In past writings, we have discouraged, indeed, excoriated, the use of aphorism, as an aid in the resolution of issues, or the making of difficult choices.  We have cautioned against their arrogant, pre-packaged, formulaic wisdom and false assumption of eternal rectitude. They are typically useless, irrelevant to the specific issues, and at times, misleading. We have consistently maintained that problems and difficult choices are best dealt with by the application of reasoned experience, relevant to the nuance and context of the respective situation, and never by the facile acquisition of useless, ephemeral assurance, from purported, folk wisdom.

Seeking the best personal solution to presenting problems is, undoubtedly, hard work. A consultation with a friend or neighbor is understandable, but such request for assistance can result in erroneous, or inapplicable advice. The unsatisfactory result may be caused by the subjective and inexact manner in which the problem is communicated to the friend or neighbor, the neighbor’s own subjective perception of the issue, or his own analogous experience in a different context.

In the interest of fairness and objectivity, we undertook an examination of the aphoristic statements available to us, in a search for a possible valid exception. We did discover, to our great surprise, one sage, aphoristic statement, which had reasonable value; but unfortunately, even that (somewhat useful) aphorism, had a fatal flaw, as will be observed at a later part of this note. That aphoristic statement, in any event, did provide us with an entree to an important  theme for this note.

The identified, partial exception to the rule, is a statement, attributed to the 19th Century author, George Santayana. The famous declaration, which we maintain is flawed,  is also, coincidentally,  a segue to our topic du jour, the eternal  and unavoidable rondo of human history; but first,  George Santayana’s aphorism. The statement was, “Those who fail to learn history, are doomed to repeat it.”  This frequently used statement, we note, is aphoristic, in that it lends advice, universally, and without qualification. This statement, incessantly recited, it seems, by everyone, in felt applicable situations, is somewhat useful, but as indicated, is materially flawed.

The study of history is, unquestionably, a valuable undertaking, and, among other benefits, often leads to useful conclusions, notably concerning the flawed persona and impulsive actions of mankind, over time, and the related consequences. This awareness and knowledge is, unlike other aphoristic statements, useful; but only up to a point. We feel that the necessarily implicit assumption of the statement by George Santayana, is that such foreknowledge can be utilized to prevent mistakes (or, their repetition). We do not agree with the great man. We would hazard the view that man, eternally, repeats the classic mistakes, because, empirically, man’s persona, over the ages never basically alters. This, practical, view of history we would, humbly suggest, is the flaw in the otherwise, useful exception to the use of the aphoristic advice. In essence, we feel that Santayana was optimistically, reductionist.

It may well be that the basic causes of World War 1, were known, yet within a few decades, we endured World War 2.  The historical cause of the ongoing bloody war, between the Sunni and the Shia Muslims, is ancient, but known. The war is understood to be a bizarre continuation of the 7th Century dispute, as to whether the Prophet Mohammed is to be succeeded by blood relatives (in this case, his son, Ali) or by popular vote. The cause for this atrocious and eternal conflict, can probably be found in the psyche of the combatants, and arguably not the ancient, 7th Century political issue. The historically studied cause, is known and has been studied for more than 14 Centuries; yet there is, and has continued to be, all out tragic and excessively bloody and cruel warfare. The cause of the Thirty Years War, in central Europe was always known, the conflict between the religious practices of the Catholic and Protestant Christians. The causes of the French and Russian Revolutions was always known; the privation of the respective populations. It seems to us that the prime causes of war are, and have always been, xenophobia, inequality, and, most especially religion. We always knew them and yet always have suffered; possibly because the species of homo sapiens, is not as charitable, nor as principled, as the brilliant, George Santayana. Studying the imperfect nature of man, we believe, may be more enlightening, than knowledge of his temporal mistakes in history.

We once read an original and thought-provoking piece by a Yale literature professor, espousing the theory that all literary plots are essentially, versions of the same three stories; Jack in the Beanstalk (ex.:” Raiders of the Lost Ark”), Cinderella (ex.: “A Star is Born”), Romeo and Juliet (ex.:” My Fair Lady”). [examples, furnished by us]. Man has eternally been observed to undergo the same, or, analogous, life experiences, and continues to do so, despite changes in context, environment and, to the point, knowledgeable experience. This is why the declaration of Mr. Santayana is wise and idealistic, but empirically disproven by man’s empirically unalterable character.

