industrial depression.  But was that done?  Not one penny's worth.  No reserves were built up for the rainy day.

Second, the report said that the Federal Government should work with the railroads in the preparation of a long-time constructive program.  Was that done?  No.  The Republican Administration did not give effect to this proposal.  Instead of working with the railroads, to consolidate their lines and put them on a sound economical basis, the administration waited until the depression had laid them low, and then had nothing for them except to loan them more money, when they were already heavily in debt.

Third, the report proposed the setting up of safeguards against too rapid inflation, and consequently too rapid deflation of bank credit.  As I have shown, the President and his Secretary of the Treasury went to the other extreme and encouraged speculation.

Fourth, the report recommended an adequate system of unemployment insurance.  No one in the administration in Washington has assumed any leadership in order to bring about positive action by the States to make this unemployment insurance a reality.  Someday, in our leadership, we are going to get it.

Fifth, it suggested an adequate system of public employment offices.  But when Senator Wagner introduced a bill to establish Federal employment offices, President Hoover vetoed the measure that Secretary Herbert Hoover had sponsored.  It seems to me, speaking in this great section of the country where there are so many business men, that business men who believe in sound planning and action, must feel that there is danger to the country in the continuance of a leadership that has shown such incapacity, such ineptitude, such heedlessness of common sense and of sound business principles.  What we need in Washington is less fact finding and more thinking.

Immediate relief of the unemployed is the immediate need of the hour.  No mere emergency measures of relief are adequate.  We must do all we can.  We have emergency measures but we know that our goal, our unremitting objective, must be to secure not temporary employment but the permanence of employment to the workers of America.  Without long-range stability of employment for our workers, without a balanced economy between agriculture and industry, there can be no healthy national life.

We have two problems:  first, to meet the immediate distress; second, to build up a basis of permanent employment.

As to "immediate relief,” the first principle is that this nation, this national government, if you like, owes a positive duty that no citizen shall be permitted to starve.  That means that while the immediate responsibility for relief rests, or course, with local, public and private charity, in so far as these are inadequate the States must carry on the burden, and whenever the States themselves are unable adequately to do so the Federal Government owes the positive duty of stepping into the breach.

It is worth while noting that from that disastrous time of 1929 on the present Republican Administration took a definite position against the recognition of that principle.  It was only because of the insistence of the Congress of the United States and the unmistakable voice of the people of the United States that the President yielded and approved the National Relief Bill this summer.

In addition to providing emergency relief, the Federal Government should and must provide temporary work wherever that is possible.  You and I know that in the national forests, on flood prevention, and on the development of waterway projects that have already been authorized and planned but not yet executed, tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of our unemployed citizens can be given at least temporary employment.

Third, the Federal Government should expedite the actual construction of public works already authorized.  The country would be horrified if it knew how little construction work authorized by the last Congress and approved by the President has actually been undertaken on this date, the 31st of October.  And I state to you the simple fact that much of the work for which congress has given authority will not be under way and giving employment to people until sometime next summer.

Finally, in that larger field that looks further ahead, we call for a coordinated system of employment exchanges, the advance planning of public works, and unemployment reserves.  Who, then, is to carry on these measures and see them through?  The first, employment exchanges, is clearly and inescapably a task of the Federal Government, although it will require the loyal and intelligent cooperation of State and local agencies throughout the land.  To that Federal action I pledge my administration.  The second, the advance planning of public works, again calls for a strong lead on the part of the government at Washington.  I pledge my administration to the adoption of that principle, both as to enterprises of the Federal Government itself and as to construction within the several States which is made possible by Federal aid; and I shall urge upon State and local authorities throughout the nation that they follow this example in Washington.  The third, unemployment reserves, must under our system of government be primarily the responsibility of the several States.  That, the Democratic platform, on which I stand, makes entirely clear.

In addition to all this, there has been long overdue a reduction of the hours of work and a reduction of the number of working days per week.  After all, the greatest justification of modern industry is the lessening of the toil of men and women.  These fruits will be dead fruits unless men earn enough so that they can buy the things that are produced, so that they can have the leisure for the cultivation of body, mind and spirit, which the great inventions are supposed to make possible.  That means that government itself must set an example in the case of its own employees.  It means also that government must exert its persuasive leadership to induce industry to do likewise.

