In the broad spectrum of anti-social, or errant behavior,” incompetence” deserves the most coveted prize. It is usually enabled by a concomitant of two miscreant features, ignorance and confidence; the  mutual allure is deadly.

Our nation’s most successful enterprise, aside from raising soy beans and corn, is unarguably, marketing. Impressionable, or dissatisfied folks, seem to evince an irresistible attraction to marketing propaganda, not entirely dissimilar to that of a moth and a light bulb. Offer an adequate incentive (money) to the agency and the response would predictably be, “no problem.” Sugar-laden drinks, potentially harmful chemicals, violent video games, miracle foods or diets, fitness programs for everyone (regardless of physical condition), “you name it.”  Glitzy, Barbee dolls, decked out with “bling” and masculine “hunks”, heroes, problem solvers, celebrities and incentive coaches promote age-defying creams and oils, medicines for every malady, from heartburn to bi-polar disorder (for you to edify your physician),  personal Injury lawyers, life extending elixirs and whatever may be the snake oil du jour.

In similar fashion, there are many individuals who, by means of their tactical representation of expertise and self-confidence, seem to have the remarkable capacity to induce unwary members of the public to so act, or refrain from action, to encourage cosmetic surgery, to buy into “get rich quick” deals ( in real estate or gold coins, for example) to purchase a particular automobile or wristwatch, insurance plan,  and even, for whom  to vote (albeit possibly against the voter’s interest).

Bad advice is often widely disseminated, by television, smart-phone and even more effectively, in person-to-person interaction. In the context of our great and literate nation, the fact that an ignorant, egotistical braggart-clown (the personification of reductive ignorance in attractive combination with self-confidence) can have himself popularly  selected  as one of the two candidates in an election for the Presidency, ought be beyond any reasonable ken or tolerant acceptability.

Experience has wisely taught us to avoid the society of the criminal and other unsavory members of our society. The latter, if not at first, soon thereafter, becomes identifiable and therefore,  avoidable. So express evil- doers rank only second in our spectrum of miscreants since we know how to be safe.

But incompetence has no warning lights and is all too often identified only after the manifestation of its tragic results. Thus, incompetence rates as more dangerous than criminality. It is often not recognizable and the amiable incompetent may with our permission, soon find his way into our “soft parts.”

In the interest of our own self-preservation, we are mandated to avoid the “sell,” by conducting our own research and inquiry. Comparative experience, research in the literature, and a thorough examination of the subject are invaluable and are highly recommended; however it should be note that the most effective antidote to this “Eighth Sin”, incompetence, is the liberal exercise of our human reason.



In our ever-present aspiration to attain self-knowledge and identity it is essential to examine and review our past record of acts and behavior. In the course of such internal audit, misleading subjectivity may be minimized by sufficient attention to those societal norms to which we ascribe, as well as to the comparative behavior of individuals who we consider worthy exemplars.

Our present system of laws and ethical precepts are, necessarily, dependent upon the premise that we, as individuals, can freely choose between right and wrong. The competing belief regarding action and behavior is the theory of “determinism” or fate.

Many celebrated philosophers and theologians have used “free will” theory as the cornerstone of the infrastructure of their ethical precepts and teachings. In free will, man (ex., Adam) is solely and only responsible for his choices; good choices beget benefits, bad ones, suffering. Free will is the shiny bauble of philosophical morality; where necessary, man had to be taught, or forced to, right action.

Contrariwise, those who were (and still are) adherents to the theory of determinism, maintain a belief in the active participation of outside, third party forces or agencies that affect man’s behavior.

It is much easier to critique the belief in outside forces as third party agencies which are believed to influence or determine man’s behavior, than to reliably calibrate free will.

The wide-spread belief in external, influencing forces was a significant, typical and salient feature of the long-lived Dark Ages, existing prominently until the liberating development of The Age of Enlightenment (blog 61) which rationally devalued the eerie currency of superstition.

It would necessarily follow that no moral code or concept of right action could rationally exist, were man’s behavior manipulated by some external puppeteer. No blame or honor could be logically bestowed under determinism; the latter is best relegated to a museum of antiquity or the graveyard.