We have always maintained, that mature perception, and understanding of one’s self and his fellow man, are best advanced by the reading of good literature. In addition to the great pleasure of enjoying the books, themselves, and the spiritual company of the outstanding authors, we, in the process, simultaneously, advance our knowledge of ourselves and our fellow man. The plots and characters are so well conceived and portrayed, that we delight in empathically, and intellectually, sharing with the fictional characters, their creatively portrayed, and personally relatable experiences.  The reader identifies with the classically redundant and eternal issues that beset man, and thereby derives an objective and tolerant acceptance of analogous problems experienced in his life, as well as the life of others. Life is repetitive and therefore predictable, like the musical theme in a classical rondo, and not essentially changeable. It and the finite variety of personality types, it seems, will endure, through the years.

So, Mr. Santayana, if experience and knowledge, of the replicative nature of life is not enough, what shall man do? We would, if possible, respond, as follows: (1)  be certain that you have accurately identified the accurate nature of the presenting problem, and to quote a useful British admonition, (2) “muddle through.”


Post # 361     HARVESTED MOON (Sci-Fi)

Included in the sizeable professional and technical staff of plinyblog, there is a technical manager, who, in order to protect his privacy (and, in this case, secrecy) we will give the fanciful name of “Manny.”  Manny is a hard-working, 45 year- old, sociable, bald, male, 6 feet tall, rather unremarkable in appearance with the sole exception of his his eyes. He has occasionally, at the water cooler or in the company cafeteria, privately related to us, tales of the numerous instances in the past, especially in Middle School in Long Island, New York, when he was the unfortunate victim of teasing, and even bullying, because of his exotic eyes. Manny’s eye condition is indeed a unique one, turning, reliably and alternatively, dark and light, every 12 hours. Considering the distance between the technical office and our editorial office, and the particular hours of employment, we can honestly say that, we never noticed this bizarre phenomenon.

Recently, and interestingly, on one occasion, immediately following his singularly routine practice, of unfailingly, viewing every one of the media’s alarming climate change reports, he impulsively and anxiously, opted to relate a personal, previously withheld and furtive secret, to us. As we now recall, it was twelve noon, following a spate of rather alarming media reports on the topic of the Nation’s unnatural incidence of the many, uncontrollable forest fires, floods, tsunamis and abnormal temperature readings.

Manny related to me a bizarre, but assertively true narrative, after startling me with the reservation, that the unauthorized revelation of its mere existence, is a federal crime, and subject to a long term in prison. The revealed facts sounded so gothic and weirdly (science) fictional, that we wonder whether even, an Edgar Allen Poe, or a H.G. Wells, would find them, at all, credible.

The Federal Statute mandating secrecy, he explained, dates back to the days of the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, who obtained the salient facts from his War Secretary John Stanton. Messrs. Lincoln and Stanton, were advised by a mysterious and, apparently foreign, bright- eyed emissary, that the surface of the Moon, had been, since the Paleolithic era, a rich, verdant, fertile planet, occupied by flora and fauna of all kinds, including a large, dominant species of humanoids, possessing an advanced brain and useful opposable thumbs. The reported humanoids were essentially identical in appearance to homo sapiens, (which apparently, appeared much later, on planet Earth with the sole exception of the variant evolution of the Luna humanoid’s eyes, which automatically change to light or dark, in tandem with the 12- hour light and dark, changes of the moon.

The Lunar humanoids, as related, evolved, successfully procreated, developed societies, made significant advances in science, technology and industry; the latter made the daily life of the average humanoid easier, and afforded him leisure time for study or recreation.