Here then is a program of long-range planning which requires prompt and definite action and the cooperation of Federal and State and local governments, as well as of forward-looking citizens of both parties throughout the land.  The proposals are specific, they are far-reaching.  To advocate a less drastic program would be to misread the lessons of the depression and to express indifference to the country's future welfare.

There is one final objective of my policy which is more vital and more basic than all else.  I seek to restore the purchasing power of the American people.  The return of that purchasing power, and only that, will put America back to work.

We need to restore our trade with the world.  Under Republican leadership we have lost it, and the President of the United States seems to be indifferent about finding it again.

And now I am going to talk to a city audience about farming.  I do not make one kind of speech to a farm audience and another kind of speech to a city audience.  We need to give to fifty million people, who live directly or indirectly on agriculture, a price for their products in excess of the cost of production.  You know how and why that affects us in the cities.  To give them an adequate price for their products means to give them the buying power necessary to start your mills and mines to work to supply their needs.  Fifty million people cannot buy your goods, because they cannot get a fair price for their products.  You are poor because they are poor.

I favor -- and do not let the false statements of my opponents deceive you -- continued protection for American agriculture as well as American industry.  I favor more than that.  I advocate, and will continue to advocate, measures to give the farmer an added benefit, called a tariff benefit, to make the tariff effective on his products.  What good does a 42-cent tariff on wheat mean to the farmer when he is getting 30 cents a bushel on his farm?  That is a joke.  The most enlightened of modern American businessmen likewise favor such a tariff benefit for agriculture.  An excellent example is your own fellow Bostonian, Mr. Harriman, President of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, who has recently proclaimed a plan for the restoration of agriculture not unlike my own.

The President of the United States does not favor a program of that kind, or, so far as I can make out, of any practical kind.  He has closed the door of hope to American agriculture, and when he did that, he closed the door of hope to you also.

He says proudly that he has effectively restricted immigration in order to protect American labor.  I favor that; but I might add that in the enforcement of the immigration laws too many abuses against individual families have been revealed time and time again.

But when the President speaks to you, he does not tell you that by permitting agriculture to fall into ruin millions of workers from the farms have crowded into our cities.  These men have added to unemployment.  They are here because agriculture is prostrate.  A restored agriculture will check this migration from the farm.  It will keep these farmers happily, successfully, at home; and it will leave more jobs for you.  It will provide a market for your products, and that is the key to national economic restoration.

One word more.  I have spoken of getting things done.  The way we get things done under our form of government is through joint action by the President and the Congress.  The two branches of government must cooperate if we are to move forward.  That is necessary under our constitution, and I believe in our constitutional form of government.

But the President of the United States cannot get action from the Congress.  He seems unable to cooperate.  He quarreled with a Republican Congress and he quarreled with a half Republican Congress.  He will quarrel with any kind of Congress, and he cannot get things done.

That is something that the voters have considered and are considering and are going to remember one week from tomorrow.  You and I know, and it is certainly a fact, that the next Congress will be Democratic.  I look forward to cooperating with it.  I am confident that I can get things done through cooperation because for four years I have had to work with a Republican Legislature in New York.

I have been able to get things done in Albany by treating the Republican members of the Legislature like human beings and as my associates in government.  I have said that I look forward to the most pleasant relations with the next Democratic Congress, but in addition to that let me make it clear that on that great majority of national problems which ought not to be handled in any partisan manner, I confidently expect to have pleasant relations with Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives as well as with Democrats.

After the fourth of March, we -- meaning thereby the President and the members of both parties in the Halls of Congress -- will, I am confident, work together effectively for the restoration of American economic life.

I decline to accept present conditions as inevitable or beyond control.  I decline to stop at saying, "It might have been worse.”  I shall do all that I can to prevent it from being worse but -- and here is the clear difference between the President and myself -- I go on to pledge action to make things better.

