We have revisited our previous analysis and designation of the character of our Commander-in-Chief, and would now submit, this amended description of his persona and dynamic.

In a previous blogpost, we expressed a worrisome concern as to whether the elevation of the Orange Magnificence to the oval office, as the populist choice of the low information and discontented voter, was a “one-off,” or singular, occurrence, or, (frighteningly) was a presenting symptom of a culturally and educationally degraded population, easily succumbing to a populist demagogue. Relative to this concern, we then chose to express hope for the future, based upon the reality that his immediate predecessor, Barack Obama, an avatar of wise and just rule, was elected by that American electorate.

We have recently come to the realization that our perception and, consequently, our designation, of Mr. Trump as a “populist demagogue” erroneous; he is neither a populist, nor a demagogue. We would, in the interest of accuracy of description, label him, a “grifter” or con-man.

Trump’s non-specific, but enticing, promises of a better life, made to the poor and unfortunate of our nation, so mesmerized such people, that they were induced to vote against their own vital interest, government assistance (health, food, education). He promised to “drain the swamp” of rich influential politicians, especially intellectuals, who were pronounced responsible for their plight. He also appealed to their patriotism by undertaking to curtail the unfair practices of our international trading partners and achieve more respect from the world in general. It appears that these representations were effective in garnering a great many votes and materially assisting an unpredicted victory for Trump.

Following his inauguration, it took very little time before these visionary undertakings were ignored, and for good reason; Trump is not a populist and has no populist agenda. In fact, Trump has no doctrinal beliefs or political philosophy, whatsoever; with the sole exception of his neurotic, egotistical, game show desire to be a “winner.” The swamp was not drained, but deepened, and stocked with more political alligators than ever; generals, billionaire know- nothings and immediate family, were chosen by him for his “mad hatter” cabinet and Oval Office entourage. In international relations and world trade, he has been responsible only for widespread confusion and alienation, based upon his profound ignorance and impulsive ego. Recent events show many of these selected “rats deserting the ship” for their self-preservation and basic sanity.

It has now become evident that Mr. Trump will say or promise anything, and repudiate any of his prior statements or assurances, on a regular and subjective basis. Trump has no political theories or doctrinal preferences, whatsoever; he will simply and tactically tailor his insincere representations to his perception of the particular audience. This is the systemic essence of a classic con man or “grifter”.

We had also inaccurately referred to him as a demagogue, based upon his snake-oil salesman- like effectiveness in mesmerizing an audience, particularly, one containing low information auditors. But effectiveness, we now realize, is not necessarily an indication of eloquence.  To call Trump a demagogue, might imply that he evinces the abilities of a great and persuasive public speaker. This would be empirically inaccurate; Trump has delivered no fireside chats, nor public pronouncements of any significant nature to the Congress or the people, as have all past Presidents. His public communications consist of unprecedented and sophomoric “tweets,” most of which are self-serving and contradictory, to the extent that they are at all rational.

In brief, Trump is neither a populist nor a demagogue; he is a skillful con man, a talented grifter who will shamelessly say or promise whatever he perceives will please and win over his audience du jour. We would like to expect that he is a [Presidential] rarity, but perhaps this bizarre experience will serve as a useful and necessary teaching experience for the impressionable American voter.



The date, March 14, 2018, is worthy of being included among the many significant events in American history, and for good reason. On that date, hundreds of thousands of American high- school students, on their own collective initiative and volition, walked out, for the day, from more than 2000 schools, to jointly protest Congress’ inaction on gun control. The most recent tragedy (one of numerous others) which occurred last Valentine’s Day, saw seventeen innocent souls mercilessly executed by a deranged owner of a military type assault weapon. During the day’s nationwide demonstrations, seventeen minutes of silence were dedicated in tribute and memorial to the gunned-down victims.