After centuries of successful and, notably, profitable, industry and commerce, a strange ominous, dark cloud began developing over the Planet, which evidently did not dissipate, but on the contrary, increasingly grew darker and more forbidding. Concurrently, there appeared to be the beginning of stark changes in the Moon’s formerly consistent climate and uncontrollable fires consuming the previously verdant forests, unusual flooding, frequent storms, hurricanes, and, on occasion, powerful windstorms. Increasingly, humanoids, reportedly, began complaining, in unusually high numbers, of eye irritations, later, headaches, fatigue and dizziness. The Ruling Humanoid Council, called upon its best scientists and medical experts to investigate the changes in the Planetary environment and, as well, the unusual and growing number of instances of humanoid discomfort, and its recent, sudden sensitivity to allergens.

After considerable study, experimentation and cross- professional deliberation, it was the uniform decision of the experts, that it was industrial waste and carbon emissions, released into the lunar atmosphere by industrialists and humanoid inhabitants, that was the cause of all of the planetary ills. A strong warning and serious recommendation, was then issued to have immediate and effective measures taken, most especially by industry, but also by the public, to control and delimit, the quantum of contaminants, notably, carbon, strewn into the Lunar air and surrounding atmosphere.

To make the long, agonizing and tragic narrative short, Manny related that, the combination of industry’s higher priority on profits, and the insufficient interest of the humanoid public, in the dire and existential warnings of the experts took its tragic toll. Previously lush, verdant and fertile, the Moon, soon thereafter, began a relentless deterioration into a colorless, lifeless and windy rock, whose sole ultimate utility is its reflective properties, (a lifeless, orbiting Satellite) in the heliocentric solar system.

As the history of events were recounted by Manny, ultimately, a small, desperate cohort of Martian humanoids, at the last days, and with the aid of a primitive methane gas projectile, desperately set out for the nearest planet, Earth, and unbelievably, made it. When word finally got back, this was followed by a great many other, frantic humanoids, reliably utilizing the identical escape procedure, but, as luck would have it, a reported total of only (approx.) six-hundred, actually made it; millions of others, surely, must have tragically perished. Today Manny related, descendants of the successful refugees, live, work and multiply, peacefully, privately and quite unnoticed, among us.

If, at the supermarket, or perchance at a karaoke club, you happen upon a lunar humanoid, please do not noticeably and impolitely, stare at his eyes.


Post # 360    ANOTHER AMERICAN BEAUTY PAGEANT (A pliny editorial)

At the time of this writing, there are in excess of 25 registered aspirants (and still counting) for selection by the Democratic Party, as its nominee for President in the 2020 election; all of whom, seem to be well recognized and celebrated personalities and, more importantly, avowed liberals. Stranger than this plethora of want-to -be candidates, is the fact that, as reported, the number is still growing.

There are, perhaps, some, who feel that such a large choice of potential candidates, is a healthy phenomenon, since it will, they feel, necessarily result in the airing, in the debates, of a great many views and novel suggestions for the solution of our problems, and improvements in governance. We, most emphatically, disagree.

The responsible chore of candidate selection, should never resemble the arbitrary and casual franchise of window shopping.

We, of course, are unaware of the respective personal motivation of each of the many aspirants, and remain confident, that all are in agreement with the classic Democratic party platform and principles; these traditionally, have included, health insurance for all Americans, protection of civil and women’s rights, enforcement of health and safety regulations, assistance to the needy, fair labor and agricultural practices, rational gun control, recognition and amelioration of climate problems and a sensible and compassionate immigration policy. The daily, continuous, media recital of the constant misdeeds of Mr. Trump, at this point, should strategically take a back seat, to the more important theme, of the public’s assurance of the restoration of the empathic and traditional aims of the Democratic Party. The goal to be emphasized, is the resurrection of wise governance, including the continued maintenance of the policy of responsible and moral compassionate capitalism.

