Month: July 2019

One is, on occasion, asked a naïve, or reductive question, such that, following his polite and patient response, leads him thereafter and unexpectedly, into more profound thought on the general subject. The derisible question, here, was, “Why don’t the different colors, in nature, clash?” This question, posed by an adult citizen is, strange, childish, and, upon contemplation, astoundingly, naïve. Man has developed in the ambiance of his natural surroundings, and has accommodated to its natural appearance and normative propriety. His sense of color is a phenomenon, based, as Edmund Burke would say, solely upon his “learned experience”. The colors that are presented in nature, do not clash, because we have, eternally associated them together, and not by some exercise of (arbitrary) design. Certain other colors may “clash” when used together, because they do not conform to our personally learned, or societally influenced, experience.

This highly unusual and naïve question, shortly thereafter, led us to a subject that interested us, viz., the existence of a need for color, in speech, to communicate information, feeling, thoughts and important messages, as an alternative to words. The simplest, and most widely recognized illustration, is seen in the common use of red and green traffic lights.

“The perception of color”, we are told, “derives from the stimulation of “cone cells” in the human eye by radiation within the visible spectrum.” We are not neuroscientists, and are more interested in the use of color, however generated, as a necessary communicative supplement, to the American-English lexicon.

We have developed in our day-to-day language, (excluding its metaphoric employment in poetics) the needed use of color, as an expression of descriptive or emotional nature. “It says it in black and white” (clearly), or he is playing a “blue” (sad) song. He was, “red hot” (very angry). She was, “green” (definitively) with envy; more recently, it is a “blue” (democratic) or “red” (republican) or purple (mixed) State. ”Green,” has also become  synonymous with, environmental responsibility, and on occasion, liberal politics.

Shall we continue, “white wash” (wrongfully excused),” green at the gills (Sickly) “yellow” (cowardly) “bronzed” (heavily suntanned), greenhorn (foreigner), situation “red” (emergency), “code blue” (hospital emergency), “in the red” (insolvent business), “in the black” (solvent), a “gray area” (undefined). Not to mention the many “colorful” expressions, such as, “white as a ghost,” she is a “colorful character” (exotic persona), he is the sports announcer who provides the “color” during the match, or, the designation, a “red light” district, which means the tenderloin.

We could continue, ad infinitum, and ad nauseam, to furnish additional illustrations of our use of words, borrowed from the interactive generation of our cones and rods with our retina, in the attempt to satisfactorily fulfill the need for satisfactory expression. The foregoing paragraphs were intended to show the extent of use of our strange word partnership with our natural sense of sight, as needed, to fortify a substantial weakness in our sense of speech. To be more precise, for the the failure of the Anglo-American lexicon, to avail a speaker, or writer, with a competent inventory of expressive adjectives and nouns, so that he can, with a feeling of relief, conclude that he has expressed his emotions or, feelings, fully and precisely.  The language of American English is quite suitable for expressing the language of bills and invoices, but shamefully, inadequate, in the case of words related to feelings and emotions. The Romance languages, apparently, are not thus handicapped. Even the modestly spoken, Yiddish, with which we have some passing familiarity, does not suffer from this handicap.

Take for example, the ubiquitous word, “love,” in English. One may be very hungry and say: “I’d love to have a slice of pizza,” or be wearing very uncomfortable shoes and say, “I’d love to take my shoes off, or being tired, I’d love to go to sleep now,” or to a grandchild, “I love you.” Even in the modest, retro and seldom used, language of Yiddish (as we are confident is true of many other languages) there is an appropriate word, or form of the word, “love,” for each relevant and applicable use; for a lover, for a spouse, for the uses mentioned. The American vocabulary is unforgivably impoverished, in its inventory of “feeling” words. Perhaps this is due to the fact that we inherited the language of the traditionally, phlegmatic English, and not the Portuguese or the Italian cultures.

In any event, it clearly evidences an unmistakable admission, of the paucity of our Nation’s language, when one is necessarily obliged, to supplement his desire for satisfactory, personal communication, with words, more appropriately representing electronic-light impulses occurring at the retina.

-p.

 

 

In an earlier essay, we expressed our concern and criticism regarding today’s unusually large number of Democratic candidates for Presidential nomination. The contestants, all from an identical party, institutionally, share most points of view in common, with the unfortunate result that irrelevant, populist standards may become the sole remaining determinants of one’s choice. Knowledge, gravitas, experience, transparent candor, are among the significantly proper and relevant qualities; certainly not, irrelevant qualities such as perceived charm, eloquence, apparent confidence, aggressiveness and other ostensibly, populist, “winning” characteristics. The previous election proved to be an effective primer, on the profound error of any selection, based on populist and superficial standards. We have declared in a past essay, that an overlarge number of proposed candidates, all from the same party, factually eliminates the occasion for debate on the relevant issues, leaving only cosmetic differences, (voice, appearance, sense of humor and celebrity) as the remaining, irrelevant, and improper, bases for choice. The candidate’s “performance” has been, disappointingly, the prime subject of discussion in the media; not the candidate’s perceived gravitas and potential fitness for the Office. It is of crucial importance, that the consequential, historical significance, of choosing a Presidential candidate, from one of the (only) two national political parties, ought not be seen as a replication of a Miss America contest.

The celebrated, intensely awaited event, is universally known as, the “Presidential Debates.” We are troubled by that misleading reference. A “debate” involves a formal and contested discussion (arguments) on (one) a particular, previously selected topic, in which each of two opposing sides puts forward opposing viewpoints. The upcoming “second debate,” like the first, will not be a “debate” in any respect. It is, instead a species of classic vox- populi, an expression of citizen, (man-in-the street) repetition, of well- known party memes, articulated in the respective style of the performer-candidate’s nuanced persona; responsive to various timely issues, (debates have only one issue) presented by attractive, celebrity, interrogators. One might assume that some television producer (or gifted intern) could assign a more applicable name, to this television tour de force.