The age-old stereotypical complaint by parents that their children were lazy and irresponsible, when, for example, it appeared that yesterday’s socks were still not put in the laundry hamper, has now become essentially meaningless.  The young people have taking up the cudgel, by reason of  adult ineffectiveness and inaction in the (deadly) cause of gun control (with especial reference to Congress).  Adult hapless inaction was the cause of this shameful role reversal, obliging the students themselves, to mount the proverbial barricades, in the interest of their own personal safety. This abrogation of responsibility on the part of adults has been no less than embarrassingly shameful. As a consequence, school has become, not the intended safe sanctuary for learning, but, rather, a veritable shooting gallery for the demented, enabled by the NRA and a do- nothing Congress. It is painful to observe that the targets in those shooting galleries, the school children, have been relegated to their own devices for their existential survival.  Student representatives from urban venues, such as downtown Chicago, had especially relevant reason to participate in the demonstrations in a cause which unfortunately affects their daily lives.

For the possible edification of reductionist gun enthusiasts, we would like to make two brief observations, regarding the relevant constitutional provisions.

The right of peaceful assembly and petition to the government for grievances, is expressly and clearly included in the First Amendment to The U.S. Constitution. Those whose love of their dangerous armament, would motivate them to criticize the student demonstrations as improper, need to consult the relevant Amendment.

Some relevant history and enlightenment is relevant, concerning the distortions and quasi-religious zeal regarding the Second Amendment. Historically, the Second Amendment was only intended to prevent the Federal Government from dissolving the several existing State independent militias and merge them with Federal forces. It therefore protected the State Militias’ independent existence, including the right of the people [in the militia] to bear arms. The purported franchise to every citizen to own weapons (“bear arms”) is a convenient distortion of the reductionist, and the self-serving and highly profitable screed of the NRA. The problem with such ignorance, real and feigned, is that innocent people seem to be getting killed.

So, BRAVO, well done, young Americans!!


Post # 229 (poesie) JUDICIAL SOIL

Floated in on foamy tide,
Or wafted here by ocean breezes
Life comes to our coastline
Keen to take sure root and abide.

No farmer can create new life,
He can but husband well the soil,
And nurture roots and emerging stems,
So that nascent life will wax and thrive.

The soil’s the arbiter of new life,
It’s not man’s place to decide,
The valid judge, only Mother Earth,
As to which shall sprout and then abide.

Her dad’s printed T-shirt said “Peru”,
And feeding his five- year old, her
Jet black hair and shining eyes, they then
Rubbed noses, softly, when all through.



Ever since the mind- boggling ascendency of the Orange Magnificence et al., to America’s Oval Office, we have been desirous, but hesitant, to publish a post such as this one, for fear of appearing to be arrogantly pedantic. However, a felt need of late has overridden such diffidence, and so we now will bravely set forth below what in fairness, may be seen by some followers as academically obvious.

There have been a great many inadequately informed, highly impressionable citizens, who have used the words, “socialist” and “communist” interchangeably. Many have utilized them as critical adjectives with which to saddle aspiring candidates, thus establishing their purported ineligibility to hold office. As will be observed, below, these are the least appropriate voters to assert such a notion.

The terms, “communist” and “socialist” are academic constructs, considered by political scientists as alternatives to the system of capitalism. While inarguably inappropriate for our nation, these terms are intrinsically substantive and are not indications of depravity or moral sacrilege.

COMMUNISM: A political-economic concept in which, there is no private ownership of property, the same being, instead, owned by the collective society; the latter is run by the people (proletariat), the government itself, having withered away by the logical operation of an institutionally accepted dialectic. In this classless society, one is compensated in accordance with his demonstrated need.

It may be observed that there never has been a regime that qualifies as communistic, despite some pretentions to the name. The USSR, for example, has always evinced the ownership of private property, a central (repressive) government, inheritance of property, capitalistic enterprise, special privilege and a prodigious number of social classes [ studies have shown a greater number of managerial classes in the USSR, than the number of social classes anywhere]. The dogmatic theory [as is the case with other countries, and other theories] has been utilized, essentially, as a tool of repression, having little to do with Messrs. Marx and Engels.

SOCIALISM: A political and economic system of social organization, in which the government (“The State”) rather than withering away [ as under communism] owns and controls all basic industry and means of production. Compensation, under socialism, is based on the contribution of the individual [in contrast to the communist theory where it is based upon his need].

It should be specifically emphasized, for the enlightenment of misinformed people who use the two terms interchangeably, that Socialists and Communists see each other as bitter (competing) enemies.