We have serious reservations concerning the surfeit of candidates, seeking the party’s nomination. Appearances might suggest a possible context, akin to a beauty pageant, where, as perceived, the greatest ephemeral appeal of the contestant, in a swim suit or evening gown, is the criterion of success. There exist at present, a surfeit of beauty pageants, national and international; a mere sampling (of the domestic events, only) would include the following: Miss America, Mrs. America, Miss Teen Age America, Miss World, and so on, (and on) ad infinitem, ad nauseum. If permitted to make a diversionary  observation, we have always regarded (and have consistently written), that any determination of the actual beauty of the person, is essentially, not an external consideration, but an internal one, based upon mature perspective, intelligence, knowledge and capacity for empathy; in addition, as necessary, to the pageant show criterion of (unearned and accidental) outward appearance.

To return to our intended subject, we are troubled, as to the subject of the potential criteria for the selection of a favorite, from any large, pageant-like array of like- thinking contestants. Is it [externals] tonal quality and confidence in speaking? appearance? sense of humor? gender? good looks? personal history? domicile? feistiness?  We hope not. We are obliged to remember that it was the dangerous and attractive, populist, cult of personality, which was the proximate cause for the misleading of the nation, much like the fabled Pinocchio, into going down the wrong path, to its later regret. The voter must exercise his better judgment by voting for a candidate who, appears to demonstrate the essential characteristics of wisdom, maturity of perspective and a responsible knowledge of history, current events, and the needs of the nation. The unprecedentedly large array of similar, “right-thinking” applicants, however, supports the optics of a pageant-like competition; a trite and essentially, superficial array of “gong show” style applicants, hungrily vying for the noisy approval of a populist audience.

Participants, as Democrats, predictably, will speak to their common support of the traditional Democratic platform issues, enumerated above. Yet, if it they uniformly espouse identical platforms, how does the responsibly mature voter to be guided in his selection of nominee? It is this puzzling dilemma that underlies our considered disapproval of a large number of candidates in the nomination process. It would appear in such an instance, that the determinative choice of Presidential candidate, might, shamefully, be left to a decision based on superficial and irrelevantly populist criteria; rather than  the voter’s sincere affirmance of the basic, historic tenets, of the Democratic Party, which all candidates purport to share.

The selection of Presidential candidates is a consequential procedure and ought never resemble a beauty pageant, or a casual window shopping excursion.



There are tacit assumptions and mandatory expectations of every member of a society. As Rousseau famously stated, in his “Social Contract,” man gives up some liberty, contractually, in exchange for the benefits of living in society. This 18th Century legal observation is the keystone of all civilized and orderly communities of homo sapiens. To qualify as a participating member, there are tacitly acknowledged, “rules of the road,” including, importantly, behavioral expectations. In the event of exceptional violations of acceptable social behavior, there are written Statutes and Ordinances, to keep the peace and to provide for precedential justice. Essentially and fundamentally, it is the credible assumption of general compliance with expectations, that assures the interactive success of the human community.

There would be no practical way to recount the very many illustrative examples of compliance with societal expectations, such as, parents caring for their children, teachers teaching, postmen delivering mail, doctors and nurses providing health services, bus drivers driving buses. These sort of expectations, together with the expected, acceptable standard of interactive behavior, that furnishes the electrical current for the functioning of the appliance of society.

This Nation, in its past, has had the unfortunate experience of a few unsatisfactory heads of State, but did not find itself in the present unfathomable and thorny dilemma as to its resolution. The Constitution, indeed, provides two routes viable for the removal of a President, impeachment and Art.5 removal; the latter is, at present, virtually, a procedural impossibility, and, it appears that the former, in the present political climate, seems to demonstrate a unique and unprecedented conundrum.

We are  distressed and embarrassed at the President’s evident incapability, to perform the sworn duties of the most powerful and consequential office on the planet; his demonstrated ignorance, his acts of treasonous behavior, his intentional and immoral violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, his unrestrained and completely impulsive  acts and policies, nationally and internationally, his repulsive tolerance of white nationalists and other reprehensible bigots, his abuse of women and denigration of their human rights, his ominous denial of climate change, his disparagement of knowledge and learning, his daily obnoxious and uncivil behavior and tragically, so much more.

It might strain credulity, as being applicable to any President of a National community, but there exists an even more fundamental and insidious, characteristic of Trump’s unique persona, creating an unprecedented dilemma, applicable to this particular, bizarre and unique, head of State.