The United States of America has the capacity to make things better.  The nation wants to make things better.  The nation prays for the leadership of action that will make things better.  That will be shown in every State in the Union -- all 48 of them -- a week from tomorrow.  We are through with "Delay” we are through with "Despair”; we are ready, and waiting for better things.

The world to come?

“WAR IN HEAVEN II: Battle for the Soul of the Planet” (carved poplar), by C.A. Stigliano, in the show with Sally B. Moore “Figuring Our World,’’ at Brickbottom Gallery, Somerville, Mass., through Sept. 28.

The gallery says the show “holds a lens to the modern day and allows artists Moore and Stigliano to talk to each other about what is happening in the world around us right now. Both artists, who primarily use figure in their work, approach the topic in slightly different ways.

“Moore suggests the precariousness of the human predicament as we teeter on the brink of our own bad planning, seemingly unable to look forward or backward.

“Meanwhile, Stigliano tends to focus on the darker side of the contemporary world. His relief work, in particular, speaks not only of our current state of affairs, but of darker times to come.’’

"Encounter,'' by Sally B . Moore.

‘Often seen, seldom felt’


A Field of Stubble, lying sere
Beneath the second Sun—
Its Toils to Brindled People
Its Triumphs—to the Bin—
Accosted by a timid Bird
Irresolute of Alms—
Is often seen—but seldom felt,
On our New England Farms—

By Emily Dickinson (1830-1886). See The Belle of Amherst a 1976 play based on her work.

Ferocious future

By Juls Gabs, in the show "Landscape of Future Era Today,'' at HallSpace, Dorchester, Mass., through Oct. 12.

The gallery says:

“The show looks ahead at the landscapes of tomorrow and their potential to be scarred by pollution, smog, industry and extreme weather. The show ‘challenges us to rethink our vision of nature and confront the impact of our commodities,’ according to an artist statement, and juxtaposes this grim future with the ‘grandiosity of past indulgence.’’’

Llewellyn King: Am I remembering too much?

Cocktail party in 1961

WEST WARWICK, R.I.

I am approaching what may be thought of as a significant birthday next month. I’m not sure what makes it significant except the number attached to it.

If we don’t know how old we are, most people, including the elderly, will think they are younger, even if they have arthritic knees. If they take a morning cocktail of pills, they will still think they are much younger than the calendar dictates.

So here is my guide to knowing empirically, how old you are. You are old if ….

  • You remember when all restaurants served half a grapefruit with a half a maraschino cherry placed in the middle.

  • You remember when restaurants had relish carts with things like watermelon pickles and herring in sour cream.

  • You remember a whole class of singers called crooners and you still get a bit weepy when you hear their songs.

  • You remember when men’s trousers had buttons instead of zippers.

  • You remember when women wore girdles with attachments for stockings.

  • You remember when cars had little arms for turn signals, called trafficators, that wouldn’t go up at speed.

  • You remember when airline tickets were as good as currency and could easily be exchanged or sold back.

  • You remember when flying was a pleasure, even in coach, and you felt pampered not herded.

  • You remember when hotel rooms were rented for fixed prices and those were posted.

  • You remember when sneakers were all white and for tennis.

  • You remember when men wore hats and baseball caps were worn just to play baseball.

  • You remember when women wore hats and gloves to church.

  • You remember when men wore suits to church or just put them on so their neighbors thought they had been at worship.

  • You remember when birth control, if available, was with condoms, known as rubbers and kept under the counter at drugstores.

  • You remember when drugstores also had lunch counters.

  • You remember soda fountains.

  • You remember when Coca-Cola only came in a 6-ounce bottle and tasted better because it had cane sugar and the bottle seemed to concentrate the carbonation. Also, it cost a dime.

  • You remember five and dime stores where some things really cost only a dime.

  • You remember when shopping centers were novel and a place to visit.

  • You remember when going to the movies was an occasion. An usher showed you to your seat with a flashlight and a popcorn, ice cream and candy vendor walked up and down the theater aisles.

  • You remember when cigarettes were offered at dinner and ashtrays were part of the table setting.

  • You remember when Americans didn’t drink wine and only glasses for hard liquor were on formal dinner tables.

