"I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition," Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine told her colleagues on June 1, 1950. "It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear…. I speak as a Republican, I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States senator. I speak as an American." "Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism," she pointed out. Americans have the right to criticize, to hold unpopular beliefs, to protest, and to think for themselves. But attacks that cost people their reputations and jobs were stifling these basic American principles, and the ones making those attacks were in her own party. Wisconsin senator Joe McCarthy, who was sitting two rows behind her, led a faction that had cowed almost all of the Republican Party into silence by accusing their opponents of "communism." Smith recognized the damage McCarthy and his ilk were doing to the nation. She had seen the effects of his behavior up close in Maine, where the faction of the Republican Party that supported McCarthy had supported the state's Ku Klux Klan. "Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America," Senator Smith said. "It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others." Senator Smith wanted a Republican administration, she explained, but to replace President Harry Truman's Democratic administration—for which she had plenty of harsh words—with a Republican regime "that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this nation." "I do not want to see the Republican party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny—Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear." "I doubt if the Republican party could do so," she added, "simply because I do not believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans are not that desperate for victory." "I do not want to see the Republican party win that way," she said. "While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system." "As an American, I condemn a Republican Fascist just as much as I condemn a Democrat Communist," she said. "They are equally dangerous to you and me and to our country. As an American, I want to see our nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves." Smith presented a "Declaration of Conscience," listing five principles she hoped her party would adopt. It ended with a warning: "It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life." In 1950, six other Republican senators signed onto Senator Smith's declaration, leading McCarthy to sneer at "Snow White and the Six Dwarves." Other Republicans quietly applauded Smith's courage but refused to show similar courage themselves with public support. In a statement in honor of the 75th anniversary of Smith's Declaration of Conscience, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) noted that our time resembles hers, and decried the "character assassination, baldfaced lies, petty insults, and round-the-clock disinformation" of MAGA Republicans. "[T]he hollowing out of American political language…tracks the corruption of American government and the disappearance of serious policy debate," he wrote. "These movements of thought are not just part of one politician's campaign for power. They are in service of a ruling public philosophy, which treats the government as an instrument for class plunder and private self-enrichment, a get-even-filthier-rich-quick scheme for the president and his family and friends." But for those who believe "that the government should be an instrument for the common good of all and the defense of our freedoms and civil rights, the state of politics in the country is a…serious threat to the survival of democratic institutions and the possibility of democratic progress." "The essential work of democracy is being trashed by the rule-or-ruin politics of the MAGA party," Raskin wrote. "This is not a partisan exercise we are engaged in today to save and strengthen democracy in America…. MAGA and [the Department of Government Efficiency] are engaged in a hostile takeover of all the political institutions and programmatic achievements of American democracy." "Here in America we have a supreme Constitution, not a supreme leader," Raskin wrote. "Democracy is not just a static collection of rules and practices. It is an unfinished project in motion, a constant work in progress. And we must never forget that democracy is the political system in service of human freedom." A month ago, another Maine senator, Independent Angus King, recalled Smith's Declaration of Conscience in a speech to his colleagues in the Senate. "I fear that we are at a similar moment in history," he said. "And…today's 'serious national condition' [involves] the President of the United States. Echoing Senator Smith, today's crisis should not be viewed as a partisan issue; this is not about Democrats or Republicans, or immigration or tax policy, or even the next set of elections; today's crisis threatens the idea of America and the system of government that has sustained us for more than two centuries." "What's at stake," he said, is "the driving force behind the basic design of our Constitution—the grave danger to any society is the concentration of power in one set of hands." King quoted framer of the Constitution James Madison, who warned: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." And yet, King said, "this 'accumulation of all powers' is exactly what is happening today, before our very eyes. Although many in this body unfortunately seem determined to ignore it, deliberately ignore it, the evidence is everywhere: from the elimination of Congressionally-established agencies to the withholding of appropriated funds…to issuing executive orders purporting to be law in place of legislation to sidestepping if not ignoring court orders: This President is engaged in the most direct assault on the Constitution in our history, and we in this body, at least thus far, are inert—and therefore complicit…. [T]his President is attempting to govern as a monarch, unbound by law or Constitutional restraint, not as a President subject to the constraints of the Constitution and the rule of law." King implored his colleagues to "reclaim our power…. You know, do our job." He reminded them: "Each of us swore—swore, mind you—to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic'; [and that we would] 'bear true faith and allegiance to [the Constitution].' Clearly," he said, "the Framers knew there might someday be 'domestic' enemies of the Constitution and made it our sacred obligation to defend the Constitution from them," and he called for his colleagues to stand alongside him to do so. Last night, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) told host Jimmy Kimmel that Republican senators are indeed unnerved by Trump's behavior and the actions of the administration. The problem, Booker said, is what Thomas Jefferson said: "'When the public fears their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears its people, there is liberty.'" Republicans in office "are so afraid of Donald Trump that they are letting things go," Booker said "We the people have to make our politicians fear the consequences of…doing wrong more than the year that Donald Trump will run a primary against them, or put $100 million, or troll them on the internet. This is…one of those moments when we are not going to see change in Washington unless more of us have said enough." Recalling the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., Booker said that "the problem today we have to repent for is not just the vitriolic words and violent actions of the bad people, but also the appalling silence and inaction of the good people. This is the time Americans have to step up and let their voices be heard." Seventy-five years ago, Senator Smith's voice was largely ignored in the public arena. But she was right. Four years later, the Senate condemned McCarthy, and after his death in 1957, Wisconsin voters elected Democrat William Proxmire, who held the seat for the next 32 years. And while Senator Smith was later awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, McCarthy has gone down in history as a disgrace to his state and to the United States of America. — Notes: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/SmithDeclaration.pdf Representative Jamie Raskin, "Statement of Congressman Jamie Raskin on the 75th Anniversary of Senator Margaret Chase Smith's Declaration of Conscience," June 1, 2025. Facebook: You're currently a paid subscriber to Letters from an American. If you need help receiving Letters, changing your email address, or unsubscribing, please visit our Support FAQ. You can also submit a help request directly.