In 1853, Herman Melville, the brilliant author of the great classic novel,” Moby Dick”, wrote a novelette, “Bartelby the Scrivener,” which may be of some analogous utility to this writing. The protagonist, as the archaically worded title suggests, is a meek clerk, a copier, for an attorney. One day, when Bartelby was, routinely, instructed to copy some documents, as was his customary duty, he refused. In fact, the protagonist continued to refuse all further directions from his employer, including eventually, the command to get out, which was also refused. The employer, thereafter, after unsuccessfully failing to get the recalcitrant clerk to separate himself, actually thought that he solved the problem, by actually removing his practice to a new location; this, too, did not work.

What Melville was getting at, is that society’s existence (or weakness) is found in its necessary. practical dependency on the tacit, fundamental, and willing, compliance of its members, concerning expected and predictable action. Without such expectations and compliance, there can be no workable society.

Donald Trump has consistently demonstrated, that he has no intention of being bound by historical and legal, or ethical rules and expectations, regarding his behavior as President of the United States nor regarding his personal behavior; which behaviors, to him, presumably, and ignorantly, are indistinguishable. Debate is presently raging, as to those who believe that impeachment is necessary, in order to vindicate respect for law and propriety, and those who feel that the impeachment process would give Trump, more desired exposure to the limelight, which he neurotically craves, create more National divisiveness and consume valuable legislative time.

It is apparent that Mr. Trump will play no individual or professional part in the recognition of accepted societal or National expectations; nor even in a basic anthropological recognition of the universal social contract. He is unpredictable and, like Melville’s,” Bartelby the Scrivener,” sees himself as outside of the responsible context and the reach of society.

We may have to wait for 2020!



In earlier writings on the subject of our embarrassingly, incapable and dishonest President, (published despite our often declared, but as of yet, unrealized, aspiration, to refrain from writing on that subject), we posed the vitally concerning question: whether the election of Donald Trump, was a one-off, or statistically aberrant event or, whether it was a valid, sad indication of a prevalent National decline, in the numbers of sufficiently informed and literate voters.

We additionally observed, that Trump’s success, reportedly, was assisted by the financial and demagogic efforts, on the part of many self-interested corporations, which placed a higher priority on profit, than governmental regulations, which exist for the protection of the health of American citizens.

Despite dire concern, we, nevertheless, adhered to the optimistic belief, that the previous election and the re-election, of the estimable Obama administration, empirically militated against the second, horrific theory, of the National dumbing down, of the citizen- voter. The impetus for this writing, is a nightmarish fear (as will be described, hereafter) of an exacerbation of the horrific second theory.

As a general observation, we are not avid television viewers; we do, however, follow certain of our preferred evening news programs, view many educational and great performance specials, and on occasion, enjoy an interesting movie presentation. Otherwise, we continue prefer the pleasure, afforded by reading, in addition to the pleasure of engagement in the daunting challenge to create blog posts which are deserving of reader interest.

Recently, we sustained a minor leg injury, requiring us to remain essentially, sedentary, for a couple of weeks, in order to avoid pressure on our injured knee. Aside from our usual pursuits, we thought that we would give afternoon television another chance; perhaps we may have, in the past, been a trifle too dismissive of the experience. Please note, for the record, that our daytime nightmare unquestionably, experienced its etiology, in those inquisitive attempts.

One can safely assume, that sponsors of television programs, motivated by the goal of merchandising products and services, would, sensibly, finance programs, which, after demographic study and analysis,  appear to have the greatest number of viewers. It is inarguable, that sponsors of television programs, understandably, aspire to the commercial goal of exposure to the largest possible public audience, for the enhancement of desired sales. It logically follows, accordingly, that the popular afternoon programs, which we would consult, and possibly, enjoy, would all boast an exceptionally large viewership.