The competing theory in the examination of the dynamics of human behavior is the theory of free will. The analysis of this alternative theory is not capable of a simplistic, reductive review as is the case with determinism.

The theory of free will is not solely reserved for didactic philosophical discourse. It is also less esoterically recognized and utilized in such worldly areas as criminal and tort law, marketing and advertising, choice of belief systems and opinion, aesthetic choices, entertainment, conversation as well as a myriad of mundane phenomena.

The   belief in freewill is enormously empowering and infused with potential for creativity and self-realization. However, Classical Free Will, in its purest and ideal state, would predictably result in full responsibility for action, without any equitable explanation or understanding To subscribe to the ideal is to indulge in the concept beyond usefulness, empathy or understanding (blog#20).But  free will does not merit summary rejection or unfavorable  critique as applicable to the theory of determinism.

Impinging to no small degree on free will, are evolutionary dynamics, psychological and chemical factors, (as demonstrated by recent findings in modern behavioral science) genetics, environmental factors, parenting, belief systems, health, race, economic factors and others.

From the time the fetus (now, child) is forcibly evicted from the safe, warm and familiar environment of the womb, the unconscious mind, in its primitive desire to avoid danger has caused the individual to fear change as a threat. (blog#15) Our bio-chemical system, in tandem with our psyche, often orchestrates an internal, primitive warning, sometimes constructive, sometimes not. Often, a disinclination to take necessary action, results from a subtle feeling, not an explanation; the latter is often supplied (perhaps incorrectly) later as a retrospective rationale. The unconscious mind is usually not our friend.

Despite the limitations on free will, we are still responsible for our actions. The theory, nevertheless is useful in the understanding the personal, private bases for our thoughts, impulses and feelings. The goal is the attainment of freedom of choice of action despite the existence of impulses and inclinations of a non-constructive nature.

We have the potential to lead rational, useful lives despite our individualized repository of old fears and predilections. Free will is the only construct that exalts individuality, growth and creativity.



Blog #66 THE SPY – MYSTERY ON THE SUBWAY – (poesie). Woodsworth study #2 (var.)

I saw a man the other day
His nose was long, his face was drawn
His pleading eyes said “go away”
Yet curiosity drew me on.

With gnarly hands between two knees
As bony as an unfed rat,
He faintly smiled, with visage green-
Part covered by a dirty hat.

I stared as if by magnet led-
He rose and left, right at Times Square
The door then closed, the train sped on-
And left me puzzled, blinking there.

I looked about, but no one seemed
Disturbed by such a grisly view-
But I, impressed by this sight, dreamed-
And tossed awake for half the night.

Where does he go? Who can he be?
Does he know love? Can he not speak?
And was” He” (shudder) watching “ me”?
Am “I” the one who is more weak?

-p (attributed to Leonard N. Shapiro (1950) 2nd study, Wordsworth: meter, style.

Blog #65 (poesie) VISIONS ( A “DAFFODILS” redux)*

I wander far within my mind
A pensive trail from vill to vill
I travel oft and far, and find
Each time a new succeeding thrill

I oftimes wend a weary mile
With slight expenditure of will
And halt at times, to see and smile at-
Hind and buck upon the hill

The summer with its vital dew
The springtime’s rich and muddy womb
I see the skies, both grey and blue
I see the diaper and the tomb

I see the city’s murky mist,
The country ivy nod and climb
An infant’s cheek, so gently kissed
A ‘ fested bog all ooze and slime

Man well may brave the seas or span
The space in search of human kind,
For me, no venture is more grand-
Than that within the human mind.
-p (attributed to Leonard N. Shapiro)

• (This was his 1949 study of the structure and meter
of William Wordworth’s famous, “Daffodils”)



Blog #64  American “Socialism,” A Mandated Moral Responsibility

It might be a wise move to eliminate the term, “socialism” from the non-academic lexicon; it is useful in a college course on political theory,  but has  been so perverted and misused by our low information population (and those who pander after their votes) as to effectively become an epithet.  In a society where so many devalue education and wisdom,” tags” albeit inaccurate, are popular (See: Blog#28).