  • You remember when ethnic food was Hunan Chinese, often called Polynesian, and French food wasn’t regarded as ethnic, simply hard to pronounce.

  • You remember a time when comfort wasn’t important to you, when you didn’t ask, “Are the beds comfortable?” And when on a road trip, you didn’t expect to sit in the front seat because “it is more comfortable.”

Recently, a woman — who had been to a few rodeos herself — looked at me and said, “You’ve got age on you.” I was about to remonstrate, but I realized that while her manners were wanting, her eyesight wasn’t.

Therefore, I shall be bowing to the calendar and, after next month, I will gladly let people hold doors for me, help me with grocery bags, and offer a chair when there is a lot of standing about going on.

My wife is taking me to Montreal for the big day, but I plan to treat it as nothing to do with moi. Other people get old. They always have -- as I remember.

Llewellyn King is executive producer and host of White House Chronicle, in PBS. His email is llewellynking1@gmail.com and he’s based in Rhode Island.

whchronicle.com


Michael Scott Bryant: When 'charisma,' er, Trumps all else

Trump at rally in Manchester, N.H., last January

From The Conversation

SMITHFIELD, R.I.

Of all the questions confronting voters in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, few are as puzzling as the seemingly unwavering support for a political candidate deeply mired in embarrassing sex scandals and criminal business practices.

Such is the case with Donald Trump, whose behavior would have sunk the campaigns of most U.S. presidential candidates.

In the 1980s, for example, Democrat Gary Hart’s presidential ambitions went to ground over allegations of extramarital affairs on a boat aptly named “Monkey Business.” Over the past 20 years, two New York governors, Andrew Cuomo and Eliot Spitzer, both Democrats, resigned over charges of sexual misconduct. Democrat Al Franken’s career in the Senate was scuttled over charges of indiscretions during a USO tour.

But Trump’s convictions of financial fraud and being found culpable for sexual misconduct have not dampened the enthusiasm of supporters of Trump and his “Make America Great Again” movement.

Part of the reason may be explained by Max Weber, an early 20th century German sociologist and social theorist. At the center of Weber’s thinking about political authority was the word “charisma.”

In today’s street lingo, charisma has been shortened to “rizz” and defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “style, charm or attractiveness, and the ability to attract a romantic or sexual partner.”

Nothing could be further from Weber’s understanding of charisma.

The religious roots of charisma

In his “Theory of Social and Economic Organization,” Weber goes back to the Christian roots of the word charisma to describe how social and political power achieved legitimacy within a society.

According to the Greek Bible, Jesus’ followers received spiritual gifts from God. Much later, derived from the Greek word “charis” – meaning “grace, kindness, favor – the word was brought over to English and referred to the gifts of healing, prophecy and other endowments of the Holy Spirit.

A portrait of the German sociologist Max Weber in the 1900s. Mondadori via Getty Images

For Weber, what makes people charismatic is the possession of such gifts, through which they become mediators between God and their communities.

These gifts of the spirit transform the believer into a prophet.

Weber made a crucial distinction between a priest and a prophet. The priest acquires power through official credentialing and the routine performance of functions such as liturgies and rituals prescribed by the religion.

In contrast with the priest, the prophet derives authority not from official mechanisms but directly from God. The prophet thus stands outside the framework of the official religion – and even beyond society and a political state.

What characterizes the modern-day prophet is his defiance of the regimented order of society and his call to heed a higher calling. The prophet is inherently subversive.

While not religious, as historian Lawrence Rees has pointed out, the political prophet is "quasi-religious,” and the followers of such a person “are looking for more than just lower taxes or better health care, but seek broader, almost spiritual, goals of redemption and salvation.”

‘A call to arms’

Throughout modern history, charismatic leaders have shown their extraordinary ability to elicit devotion to themselves and their causes.

Some have been great spiritual leaders – Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, Civil Rights Movement leader Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and South African freedom fighter Nelson Mandela among them.

A portrait of German Nazi leader Adolph Hitler. Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images

Others have been a scourge to humans – including Russian leader Josef Stalin, German dictator Adolf Hitler, Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong and cult leader Jim Jones.