As a related addendum to the above critique, we feel obliged to comment on the stated aspiration, daily communicated by the Democratic Party, that the most imperative criterion, is the selection of “a candidate that can defeat Donald Trump.” In view of Trump’s public performance, demonstrating his profound incapability, as well as his plethora of improprieties, professional and social, to such extent that, the historically, rare and extreme procedure, of Presidential Impeachment (for “high crimes and misdemeanors”) is under serious consideration, such insecure and limited aspiration, demonstrates a disrespect for the intelligence of the American voter.

An aspirant to the Democratic nomination, should, suitably, discuss the factors that, traditionally, have been his party’s hallmark themes which have made it successful, such as, healthcare, tax reform, fair wages and working conditions, employment, government safety and health regulations, official food and drug standards, civil liberties, women’s rights, as well as climate change and a reasonable and compassionate policy concerning immigration.

It has been almost three years, and we have, definitively, had more than our fill, of (tawdry) political entertainment.

-p.

 

A predicate consideration to the theme of this essay, would be (our consistent declaration) that the most valuable, natural resource of a nation, is its people. Neither plentiful natural sources of fuel or minerals, great manufacturing capability, self-sustaining agriculture nor the presence of adequate water resources, is of comparable importance.  We have written on this specific point, utilizing 20^th Century Germany, as our historic illustration. Germany, a small to medium- size country, during the early period of that Century, came close to actually, conquering the entire world. This was not because of its geopolitical location, or its natural resources, but rather, due to the nature and quality of its population. The German people at the time, (and at present) were educated, capable and easily mobilized. This historically painful observation of the salient criteria affording existential strength and durability to a Nation State, would appear to have universal and eternal application.

If in principle, an educated and easily mobilized citizenry, is the key to a successful and self-sustaining nation-state, the necessary corollary to that principle, is that an adequate educational system must be consistently maintained and enjoyed  by its people. The latter admonition is of existential significance; inarguably more so, than the development of new and more efficient, armaments.

From the time of its inception, this Nation has been exclusively populated by people, who were born elsewhere, and their succeeding progeny. The great and enduring success, of the Founder’s 19^th Century experimental Democratic Republic, is large part, due to the policy, represented by its national motto, “E Pluribus Unum,” from many (peoples, nations, and races) one, indivisible Nation. We have written, elsewhere, that the draconian immigration policy, of the current Presidential administration, turns a blind eye, to our historically profitable and empathic, policy, regarding, “want to be” American immigrants.  However, this writing relates to universal citizen education, and not to immigration.

Following the end of the shameful period of America’s enslavement of black people, a long and arduous journey was undertaken, by the government and its citizens, seeking to rectify that past evil.  (Judge Taney of SCOTUS, in the Dred Scott case, had once ruled, that a black person was, merely, “agricultural equipment”). To seek to rectify the many decades of proclaimed systemic evil of inequality, previously practiced by its white population against black America, virtually every aspect and venue of American life, required adjustment and reconfiguration. The most profound change, of course, was the long overdue recognition of the equality, dignity and worth of all citizens, regardless of color. As a practical, and necessary, concomitant to such newly recognized, legal and social status of black people, innumerable changes were required, regarding public as well as private life, which included, elimination of segregation from, water fountains, bathroom facilities, lunch counters, restaurants, busses, trains, employment, residency and military service. Significantly, all Americans have been recognized as sharing the franchise, to cast an equal vote, and, thereby, be a full participant in our Democracy. [Const. Amendment XV, (1870)]

A crucial predicate to restoring equal rights in the Nation, was that of equal education for all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity. Schools, like water fountains and residency, had traditionally been segregated, so that white and black students attended separate facilities. This state of affairs had been determined to be acceptable and legal, by (SCOTUS), provided the educational facilities were, “Separate but Equal”. Objective studies, however, revealed that the facilities, as well as the general quality of education, in black schools, were, demonstrably, below the level of white schools. Finally, in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark decision, Brown v. Board of Education, in an empirically determined ruling, held that “Separate is not equal,” and that all school segregation is unconstitutional.

During the many decades since the Brown case, there have been alleged instances of arguable segregation in the schools, whether apparent, or claimed existing, by indirect effect. The issue has, at times, been the subject of considerable legal contention. The bright lines drawn by the Brown decision, proved to be somewhat more difficult in their application, than in their clear intention and meritorious purpose.

A complicating factor in any effort to avoid segregated schools, can have its origin, in various contexts; often in demonstrated economic disparity. Statistics reveal far higher earnings and accumulated wealth among the white, as compared to black citizens. We do not care to hazard a sociological analysis of the causative factors (such as, starting late, viz., only after rescue from the servile condition of slavery, suffering decades of societal repression, educationally, or otherwise), however, there seems to be no demonstrable argument, disproving the existence of such general economic disparity. District school taxes, a vital source of revenue for suburban schools, are levied in the same manner as real estate taxes, viz., calculated upon the valuation (assessed, or market) of the real estate, in the respective community. As a consequence, it does not take a great leap of faith to deduce, that in the white and, generally, more affluent areas, containing more expensive houses, more revenue is paid into school taxes than in the less affluent areas. This, as a practical matter, results in better school facilities, teacher salaries and  materials, in  more affluent school districts, as compared to areas which are poorer, and, as reported, generally inhabited by minorities. We are tempted to presume, that this problem is a frequently occurring one, andto  conclude, that such prevalent economic inequality results in a predictable, but unintended existence of unequal education, as outlawed by SCOTUS in the Brown case. In such instances, apparently, economics, and not racial prejudice, is responsible for the resultant, illegal segregation of education.

