plinyblogdotcom

While appalled at the distasteful and immoral revelations brought to light in the current Stormy Daniels-Donald Trump criminal prosecution, we would, as a “sidebar,” metaphysically question society’s eternal designation of sexual misconduct as the most venal of the diverse cornucopia of reprehensible behavior.   

In this context, it has been irrefutably demonstrated that the former President is guilty of the flagrant commission of an overabundance of immoral and illegal indiscretions. Many of the latter, objectively measured by their empirically, proximate harm are, inarguably, far more serious than an anti-societal act of adultery performed with a porn star. Such significantly impactful instances of his behavior include treason, inciting insurrection, criminal negligence during the pandemic, intentional theft of top secret government documents, historically egregious unconstitutional behavior in the nature of voter interference and gross and substantial violation of the emolument clause. To add icing to his oversized criminal cake, Trump has publically declared his intention, if elected, to be a dictator.

A moral conundrum, in our view, consists in the bizarre historical societal predilection in Western Civilization, to evaluate errant sexual behavior, albeit immoral, as the singularly paramount deplorable sin, or ultimate act of wrongdoing, as evident in the cited case, despite Trump’s plethora of more impactful, criminal transgressions. In reference to the criminal elements of the Stormy Daniels case, the “hush money” payments are alleged to have been made to silence the public disclosure of Trump’s immoral sexual congress with a “porn star,” just before an election.

Our thematic conundrum is illustrated by the thematic absence of “hush money” attempts to hide from voters any other of the many and various improper and felonious behavior of Trump’s 91 criminal indictments, and his treasonous and corrupt behavior, numerous enough to fill several dumpsters.

We would cite for its illustrative relevance, Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic novel, “The Scarlet Letter” (1860). In the novel, the female protagonist, Hester Prynne, is punished for an unmarried act of sex,  shunned by her Puritan Society and forced to shamefully wear the letter “A” (for adultery) for the rest of her life. She is otherwise portrayed as a moral and charitable woman, [In our nuanced view, Hawthorne was describing a purportedly religious society who, in their moral hubris, violated the Biblical admonitions for forgiveness and repentance]. Notwithstanding such observation, the relevant fact is that unsanctioned sexual behavior has eternally been portrayed as Man’s ultimate unforgivable sin, bar none.

Despite the many and various staggeringly impactful transgressions of Donald Trump, it appears to have been Trump’s circumspect fear of adverse publicity, singularly relating to his “Stormy Daniels” transgression, for which the legally proven criminal and arcane mode of payoff for silence was deemed necessary. As empirically demonstrated, in the contextual hierarchy of society, his errant act of sexual misconduct was again, populistically perceived as meriting singular attention, to the exclusion of his many other ubiquitous acts of effectively greater venality and harm.

 Can it be that society is sufficiently shallow in character and principle, as to selectively ignore reprehensible acts of inhumane cruelty and pathological degradation and direct the beams of its populist searchlight on the more primitively religious and exotic subject of errant sexual behavior? Is the “North” in our sociological moral compass fixed in the magnetic direction of bedroom keyholes?  

Adulterous sex, inarguably, constitutes a significant impediment to our societal order and, conceivably, a material breach of the Social Compact. One would assume, however, that a rational and utilitarian hierarchical classification of human wrongdoing would be construed, respectively, in accordance with criteria relating to the nature and quantity of its consequent, human impact. Our tentative conclusion is that sexual misconduct is more primitively and emotionally unsettling to Man, whose accepted civility requires the diligent restraint and attenuation of his own personal desires.

-p.

Evangelical Christianity, as generally known is an influential proselytizing movement, whose avowed purpose is to affirmatively promote the moral teachings and faith as prescribed in the New Testament. Such self-appointed “mission” encompasses the active promotion of New Testament Biblical dogma, particularly, its proclaimed direction to Mankind to conduct his life in an unassailably moral and faith-based manner. The context of this writing relates to our attempt to comprehend their bizarre and unfailing support of the sociopathic person of Donald Trump.

In our view, the salient revelation of empirical falsity of such avowed missionary dedication appears to be nowhere as demonstrably false and deceitful as in the movement’s eternal support for the miscreant, Donald J. Trump; whose blatant immorality and multiple acts of felonious criminality (“sins”) are daily confirmed by the national media.

Perhaps the most illuminating of Trump’s vast morass of immoral and egregious charges (inclusive of  91 felony indictments and errant behavior ranging from tax fraud, bribery, adultery, judicially determined rape, defamation and tax fraud, to, acts of definitional treason and sedition, including the incitement of an insurrection), is the “hush money,” Trump-Stormy Daniels, Criminal Court prosecution, now on trial. The case involves Trump’s adulterous congress with a porn star, at the time when his third wife, Melania had recently given birth to their son, Baron. Trump’s “sinful” behavior, later exacerbated by his criminally fraudulent scheme to hide it from potential public notoriety by means of a false pay-off scheme, designating the same as “legal fees”; to avoid the revelation, before an imminent election, of his lewd and lascivious lifestyle. Said deceitful and lurid episode if potentially supplemented by a broadcast taped event, containing Trump’s outrageous boasts of singular sexual prowess and celebrity privilege regarding women, predictably, would have ended his role as a Presidential nominee.

The reported testimony in the Stormy Daniels criminal fraud trial, to date, unveils the neurotic extent of Donald Trump’s narcissistic sense of personal sexual prowess; her surprise confrontation with his unexpected appearance in “sexy” silk pajamas, and enticing behavior, consisting of his false intimations to “Stormy” of the opportunity to appear on the Trump- hosted television program, “The Apprentice,” and the adulterous sex act, itself. Also clearly proven was the subsequent, felonious scheme to disguise the $130,000 payoff to Stormy for her silence.