Of those charismatic “prophets,” none may have possessed more charisma than Hitler. He was the prototype of a charismatic leader, according to Weber’s definition.

Like the prophets of old, Hitler was an outsider who possessed remarkable gifts of oratory and uncanny good luck. Of his charismatic traits, none was more important than his ability to persuade. One early follower, Kurt Lüdecke, highlighted the power of a Hitler speech in 1922:

“When he spoke of Germany’s disgrace I felt ready to spring on an enemy. His appeal to German manhood was like a call to arms, the gospel he preached a sacred truth. He seemed another (Martin) Luther. I forgot everything but the man. Glancing around, I saw that his magnetism was holding these thousands as one.”

In his “Inside the Third Reich,” Albert Speer confessed that his decision to join Hitler’s movement was emotional rather than intellectual: “In retrospect, I often have the feeling that something swooped me up off the ground at the time, wrenched me from all my roots, and beamed a host of alien forces upon me.”

Speer was later convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Trump’s charisma

Weber’s concept of charisma helps us understand Trump’s appeal to his Christian followers.

Trump portrays himself as an outsider who will attack the decadent mainstream system – and his followers are willing to fight and die for him.

Indeed, the Jan. 6, 2021, rioters risked their freedom, their careers and, in at least one case, their lives for their leader. One of them, Ashli Babbitt, was fatally shot climbing through a shattered glass door inside the U.S. Capitol.

The list of lives and careers who were imprisoned as a result of service to Trump includes former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, ex-Trump “fixer” Michael Cohen and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, among others.

Meanwhile, several ex-Trump lawyers have suffered or are facing disbarment and, in some cases, criminal charges related to their work for the Trump administration.

It’s my belief that Trump is not just an ordinary politician – people think he is a spiritual leader offering to bring them to the promised land.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Johnstown, Pa., on Aug. 30, 2024. Justin Merriman/Getty Images

Right-wing evangelicals such as Paula White, Tony Perkins and Hank Kunneman praise him as a man fulfilling God’s will through his actions.

Social media is filled with images of Trump being supported by Jesus, or even of Trump being crucified like Jesus.

And Trump himself has said that divine intervention saved him from an assassin’s bullets.

“And I’d like to think that God thinks that I’m going to straighten out our country,” Trump told Fox News host Mark Levin in September 2024. “Our country is so sick, and it’s so broken. Our country is just broken.”

A critical flaw

But the Achilles’ heel of the charismatic leader is lack of success.

In the case of Hitler, his battlefield failures in Dunkirk and Stalingrad during World War II punctured the charismatic balloon. But rebellions against his authority were fruitless, and Hitler was able to command obedience until his suicide in April 1945.

The need for continuous success is a cautionary tale for Trump, whose charisma appears to be ebbing.

Trump’s reputation as a winner took a blow with his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. With Biden’s decision to drop out of the race, Vice President Kamala Harris has made the 2024 presidential campaign a much closer race.

If the erosion continues, Trump will likely confront the fates of all failed prophets – to be barred access to the levers of power they crave.

Michael Scott Bryant is a professor of History and Legal Studies at Bryant University, in Smithfield, R.I.

Disclosure statement

Michael Scott Bryant does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Mother and daughter work it out

Collage featuring copper enameled decal and opal earring and 24k Kuemboo, opal sterling ring in the show "Layered Together,'' at the Gallery at WREN in Bethlehem, N.H.

The gallery says:

“This intergenerational display showcases the intertwined artistic journeys of mother and daughter Beth Simon and Ana Koehler. Beth’s distinctive crafted jewelry, alongside Ana’s evocative paintings of the female form, take center stage.’’

New England stone walls house many creatures

Excerpted/edited from an ecoRI News article by Colleen Cronin

LITTLE COMPTON, R.I.

A look at a stone wall on Roger and Gail Greene’s property — they guessed the structure dates back to the early 1800s or even late 1700s — suggests that every rock and cranny is a world unto its own.

A black cherry tree stretched its way up and out from underneath — a gift likely planted by a bird who had perched on its stones decades ago, Roger said. Minty green lichen made splotches on gray rocks. A pickerel frog with skin like a snake hopped its way through leaf litter and low grasses to a hiding space before an ecoRI News reporter could get a good photo.

