CHANGING THE SUBJECT

It is hardly an overstatement to suggest these days that many of us are suffering from information overload. Much of that abundance focuses substantially on aspects of our current political climate, repetitively transmitted by a plethora of social media. It emerges from news media, contentious opinions expressed throughout quarrelsome discussions at family gatherings, or even introduced while engaged in unplanned casual interactions. When you hear the same topic discussed over and over again, messages lose their impact. Our brain begins to filter them out, they become background noise, and the process can lead to cognitive fatigue. Even if repackaged, our brains get tired of hearing the same information coming from multiple sources, to the point that we can no longer think of anything else to talk about. While much remains to be analyzed, dissected, discussed, and alert an audience about, intellectually little appears to remain to captivate the curious mind. I dislike the sensation of stagnation. Consequently, I felt compelled to take a temporary break from the heavy stuff, and reengage with a project I began some time ago. I recognized that there is a lot surrounding us that we should be curious about. The point is that we should reject the inclination to focus all of our sensory energy on the same subset of variables, but that we ought to instead expand our horizon. There are multiple ideas about how to do this. The one I prefer is very straightforward. Develop a list of every question that pops up in your mind, no matter how mundane, and set time aside to research the response to each entry. Many of us regularly wonder about things we are legitimately curious about, but we never satisfy our interest, even though we have a multitude of social media platforms designed exactly for that purpose available to us. This is sad, because being curious is an incredible fuel that keeps life interesting. Years ago I challenged myself to come up with a set number of questions within a limited period of time. It was amazing what we come up with when we focus. Both questions and answers will expand our knowledge. Not only that, the questions themselves could function as conversation starters and expand the variety of topics we might discuss. I am going to reproduce my initial list. Everyone could have fun developing his or her own lineup. The object is to take a break from the dominant discussion topic of the moment, diversify our mental activity and interrupt the monotony of what is thrown at us every waking hour of our day. This was my initial list: - What were the five French republics? - Isn't "Coque-au-vin" really "Poulet-au-vin"? - What are the colors of the rainbow? - Who was Saul Alinsky? - What are the names of the seven dwarfs? - Why do people in some countries drive on different sides of the road? - What is existentialism? - What is the speed of light? - What companies make up the Dow Jones? - What are the highest peaks on all continents? - What American presidents died in office? - Is there a major religion with a dominant female deity? - What is the origin of Valentine's Day? - What does the "stan" in Kazakhstan stand for? - How do we rank on the "poverty index?" - What do the letters "USA" seen on surface areas along the road stands for? - Where is Timbuktu? - Who was the Queen of Sheba? - Ho do you play Cricket? - What is the difference between white and brown eggs? - Why were Communists referred to as "pinkos?" - How long is a generation? - Why do psychics need directions to their conventions? - What is a calorie? - What is vitamin "D" good for? - What is the consistency of Wasabi? - What is a watershed? - Would blood transfusions or donations affect lowering cholesterol levels? - What ingestibles can serve as mosquito repellents? - How come that the majority of spelling bee winners appear to be ESL (English as a Second Language) graduates, or immigrants? - Could we describe the NRA as a terrorist organization? - What is discretionary energy? - What types of unemployment can we identify? - How do you prevent Alzheimer's? - How fast is a "knot"? - What makes Windex clean? - How come my window cleaner in my car never runs out of fluid, even though I never refill it? - Who modeled for Michael Angelo's "David?" - What is a stem cell? - How does a flash flood develop? - What is the calculation of "pie"? - What ethnicity was Buddha? - What is a "Bayou"? - How many stripes are there on the U.S. flag? - What is the national animal of Australia? - Why do we dream? - How does electricity work? - Why can't I remember movies that I've watched? - Who would you choose if you could be friends with a fictional character? Have some fun with this. Theo Wierdsma