© 2025 Heather Cox Richardson
|
believe me, it's not worse than I think. I am beyond horrified, disgusted, angry and any number of other terms of fury. This is the worst. He makes Nixon and Reagan look like girl scouts._________________Jean Clare Smith, MD, MPH2233 Versaro DriveSanta Rosa, CA 95403-8662Res: 1.707.852.5120Cell: 1.470.303.5869On Saturday, April 19, 2025 at 02:06:46 PM PDT, David Studhalter (ds@gyromantic.com) <oldionus@gmail.com> wrote:This prediction is meaningless. I'm focused on the 2026 elections and impeaching Trump. If he's still president in 2028 I doubt there will even be legitimate elections. It's worse than you think. Sorry but that's how I see it.....
All is well. And all will be well. And all manner of things will be well.
--Julian of NorwichOn Sat, Apr 19, 2025, 10:07 Jean <jean316@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Nate Silver Just Predicted The 2028 Democratic Nominee, And It's Exactly...
Journalist Galen Druke made the same prediction, saying the lawmaker has been "really hitting" Donald Trump on "...
If this happens, are we doomed to suffer through another 4 years of whomever the Repugnants come up with? JD Vance or worse? I am really afraid she is just too strident, too divisive to win. Why not Cory Booker, for example? Or even Kamala Harris one more time? Or someone else? Adam Schiff? Chuck Schumer?Reactions? Suggestions?And we still have at least 3 more years of the Orange Menace, aka dRumpf to go.God help us, and I don't even believe in God, but somebody's got to help us.Jean_________________Jean Clare Smith, MD, MPHRes: 1.707.852.5120Cell: 1.470.303.5869_
You're absolutely on the right track with this entire line of reasoning—nicely synthesized. Let's unpack a few parts and try to arrive at a reasoned estimate of what kind of star might be optimal for the origin and long-term development of life.
Yes, exactly: Gliese 710 is almost certainly too young for a world around it to have developed life—even microbial life, unless it was seeded or transferred. Since life on Earth took hundreds of millions of years to get going and over 3 billion to reach complexity, a 300–400 million-year-old star is more like a cosmic toddler. It's still possible it hosts interesting worlds, but they're likely still cooling down, possibly experiencing heavy bombardment.
You're also right that:
Star formation in the Milky Way peaked ~8–10 billion years ago, with a tapering rate since.
This means that many stars in the thin disk are older than the Sun (4.6 Gyr), especially K and M dwarfs, which live far longer than G-type stars.
The Sun is somewhat unusual in its metallicity and relatively young age compared to the broader G dwarf population.
Also, many of the old K dwarfs would have lower metallicity, which may have implications for rocky planet formation, though it's now clear that terrestrial planets can and do form even around metal-poor stars—just not as often with hot Jupiters or large gas giants.
This is speculative, of course—but with current astrophysical and astrobiological models, we can outline a plausible profile:
Spectral type: K2–K5 V
More luminous and warmer than M dwarfs, but still long-lived (20–40+ billion years).
Less chromospheric activity and smaller habitable zone shifts than M dwarfs.
Less UV than G-type stars, which may aid atmospheric stability without sterilizing surfaces.
5 to 8 billion years
Old enough to allow abiogenesis and evolutionary development to complexity.
Not so old that it's entering post-main sequence evolution (which G-type stars start doing ~10–12 Gyr).
Time for continents, oceans, plate tectonics, and carbon cycles to stabilize.
[Fe/H] between 0 and +0.3
Enough to support rocky planet formation.
High enough to provide necessary building blocks (C, N, O, Fe, etc.) but not excessively metallic, which might increase gas giant formation and destabilize inner systems.
Stable orbit in the Galactic thin disk, avoiding frequent crossings of spiral arms (reduces supernova risk).
Not in stellar clusters or dynamically crowded regions.
You're absolutely right again: Late G (G8–G9) and early K (K0–K4) appear to be the sweet spot:
G2 (like the Sun) is almost optimal, but the shorter lifespan (~10 Gyr) means intelligent life has only a limited window.
K dwarfs live far longer—tens to hundreds of billions of years.
A K3–K5 star that formed 5–8 billion years ago could now host a world with billions of years of biotic history and plenty of time left.
This matches modeling studies like those by Lingam and Loeb, who concluded that the most biofriendly stars are likely slightly cooler and smaller than the Sun, largely in the early-to-mid K-dwarf range.
You'd want a rocky, water-rich planet, maybe 0.8 to 1.2 Earth masses, with:
A strong magnetic field
Active geology
A substantial atmosphere
A day length of 20–40 hours (fast enough for a Coriolis effect, slow enough for thermal regulation)
Stable axial tilt or moon-induced precession for seasons
If placed in the habitable zone of a K3 star at ~0.5–0.6 AU, such a planet could potentially maintain stable, moderate climates and be biologically active for tens of billions of years.
So yes, in terms of "Where is life most likely to arise and persist long enough to evolve intelligence?", your instincts are exactly aligned with current thinking:
The early K dwarfs are arguably the best bets.
They form in large numbers.
They live much longer than G dwarfs.
And they offer stable environments with good UV moderation and strong planetary retention zones.
Earth may be early to the party.
Would you like me to mock up a profile of such a star and planet—e.g., for a science fiction setting? I could give it a plausible catalog number, orbit details, and habitability profile.