Our experience in sampling the entire array of choices of afternoon programming, with very few “charitable” exceptions, were nothing short of embarrassingly abysmal. The game shows, adult panel discussions, the “lectures” (beauty, weight control, nutrition, finances), the sophomoric family and individual therapy, the soap operas, were all, not simply inane, trite and sophomoric, but to be accurate, utterly tasteless and stupid. Our views included hostesses with excessive make-up, bling and undeserved confidence, mouthing tasteless, self-assured, popular aphorismic wisdom, and other inanities, to a widely applauding, curiously, appreciative audience, was enough to summon nightmares. But this, yet, is not the particular daylight nightmare which is the subject of this note.

Are people’s lives, actually, so dull, so completely uneventful and unstimulating, that, trite and inane proclamations, unashamedly and smilingly made, by over- dressed, heavily made-up, human Barbie dolls, sporting outrageous bling, and outlandish studio hairdo’s, are seen as entertaining, and over-the-top marvelous, so as to merit standing audience applause, as well as the rapt admiration of the viewer? Are people so poorly informed that game shows need to feature valuable prizes for correct answers to questions that any middle school child could easily handle? Are people’s lives so uninteresting, that they have to live, derivatively, through trite and tawdry melodramatic soap opera vignettes? Are people so self-conscious, that they have to waste valuable leisure time, in rapt attention to beauty enhancement, diet and weight control programs, as diversion? Are viewers, generally, so insecure and gullible, that they would worship the arrogant input of faux, pseudo-intellectual, smooth-talking boob-tube savants?

It may, at last, be the contextually appropriate time, to reveal the nature of our frightening, daylight nightmare.

Our nightmare is the fear that there may yet be, an additional source of Trump supporters; a cohort, conceivably, separate from, and supplemental to, that identified, large, amorphous legion of misled, low-information, flat earth voters, who helped put him in the Oval Office. It involves the potential voting choices of of those millions of afternoon worshippers of sophomoric and inane afternoon television offerings; those who appear to prefer, easily accessible, low quality entertainment, over rational thought and clear-eyed reality. Our daylight nightmare, more specifically stated, is that so many, eternally bored, tasteless, afternoon television fans, neurotically craving easily accessible, cheap entertainment, may, as voter, at some point, take notice that our bizarre, orangutan-orange President, [aside from every other evaluation], easily fits the bill, as low quality, easily accessible, and tasteless, daily entertainment.



At first blush, it might seem counter-intuitive to observe that in forensic matters, the least probative, or least reliable accurate proof, is, acceptably, known to be personal identification; irrespective of how confidently it was asserted by an apparently truthful witness. Who did it, said it, drove the car, was present, stole the bicycle, are examples of questions addressed to the witness’ sworn recollection as to identity; the responses, validly and empirically, have been shown to be subject to, at least, some doubt. Long experience has shown that evidence, including “circumstantial” evidence, is forensically necessary, to afford the assured conclusion, that the identified personality, is, factually, the true party in interest.

The distinction between “perception” and reality, is a construct, which is understood to be somewhat familiar, in contemporary society. It is commonly known that perception and its re -created recollection, are both subjective phenomena, and may, unwittingly, differ from actual, objective accuracy. Witnesses, called to testify as to identity, necessarily bring along with them to the witness seat, recollections of previous, related and unrelated circumstances, and a mélange of concurrent thoughts, which may well interfere with, or edit, the extent of their recollected testimonial accuracy. Furthermore, witnessed events which, by their nature, are productive of emotional or excited reaction, by their nature, add additional challenge to attempts at reliable recollection, and associated testimony.

Such problematic reservations, applicable to the questionable accuracy of witness identification, are also relevant in the context of perceived familial resemblance; most particularly in instances of the newborn.  There is little doubt that as an experiential fact, representatives of both parental families, predictably, and with great confidence and assurance, are prone to independently assert that the newborn baby clearly resembles someone in his respective family. In the course of such controversy, one may hear such scholastic and erudite arguments as, “her eyes are just like her sister’s,” “she’s got her mother’s mouth” “she’s (god forbid) got her father’s nose,” or some brash, but expected comment from a reputed weird relative such as, “put a cigar in his mouth and you’ll see that he is a spitting image of Uncle Moe, the druggist.” The newborn nursery eternally provides the utilitarian convenience of a suitable forum for substantive debate, over the attribution of familial resemblance.