SILENCE COULD BE DEADLY

Although identifying parallels between the Trump administration's approach to the power of government and Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany may have been overdone, however, some elements of their respective strategies are unequivocally and appropriately comparable. During his campaign, President Trump made a point of promising some radical policies. Mass deportations of undocumented aliens, abolition of D.E.I. (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs, and simplifying gender identification were just a few. Within weeks of taking office, the Trump administration deployed 5,000 active troops and national guard members to the Southern border. Thus far, I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) personnel carried out between 20,000 and 23,000 arrests. Its goal is to deport one million undocumented immigrants during the administration's first year. Locating, processing and deporting such a sizable target population has proven to be challenging. To handle this many migrants the administration is developing a deportation hub at Ford Bliss near El Paso, Texas, which could house up to 10,000 inmates as they go through the process. This facility is supposed to serve as a model for more internment camps on military sites across the country. For the time being, a 30,000 internee facility at Guantanamo Bay was scrapped because of the cost. Meanwhile, Republicans across the country are looking to implement a hardline immigration agenda that aligns with President Trump's vision of tougher measures in support of his core immigration policies. Much of this support focuses on helping I.C.E. identify suspected deportation candidates. Similar to a system Nazi Germany developed, which paid bounty hunters to inform on Jews hidden from the Gestapo, unscrupulous citizens are now ready to embrace the opportunity to earn some extra income. Missouri State Senator David Gregory recently introduced a Senate Bill which establishes an anonymous tip line allowing individuals to report suspected illegal immigrants. If their information leads to an arrest, the informer could receive a $1,000 reward. Mississippi is considering a similar compensation structure. Not to be outdone, Texas Governor Greg Abbott would also not rule out using bounty hunters to apprehend illegal migrants in his state. This strategy of incentivizing the search and seizure of suspected illegal immigrants without rhyme or reason promises to spread a growing apprehension among non white citizens, legitimate or not. The promise of potential rewards might become too strong for unscrupulous bounty hunters to care about evidence. Among other core elements of the administration's objectives are expeditiously implementing the abolishment of anything resembling D.E.I. (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion); delegitimizing transgender individuals struggling with gender identity issues, and reclassifying thousands of career civil service employees into a category that would eliminate their civil service protection. D.E.I. everything has been an overwhelming target from the beginning. On his first day in office, the president signed an order directing federal agencies to terminate all "equity related" contracts, grants or programs. He required federal contractors to verify that they don't promote D.E.I. Efforts to increase diversity have long been under attack by Republicans who contend the measures threaten merit-based hiring, promotion and economic opportunity for white people. The administration is eliminating the concept from the federal lexicon to an extreme degree. References to a World War II Medal of Honor recipient, the "Enola Gay" aircraft which dropped an atomic bomb on Japan, and photographs of the first women to pass marine infantry training are among the more than 26,000 images marked for deletion as the defense department works to purge D.E.I. content and change history. One official reported that the purge could remove as many as 100,000 images and posts all together. Noticeably, all targeted historic content portray non-white, male, heterosexual representations. (To highlight the idiocy of this project: the "Enola Gay" bomber was named after Enola Gay Tibbits, the mother of the pilot, Colonel Paul Tibbits.) The entire project displays the administration's racist inclinations. Mr. Trump's loyalists like to suggest that they are replacing D.E.I. with meritocracy. The underlying assumption appears to be that minorities and women are less competent. Transgender people are being erased as well. Donald Trump, playing God, ordained that hence forward we will recognize only two genders: male and female. Consequently, the Defense Department announced that the estimated 1,320 to 6,630 transgender individuals in our military will be removed. This scary scenario appears to be expanding unchallenged at an accelerated pace. While Trump sets the policy, many of his executioners exhibit their ignorance. Loyalty to the extreme leader appears to remain the only attribute required for survival at the pinnacle of our national government. Our tendency to not question these developments amount to legitimize what should be roundly rejected. What comes to mind is a powerful poem created at the end of World War II by the German Lutheran theologian Martin Niemoler: - First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist; - Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist; - Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew; - Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. Niemoler initially supported the Nazi movement. He ultimately became a staunch opponent of the regime, and spent years in a concentration camp. His poem is about the silent complicity of German intellectuals and clergy following the Nazi's rise to power and subsequent incremental purging of their chosen targets. His words are a reference to the Holocaust. They are also, however, a warning about the ease with which such an event could occur again if we of the present allow ourselves to become ignorant of the lessons of the past. Theo Wierdsma