As a general matter, Donald J. Trump has long been shown to be a serial abuser of women. The record confirms that Trump has practiced a life-long career of sexual assault, including, non-consensual groping and kissing of women. Notably, Trump has been judicially adjudicated a “rapist” and a serial defamer in the much publicized, E. Jean Carroll case. In the realm of business, Trump enjoys a known, despicable reputation for “stiffing” his contractors, tax evasion and a well-deserved reputation as a real estate grifter.

It is thematically instructive that Trump’s tawdry lifetime of “sin,” including his overflowing cornucopia of criminal acts, many of which are the subject of criminal indictment, supplemented by his record as a serial feminine abuser and rapist, markedly, have not diminished his consistent support by the Evangelical movement, the latter, publically represented as the proselytizing and judgmental “holier than thou,” “keep the faith,” horde of apparent religious pretenders..

An instructively analogous phenomenon, viz., the purported, “Right to Life,” advocates’ publically espoused pretentions, similarly, do not, at minimum, approach empirical reality. Contrary to the language of their tactically selected name, they will dedicatedly and shamelessly commit murder, destroy adult lives, and institute harassing criminal prosecutions, in their purported cause to protect “life”; but whose rank hypocrisy is irrefutably revealed by their consistently cruel opposition to government assistance to the needy child following birth. The patent hypocrisy of their avowed mission espousing “right to life,” is demonstrated by its bizarre applicability, solely, to the fetus, itself, until the event of birth. Their irrational hypocrisy and deceitful pretense is further demonstrated by their record of support for capital punishment, uniform opposition to gun regulation and opposition to both abortion and contraception. By analogy to the purported Evangelical Deity-inspired, moral mission, which chooses to afford its tactical support for the brazenly immoral Donald Trump, the “Right to Life” movement deceitfully, asserts its firm dedication to protect “human life,” albeit, strictly limited to the existence and duration of the fetus. It is observably evident that their respective motivations are far from that publicly advertised.

Political power and influence would empirically appear to be the authentic motivation of Evangelical Christianity as well as the deceitfully named, “Right to Life” adherents. Rather than admirable promotion of morality and respect for human life, they, unconscionably, mask their nefarious lust for political power and noxious influence in appealing, but false and deceptive cloaks of moral rectitude.

We have often declared the existential importance for any normally socialized, contemplative citizen, to exercise his moral judgment, founded upon his own consistent, empirically based self-image, rather than to, facilely and perilously, accept that of any arrogant and possibly self-interested third-party sources, religious or secular.

-p.  

We may not be singular in our experienced-based opinion that human character and persona may be demonstrated and evaluated by the way one treats his pet animals.  A dog or cat owner who lovingly cares for his coveted little friend is predictably, a caring and empathic person. Contrariwise, a pet owner who evinces cruelty or negligence to his dependent animal charge, is to be wisely avoided. Based upon decades of observation, we would hazard the presumption that our declaration is universal.

Our view of contemporary American society whose traditional aspiration is democratically fair, empathic, and reliably observant of the moral compass, has nonetheless, morphed into a contrasting, coarser, self-interested and populist influenced entity. We have observed a declining interest in personal development, aspiration for self- fulfillment and mature understanding of the inner self, and a prevalent interest in electronic convenience, demonstrated financial success, and ephemeral personal diversion. In our often expressed view, this disappointing condition is attributable to the exponential increase in digital communication in lieu of personally salubrious human interaction in person or by telephone, the notable decline in personal agency formally derived from an inner sense of capability, voluntarily sacrificed in favor of mundane and facile computer utilization, the decline in the recognition of the assurance of familiar personal nuance and interactively confirmed self-image resulting in the decline in critical self-evaluation and self-affirming maintenance of humanistic mind-set.

Notwithstanding the above declaration, certain foundational principles have survived such insensitive coarsening and objectivizing of society since, the existential institution of society, itself, would be undermined and ultimately, disappear. Perhaps one of the most fundamental, surviving principles is that of the intrinsic value of life itself; a close second, in our view, is a rare, but empirically, surviving modicum of situational humanism.

The advent of former President, Donald J. Trump together with his cult of retrograde MAGA followers has observably exacerbated a formerly gradual societal decline in metaphysical societal values such as basic moral compass, transactional assumptions of objective truth and empathic humanistic policies. His one term in office had demonstrated a singularly rare criminal and malodorous inclination, never before so rewarded with unlimited and universal power. The mainstream American citizen is accordingly terrified by the prospect of another term of autocratic and corrupt Presidency of that nominee, notwithstanding which fear, it appears that a number of his retrograde followers are in avid competition to share his future ticket as Vice-Presidential candidate.

One such presumed aspirant, notably occupying the (thematic) role of protagonist in this writing, is Congresswoman Kristi Noem, of South Dakota. In our view, Noem (i.e., “No empathy?”) has irrefutably demonstrated that she has attained the zenith of malevolent suitability as a running mate for Trump.

It would not seem especially revelatory to relate the specific political views of our protagonist, other than to declare that she has used her Congressional seat to vote fully in accord with the Trump –MAGA program; inclusive of the perverse policies of anti-immigration, protectionism, denialism, and their entire anti-democratic menu of atavistic civil rights and anti-regulation policies. The absence of such contextual necessity resides in the fact of her recently expressed, heartless pride in having revealingly and boasted of having committed certain notably horrendous acts of telling sadism and thereafter choosing to recount such shameful incidents in a published book she authored.