Experience seems to show that solutions to economic issues, are more easily and satisfactorily attained, than age-old issues of prevailing, acculturate bigotry. In the absence of a more cogent solution, we would suggest a program of properly calculated and monitored, supplemental payments (perhaps by the Federal Government) to economically challenged school districts, to effect a general equalization of the quality of their education, with the more fortunate ones.

The above policy would refresh and update the legal and moral intent, as well as the continuance of the principle of the 1954 Brown case, and additionally, (in keeping with our initial observations) aid in the maintenance of a high level of strength, durability and quality, of the American Nation.

-p.

 

In this essay, we are concerned with the fundamental concept of (human) life, and it may be useful to define it simply, in a non-medical and non-anthropological context. Life, as we see it, (with apologies to the experts) is the distinction between physical entities, that possess self- sustaining, biological processes, from those who do not. In the case of human beings, such characteristics are fortuitously inclusive, of the capacity for advanced reason and self-determination. The latter, fundamental observation, is highly relevant and contextually useful, to the intended purposes of this writing.

Mainstream humanity has sadly, and by definitive degrees, apparently, for reasons of mere convenience, surrendered the many gifts afforded to it by the generosity of Natural Evolution. It has voluntarily and foolishly, facilitated and promoted its own sad and perverse decline, from a uniquely equipped, capable and sensitive, practitioner of reason and cognitive behavior, to a mere cog in robotic electronic processing. For ephemeral convenience, it has surrendered persona and lifestyle to his own fabricated electronics; together with much of his natural and unique capabilities; degraded himself, functionally, to merely an initiating step (an “on-off” switch) in a robotic existence. Mankind has ignored the symbolic meaning of the myth of Adam and Eve, and created his own superseding Genesis, a new and electronically dependent, version of Adam.

In the vital area of interactive communication, man has foolishly perpetrated the costly social sacrifice, of familiar human interaction, in favor of a cold, robotic transmission to the communicant’s screen, of data-like electronic symbols, in lieu of human speech. This phenomenon has been often observed, by us in earlier writings. It appears, that personal, warm, familiar, and meaningful conversation has, startlingly, become obsolete.

The rather small, hand held, “phones” have, by popular use, become an electronic, robot-like, bodily extension for most members of society. It has been relied upon to the extent that it has become ubiquitously indispensable, as a substitute, for information gathering, scholastic research, computational thinking, directional advice, photographic and musical activities, fact checking and, in general, an informational resource. Traditional telephone calls have become “retro,” in favor of the prevailing practice of electronic e-mails and “texting.” Most of the younger generation, would not remember activities such as, person to person telephone conversations; the exchange of social correspondence (letters) has become, without doubt, completely foreign to these younger robotic, electronic mutants.

It was only recently, that the activity of “window shopping,” and purchases from attractively decorated, department stores, were normal and pleasant phenomena. The mechanical, absentee, use of on-line e-commerce has been directly responsible for many of the traditionally known and successful department stores’ financially decline, or,  close. The sociably pleasant, practice of shopping, with friends (and then lunch, or drinks) has become only a faint memory. It is truly difficult, for us, to comprehend the dynamics of these many impersonal, robotic, incursions into pleasant, interactive societal and commercial life.

We have often referred to Evolution’s greatest gift to homo sapiens of an advanced brain, capable of reason and understanding. It is absolutely frightening, as well asmost disheartening, that the electronically assisted, robotization of mankind, has led him to bypass and abandon his aptitudes and Evolutionary capability for reason, in favor of the practice of lazy (and ultimately harmful) consultation with his “smart phone,” for the programmed, electronically generated answer. We have previously written of our fear, that, due to its popularly practiced non-use, the brain could, conceivably, degrade to  a vestigial organ, like the appendix. In addition to the danger to his advancement, continuance and development, we are embarrassed by mankind’s shameful ingratitude, in failing to exploit Nature’s generous gift of reason, in favor of a robot-like inquiry into an electronic appliance,

We should not omit the influence of television, as an effective device, in the pernicious robotization of our society. Books, so vital to the development of understanding and human perspective, have, in so many quarters, become a mere artifact of the past. The Pied-Piper appeal of cheap, easily accessible, ephemeral diversion, has, disappointingly, become the popular choice, in lieu of life activities, that tend to increase knowledge or appeal to proper aesthetic taste.

Television has also, in its commercially motivated, and tactically, idealized representations of the acceptable physical form, has reportedly led many women, young and old, to disrespect their bodies, as too fat, too thin, or, not shapely enough. The actresses and models which regularly appear on television, are not the norm, and to the discerning television viewer, often resemble mannequins rather than realistic, attractive women. The unwarranted influence of television, has portrayed many fantasies to the insecure male and female, regarding acceptable physical appearance, the dire need for advertised medication, weight loss programs, and many other sales promotional, information and advice. Viewers should exercise their personal perceptions, and not respond, in robot-like fashion, to an enterprise that is concerned, solely and exclusively, for market sales.

Each of us should, appreciatively and personally, enjoy the exercise of our individual persona, and properly value our independently derived perceptions of reality. We are wise to practice our own, personal discernment, and not to robotically replicate, other people’s actions, or versions of reality, in order to attain their approval. Mechanical, electronic, Robot-like behavior is costly, from the human perspective, and can be seen as fittingly relegated, only to those who have completely lost confidence in their own personal determinations.