There appear to be several nations with general socialistic attributes, such as, Canada, Germany, Finland and Sweden, however, it seems to us that these countries are not socialistic in every aspect of their economy. As far as Mainland (“Red”) China is concerned, we have great difficulty in principle as to its designation, despite that nation’s official assertion of Communism, because it has, in addition to an autocratic, totalitarian government, many capitalistic as well as socialistic manifestations.

In an early blogpost, “American Socialism,” we observed that some unschooled citizens choose to use the word, “Socialist,” as a disqualifying epithet for candidates, even though it is, in this country, an expression of compassionate capitalism; a moral and responsibly empathic undertaking, to render assistance to the needy, and, incidentally, operates to preserve capitalism by making it livable. The cold, heartless, 18th Century, entrepreneurial- capitalistic theory of Adam Smith, abandoned mankind to the cruel, unsympathetic vicissitudes of natural law.

We have stated in an earlier post that many of the voters who are most in need of compassionate capitalism, were so mesmerized by the detestable Orange Snake Oil Salesman, that demagogic purveyor of grandiose, but non-specific, promises of heaven on earth, that they were induced to vote against their own vital interest, government assistance [ presumably, as “socialism.”] They bit the hand that fed them, as their own hound dog would have discouraged, had they been wise enough to have listened to their hound dog instead of Donald J. Trump.


Post # 227      STANDING ROOM ONLY

The differential between America’s traditionally sung pretensions to fundamental morality and empathy, and the empirical reality, disappointingly, is no less than infinite. Americans, basking in the afterglow of the success of the founders’ novel experiment in republican democracy some few centuries ago, regularly entertain warm and self-serving assurances of the new nation’s perceived contrast with autocratic, repressive governments, regularly viewed by them on the mass media.

We learn from that media that our autocratic chief executive has expressed an intention to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act (DACA). This humanistic and empathic act passed approximately five years ago, assisted upwards of 700,000 persons brought to the U.S. as young children and babies by their parents who were unregistered immigrants. The Act provides that such children would be granted deferment and reconsideration, in lieu of immediate deportation [ to unfamiliar and perhaps, dangerous countries] relative to their assigned ethnic origin. These people, in truth, are the recipients of legal work permits, pay taxes, serve in the military, and most significantly, know no other home than this country. The demise of DACA would mean the heartless dislodgement and separation of countless resident families. Those who agree with the President, yet regularly attend houses of worship, with any confident assumption of moral rectitude, need to objectively audit their chosen criteria for the determination of personal virtue.

In an earlier era, another despicable autocrat, President Andrew Jackson, oversaw the “Indian Removal Act” (1830), whereby peaceable Native Americans were forcibly evicted from their homes and farms located in the Southeastern United States and unjustly removed to remote, less desirable, territories out west [ considered by the perverse U.S. Administration, “more suitable to Indians.”] This extremely shameful period of American History, effectively portrayed in the historical novel, “Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee,” tragically destroyed a great many Native American lives, and immorally despoiled their religious and property rights. This cannot, ironically enough, be reasonably categorized as “xenophobic nativism”, since in this instance, the Indians were, inarguably, the natives, and the U.S. Army under the command of the tyrannical Andrew Jackson, were the immigrants.

Shortly after the outbreak of World War II the iconic, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, caused hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese Americans to be incarcerated in remote, uncomfortable barbed wire prison compounds, responsive to a popular paranoiac fear that Japanese people would, ethnically, be disloyal to America. Reportedly, two-thirds of such incarcerated people were American citizens, many of whom served in the U.S. military, combating our German and Japanese adversaries.

One wonders how long, after the arrival of an immigrant to the United States, and following his settling in, he commences the process of delusional patriotic amnesia, unmindful of the fact that he himself, (like all our forebears) was an immigrant, appropriately looking for a better life in America.

We ought not, in our self-serving, smarmy pretensions that bigotry is traditionally un-American, forget the huge amphitheater of its historically shameful behavior; regarding which over- crowded amphitheater, there is limited availability, for “standing room only.”



Great credit need be given to our erudite and philosophical founders, who, in their bold conception, eliminated privileged birth, [ as in European history], were the architects of a novel federal confederation, limited by appropriate checks and balances, yet preserving States and Citizens rights; most especially, championing a one man, one vote system. But they get two, but not three cheers, for their formulations. If there is any benefit at all from the frustrating Trump Presidency, it is the long overdue lesson we should have learned during the Nixon disaster; that our constitutional method of selecting a chief executive, who then serves a mandatory period of four years, has proven to be democratically flawed, even dangerous.