In “Memoirs,” the publically distributed book, authored by our thematic miscreant, she unemotionally (proudly?) writes of killing her young puppy, because she was impatient with his disappointing progress in learning to be a partridge hunting dog and further, on the same day, shooting a family-owned goat because he “smelled.” Such acts of cruelty, alone, are descriptively definitional and, like a metastasizing cancer, were toxically exacerbated by her diagnosable recounting of the same in her book.

If her intention in such public proclamation of her atrociously cruel acts of animal murder was tactically intended for the approval of the fascistic ears of Donald Trump, she might, conceivably, be successful (with the caveat that Donald Trump is not known to be a reader). Was she possibly attempting to advise the Orange Monomaniac, that “she” would have had the perverse audacity and loyalty to have hung Vice-President Pence?

In any event, Ms. Noam demonstrated that she, acceptably, possesses a similar pathological inclination to that of the modern-day, Presidential Adolph Eichmann-like, Stephen Miller, Presidential Advisor to the former President Trump and the author and facilitator of the inhuman practice of separating babies and young children of immigrants from their parents, “in order to discourage immigration.” It may be the case that, as empirically demonstrated, psychopathology is a resume “must” for any potentially possible member of a Trump Cabinet.

It would seem rationally appropriate to eliminate any possible vestigial thought of attribution of “human” status to any person capable of killing puppies (and goats), and to analogically according to them full Neo- Nazi status to their boasts about it.

*[Title derived from the CBS series starring Angela Lansbury]
-p.

Legal scholars, jurists, attorneys and avid Court watchers, as well as the general public, are in a state of excited anticipation, awaiting the forthcoming decision by the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) in the appeal from the lower Appellate Court decision in AARP v. The Cosmetic Public Relations Council, concerning the existentially determinative legal issue: “Do frogs have eyebrows?”

The parties are as follows: Appellant, “American Amphibian Rights Society” (“AARP”), represented by the Atlanta law firm of Swampscum, Daly and Knightly, I.P. Daly Esq., of counsel, Respondent, “Council of Marshland Evangelical Bible Belters,” by the Baton Ridge firm of Payne and Suffring, Redding Blemish Esq. of counsel. The legal positions having been thoroughly briefed, legal precedent and the relevant didactic literature consulted, the nationally impactful matter is declared ready for argument. Due to the intense, widespread public interest in the matter, the presence of television cameras has been granted judicial approval.

(Non-Fictional) Background–

[Since its inception, it has been universally mandatory to obtain the approval of SCOTUS to accept a case for review, which approval required a prospective appellant to successfully obtain by “Writ of Certiorari,” an Order directing the lower Court to send up the case for review.  Until the unprecedented decision in “Bush v. Gore, in the year 2000, the granting of the Writ was strictly dependent upon a successful demonstration that the matter at bar lacks any conceivable, direct or subtle, political impact or significance. Such “Black Letter Law” was historically created to preserve the integrity of the constitutionally enshrined, “Separation of Powers”, viz., “Executive,” “Legislative” and “Judicial.”

Following Bush v. Gore, the Nation’s veneration of the many decades of historically admirable performance and indeed, of SCOTUS, itself sadly evinced an observably slow, but clearly discernable, decline in demonstrated fiduciary responsibility to the Nation, and in resultant citizen respect. The latter was brought about by its continued errant acceptance and adjudication of “political” cases and (as observed in previous blogs) it has, shockingly revealed itself at times to be receptive to influence from religious and big business interests.

Of the SCOTUS decisions, most notably, inconsistent with the foundational principles of our National Democracy, we would select two; arguably, the most egregious and damaging to our democratic foundation: Citizen’s United (2010) and Dobbs v. Jackson (2022). In such disquieting cases, the corrupting influence, respectively, of big business and the religious lobby on the four conservative SCOTUS Justices (of the nine) tactically appointed to the Court by right-wing interests, has determinatively impaired the nature of our unique Democratic Republic.

In the Citizen’s United case, SCOTUS opened the floodgates to the billions of dollars that have since poured into our elections enabling those with great wealth to enjoy a vastly greater influence on our political system than the average American citizen. The shameless sophomoric justification for its monstrous exacerbation of an already extant problem is an observable blemish on the foundational principle of citizen equality regarding the voting franchise. The Court, unashamedly cited, as a bizarre rationale, that corporations, legally are “people,” and the right of people to contribute to an election is legally unlimited.  Every law school freshman and most entrepreneurs know, that the legal “personage” afforded to corporations is legally understood (since its creation in the English Statute of Elizabeth) to be fictional, utilized to grant third-party limited liability to a vulnerable (human) entrepreneur (N.B. the old English Law imprisoned debtors) and universally understood not to be a living and breathing person. SCOTUS’ puerile legal analogy makes evident a desperate need for a rationale for its politically influenced and corrupt decision.