We might be able to reach some concord, with the reader, for our bold declaration, that the usual newborn infant can be seen to resemble almost anyone; and, further, that relatives visiting the hospital, celebrating the happy, new addition to the family, may differ in nuanced perception, albeit, each, respectively, asserting requisite expertise and the assurance of profound experience in family history.

As the child grows older, the debate may well continue, however sporadically, as to his attributive features; sometimes, as a good- natured, interactive tradition between the two families, or at times, on the factually perceived, purported merits of the controversy. It can be noted, though, that the issue emanating from the asserted pride in the child’s perceived familial resemblance, may be exacerbated, or, alternatively, wax and wane, depending upon the mature child’s later degree of successful attainments, or conversely, upon his, disappointing performance.

There often appears to be, yet, an additional self-serving, familial inclination, which apparently amounts to an association of the great success of a family member, to a claimed, celebrated, familial trait, or a gifted relative. Curiously, there seems to be no similar competitive inclination regarding individuals, who have turned out to be perceived as abysmal failures.

Just spoofing!



The “Statute of Limitations,” and “Bills of Attainder,” are two long- established legal concepts which appear to be imminently capable of instructive use, in their analogic reference in our subject area of human behavior.

The term, “Statute of Limitations,” refers to the maximum allotted period of time, as legislated, within which a lawsuit may be commenced, or a crime prosecuted, or an indebtedness enforced. This classic, legal precept, was created to delay the prosecution of stale claims to a time when witnesses or evidentiary material, necessary to their defense, were no longer available.

“Bills of Attainder,” (outlawed by Art.1, sec, 10, U.S. Const.) were a class of crimes, created by the English Parliament, in which groups of associated people could be prosecuted; relatives of the accused would, additionally, lose their inheritance rights under a Parliamentary theory, called, “Corruption of the Blood.” As indicated, this archaic, unjust conceit has long been outlawed. The fairness and justice, created by the creation of the concept of the Statute of Limitations, and, as well, the outlawing of the harshly unfair Bill of Attainder (the latter, at the inauguration of the U.S. Constitution) were, inarguably, two vitally significant acts of justice and legislative rectitude.

One often hears defensive explanations, or rationalizations, regarding certain, less than acceptable behavior, unwise statements or revealed personality traits, to the effect that they are, excusably, attributable to the person’s purported upbringing, or his parent’s perceived inclinations. How often have you encountered, the defensive assertions such as, “If you think that was an obnoxious statement, you should have heard his father” or,”She is stingy, just like her family.”  The purported blame for, lack of empathy, for constant anxiety, for inability to trust, for lack of capacity for intimacy, and so on, is defensively, cast upon one’s parents, one’s upbringing or previous life experiences.

We should state, at this juncture, that we are familiar with the long-standing, academic bi-furcation and  on- going debate, concerning the competing concepts of “nature v. nurture.” We concede the fact, that while much biological phenomena are, in fact, inherited, some personal inclinations have, also, been thought to be natural, or, perhaps, socially heritable. Nonetheless, it seems to us to be defensively neurotic, after attaining adult maturity, to eternally blame, or conveniently attribute, our less than desirable traits or inclinations, to our parents and our upbringing. At some point, we, as adults, will have had sufficient life and interactive experience, requisite to the development of our own persona and our own self- image, to be enabled to personally admit blame, or take credit. It is more than tiresome to attend to long explanatory, subjective diatribes, attributing insecurity, or lack of generosity, or other self- confessed inabilities, to one’s past upbringing or family life.

It may, be observed, as necessary, that all parents, eternally, had parents, and that if such defensive attribution were, acceptable, applicable blame might be properly retroactive to mythical, Eve, herself.

There is a healthy and responsible need for all mature adults, to maturely recognize a personal Statute of Limitations, and to decree a cancellation of their familial Bill of Attainder-like ascription, of all that is felt to be unsatisfactory, to perceived, past family nuance; and to increase their mature, and self- respecting perspective in the recognition and significance of individual, personal responsibility.