Stone walls originally marked the boundaries of farms, but now they have become homes to many different types of creatures.

Here’s the whole article.

William Morgan: Ruminations on an old postcard from Maine

Porter Memorial Library, Machias, Maine. Hand-colored postcard.


Once again, an antique postcard yields memories as well as mysteries. My investment of $1.50 to buy an old card led to down-the-rabbit-hole ruminations.

Posted in Machias on Aug. 22, 1906 (Theodore Roosevelt was President); Maine had been a state for only 86 years. The sender, from what we can make out from the pencil scratches on the picture side of the card, was the sister of the recipient, Miss Edris Tillinghast. Tillinghast is a Rhode Island name, but Edris strikes one as one of those late Victorian family names, yet it is well enough known in Wales. Was Miss Edris visiting in Westerly? (Her address is in care of “Wm. Barnes, RFD” (Rural Free Delivery) – her family rusticating on a farm, perhaps)? Or was the sister traveling in far Downeast Maine?

Post card from Hugh C. Leighton Co., Portland, but printed in Germany


The Tillinghast sisters and their undocumented peregrinations may had faded into the mists of time, but the library building in the Washington County seat has remained pretty much unchanged. Chicago businessman and Machias native Henry Holmes Porter gave the money to erect the library in memory of his father, Rufus King Porter, in 1891.

The architect of the Porter Library was George Clough, who hailed from Blue Hill, Maine, and was a successful practitioner in Boston. He designed the Suffolk County Courthouse, on Pemberton Square, Boston, and he was that city’s first City Architect, a position to which he was elected in 1876 and served for seven years. He also designed the public libraries for the Maine towns of Rockland, Bucksport and Vinalhaven.

Postcard of Buck Memorial Library, Bucksport. 


Clough’s inspiration for Machias was the Romanesque Revival-style libraries of Henry Hobson Richardson in such suburban Boston towns as Woburn, North Easton and Quincy. Richardson was best known as the architect of Trinity Church at Copley Square in Boston, but his small-town libraries are among his most satisfying works. Clough was one of many New England library builders who borrowed from the Richardsonian formula of monumental reading room, wing for the stacks and ceremonial civic entrance.

Crane Memorial Library,  by Henry Hobson Richardson,  in  Quincy, Mass.

-- Photo by William Morgan


Providence-based writer and photographer William Morgan is the author of a number of books on New England architecture, including
A Simpler Way of Life: Farmhouses of New York and New England and Monadnock Summer: The Architectural Legacy of Dublin, New Hampshire.

ADU’s in tight cities

Thames Street, the best-known retail strip in Newport. (Photo by Kenneth C. Zirkel)

Adapted from Robert Whitcomb’s “Digital Diary,’’ in GoLocal24.com

Tight little Newport, R.I.  and many other places, seek to address the housing shortage and cost by encouraging the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on owner-occupied residential property. This housing is generally supposed to be primarily for elderly and/or disabled people,  and in The City by the Sea would  be limited to one-bedroom and studio units of no more than 900 square feet and two-bedroom units at 1,200 square feet.

Certainly creating more space for the elderly, the fastest-growing part of the population, is a fine idea! Rhode Island is ranked as eleventh among the states in its percentage of people 65 and over.   We’ll see if many much younger people end up living in the ADU’s, whatever the laws. Meanwhile, using them for short-term rentals – a temptation in mega summer resort city Newport – is banned. All this will be tough to monitor.

Then there’s the always tricky parking issue. While the new rules say that no additional parking would be required for a new ADU,  currently required parking removed as part of building an ADU would have to be replaced.

I’ll be curious to see if many people without cars move into the ADU’s, opting to rely on bikes, Uber and Lyft, and public transit instead. Maybe many of them will be young adults.

In any event, increasing the supply of housing is essential, but tough. Too many people oppose greater density, even as the population swells. They want wide-open spaces in their neighborhoods.