An especially impactful illustration of SCOTUS’s transmogrification to the state of irresponsibly catering to religious influence, (as distinguished from the inappropriately,” political,” Taxpayer United case) is Dodd v. Jackson (2022). In irrefutable contradiction to the explicit provisions of the Constitution’s “Establishment Clause” mandating that the government make no law affecting religious belief, SCOTUS irresponsibly surrendered to the influence of the Christian Evangelical lobby, by overruling the fifty-year SCOTUS affirmation of the rights of women to have an abortion. In addition to the extinguishment of citizen’s natural rights (the historically expressed theme, articulated by the Constitution, by contrast, being the protection of citizen rights from incursion by the government) the direct consequence of such removal of the half-century of reliance on its precedential approval of the personal right to abortion has resulted in media reported, daily instances of mortal danger, human tragedy and great personal suffering.]—

[Oral Argument]

Case at bar: May, 2024 term, # 1787: Amphibian Rights v. Evangelical Marshland Council:

[Precis of Appellant, Amphibian Rights, Oral Argument]: (I.P. Daly, Esq.):  Pond frogs have a protruding, temporal ridge, essential to ingestion since they singularly flex their eye muscles to assist swallowing. The skin-covered ridge anatomically located above this existentially functioning apparatus is bony and relatively small but existentially important in eye protection from excess water and foreign matter. With regard to such prominent location and existential importance, its adornment by the female of the frog species signals health and attractiveness, deemed material to mating and population of the species. The universal recognition of the personal right of expression, inclusive of eyeliners and enhanced eyebrows by female frogs lends significant impetus to their existential existence as a species as well as the cosmetic recognition of their essential individuality. The right, in essence, constitutes a legally protected expression of free speech and individual self-assertion.

[Precis of Appellee’s, Marsh Evangelical, Oral Argument]: (Redding Blemish, Esq.):” Intentionally disfiguring any product of the Deity’s six-day creation by wanton cosmetic alteration is not only blasphemous and recklessly disrespectful but part of the ongoing atheistic plot to caricature creation. Any heretic amphibian, notably including frogs, wantonly practicing such improper, lewd and lascivious practice should be dealt with in accordance with the appropriate criminal law applicable to the jurisdiction in which the heinously criminal offense was committed.”  

                                                             (Split) RULING OF THE COURT [4- 3]

MAJORITY DECISION [4 Conservative Justices]: The flagrant act of cosmetically altering nature, by female frogs, enhancing their “eyebrows,” is morally analogous in irresponsibility to the anti-societal practice of installing graphic obscenity on public walls, by sinful human beings and is deemed empirically disruptive of the orderly course of society, whether on a ghetto wall or country pond; it should, in the vital interest of the maintenance of an orderly moral society, in ponds and metropolis be criminalized.

DISSENT (3 Liberal Justices]:  Judicial Interference, universally, with the private rights of expression and personal attempts at self-fulfillment, of pond frogs or any existing fauna, legally constitutes an unjustified and unwarranted interference with free speech, as well as an abysmal violation of the “Establishment Clause.”

-p.

Often, one’s initial evaluation, upon meeting someone for the first time (“first impression”)  is judgmentally and erroneously, founded upon one’s stereotypical evaluation of external features, such as verbal tone, extent of eye contact, and facial expression with reference to past experience with others. Such customary reflexive and experientially reductive appraisals based upon recalled subjective criteria and vulnerable memory, in our view, would not seem to be creditably useful.

Painted portraits cannot be considered as faithful to any reliable standard of objective description since they vary with the temporal conception and portrayal of traits of the human persona. The mysterious, subtle smile of Michelangelo’s “Mona Lisa” may intend to portray a sentiment, indeed, not common to the modern woman. Oscar Wilde’s (sole) novel, “The Face of Dorian Grey,” evokes a gothic personal portrait of the protagonist which bizarrely alters to reveal his true, disguised, character. Victorian novelists, such as Dickens and Trollope, articulate, in substantial detail, the facial and other external physical features of their created characters to convey their intended persona and designated place in the fictional composition. Such authors’ style of stereotypical character description, while brilliantly recounted is, inarguably, dated.

We would thoughtfully suggest a radically conceived, perhaps revolutionary, alternative protocol which we have empirically determined to be more rational, perceptive and factually adept. Rather than relying on a subjective and factually unsupported impression hazarded on an impulsive personal reaction to observable features (such as eye contact, tone, posture, personal expression, dress and posture, perhaps presence and style of mustache or beard and other temporal features), we would recommend the exercise of one’s concentrated essay at an accurate “first impression” of a newly met individual by the observation his chosen vocabulary.

As bizarre as our novel proposition may, at first, appear to be, we would, nevertheless, emphatically caution the reader to be alert to, and wary of, any newly introduced individual who noticeably omits to employ such words as, empathy, sympathy, beneficial, societal, appropriate, aesthetic, sensitive, considerate, equitable, principled, racial, moral, equitable, considerate, deferential, aesthetic, appropriate, and other positive and principled choices from the Nation’s lexicon.

It is empirically inarguable that utilized words are the spoken, overt replication of inner thought and, accordingly, comprise a more rationally indicative revelation of innate persona than a subjective judgment construed from traditionally perceived physical stereotypic appearance. Dishonest and reprehensible individuals have little empirical or personal use for beneficial and positive choices from the Nation’s lexicon in the course of their innate avoidance of its traditionally acceptable standards of rectitude.

It is, of course, wise and prudently necessary to compare the specific observations attained by way of our recommended mode of “first impression,” with later actual, empirical experience regarding the contextual person; however, in general matters of “first” or “early impression,” it is rationally appropriate and eminently fair to fashion one’s early estimation of character based upon appropriate rational criteria.

In sum, we suggest that the early evaluative process of a newly introduced individual encompasses a sensitive attention to the prescient nature of his chosen vocabulary rather than a biased and subjective judgment based upon experienced or stereotypical external standards.

-p.

In the previous writing, we declared our firm opposition to the military overreaction, responsive to the barbaric and truly sadistic surprise Hamas attack by Israel’s current government under Bibi Netanyahu.  As tactically planned, the wily aggressor fled to tunnels previously constructed under Gaza Hospitals, in order that Israeli retribution would, of necessity, be wreaked against their pathologically intended “shield,” the innocent citizens of Gaza; thus strategically incurring an international loss of standing. The extent of the anticipated military retribution has proven to be tragically immense and thus we oppose the continuation of military action against innocent Gazan civilians. Our present theme, nonetheless, relates to an understandable perception of the defensive context of the Israeli government’s over-zealous scope of reaction.    