The well-worn aphorism that repetition of the same act, with an expectation of a different result, qualifies as a recognized presentment of insanity, seems appropriate. In an earlier blogpost, we referred to Emerson’s statement that “foolish” consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

If there is any derivative benefit, at all, from the current Trump fiasco, it is the long overdue realization that our system of Presidential selection, locking in the selected executive (whoever he may turn out to be), for the mandatory term of four years, is dangerous and notably undemocratic.

We would  respectfully suggest the alternative of a parliamentary system, most importantly, maintaining our traditional two- party system of government. The voters would select the victorious party (in keeping with their perceived philosophies), which would select the Chief Executive. Should the latter turn out to be a Nixon or a Trump, a vote of confidence could then be authorized, wherein the nation could express its democratic will. This would perpetuate, indeed, improve, on the founder’s plan for a representative democracy.

We would vehemently discourage a multi-party (proportional) system, which has proven to tip the scale of power in favor of small minority parties, needed to complete a required quota for legal governance.



Ever since the warm bare feet of homo sapiens first padded across the surface of terra firma, he has been impressed with the necessity for speed, specifically, regarding his personal safety and success in bringing home the family dinner. This concern was eons later, replaced by the pressing need of the modern commuter to submissively arrive on time at his place of employment.

Travel between points of embarkation and arrival, has always been measured in time (rate x time =distance). Travel by horseback, and subsequently, horse drawn carriages, was strategized and considered in terms of distance, difficulty and estimated time of travel. The phenomenon of roadside inns developed as a practical accommodation for travelers whose travel lasted overnight. Later, mechanical devices replaced the horse, and with their rapid development, made travel more accessible and, of course, faster. With the epochal rise in industrial development, the secular aphorism of employers, “time equals money,” speed became a universal mantra, not only in industrial production but also, in agriculture and remarkably, animal husbandry.

The dimensions of our vast planet effectively grew smaller, as a practical matter, by the constantly improving phenomenon of swift air travel, facilitating business and cultural exchange. Indeed, the increase in the speed of military aircraft made the seemingly impassible “breaking of the sound barrier,” a useless relic of the past, like the once formidable, and now historical, “four-minute mile.” Speed in commuting, production, upward mobility, communication, in computation and aggregation of data, of large box store marketing and a vast prevalence of fast food emporia have become regular features of an increasingly impatient societal mainstream.

We would bravely venture to say that even spoken vocabulary has its own nuanced meter and speed of enunciation. Slowly articulated words like, transportation, fudge, reciprocal and apprehensive, can be compared with other words, more quickly uttered, such as ice, happy, church, slim and cool. It may be debatable as to whether the differences in speed of utterance are founded in differences in syllabification or conceptual meaning, but differences in word speed do, in fact exist. For example, our word of the moment, “exponential,” seems to be ejected rather quickly, despite its multiple syllabification.

The word, “exponential” has apparently been expanded and significantly increased in present usage. It is defined, by apparent consensus, as “a matter which itself is ever increasing.” Of all the words in the American-English lexicon, we find this word rationally troubling. Its utility is comparable to  frustrating attempts to manually pick up liquid mercury. Conceptually, how can the speed of a subject which, by agreed definition, is itself constantly and eternally speeding up, be useful or meaningful for any particular expression? To accept the concept, would necessarily rate it as being conceptually faster that the speed of light, since physicists consider the latter a constant (as opposed to an ongoing, ever- increasing speed). It is a word which, we feel, should be limited in use.

The word does have an admitted utility, when used to demonstrate or compare present day developments with their antecedents, to highlight obvious and remarkable developments, ex., in areas such as science, medicine, transportation, communication, fashion and technology. While we find it useful in this regard, contrariwise, we see its utility, as applied to futuristic references, non-specific and useless, except, perhaps, somewhere within the occult genre of science fiction literature. A subject which constantly increases in speed, as we speak, is by such defined nature, incapable of holding still for any degree of rational evaluation or meaningful literary understanding.