TRADITIONAL INTERNATIONAL ALIGNMENTS ARE SHIFTING

The initial response to the disastrous Oval Office encounter between Hungarian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump and his vice president was that the resulting confrontation became a horrendously shameful moment for our country. The sentiment expressed by many was that the objective of the U.S. team was to ambush the Ukranian leader to be lectured to and humiliated on the world stage, either on behalf of or for the benefit of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. The massive reaction by a vast majority of world leaders and pundits should have been anticipated, but may have been unexpected. Washington Post Journalist Jonathan Capehart saw the staged event as "a travesty, horrendous, despicable." Republican columnist David Brooks reported that he was "nauseated, just nauseated." Republican Nebraska congressman Don Bacon suggested that what transpired was "a bad day for America's foreign policy. Trump might stand with Putin and his brutal invasion, but real Americans stand with Ukraine and its brave leader and valiant people" Prime minsters and presidents from all over, including the E.U., Great Britain, Canada and Australia, posted on social media in support of Zelensky and Ukraine. French President Emanuel Macron made clear that "There is an aggressor: Russia. There is a people under attack: Ukraine." Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese expressed support for Ukraine as well. He posted: "This is the struggle of a democratic nation versus an authoritarian regime led by Vladimir Putin who clearly has imperialistic designs, not just on Ukraine, but throughout that region." Polish Cold War hero Lech Walesa, leader of the "Solidarity" movement during the 1980s, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, and Polish president from 1990-1995, who fought USSR power, in a well planned, detailed response, voiced his horror at Trump's scolding of Zelensky. His open letter to Donald Trump, which was co-signed by 39 former Polish political prisoners, is well worth reading in its entirety. Some excerpts: "We watched the report of your conversation with the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, with fear and distaste." "Gratitude is owed to the heroic Ukranian soldiers who shed their blood in defense of the values of the free world." "We do not understand how the leader of a country that symbolizes the free world cannot recognize this." "The atmosphere in the Oval Office during this conversation --- reminded us of the interrogations we endured at the hands of the security services and the debates in Communist courts." On the Sunday following the shouting match in the Oval Office, leaders from the E.U., Great Britain and Canada met in an emergency meeting in London. Absent were the U.S. and Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orban, a long-time Putin ally and Trump supporter, who was not invited. This meeting was followed by an emergency session of the E.U. in Brussels on March 6, during which all but one of the attendees (Orban) voted to provide Ukraine with an additional $30 billion in support for military equipment, and a plan for $800 billion in a rearmament fund for Europe to defend Ukraine and itself. In the mean time, Donald Trump showed his colors by placing further U.S. military aid for Ukraine on hold, and cancelling intelligence sharing with Zelensky's military forces. In addition, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stop all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions. The Trump administration made clear that it no longer sees Russia as a cyber security threat. Shortly before these manipulations were executed, the U.N. passed a resolution calling for de-escalation, an immediate ceasefire and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. It included a demand for Russia's "complete and unconditional withdrawal" from Ukraine territory. Contrary to historical precedent, the U.S. voted against the resolution, joined by 17 others, including Russia, Israel, North Korea, Sudan, Belarus, Hungary and Iran. Every one of these, except for Israel, has an authoritarian system of government. Trump's maneuverings have raised concerns, not just in Europe, but also in the capitals of allies around the world. For about 80 years U.S. foreign policy has been based on a network of alliances and institutions that allowed the country "to project power, to create zones of prosperity, to enjoy trade with like-minded partners." This extended mainly to Europe. Trump is effectively signifying that he is no longer interested in hearing from European allies, and that he is aligning with a power that is a daily threat to Europe. He is also considering a major change to U.S. participation in NATO, especially relative to U.S. adherence to Article 5 of the alliance, which stipulates that an attack on any member is considered to be an attack on all and will prompt a total NATO response. Trump has pointedly stated that he would only send U.S. military to defend NATO allies that contribute what he deems to be a fair share of their national GDPs to their defense budgets. He has actually encouraged Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" to any NATO country that does not pay enough. European leaders are scrambling about how to respond to these attacks on an alliance that has successfully endured for this long. They need to consider what they can do to help Ukraine stave off continued military attacks by Russia and political attacks by Trump. Giorgia Meloni, Italy's prime minister, leader of the, fascist leaning, "Brothers of Italy," and a Trump supporter, is pushing for a summit meeting to help clarify positions and develop options. The continent is reorganizing, but hoping that eventually America will come back. A lot can happen during the next four years. Theo Wierdsma