Jewish people, worldwide, have recently completed their perennial observance of Passover, a Biblical holiday (“Exodus”) celebrating the liberation of the Hebrews (“Israelites”) from 116 years of Egyptian slavery. The holiday is universally celebrated by a symbolic family dinner, featuring sweet wine (usually Concord grape) “bitter herbs,” representing the bitterness of slavery, and “charoseth” (a sweet-tasting mixture of walnuts, cinnamon, apple and sweet wine), to contrastingly signify the sweetness of freedom and liberty. Unleavened bread (Matzoth) is eaten for the week in lieu of bread, to signify the Hebrews’ need for haste during their flight from Egypt. It is customary at such ritual dinners to contextually articulate the declaration that, “Until everyone is free, no one is truly free.” This latter declaration of appropriate principle and the signature reverence for humanistic charity (“tzedakah”) provide the motivating catalyst for many Jews to participate in the causes of Civil Rights and Women’s full emancipation.

It is a matter of empirical history, that Jews have been universal targets for hate and prejudice since the 4^th Century Holy Roman Empire; presided over by the evangelical tyrant, Emperor Constantine (See: ”Constantine’s Sword” by James Carroll, and our, “Gaza Geometry” # M.60),  followed by a worldwide, eternal experience of inquisitions, centuries of pogroms, maximally illustrated by what is referred to as the “Holocaust,” in which Adolph Hitler orchestrated and conducted the efficient and programmic murder of six million innocent people found guilty of the “reprehensible crime” of being born Jewish.

On May 14, 1948, the British Mandate over Palestine over the territory of “Palestine” expired, and the geographic territory was divided into Arab and Jewish States. Within hours after its declaration of independent Statehood, the tiny unarmed Nation of Israel (the only available safe haven for the European death camp survivors and other displaced and Stateless Jews,) was attacked by five Arabic Nations, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. The Mufti of Jerusalem issued the following official edict: “I declare a holy war; my Muslim brothers (referring to Israel) “Murder them all.” Following a truly miraculous victory over the Arab Legion (the latter, professionally trained by Britain) and its Arabic allies, tiny Israel has defensively developed an efficient and dedicated military capability which has proven itself successful in overcoming a virtual plethora of attempts at its destruction.

Knowledge of the historical and existential context of the recent Hamas-Gaza-Israeli tragedy may well be lacking in many young, sophomorically idealistically driven participants in the Nation’s numerous University demonstrations. The Hamas attack should, fairly and be understood within the context of the eternal existential struggle for sustained life of the World’s Jews. Morally, there can be no conceivable justification, for the distorted student support for the recent chapter of reprised genocide by the terroristic Hamas. Neither is there rational justification for assigning a commonality between American Jews and Israel. The Nation’s Jews, inarguably, are American, not Israeli citizens, am empirical observation apparently lost on the Nation’s seemingly inexhaustible horde of reductionist anti-Semites.

It may be instructive to note that there is an absence of history of student uprisings concerning the genocidal Hutu-Tutsi, Turkish-Armenian, Serbian-Croatian, and Russian-Ukraine, factually accurate, genocidal wars nor, back in the 1940s,  American “carpet bombing” of Dresden, the wrongful wartime imprisonment of innocent ethnic Japanese Americans, or the shameful nuclear holocausts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War. It is contextually observable, that none of these horrific events involved “Jews” as named protagonists.

While we affirmatively oppose the harshness of the military policies of the Israeli Prime Minister, we can empathically comprehend the presumed background of his historically based, etiology of ethnic paranoia.

-p-                                           

We would attempt to objectively assess the Israeli-Hamas war in its multiple objective and historical context, as opposed to the extant noisy conglomerate of crowd-roiling, populist mix of demanded “justice,” prejudice and inadequate information. The mathematical architecture of Euclidian Geometry would seem eminently suitable to such an approach. The dynamics of such rational discipline, call for a statement of the presenting problem and then proceeds by methodical deduction from universally established principles (“axioms”) to the theorem’s demonstrated solution. The steps are sequentially described as follows: Statement of the Proposition (or Problem), the relevant consideration of accepted postulates (Axioms) in logically deductive order, and finally, the logically resultant conclusion.

With the candid apology should any of our proffered postulates unwittingly, be colored by personal perception, we shall proceed to examine the multi-faceted dilemma in classic Euclidean style.

Problem: Israel’s justifiable military response to the surprise barbaric and genocidal attack and kidnap of hostages by Hamas, has had a devastatingly tragic impact on innocent Gaza Palestinians, apparently due to the arguable over-reactive policies of right-wing Benjamin Netanyahu. Outrage against such response has elicited loud public protests by America’s university students, some actually maintaining the relevance of the international crime of genocide.

GIVEN:

(Axiom 1)  The unjustified surprise attack by Hamas was pathologically barbaric and included murder, beheading of infants, torture and amputation of the elderly, rape and excision of women’s body parts, burning of occupied Israeli homes and the taking of hostages, Israeli and American. The expressly avowed purpose was the destruction of the State of Israel and its Jewish population.