We have resolved to persist in looking forward to a time, when people will, beneficially, put down their cell phones, and resume the age-old, natural practice of talking with each other; when mankind will, on a confident, independent and individual basis, resume the confident and natural, exercise of its unique capacity for reason, discernment and action.

-p.

There is too little said or written, notably, in the sport pages of the daily newspapers, or on sports television, concerning athletic performance, in the compelling and challenging area of literature. Reading literature is a silent, albeit, popularly participated in and followed sport, which, akin to football and arm wrestling, can be appropriately catalogued as a contact sport. It’s rare appearance in the sports pages, may conceivably be due to the absence of motivated crowds, or, as equally possible, the dearth of reported physical injuries.

In the subject sport, the first physical contact, occurs at the very start of the event, when the newly purchased, hard-cover novel is brought home from the bookstore. When emancipated from its Barnes & Noble paper wrapping, it is athletically, suggested to turn the book around a few times, to admire the attractive book jacket, confirm the new acquisition for your home library, re-read the name of the auspicious novelist, and the title of the book, both as artistically presented on the book cover and its binding.

We strongly recommend, for reasons of safety and comfort, sitting in a comfortable chair, one that you have broken- in previously, as most suitable to optimum performance. Sitting down and adjusting your equilibrium for a few moments, is a crucial, meditative, warm-up. Then, determinatively and confidently, click in the reading lamp, and ergonomically and strategically, place your body in such a position as will insure your safest, most efficient, and comfortable performance. The book should now be turned over to an upright position for the “kick-off” or commencement of the activity. Caution: in the event of a protective wrap protecting the book-cover, the same is to be, strategically, removed and carefully inserted, in an appropriate receptacle; always bearing in mind, that the light-weight, fly-away material of such plastic protective covers, can easily by-pass the intended target (often due to a residential draft).

The next step is especially crucial to any acceptable performance of the sport; it involves the slow opening of the volume, at about half-way (empirically, the most effective point) and subtly, and very gently, inhaling the very faint, but pleasant, scent of the new book (in large part, freshly printed paper) and listening to that slight click of the new binding. We recommend that these latter two, fore-play activities be performed in private, in order to avoid the potential of a possibly puzzled reaction on the part of any sports spectators. The next recommended stage of the sport, will require some manual dexterity. As often is the case with this athletic endeavor, there may be one or two pages [still] stuck together, from its manufacture. Here, contact is to be effectuated with empathic surgical dexterity. Should you be equipped with long fingernails, a very careful slitting of the stuck pages may be accomplished with success and without damage. Should the fates be such, that the player’s fingernails be too short, a thin letter opener may be employed, but with appropriate surgical care.

We affirmatively encourage the reading of the book jacket for the purposes indicated above, and, as well, the preface, since the latter, often relates the intention of the author. For the purpose of properly engaging in this serious sport, however, we would discourage the reading of the “Introduction,” before reading the book, for several reasons. The most obvious reason for this admonition, is that many introductory statements, prematurely, reveal the action and outcome of the novel’s plot. An even more compelling reason is to assure the original, independent understanding of the work by the reader, without any previous influence. We do recommend reading the Introduction, but, only after the completion of the book; good books generally have erudite analyses authored by knowledgeable people, and such reading is interesting, and often illuminating. The sensitive and experienced reader may also enjoy comparing his personal perceptions and analysis, of the book, with that contained in its scholastically written, Introduction.

In the physical participation in the actual, physical, activity, or sport, of reading, we recommend that, all pages be turned from the top edge of the next succeeding page, that there be no simultaneous eating or drinking  (in order to protect the pristine appearance of the pages), that only a flat bookmark be used, to indicate the place last read, that the book, when not being read, be kept on a flat surface, or a bookshelf, and that, absolutely, no pen or pencil markings or notations be made therein (these are annoying and mar the page’s appearance). An available pad and writing implement, for any impulsive notation, should always be closely accessible.

The completed book should be granted its well- deserved respite on a selected bookshelf, with care, not to wedge it into a very tight space, in order to preserve the book jacket and the book itself. When painstakingly seeking the optimum venue for the book, especial care should be taken, to avoid stepping on the cat.

As is prudent in cases of all athletic activities, generally, participants should have regular medical check-ups, eat a nutritious diet, and get adequate sleep.

-p.

We have, on an earlier occasion, lamented the apparent wide-spread general degradation of the American population, in terms of literacy and aesthetic standards.  Too many citizens prefer ephemeral, surface-depth diversion to life-enriching pursuits, such as literature, dramatic presentations, musical concerts and the like. The elevation of an embarrassing and inept President of the United States, may have been an indirect result of this sad and disappointing, phenomenon. Many citizens, however, have held on to their hope for a return to the recent past, where reading a good book did not depend upon assurances that it is short, or funny. There was an era when people attended public lectures, pursued subjects of extra-curricular interest, wrote letters to each other, spoke directly to friends (as opposed to transmitting electronic images to their screen) regularly read newspapers and debated politics in a friendly and sociable manner. We have just previously, lamented on this sea-change in society, but unfortunately observe great disappointment, as well, with our American institutions, formerly the protectors of our Republican Democracy.

We see no need to again discuss the present state of the Executive Branch of government. We have, more than sufficiently described our frustration and despair at the present degradation of the Office. We are also of the opinion, that most Americans, who pay attention, have observed that the Legislative Branch of Government, appears to be largely composed of individuals who are generally, concerned more about their re-election to office, than the responsible duties of their office.