CONFRONTING FASCISM

It did not take long. Soon after the new Trump administration moved in and began its implementation of significant components of the "Project 2025" blueprint, the accusations of "Fascist" and "Fascism" surfaced everywhere. Governmental institutions that had survived for generations suddenly ended up on the endangered species list. Civil servants, whose lifetime employment had been considered permanent, were suddenly asked to resign or face termination. Many faced replacement by functionaries whose dominant "expertise" included their willingness to pledge loyalty to the new president. With a stroke of the pen, all references to D.E.I. (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) were erased. Related programs and their administrators were eliminated. Everything considered negative, including the January 29 mid-air collision over the Potomac, were blamed on its programs. Thousands of immigrants, mostly undocumented, even some legally in the country, now feared internment and deportation. Members of the administration's authoritarian core began haphazardly deciding who belonged to the in-group and whose careers should be eliminated. And the administration's apparent master plan continued to unfold day after day. Fascism is essentially an ideological catch-all term which refers to a broad set of aspirations and influences that emerged during the early 20th century. It became identified by the European dictators Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and Francisco Franco. The movement included elements of nationalism, enforcement of social hierarchy, hatred toward social minority groups, opposition to liberalism, a cult of personality, racism and the love of militaristic symbols. An ABC News poll, conducted in October 2024, found that 49% of American registered voters considered President Trump to be a Fascist. This could simply be a gut-level response. However, multiple academics have contributed to the attempt to fit President Trump into their definition of the ideology. Yale historian Timothy Snyder, whose fairly recent manuscript "On Tyranny" received significant traction, in his article: "What does it mean that Donald Trump is a Fascist?" (The New Yorker, Nov. 8, 2024), defined the concept as "a political extremist who seeks to act as a dictator, disregards individual rights, and threatens to use force against political opponents." Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale, in his book: "How Fascism Works - the politics of us and them," elaborates on this definition. He talks about the "cult of a leader who promises national restoration in the face of humiliation brought on by supposed communists, Marxists, minorities and immigrants who are presumably a threat to the character and the history of a nation." The leader proposes that only he can solve it, and he considers all of his political opponents enemies or traitors. As the expression goes: "If the shoe fits..." Historian Ian Kershaw wrote that "trying to define "Fascism" is like trying to nail jelly to the wall." However, the allegations of Fascism don't just emerge from the president's political opponents. Trump's former Chief of Staff, retired Marine General John Kelly maintains that Trump "fits the definition of Fascist." Former United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, after the president suggested that Milley "should just shoot the protestors. Just shoot them in the legs or something," called Trump "Fascist to the core." Political Scientist Robert Paxton, who specializes in the study of Fascism, previously denied that Trump should be labeled a Fascist. However, he changed his views after the January 6 attack. Paxton saw the attack on the Capitol as similar to Mussolini's 1922 march on Rome. Just as Mussolini pardoned the black-shirts who helped him ascend to power, Trump pardoned his supporters convicted of taking part in the attempted insurrection. Princeton philosopher Jan Werner Muller is still not convinced that "Trumpism" is a species of Fascism. He prefers to call it far-right populism. However, he concedes that " it would be foolish to start reflecting on Fascism only when it is fully fledged." Regrettably, aside from some of the attributes identified in the opening paragraph, the list of qualifications is rapidly expanding: - The Department of Education is scheduled to be eliminated; - The Federal government has been instructed to insure that the K-12 education curriculum across the country is converted from "radical indoctrination" to "patriotic education."; - The administration has withdrawn from the USAID - the Agency for International Development. The 10,000 staff of experts has been reduced to a skeleton contingent of 300. - Mr. Trump plans to terminate multiple individuals from the Board of the Kennedy Center and install himself as its chair, with the intent to change its vision to that of a "golden age of arts and culture. - The president made a point of his intention to use the Insurrection Act of 1807, and deploy the military in Democratic cities and states against perceived opponents. (Between 2022 and October 2024 he has made more than 100 threats to investigate, prosecute, imprison or otherwise punish his perceived opponents.). - He made a point of supporting the activities of Elon Musk, his unelected "special government employee" who managed to exhibit his Fascist inclinations by twice enthusiastically offering a stiff-armed Nazi salute during the inauguration ceremonies, and by telling a crowd of 4,500 Neo-Nazi "Alternative For Germany" attendees of Germany's second largest political party - during Holocaust Remembrance Day, and during the 80 year anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, to not be ashamed of what happened during the execution of the Nazi's "final solution" during World War 2. So, is President Trump really a Fascist? Probably! But the more important question is whether the electorate cares, and whether enlightened patriots will continue to let him get away with it. Theo Wierdsma