(Axiom 2) Following the brutal assault, the Hamas terrorists, as planned, retreated to Gaza and with their kidnapped hostages took shelter in deep, well-supplied, underground tunnels, tactically constructed for such purpose, under Gaza’s Palestinian hospitals, and places of public assembly. The band of Hamas terrorists thus sheltered themselves from the predictable retribution by tactically and pathologically, causing the innocent population of Gaza, living on the surface, to serve as their shield. The canny Hamas terrorists, fully cognizant of Hamas’s inability to destroy Israel, militarily, sought, by such “shield” tactics to weaken the Jewish Nation in the eyes of world opinion, founded on the predictable retribution to be visited upon such Gaza hospitals and innocent Palestinians. Aided by the catalytic influence of the “Trumpish,” right-wing leadership of the flawed Benjamin Netanyahu, they apparently succeeded in such nefarious purpose.

(Axiom 3) History reveals the practice of anti-Semitism existing from the 4^th Century Holy Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine, to the multiple centuries of holy inquisitions and bigoted pogroms, enjoying its zenith in the wholesale slaughter of six million Jews. Unfortunately, such shameful proclivity continues to date. The purported and popular effective rationale, over the centuries for such perpetually cruel prejudice has been fictionally ubiquitous; “causing the plague,” “ruining the crops”, “poisoning the wells”, “drinking the blood of Christian children,” or more contemporaneously, “promoting communism” as well as its empirical opposite, “controlling the banks.” Such unwarranted, primordial stain on the Jewish ethnos has been replicated in a contemporary fictional reprise (not unlike “poisoning the wells,” or “despoiling the crops) consisting of alleged “genocide” against the Palestinian people ((N.B., by a Nation, having its origin (1948) as surviving victims of ultimate genocide during the Holocaust). It may be noted in such context, that in the terrorist attack, the flags of the terrorist movement, reportedly, contain the stated intertwined aspirations, “Death to Israel,” “Death to America.” The latter slogans are expressly and inarguably redolent of “genocide,” far more relevantly, perhaps, than Netanyahu’s cruel and unmitigated overreaction to the Hamas’ barbarous attack. To our understanding, the horrific crime of genocide requires the universal goal of the elimination of an ethnicity or nationality, such as in 1994 Rwanda when Hutu extremists killed 800,000 of the Tutsi minority, Serbia-Croatia, Turkey-Armenia, Nazis- Jews).

 (Axiom 4) Observably, Jewish Americans support the existence of the tiny Jewish State of Israel (albeit, at times, such as the present, oppose its current policies) but exclusively identify themselves as American citizens. The conflation of Jewish Americans with Israeli citizens is empirically erroneous and, at times, a utilitarian tool of anti-Semitism. Most mainstream American Jews, while in support of the State of Israel, oppose Netanyahu’s policy of unrestrained response and oppose its dire effects (tactically engineered by Hamas) on innocent Gaza Palestinian people.

(Axiom 5) Our readings and observation of University demonstrations and revolutionary actions, (more common in Europe), have resulted in the view that, despite the possible existence of a valid and compelling cause, such incidents are empirically relevant to the age of the protesters and their nascent level of experiential maturity. To young undergrads recently acquired or confirmed, metaphysical standards of propriety and justice, are, exclusively top of mind; in contrast to the enlightening benefit of more mature life experience, providing thoughtful consideration of the possible elements of exception, nuance, mitigation and, relevant personal background. Such protestors have proven to be easily catalyzed and influenced by outside interests, bearing their own nefarious agenda, (like anti-Semitism) unrelated to the rioters’ expressed demands. From an empirical standpoint, legitimate causes are better dealt with by nonviolent disruptive means; the latter, usually serving as a deterrent to rational consideration and possible resolution of the problem.

(Conclusion) Impulsive and violent student uprisings, albeit publically communicating perceived causes are societally and educationally disruptive, tactically manipulative by outside interests and are not, civilly, an effective nor appropriate catalyst for change which can only be attained by empirical reason.

Q.E.D.

-p.

Mother’s Day, the Nation’s gesture of salute and grateful recognition of that consequential member of the traditional family that gives birth to its children, changes diapers, wipes noses and occupies the significant office of partner, to the so-styled “Head of the Family.” The annual holiday, made official during the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson in 1914, is celebrated the on the second Sunday in May (this year, May 12, 2024). On that day, predictably, Mother will be the loved recipient of greeting cards, long-distance telephone calls and flowers (usually, roses or tulips) and sundry personal gifts. Often, her household chores and food preparation for the day will be undertaken by other family members.

On our thematic holiday, we express gratitude for the devoted performance of an overfull menu of chores and responsibilities which, functionally analogous to an effective epoxy, sustains the social architecture of the family unit. The Mother, perhaps, in addition to outside employment, is taxed with the responsibilities of a nurse, cook, and household manager in addition to the ubiquitous services inherent in childrearing. Most notably, Mom courageously performs the dangerous and existential service of giving birth to babies, the metaphysical precursors to the continuance of the human species.

Yet, remarkably, any cursory review of history will reveal that, contrary to granting them an empirically appropriate and well-deserved, rendition of gratitude and respect, women have eternally been relegated to an underprivileged and markedly subservient status, bizarrely inconsistent with their equal membership, and elemental service.

Until relatively recently, women could not legally vote, own property nor enter into written contracts. It is notable that an atavistic society finally granted freed male slaves the right to vote, but long before women were legally afforded the franchise. Society’s age-old grant of low status to women is often best shown in the inherent atavistic inclinations of religion, which have eternally, ascribed a subordinate position to Mother, which injustice persists to her forthcoming celebration.

The indisputable intent and signal purpose of the Founders of this Nation, as they often articulated, was the enforceable prevention of the newly created government from any interference with the rights of citizens to the free exercise of their nuanced belief. As clearly mandated in the “Establishment Clause,” of their promulgated Constitution, government may play no part, whatsoever, in citizens’ religious or secular thought or practice.