We had, however, maintained our respect, and our hopes regarding the third branch of our Republic, the Judiciary. This institution, has also, recently, dashed our determined hope for the return to the Nation, as depicted in the better periods of our history.

Despite a long and consistent history of observing the black letter law, that no case will be accepted for adjudication, by SCOTUS, which is at all political, {because of the Constitutional Separation of Powers} the high Court accepted [and shamefully decided] Bush v. Gore, and the Democracy damaging, Citizens United case, the latter permitting corporate interests, by the determined right to inject unlimited funds into an election, dilute and outweigh the (democratic) vote of the American citizen.

We have also, unhappily, lost faith in the application of the law, by the [now, apparently politically driven] U.S. Justice Department. We would inquire of that August and infallible, legal institution, as to the following two questions, (1) How can the President be granted the authority to pardon criminals, for crimes in which he has been shown to be complicit?  (2) How can the “Justice Department Rule” (unwritten) against indicting a sitting President, be applicable to the crimes which put him in that office, in the first place? [What, in the name of Yogi Berra, is going on?]

As we breakfast this morning, we do not seem to feel our usual Sunday morning, cheery optimism, and although, generally, while we try to avoid negativity, find that attempt, at this moment, challenging. [Oops, we just spilled our coffee.]

-p.

One may wonder, at the actual degree of faith in the optimistic expectation, of the revered Founding Fathers, experienced politicians, literati and philosophers, that their newly created Democratic Republic, actually would realize their famously articulated, optimistic prognostications. As we read the founding history, Thomas Jefferson instructively and perhaps, warningly, declared that for a democracy to be successful, it requires an informed and literate society. Based upon such expectation, the founders assumed that that members of the new American Society, would, in good faith, engage in debates regarding subjects of controversy; the results of which would inform the legislators, thus effecting the idealistic goal of “a government by and for the people.” It boggles the mind, to speculate that these wise prognosticators completely overlooked the eternal nature and proclivities of the perverse human persona.

It requires no especial competency or discernment to observe the recent, tragic death of civic amity, manifested by   the disappointing behavior of citizens of divergent political persuasion. Those who differ in opinion are considered by others, to be arch enemies; forming insular groups, the members of which are people of like opinion, and effectively waging propaganda -like war against like groups of divergent views. This disappointing phenomenon has resulted in a fractured and deeply divided nation; hardly the vibrant, cooperatively run and dedicated democratic republic envisioned by our idealistic, “pie-in-the-sky”, founders.

In disappointing contrast to the envisioned democratic Nation, consisting of well-informed, literate and involved citizens, the insular, divided society that developed, in large part, disparages learning and scholastic pursuits, in favor of ephemeral, common and cheap diversion. Consistent with such pronounced downgrading of education and the pursuit of knowledge, it has elected, and elevated to the Oval Office, an ignorant, incapable, criminal and bigoted, former television game show host. As a result, we are fearful that national leaders will, precedentially, no longer come from the Nation’s universities or its established institutions of government, but from the tawdry pits of populist afternoon television. It may well be the case, that a great many Trump supporters value the cheap entertainment furnished by his caricatured behavior, over our nation’s proper governance and destiny.

As a part of our Nation’s largely, reductionist-populist mode, we are confronted with a popular denial of the findings of world-class scientists concerning man-made climate change. This display of ignorance may, by degrees, eventuate, so that our (still) verdant planet is, eventually, degraded to the replication of the lifeless, rocky Moon. It is dangerous and revealing, that considerable numbers of uneducated, populist, flat- earth people have been tactically, and successfully, manipulated, in this area, by big- time, entrepreneurial polluters who greedily and psychopathically, value short term profits, over human life.

It is only such poorly informed  and demagogically pliable citizens, that could have been such a significantly important factor, in the elevation to the Oval Office, of a disgraceful, incapable and embarrassing persona like Donald J. Trump; evidently, a completely ignorant, hopelessly inept, attention seeking adolescent, who has, improperly and shamelessly, turned the Oval Office into a shopping mall for the profit of his family, and his elected position, into a profitable vehicle for the blatant violation of our Constitution’s Emolument Clause. To add fuel to the fire, he is also an outspoken bigot and a perpetrator of serial mendacity. Do we need more?  He is a woman abuser, a critic of our established media, a friend to despotic rulers and an enemy of our historic friends. The list is too full for any patient delineation.

We are disturbed, that the Democratic Party has been, expressly and insecurely, concentrating its efforts on seeking a “Candidate who can defeat Trump” (albeit, a complete failure as President, with an obnoxious persona), rather than a Candidate with the traditional American values and citizen empathy, the Democratic Party’s historic and appropriate mantra. Is this a confirmation and acceptance, of the steep decline in the estimation of the quality of the American citizen? Heaven or Mother Nature, help us!!

-p.

It would seem useful to consider the difficult, but interesting, conception and dynamics of the word “boundaries,” in the context of its recent use, as regarding social relationships. In general, the pluralized word, has, in modern times, acquired a functionally versatile, practically, ubiquitous application.  Classically, we are familiar with “boundaries” as a mandatory and proprietary declaration of limitation, as applied to the limits of territorial ownership, related to legal issues of ownership and trespass.  Yet the word has, in modern parlance, permissibly, been extended to signify as well, one’s extent of tolerance for language or action, as determined by his perception of the relevant relationship. If challenged to give an all-inclusive, generic, definition of the noun, “boundaries,” we would, simply define it, as a line that separates two things, spatial or behavioral.