There is, inarguably, is no socialism in nature. A bird with a broken wing, a deer with a lame foot, an owl with impaired vision are all goners; inadequate rainfall leads to the mortality of fauna and flora alike. It would be extremely challenging to identify any human beings on this planet that have had the capacity to exist and survive without some societal assistance, especially regarding sustenance and protection.

With the rise and development of industrial mass production, the perception of the intrinsic value of the common man was depreciated and reduced solely to the measure of his potential utility and capacity to work and produce profitable goods for the industrial entrepreneur.

Charles Dickens (and others) artistically and compassionately depicted the brutal and unprincipled use of men, women and young children as instruments of labor (rather than as human beings) in the Victorian era.

Adam Smith, then denominated a “liberal,” maintained that a proper just and efficient society should be completely free of and unfettered by State (Government) control or influence. This brilliant (but errant) philosopher opined that the natural law” of supply and demand would ensure a successful society. The talented contemporary novelist, Ann Rand, shared this heartless economic theory. It simply doesn’t work; ask Charles Dickens, himself or President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

In response to the “Great Depression” of the early 20th century, FDR entered into a binding social contract with America, providing for federal participation in the operation of the American economy for the benefit of the nation and its people. This necessary entry by government into the economy and life of the people ,forever repealed the law of the jungle and its Darwinian cruelty and made way for a more compassionate and moral society. Government sponsored projects in general infrastructure, including bridges, roads, transportation, construction of colleges and museums, hospitals and countless others, for the benefit of the worker and citizen in general as well as the nation. Social security, health and labor laws, the protective oversight of hospitals, food and medicine are among a myriad of responsible life enhancing developments which evolved and which have become vital ingredients in the context of the good life of the American citizen, thus elevating him above the merciless world of Darwinism.

FDR’s contract with America worked, it still works. The proper understanding and employment of a calibrated and balanced participation and oversight by government, assures us of safety of our person when we walk the streets, travel, eat, are ill, and even when we invest.

Capitalism, happily and predictably, will always remain our American form of government.   Nevertheless, our “flat earth people,” are encouraged by that materially successful portion of our society, which greedily worships at the altar of the many-fisted profit deity, to believe that government policies of responsible assistance are “Socialism,” an evil pied piper who is leading our nation to ruin. The same modest, low information people, who, in reality, may stand in most need of government assistance, are persuaded and misled into virulently opposing all such programs .It is particularly vexing to observe that the large number of our Congressmen, ( usually Republican ) who publically decry and condemn all government assistance programs (as” Socialism”) but who comfortably accept and  enjoy salaries and benefits, health insurance (which they oppose for the American citizen),retirement benefits, travel and emoluments of all and every kind which are paid for by the federal government.

It may be possible to avoid some discord by naming our polity “Responsible Capitalism.”



Blog # 63 (poesie) CRISES IN THE NIGHT

Remote on a forsaken snowdrift
With windswept eyes, he faced
An enemy blown in on North winds
A terror from the elements.
Scantily clad, he waited
Teeth set, lips trembling- with
Excitement or fear, he knew not which-
Minutes passed, cold and wet ones
Fatigue and pain subservient
To self preservation.
“Let them come, I am ready”
He repeated, yet girded himself and
Tried to wrap,
What few garments he had, about him-
Melodramatic and nostalgic
Thoughts recurred- of what had been
And what would be, if only.
He weakened at several times- but
At each lapse recovered spirit.

After eternities, he shifted feet
And noticed the previous stiffness
Now, afraid to move-
Lest physical relief banish determination.
At last, temptation ever gaining ground,
With diminishing hours and increased pain-
He moved—about a step
And then, defeat followed,hot upon heels
It had come – would soon come
Now it mattered not, for he had lost.

With shame in his breast, he
Returned indoors-where
Strangely comforting-
The will to do battle left him.
He settled in the warmest corner
Where the others were resting, and …
At last, his hand let go the sword
Clenched in his tightened fist
And let it fall with a clatter
Amidst the great pile of swords
In the middle of the room.