Notwithstanding the clear and understandable mandate of such Establishment Clause, the same has been violated by religious zealots on a number of occasions, but, thereafter, mercifully repealed or withdrawn, including, as illustrations, the Sunday Blue Laws, forbidding the conduct of business on the Christian Sabbath, and the Prohibition of Alcoholic Beverages. These instances are indicative of a signature myopic and timeless evangelical Christian disregard of the provisions of the constitution in aid of their religious beliefs. Painful history has demonstrated time and again, that religious beliefs, suitably expressed in Churches and other Houses of Worship, empirically lack universal concurrence. The Founders, in their wise and democratic intentions, had in mind the long and consistent history of horrendous misery, experienced in Europe due to monarchial or ecclesiastically established religion.

It may not be useful to again recount the worrisome facts relevant to the extant tenuous state of our republican democracy; exemplified by the perverse influence of the former President and would be dictator, Donald Trump, on his cultish (MAGA) populist horde. The latter has, inarguably, resulted in a disruption of the storied tradition of American liberty and its definitional way of life. Among other causation, self-interest based upon the perception of insecurity relating  the voting power of the numerous MAGA miscreants has completely undermined one of the Nation’s two political parties, populated SCOTUS with right-wing, religious and politically influenced Justices and as well, many legislators and officials. As a result of the ubiquitous right-wing promulgation of anti-democratic and Nazi-like policies, such as censorship and proscription of citizen rights, the mainstream American is currently, perhaps, desperately, hopeful of a resounding re-election of the incumbent, Joseph Biden and the exigent restoration of our invaluable constitutional democracy.

The just and appropriate restoration of our constitutional democracy would, of necessity, include the reinstatement of the legal right of women to obtain an abortion when needed. The right of privacy and personal sovereignty over their own body, legally confirmed by a half-century of legal precedent, (Roe v. Wade) has more recently been denied to women by the unconstitutional politically and religiously influenced, Justices of the Supreme Court (Dobbs decision); who were tactically inserted by the MAGA interests under the tutelage of their Pied Piper, the autocratic Donald Trump. Mainstream, traditional American citizens have merely to glance at the daily newspaper or attend the broadcast media, to obtain an understanding of the horrific human misery and tragic implications attendant upon this clearly fascistic intrusion into women’s lives.

The re-establishment of the woman’s right to her own bodily autonomy, specifically inclusive of her natural right to obtain an abortion, as opposed to the present un-American, fascistic intrusion thereon, would incomparably be a more loving and valued Mother’s Day gift than the most colorful flowers or the sweetest of chocolates.

-p.

[Prefatory Statement:For our present contextual purposes, we will begin this writing by reference to the initial advent of computer facility in accomplishing tasks formerly performed by real people. The exponential growth of computer technology appears to be matched by its societal eager acceptance, apparently, with little or no thought given to the positive value of prior human efficacy or to humanistic sentiment. In our view, a rational and balanced discussion on the latest achievement, “Artificial Intelligence,” is best done, accompanied by some comparative context.]

As we mundane, “non-nerds” understand it, “A.I.” describes computer systems capable of performing tasks that, historically, only humans can do, including,” reasoning,” making decisions and solving problems. Frankly speaking, we are concerned with the societal effects of eliminating the humanistic element in A.I. decision-making and action which, albeit more efficient and perhaps even more accurate, reductively exemplify efficiency and lack considerations of empathy and, mitigation or exception.

 Moreover, we question the efficacy of the term, (which to our mind is, definitionally, oxymoronic) since intelligence is, arguably, the product of Man’s evolved capacity for reason and not the (human) programmed product of insensate technology.

From the time that the human genre of “couch potato” discovered that he can switch his selection of television programs from wrestling to the weather, by the mere and effortless, touch of a “remote,” and avoid the personal trauma of standing up and walking a few steps, the facility of mechanically computerized devices saw an exponential growth in facility, and profits, and to our perception an existential decline in human interaction and personal initiative.

Regular readers of this blogspace are aware of our long-term concern and ardent opposition to the use of hand-held devices (“smartphones”) as a mode of interactive communication, as opposed to the more humanistic nuances of natural conversation, in person or by telephone, (not to mention the aesthetics and the accuracy of expression which are the unique features of written correspondence). The solitary, transmission of digital signals on another person’s lighted screen is answered in like fashion, whenever received. Efficiency and ease have, to society’s regret, been erroneously elected over necessary humanistic conversation.

We have read numerous newspaper and periodical observations, which, unfortunately, confirm our expressed concerns about the computerized mode of social interaction (conversation) and unhappily note the reports of widespread anxiety and depression among the young. As we are able to perceive, self-identity, self-image and personal autonomy are in great part, developed from the perception of the consistent reactions to us others; when this is minimized, emotional and mental troubles may well be the empirical result.

To be clear, we, affirmatively do not, in principle, oppose technical advancement. Untold human benefits have been enjoyed since the era of flint tools and wooden spearfishing. Life has exponentially improved and has become more enjoyable simultaneous with the development of mechanical tools, appliances, labor-saving developments, travel, and medical advances.  We unreservedly admire human ingenuity capable of the conception of new and improved facilities for problem-solving and ubiquitous improvement in the myriad facets of the human experience. What is concerning is the exercise of ingenuity for its own sake, or solely for profit, irresponsibly unconcerned with its potential effect on Man and his society. As demonstrated in the matter of cell phone interaction, exclusive consideration of perceived convenience can result in extremely harmful results.