With regard to previously established human relationships, there will already have been, tacitly, or expressly consented to, personal and subject matter boundaries. In traditional settings, such as weddings, funerals and other public or familial events, expectations and boundaries of speech and behavior, are situationally circumscribed within the normal and expected societal context. There are similarly, respective expectations of the observance of traditional boundaries and limits, on the job, in school, the theater, in museums, school, houses of worship, at parties, other gatherings and at dinner (home or restaurant). The accepted and customary boundaries of relationship and behavior, in these traditional contexts, are not open to question, since they are predictably defined, and delimited, by precedential social expectation; and may even be described as stereotypical.

In this essay, we are interested, in the establishment and existence, of the more nuanced and problematic boundaries, experienced in the normative context and setting of the intimate family; the occasion of the birth of a daughter’s first child; and, additionally, our suggested boundaries, applicable to new social relationships.

The variable nature and quality of the spousal, interactive relationship, as we perceive it, is a joint product of their interactive personalities and married history. In a healthy marriage, there will have been established, a working partnership of sorts, respecting mutual responsibility and function. However, of the greatest importance, is mutual recognition and observance of respect for the separate integrity and needs, of the other. Most matters are shared, based upon their affectionate and recognized relationship, yet each may have particular areas of private concern and sensibility. These are appropriately private, and not inconsistent with a mutually loving and faithful relationship; but are purely personal, and are to be considered as boundaries, not wisely trespassed.

Parents must establish reasonable boundaries of respect and action, consistent with a secure, loving, and trusting relationship, with their children. These should be appropriate to the respectively defined roles, of parent and child, and evidence the usual and normative boundaries, which begin to be gradually, nuanced, consistent with the children’s changes in age, dependency and stage of maturity. Intimacy is an essential ingredient, affording the feeling of security in the child, but never practiced to the extent where a parent trespasses the appropriate, parent-child role (boundaries), and becomes the child’s “friend.” The singularly most important factor, aside from the utilitarian nature of the parent-child established boundaries, is unfailing and respected, consistency.

A more complicated matter is the subject of family “boundaries,” is presented upon the birth of a daughter’s baby; most particularly, her first born. The new parents, themselves, are for a time, somewhat, in the throes of disbelief and mild shock.  Often the maternal grandmother by evident necessity, takes on the surrogate task of instructing the inexperienced parents, in the care and maintenance of the newborn baby. It is appropriate, and essential to appreciatively, and fully, recognize the multiplicity of generous services and instructive advice, rendered, when such assistance was needed. However, at some point, the mother of the newborn, will need to assert her desire to personally and exclusively, exercise her maternal role in succeeding to the full management of the affairs of her child. These boundaries should be, gently and lovingly urged, and done so, with recognition of the intimacy which had developed between the newborn and the helpful grandmother. It is important, for the continued, amicable relationship of the family, that this timely assertion of determinative authority, (boundaries) on the part of the baby’s mother, be clearly and definitely, but, thoughtfully and empathetically, articulated.

Clearly communicated boundaries are essential in all social relationships, but most especially, in new ones. The adequate understanding of one’s self, and the mutual communication to, and exchange of, those mutual understandings, respectively, to one’s new partner is essential, including, when appropriate, the subject of desired goals and intentions. When both parties are clear on the subjects of identity and intention, there reportedly develops, mutual feelings of comfort and retained self-esteem. Each party should be aware of the desired boundaries of the other, socially and sexually. Preferences and tastes, as well as dislikes and uncomfortable subject areas, should be expressly and clearly communicated.  As time goes on, and the parties to the relationship proceed to know each other more intimately, they become more comfortable with the desired boundaries, asserted in the relationship.

The universally insurmountable boundary, consisting of evident neurosis, or personal insecurity, is predictably, and all too often, a cause of failure. Each party to the relationship must be, and appear, reasonably confident and independent, and not desire to lean, or depend upon the other. This feature is a determinative boundary, seldom crossed.

-p.

Individuals, inclined to consult the Bible for wisdom and comfort, are familiar with the portion of Genesis, concerning the mythical Adam and Eve. The “Good Book” declares that God made Adam from the “dust of the Earth” (“Adam” means “Earth” in ancient Aramaic and Hebrew), and then made Eve, from a rib of Adam. Thus, from the very earliest conception, women were relegated to a subsidiary place from men. Remarkably, such eternal assumption, still abides, in this age of super-sonic air travel and “smart” phones.

Religious dogma, has, more often than not, attributed man’s sin to the tactical allure (or temptation) of women. The Biblical tradition of “Original Sin,” portrays the first Man, Adam, being induced, by the temptress, Eve, to eat an apple from the forbidden “Tree of Knowledge.”  We have radically chosen, to interpret the symbolism from quite a different perspective. A cursory review of many cultures, would reveal that the snake (the “serpent”) was a symbol of fertility; perhaps because he makes his home in the earth or, for classical Freudian reasons. However, as we, in our nuanced fashion, perceive it, the symbol of fertility (coiled up, in the so-called “tree of knowledge”) speaks to mental fertility, or reason, and the “infamous” temptation of Adam, by Eve, to eat of that “forbidden apple,” might well be seen, as the delivery of the newly evolved gift of reason to Mankind; hardly a sin. Apparently, adherents to ancient superstition, as the enemies of reason, tactically created myths, in which, respectively a deliverer of knowledge, is reviled, and cruelly punished by the Gods. An instructive illustration is seen in the ancient Greek Myth of Prometheus. The Titan, Prometheus, was cruelly and painfully punished, by being chained to a mountain, and his liver, eternally eaten by predatory birds, as proclaimed punishment, for bringing fire (knowledge) to mankind. This myth tends to articulate, an obvious dissonance in Man’s early days, relating to rational thought and the more popular, traditional ignorance.