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDER ATTACK

Throughout his campaign, President Trump maintained that he never read and had nothing to do with "Project 2025," the handbook for a new conservative government, published by the Heritage Foundation as "The Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise." He adamantly insisted: "I haven't read it. I don't want to read it purposely. I'm not going to read it." Nevertheless, after getting elected, he appears to have changed his mind. A CNN analysis concluded that of the 53 executive orders and actions from his first week in office, more than two-thirds - thirty-six - evoked proposals outlined in Project 2025's 922 page detailed blueprint for the next Republican president. Few are more controversial than Mr. Trump's objective to eliminate Birthright Citizenship. In his executive order titled: "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" the president stipulates that beginning 30 days from the date of his order - January 21 - children born in the United States will no longer automatically acquire citizenship. The president declared: "It is ridiculous." He mistakenly claimed that: "We are the only country in the world that does this with the birthright as you know, and it is absolutely ridiculous." In reality, more than 30 countries across the world offer citizenship as a birthright, although some have attached some conditions. Mr. Trump's obsession with birthright citizenship was not unexpected. He targeted the issue as well during his first term in office. Almost immediately upon his announcement, 22 states sued to stop the order from taking effect. Judge John C. Coughenour, a senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a temporary restraining order, blocking the the executive order from taking effect. He summarized his decision by stating: "I've been on the bench for four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order." Legal minds agree that the termination of birthright citizenship constitutes a clear constitutional violation and is the most legally precarious of all executive orders the president has issued thus far. The 14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified by the states on July 9, 1868, clearly states that: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The validity of the Amendment was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of "United States v. Kim Ark" in 1898. This case established that "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" applies to everyone who is not a diplomat or a soldier in an invading army. The 14th Amendment was designed to protect the civil liberties of people who recently had been freed from slavery. The "birthright clause" was based on a principle in English law in the early 17th century by a ruling that anyone born in a place subject to the King of England was a "natural-born" subject of England. Birthright citizenship has nothing to do with one's parents. Congress could decide tomorrow to stop granting citizenship to those born to an American parent abroad, but it does not regulate citizenship of those born on U.S. soil. The 14th Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship - birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the form of law. Citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Taking away birthright citizenship from children born on U.S. soil would not be simple. Doing so would only be possible through the passage of a new constitutional amendment, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, as well as ratification by three-quarters of the states. Alternatively, the U.S. Supreme Court could adopt a more restrictive interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. This would require the Court to radically deviate from the well-established precedent that cements the fact that children born in the country are lawful citizens regardless of their parents' immigration status. Gerald Neuman - professor of International, Foreign and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School joins virtually all legal scholars in the country by bluntly stating: "The president of the United States has no authority to change citizenship rules at all." President Trump's Executive Orders may comply with guidelines outlined in the blueprint published by Project 2025. However, they must be based on existing statutory powers granted to him by the Constitution to be legally enforceable. Theo Wierdsma

REMEMBERING JIMMY CARTER

America lost a giant on December 29, when our 39th president, Jimmy Carter, passed away at the age of 100. After his wife of 77 years, former First Lady Rosalynn Carter, died a year ago, President Carter decided to stop his treatment for diagnosed metastatic skin cancer. He, instead, chose to enter hospice at his home in Plains, Georgia. They will be rejoined and be buried side by side at the family compound. Jimmy Carter, who has been referred to as the "humblest president in our history" was much more highly regarded for all the humanitarian work he took on after he lost his bid for reelection to Ronald Reagan in 1980 than for his record in office. Carter took office just thirty months after Richard Nixon had left the entire federal government in shambles and became president by narrowly defeating Gerald Ford. He faced multiple epic challenges during his four years in office: the energy crisis, Soviet aggression, Iran, and a deep, post Watergate, mistrust of leadership by his citizens. Critical observers described him as hard working and conscientious, but sometimes out of place. His stubborn independence, a great asset while running for office, became his downfall while climbing to the presidency. Carter's idealism came through in his inaugural address. Some of its salient points are worth repeating. They are still appropriate in the current political climate: - "For myself and for our nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land." - "Let us create together a new national spirit of unity and trust." - "We reject the prospect of failure or mediocrity or an inferior quality of life for any person. Our government must at the same time be both competent and compassionate." - "We know that the best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation." - "We will be vigilant and never vulnerable, and we will fight our wars against poverty, ignorance, and injustice - for those are the enemies against which our forces can be honorably marshalled." While most ex-presidents pursued financially rewarding activities after leaving office, President Carter pointedly rejected that path, intimating his disinterest in getting rich. Shortly after his presidency, in 1982, the president established the Carter Center, designed to promote and expand human rights, and which earned him a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. The former president traveled extensively to conduct peace negotiations, monitor elections, and to further the eradication of infectious diseases. Many of us admired him for personally and physically participating in the works of Habitat for Humanity until he was well into his nineties. Few, if any, former presidents have earned the gratitude and admiration President Carter has after leaving the presidency. He really was a giant among many who provided us with a model for what it takes to be a decent human being. He deserves a prominent place in our history. Thank you Mr. President! You set an example to be emulated. Theo Wierdsma