Additionally worrisome is the unfortunate history of mankind’s historic misuse of developmental technology for unintended or nefarious purposes. The recent A.I. replication of President Biden’s voice and nuanced manner was falsely utilized in advising citizens not to vote in the recent primary elections. The realistic concern by screenwriters and actors that their creative work is capable of replication by A.I. is a realistic one. Additionally, we found ourselves nauseated to learn that classic sculptures created by the World’s historically renowned artists were machine replicable, using A.I. Such singular works of venerated artists should not be crassly relegated to the mundane status of mass-produced pottery.

Our worst nightmare consists of the chilling, indeterminate, and heartless danger presented by the use of A.I. directed military attack drones; the latter constituting additional and terrifying examples of the human inclination to pervert new developments for war and other nefarious purposes (as opposed to their intended, meteorological, land survey, environment protection, search and navigational purposes). A post-apocalyptic, terrifying movie might be produced in which all human beings have been eliminated yet eternal war is tactically continued by conflicting robotic fighter-bomber drones.

We firmly believe in freedom of enterprise and capitalistic initiative; nevertheless, it might be prudent to consider the establishment of a multi-disciplinary advisory board, analogous to the FDA (medicines), to review the possible societal impact and acceptability of newly developed, major technology.

-p.      

We begin this writing with a statement of appreciation for a measure of acquired insight derived from a recent review of two well-known children’s classics, “Grimm Brothers Fairy Tales” and “Tales of Hans Christian Anderson.” These readings furnished us with an analogous understanding of several, popularly known, human archetypes.  

We learned that the quintessential ogre exhibits two discreet varieties. The first is stereotypically male, dwarf or giant-sized, often demonstrating a protuberant, bulbous nose, big intense fiery eyes, larger-than-life ears, short arms, and wears boots; sometimes (most especially in the Norwegian genre) additionally evincing a large toothy grimace. This genre, by reason of its facile identifiability, is significantly less treacherous than its surreptitious comparative. Notably, there exists a small minority of this discreet population of ogre that, notwithstanding their terrifying external appearance, evince a benevolent, and even on occasion, a loving disposition (example, leprechauns).

The second, and, notably, the most numerous genre of ogre, (exemplified by the specific subject of this writing) is predictably, dangerous, malevolent, and entirely lacking in sentiment or empathy. As stated, this category, by contrast, is not characterized by the easily recognizable grotesque image of the described fairy tale ogre, but rather, possesses an initial disarming and insidious, human countenance. As a consequence, its potential for toxic wrongdoing is more insidious and destructive.

Our thematic protagonist, a member of the second variety and, accordingly, not immediately identifiable as an ogre, is the orange-haired member of the species, Donald J. Trump. Unlike the etiology of the fairy storybook ogre, the Trump variety of ogre (viz., the second ogre configuration) generally, does not owe its advent to a traditional witch’s spell. The nuanced etiology of our chosen ogre is endemically developmental and systemically, self-generated.

Our protagonist exhibits the usual, perverse cornucopia of traits common to the second genre of (normal appearing) ogres, but, in addition, as a singularly nuanced feature, perceives the world and his immediate environment with entirely autonomous and self-interested lenses. The Trump ogre maintains the reductive ideation that matters of importance are exclusively those that are seen to affect him and his personalized fantasies. Any degree of rational analysis of the horrific effect of this ogre’s bizarre elevation to the omnipotent American Presidency and his incapable and self-interested performance will find it comparable to the proverbial fox, taxed with the duty of protection of guarding the hen house.

One can, presumably conceive the development of his systemic persona, starting as an “infant terrible” who might violently kick his mother in the shins, fully cognizant of the predictable punitive response, overridden by his insatiable need for immediate and exclusive attention. Such self-centered, childish immaturity appears to have chronically persisted in this 73-year-old autocratic ogre to whose perception, public admiration and acknowledged loyalty are, life-sustaining matters similar to food and drink.

In service to his insatiable appetite for admiration and perceived success, Trump, has self-interestedly committed an overly full, unattended, dumpster, (Trumpster?) of odious and blatantly criminal acts. (See prior writings for particulars).  Stated briefly, our thematic ogre has been indicted for 91 felonies ranging from pay-offs to prostitutes and tax fraud to treason and the incitement of an insurrection As an aggravating feature, he has engaged in anti-democratic demagoguery, demanding, among other autocratically perverse statements, the scrapping of the Constitution and declaring that, if given a second term as Chief Executive, he would be a “Dictator.”

However, in our view, the most revelatory and demonstrative act of his perverse persona, albeit non-criminal, was his televised mimicking, vocally and physically, of a questioning media reporter, visibly afflicted with the unsightly tremors and physical disabilities of cerebral palsy. Such a clownish, pathological performance can be attributed only to the cruelest and pathological of ogres.

A modicum of credit, however, is due to this ogre (and obnoxious adult-mauvais enfant) for having ultimately succeeded in attaining his neurotic-childish goal of attracting attention. One cannot turn to the television media, irrespective of time or selected channel, with any prospect of avoiding his visage, accompanied by an intense discussion (usually negative) relating to his most current travesty. It may be observed that, in this respect, the purported “success” (viz., attention) eternally boasted by this ogre is singularly accurate.

It is unquestionably of primary and existential importance to the continuance of our Democratic Republic, that Donald J. Trump a/k/a “the Orange Ogre,” be defeated as the Republican candidate for the Presidency. To us, of secondary, but exigent, importance is the ridding of his incessantly broadcasted image and seedy soap opera from our daily lives.

* [Thanks to Dian Fosse for the amended use of her story name, “Gorillas in the Mist.”]

-p.

---