Since the creation of the Adam-Eve story, conceivably, because the male animal is bigger, and the designated wielder of the lethal war club, the status of the woman in society, has been a secondary one, under the control and tutelage of men. The proper place and occupation of women, was to care for the family and perform light domestic chores. ln mankind’s history, as late as 19th Century England (“the Victorian Era”), women of the upper and middle class (lower class did farming and hard labor, or were servants), occupied their time, playing the spinet for their husband’s diversion, supervising the rearing of their children by hired, educated tutors, sewing their husband’s linens, or perhaps, embroidery. The woman properly, had no social relationships, aside from family and relatives; having friends was the sole privilege of the man of the house.

In the 19thCentury, women could not legally own property, even by familial inheritance; any such inheritance, legally, went to the husband, who would extend to her a negotiated “settlement.” Legally, under the “couverture” of their husband, could not enter into contracts or engage in business.  In America, it was not until the 1844, that the State of Maine, enacted revolutionary legislation, giving women the right to separately own property; other States of the Union, slowly and reluctantly, followed suit. A similar law was passed in New York, in 1900.

It was not until 1920, that the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, granting to women the right to cast a vote. This victory was attained though the substantial sacrifices and militant efforts, of many great American women, leaders of the “Women’s Suffrage Movement.” Kudos to those brave Suffragettes. It is shockingly, only 100 years ago, that women established for themselves, the right to participate in American democracy.

It is no less than miraculous, that, despite the substantial limitation on a women’s life, inclusive of the right to a liberal arts education, that so many truly, world-class woman authors emerged; including, the Bronte Sisters, George Eliot, Elizabeth Gaskell, Elizabeth Barret Browning, Kate Chopin, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emily Dickenson, Louisa May Alcott and Jane Austen. That such great literature was produced, in the face of the social leg irons of the 19^th Century, is surely deserving of kudos. In or about the next Century, starting with the sophisticated, Virginia Woolf, society was fortunate to produce a, virtually unlimited number of great female novelists and poets. We would, therefore award them the maximum kudos, and most especially, those brilliant flowers, who bloomed, during, and despite, the Victorian repression of women’s freedom and education.

The eternally revered Florence Nightingale, a daughter, born to an elite British family, chose to amend her comfortable lifestyle, to serve as a nurse, for the poor and grotesquely injured military casualties of the Crimean War. These injured soldiers were housed in dirty, squalid quarters, causing a great many to die from sepsis.  She would brave the horrific sights and visit each wounded soldier, in the evenings with her lamp, to bring them some hope and cheer. For this reason, she was known as the “Lady with the Lamp.” She became a great and effective reformer and philosopher of the profession of Nursing. By the time she left the employ of the hospital, she had effected many reforms, concerning the avoidance of infection, by the regime of cleanliness and the mandated sterility of bandages and medical implements. Florence Nightingale was deservedly awarded the name, “Founder of Modern Nursing.” Today, many thousands of well- educated nurses, assist in the care and cure of the sick and disabled, and, together with Ms. Nightingale, are deserving of substantial thanks and kudos. In the past we have written an homage to Florence Nightingale, and to the nursing profession in general, entitled, “Florence’s Lamp.”

It would be a practical impossibility to list the names of all of the remarkable women, deserving great praise, or kudos. We cannot, however, resist furnishing a relatively modest, representative compendium of some people, still alleged, by some, and by reason of their gender, to be, like Eve, “subsidiary” or “second” category: Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, Clara Barton, Annie Oakley, Marie Cure’, Helen Keller, Eleanor Roosevelt, Georgia O’Keefe, Golda Meir, Amelia Earhart, Margaret Meade, Rosa Parks, Margaret Thatcher, Anne Frank, Sandra Day O’Connor, and, honestly, thousands more.

A further enumeration of the uncountable, scientific, societal, military, academically innovative and artistic accomplishments of Eve’s female progeny would are “infinite” in number, and classification It is remarkable to us, that, after having accomplished so many victories, in confirming their rights as equal citizens [ in entrepreneurship and commerce, voting, the arts, government and politics, the judiciary, in the military and municipal services, such as police and firefighters, as educators, as capital investors, in medicine and health, in the law and, virtually every sundry calling and profession]  women are obliged to convince certain atavistic members of our society, that they are, sufficiently capable and morally responsible, to make mature decisions concerning their own bodies, regarding the necessary and emotionally painful, choice to terminate their own pregnancy. Those who have deceptively, advertised themselves, as* “Right to Life, have arrogated to themselves the right to decide for others, the extent of ownership of their own body, in their psychoneurotic preoccupation with the early fetus [*they oppose needed assistance to the child after birth, generally oppose gun regulation and favor capital punishment; They have, actually, committed premeditated and deliberate murder, to forward their cause.] Kudos to those who support the citizen- women’s right to make responsible decisions, concerning her own body.

Finally, in our evaluation and assignment of kudos, let us not lose sight of the plain fact, that it is the woman that, exclusively, delivers to Mankind his progeny. Can anyone reasonably deny mothers (and all remarkable women) the highest degree of praise and kudos?

-p.

We are completely receptive to possible criticisms of, “very idealistic,” or, “Pollyannaish,” by reason of the dream-like, aspirational hope expressed in this note; we will however, firmly reject any possible adjectival accusation, as “unrealistic,” or, much worse, “impossible.” We do affirmatively maintain, that lasting World Peace is indeed, an attainable, concrete, albeit long term goal, if and only if, it is sincerely and universally sought.