REVIEWING NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS

Many of us, be it overtly, surreptitiously, or perhaps even unwittingly, partake in the annual tradition of developing at least some resolutions for the new year. Some are already struggling to follow through on the promise they made to themselves to start doing something good or stop doing something bad on the first day of the year. Others have begun the process of adjusting their stated objectives to align results with the promise of success. The tradition of setting new goals at the beginning of the year is believed to have originated with the ancient Babylonians some four thousand years ago. Members of this prominent, historically important civilization made promises to their gods during new year's celebrations, which involved a massive, twelve day, religious festival, known as Akitu. They vowed to change their behavior in order to earn favor of the gods and start the new year on the right foot. Pledges reportedly included paying off debts and returning borrowed farm equipment. A similar practice developed in ancient Rome after Julius Caesar established January 1 as the beginning of the new year. January was named after Janus, the god of beginnings, endings and transitions. He was also known as a two-faced god, who was believed to symbolically look backwards into the previous year and ahead into the future. Over the centuries multiple superstitions developed indicating which activities promised good luck or Divine favors in the new year. In Spain people eat a dozen grapes, one for each strike of the clock at midnight. In Denmark revelers smash plates on their neighbors' doorsteps on New Year's Day - the more pieces that break apart, the better the fortune. Citizens of Greece smash a pomegranate on New Year's Day to bring life and luck. Others feature fireworks. We drop a ball in New York's Times Square. And according to Chinese lore - you should not clean your house or wash your hair on New Year's Day, so as not to wash away any good luck. Most of us who subscribe to some of the traditions that have been passed along over time still surrender to the tradition of setting resolutions in one form or another when ringing in the new year. Entire books have been written to help shape our efforts to do just that. Publications like "A Year To Live," by Stephen Levine, or "The Pivot Year," from Brianna Wiest, can help formulating these endeavors. Other works like "It Always Seems Impossible Until It's Done," by Kathryn and Ross Petras, might actually help stimulate our attempts at following through. Their book lists inspirational messages uttered by well-known orators. Random samples include: "Ninety-nine percent of all failures come from people who have a habit of making excuses." - George Washington Carver; "You miss a hundred percent of the shots you don't take." - Wayne Gretzky; "The most effective way to do it, is to do it." -Amelia Earhart; "The best way to make your dreams come true is to wake up." - Muhammad Ali; "To avoid criticism, do nothing, be nothing." - Elbert Hubbard. The sad thing is that an estimated 88% will fail. Many of us already have. However, the calendar provides a silver lining, or a chance to reset. January 29 begins the Lunar New Year, often confused with Chinese New Year, which is celebrated by numerous cultures. The Lunar New Year occurs on the new moon of the first lunar month - a month measured between successive new moons. It features 12 Chinese Zodiac Signs. Each sign is named after an animal and each animal has its own unique characteristics. This upcoming year features the "wood snake," a rare and meaningful combination which only appears once every 60 years. According to legend, this coming year promises to bring wisdom, adaptability and a sense of transformation. We can only hope. Be it as it may, those of us who are in danger of losing the battle to fulfill our New Year's resolutions might grasp this opportunity and accept a life line. You can still fulfill the promises you made to yourself. As Babe Ruth told us years ago: "It's hard to beat a person who never gives up." Theo Wierdsma