-p (attributed to Leonard N. Shapiro, circa.  1949, w/ed.)



The waltz, as it is commonly known, is a ballroom dance performed at close quarters by two dancers who revolve in perpetual circles to music played at three-quarters tempo; examples are The Hesitation Waltz and the Blue Danube.

The salient descriptive features of the waltz are uncannily similar to the much extolled practice of negotiation; the latter having the purported reputation of being the superlative method of resolution of conflicting interests. Yet there are fascinating similarities between this much vaunted practice and the waltz.

Excluded from consideration here are intra-family and interpersonal disputes; a mutually identifiable, recognized issue must be identified in order to consider negotiation. In the categories of disputants cited, there is a predictable absence of identification of the basic issues truly underlying the dispute.

The recommendation to employ negotiation where the parties have reached an impasse is perceived ideally, to be the most responsible route to an equitable solution. This ideal rendition of the procedure anticipates an evenhanded peace between warriors of equal strength and prowess. This expectation requires a naiveté requisite to the acceptance of an invitation to tea from the Mad Hatter.

So salutary and constructive does the ideal concept of negotiation appear that there has evolved in human society an entirely new genus and species of preacher-like being, coaches in the “art” of negotiation. These self- anointed savants (similar in stripe to the class of “motivational speakers”), rein in substantial piles of money by recounting to enthralled audiences useless aphorisms and facts which they already know, but expressed in a hyped up and” feel-good” jargon. Like the snake oil salesmen of old, these people have learned the dark art of preying upon easily impressionable people who seem to manifest, for a very brief and ephemeral moment, a sense of determined and confident direction.

These performers, dressed in expensive garb and possessed of a rich, golden voice seem to have the perverse talent to prey upon the sensitivities of the gullible who are convinced that they require a magical amulet or special incantation to succeed at their efforts, negotiation or otherwise.

Successful resolution of a disputed issue in the formalized procedure of the negotiation does not depend upon ostensible confidence, attire or personality. These features which are the grist for the mill of the “feel good” preachers usually are unrelated to the outcome of the process.

Apart from its idealized conception and the criteria urged by the” snake oil salesmen”, the negotiation process (dance) is almost always stacked in favor of one of the disputants, viz., the party whose materials or services are needed most by the other. This is the major and usual theme and situational determinant as to who sits in the “cat-bird” seat.

Aside from the stated misconceptions, negotiation is, in fact, a useful and practical way to shorten the length and mitigate the cost of a dispute. However, the parties have to pay close attention to their relative bargaining positions in order to realistically determine, for the purpose of the specific dance, who leads and who follows.



A brief search into the history of the Seventh Century (Bronze Age) will disclose a widespread religious belief in an antagonistic competition between the forces of light (goodness) and dark (evil). It was the Persian philosopher, Zoroaster, who is understood to have codified this belief and founded a major religion, Zoroastrianism.

In the present age we continue to witness the competing forces of dark ignorance and that of enlightenment. It is disappointing and agonizingly painful to observe that ignorance and superstitious belief systems not only persist but seem to have metastasized.

There is a heated debate between people, alarmingly aware of environmental threats to our planet and its atmosphere, based upon reports from our leading scientists to the effect that it is caused by the consumption of traditional sources of energy, like coal and oil, and others, who reject all scientific findings and wish to continue such consumption.  People, concerned with such scientific reports, see man as the responsible trustee of our planetary health and champion alternative non-polluting sources of energy, like solar and wind power.

Concurrent with (and perhaps, related to) this vital debate is an even more fundamental antagonism which pits the value of man’s most precious natural resource, his human intelligence and capacity for reason, against the too resilient forces of ignorance and superstitious belief. The latter have unremittingly under- valued and deprecated, that most precious and valuable resource, man’s reason.