‘Seducing guests’

“Self Portrait,’’ by  Connecticut photographer Adrien Broom, in her  show “Mystical Murmurs: An Enchanted Environment,’’ at the Florence Griswold Museum, Old Lyme, Conn., Sept. 28-Nov. 3

The museum explains:

“In this immersive exhibition contemporary artist, photographer, set designer, and filmmaker Broom (b. 1980) invites audiences to experience the mysterious world of the forest and imagine themselves at faerie-scale. Encounter a magical installation inspired by the natural environment and folklore. Drawing on medieval European folk beliefs and superstitions, visitors are enticed to step inside an oversized mushroom ring, triggering entrancing songs, and seducing guests to dance beyond time.’’

Chris Powell: What do college demonstrators in Conn. and elsewhere mean by ‘Free Palestine’?

Pro-Palestinian demonstration by students near Harvard University,  in Cambridge, Mass.

MANCHESTER, Conn.

College is back in session and students are returning not just to their studies but also to protests on campus about the war in Gaza. At the University of Connecticut at Storrs, Yale University in New Haven, and other institutions, students are chanting and carrying signs reading "Free Palestine!"

Journalism not being what it used to be, since literacy and civic engagement aren't either, no one seems to be asking the students exactly what they mean by "Free Palestine!" and how that objective should be achieved. 

So how do the student protesters define Palestine? Do they define it as most Palestinians themselves do, as encompassing the land "from the river to the sea" -- the land between the Jordan River and Mediterranean -- thus liquidating Israel, as Palestinians often have tried to do in war since the area was partitioned into Jewish and Arab sections by resolution of the United Nations in 1948, and as they are doing again now? 

Do the student protesters define Palestine as something that leaves room for Israel -- a Palestine consisting of Gaza, which Israel evacuated in 2005, and the "occupied West Bank," the land between Jordan and Israel proper, most of which Israel agreed to evacuate during negotiations sponsored by President Bill Clinton in 2000?

If the student protesters define Palestine as the Clinton plan did, they might want to ask the people on whose behalf they're protesting why they can't accept such a compromise even now that the war that Gaza launched against Israel last October has brought catastrophic bloodshed and ruin to the territory. The students should explain why Palestinian irredentism is worth so much.

And what do the student protesters mean by "free"? Do they mean civil liberties -- speech, press, assembly, religion, due process of law, women's rights, and sexual orientation -- liberties enjoyed in the United States, Western Europe, and Israel, but not in Gaza and West Bank areas under Palestinian control, nor, indeed, anywhere in the Arab world? If that's what the student protesters mean, they should go to Gaza or the West Bank and try to exercise such freedoms there, after making provision for the transport home of their corpses.

Or do the student protesters understand "free Palestine" as most Palestinians appear to understand it -- a land free of Jews, a land free to attack a neighboring state and people, bombarding, murdering, raping, and kidnapping whenever the necessary strength has been regained during another "ceasefire"?

Yes, the war in Gaza is horrifying. But then wars against totalitarians seldom can be won politely. The war against the totalitarian aggressors of World War II, Germany and Japan, were won only by leveling both countries, killing millions of civilians, and then remaking the totalitarian societies through long military occupations.

If the student protesters think there is another way, they should spell it out and offer it to the warring parties. They may find, as Clinton did, that making peace requires more than pious hand-wringing on a peaceful campus far away from cutthroats whose hatred and brutality far surpass anything the students can imagine.  

 

TREATMENT ISN'T ENOUGH: School officials and social workers report that Connecticut is facing an epidemic of mental illness among young people -- not just teens in high school but also children in elementary and middle school. There is clamor for state government to spend more for treatment and school mental-health clinics, as if that will solve the problem.

Little attention is being paid to the cause of the youth mental-illness epidemic. The recent virus epidemic and its disruption of school and home life is an easy explanation, but that epidemic is long over. Something else must be wrong. Child neglect was already bad when the virus struck. Because inflation soared during much of the time since the epidemic started, real incomes for many have fallen. That may have worsened neglect.

Treatment isn't enough. The General Assembly and Gov. Ned Lamont should strive to discern and eradicate the  causes  of youth mental illness.

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years (CPowell@cox.net).