Indeed, most of our “mainstream” folks evince a devaluation and disrespect for the intellectual in favor of the knowledge-limited, but glitzy and attractive, “dude” or “diva.” (See: blog #29). The subject of science, the arts and the humanities, so vital to the development of the self and to the enhancement of life, go unexamined in favor of the worship of transient and ephemeral style and fashion, and the pursuit of shallow amusement. The latter choose to remain blind to the fact that the natural resource of human intelligence has unlimited potential for the solution of difficult problems, existential and otherwise, and exists as an available and renewable energy source capable of unlimited problem- solving and untold creativity.

The great English philosopher, John Locke, maintained that knowledge is gained through the accumulation of experience, rather than by vain attempts to consult external sources. Science, reason and logic, he reasoned, are the only true sources of our meaningful progress as human beings.

P. has consistently refrained, to comment on political matters. But recent events are so startling and alarming as to embolden his inclination to violate this consistent precedent.

A nominee to run for the highest office in our land is enthusiastically selected by millions of American voters, despite the evident knowledge that he lacks the requisite wisdom, intelligence and temperament to govern and occupy a revered place in our American history. More than embarrassing and shameful, it is a threat to our way of life and culture, our relationships with other countries, and to world peace.   This result could only have been attained by the accumulated effort of our vast low information population who uniformly suffer from the chronic and contagious diseases of ignorance and illiteracy.

The medieval period is referred to by historians as the “Dark Ages.” This was a period of time famously featuring ignorance, illiteracy, superstition, atrocities and general social and intellectual decline.

“The Age of Reason” which  followed in due course , ( “The Age of Enlightenment”) saw the questioning of despotic and institutional rule, overcame superstition and  proclaimed the enlightened notion that humanity does best when it employs reason, logic and respect for empirical reality.

Thus, the lack of utilization of the unique, vital resource of brain power (reason) is a problem much more existential than the contested choice of natural power sources; it is no less than lethal. The choice between the relapse of a new dark age of ignorance, primitivism, fear and superstition and a bright world of enlightenment, of wisdom and intelligence needs to be carefully and wisely considered.



The recognized rules applicable to the sport of Track and Field make the identification of the winner of a race simple and incontrovertible; it is the first of the runners to cross the designated finish line. Additionally, such result is often publicly announced amid the adulation and congratulatory cheers of the crowd. Further, the winner is traditionally given a medal or trophy cup as an official symbol of his successful effort. Thus, from the standpoint of those rules, the identification of the winner is visibly simple; by the same rules, the identification of the ostensible losers is similarly, simple and obvious; it is everyone else who ran.

Separate and apart from the aforementioned rules, there are other (unwritten) criteria whose application, by contrast, would make it difficult to correctly identify the losers.

There are individuals who enthusiastically choose to participate in sporting contests despite their certainty that they have little prospect of winning. They do so for the experience and personal pleasure of participation. These individuals deserve our commendation. Such acts are indications of healthy sportsmanship, personal security and even, perhaps, strength of character.

There are also many who run for more profound, especially meaningful, personal trophies.  Such people are those hampered by disability, physical or mental, recent convalescents and others who seek the personal award of self-assurance and a” can-do” sense of competency. The valuable prizes earned by such people, the feeling of assured competence and a personal sense of adequacy, by virtue of such performances, are rewards far exceeding medals or public recognition. Their brave efforts, usually unknown to the spectators, are all victorious, regardless of the order in which each has reached the finish line.

There are. notably, a plethora of “winners” and “losers,” outside the stadium setting; many of whom  experienced  poverty, disability or  other unfortunate settings in early life.  Many have laudably overcome such misfortune and dire adversity by their sheer will and effort; sometimes to such a degree that they are in fact, celebrated and honored by an adoring public.

P., it should be noted, reserves his greatest accolades and fanfare for those who begin their lives with such impediments, whether economic or physical, and who, by perseverance,  have succeeded, in attaining a decent life for themselves and family. These individuals whose admirable success,  while not of such magnificence and scale  as to engage public notice and social recognition, are indeed deserving of the greatest of commendation, albeit their success is not broadcast to stadium spectators.

We may need to re-think our sensitivities in the employment of the words, “winner” and” loser.