It is our belief, that the following goals and aspirations, inarguably, are globally shared:

World peace and eventual brotherhood; elimination of worldwide poverty and want; elimination of the troubling and unscientific, concept, of “race;” improvement in planetary health; elimination of cancer, and other serious and exotic disease; acceptable and practical policies regarding the amelioration of economic disparity; and by far, the most important, policies concerning the promotion of citizen education and reason, of enlightenment, in lieu of former superstition and ignorance.

We are confident that, with the one proviso, consisting of an adequate level and consistent presence of sincere desire, regarding the amelioration of such all-pervasive issues, success is empirically attainable. Progressively renewed hope, and the adamant refusal to be bound by perverse world history, could appropriately be credited, in our judgment, as the most recent step, in the long, continuous march of man’s evolutionary development.

Indisputably, the greatest of all impediments to the attainment of these positive goals, is the atavistic, and, needless, phenomenon of war. Significant policies, and action taken towards the elimination of that historic phenomenon, would, constitute a fundamental step, in the solution of the enumerated, world-wide problems.

We are obliged to learn from our previous unsuccessful attempts to eliminate the scourge of warfare. Past efforts to encourage the brotherhood of mankind (Nations) proved to be unsatisfactory, because they were erroneously conceived, albeit well intentioned. The League of Nations, proved to be a failure, as does, in many vital respects, the ambitious organization of The United Nations, appear to prove ineffectual.

With reference to the League of Nations, and its successor, the United Nations, it would objectively appear, that the founding assumptions and ambitious goals were a failure, because the Member States, desired, despite their membership in the respective international organization, to respectively, retain their historic sovereignty. To employ a useful analogy, John Locke, (19^th Century) speaking of the creation and underlying dynamics of human Society, that Man, contractually surrenders certain of his rights, in exchange for the benefits of living in Society (“The Social Contract”). Real world-wide peace would be attainable, if the Members of an international organization, mutually surrendered, to it, sufficient of their, power of determination, in analogous manner, to that referred to in Locke’s Social Contract. The U.N. must emphasize policies that seek international rectitude, such as, world climate change, poverty, health, human rights, disaster assistance, agriculture and commerce, rather than specific Nationalist considerations of politics and business. This defect is seen in the identically outmoded nationalism, enabling English, Trump-like, populist voters, to manufacture the current “Brexit” fiasco. England would continue to derive a great many diverse and essential benefits from its continued membership in the European Union; in addition to the most important benefit, the preservation of lasting peace between Members.

The Nations of the World must engage in policies discouraging xenophobic nationalism, and emphasize the cornucopia of benefits of communal or societal relationship, with other Nation States. Each of us has to personally identify as members of the identical, evolved species, homo sapiens, fortunate co-tenants of this green planet. But how does one accomplish this idealistic co-existence? We would humbly offer some generally useful ideas, with the confidence, that they will be given serious consideration, in the context of the tragic world history. We further hope that any all- pervasive pessimism, will, one day soon, be functionally replaced, by the happier practice of sincere positive action, and the nurturance of long-term, patient, and undeterred hope:

• We have previously written in severely critical terms, of the potentially dangerous future, in planting the seeds of ethnic lessons of “we” and “they,” in the very young (presumably to give the young child, a sense of identity and security). However, those categories of “we” and “they” factually endure, and often ripen and become transmogrified into myths about the “other,” leading to the subsequent advent of hatred and war. We must learn to teach, in addition to the child’s particular ethnos (acquired by him, merely, by the sheer accident of random birth), a sense of other, perfectly acceptable, and possibly interesting, ethnic identities; and advise that the world consists of many diverse, and admirable, cultures.
• We must, as soon as possible, eliminate the word, “race,” permanently, from our lexicon. We have, in earlier writings, declared that the term has been shown to have no scientific, sociological or anthropological basis, and observed that the term has been only used to perpetuate mischief.
• An international commission of specialized and expert educators, should be convened to investigate the World’s modern schoolbooks for mythic xenophobic nationalism. As a shameful illustration of domestic travesty, as we recall our childhood education, in which the young student was taught the “patriotic” and divine, concept of “Manifest Destiny.” This was the propaganda-like National rationalization, for the immoral program of forcibly displacing from their historic homes, and the murder of peaceful, Native Americans. Neither we, nor any other society have any special, God given destiny to acquire land by infamous means. Other countries, we understand, have their own ethnic clap-trap, used as purported rationalization, for similar criminal conduct against their own Aboriginal people. A universal recognition of the true worth, of each and every inhabitant of the Earth, would rationally, and morally, do away with the possibility of such detestable, xenophobic travesties.
• We earnestly recommend, that another try be given to the historically failed program called, “Esperanto.” As those who are old enough, may remember, the “Esperanto” movement represented an idealistic and principled attempt, to create a common world language, with the hope that it would unite disparate people, in order that they would not make war against each other. There are people, reportedly, who still speak in the Esperanto language. This well-intentioned and intelligent program, however, did not succeed. Considering the modern technology, such as smart phones and skype, it could, if implemented, and now successful, prove to be an effective eraser of National boundary lines. We might also suggest another attempt at establishing a universal, international system for liquids and solids, weights and measures.
• Joint scientific efforts, by international partnerships, composed of the best and brightest international representatives, in the areas of medicine, space, archeology, engineering, chemistry, earth and climate science, might prove to be very effective in the achievement of the goals sought by their respective disciplines; and, importantly, be a source of international, collegiate fellowship and peace.
• International travel, the study of “foreign” languages, the reading of translated books by fine foreign authors, and the study of foreign cuisine and culture, should be subsidized by the various nations, to promote understanding and appreciation of others. This would be far cheaper and represent moneys preferably spent on education, and world peace, rather than on deadly international violence. Cultural clubs could be formed, availing themselves of the music, books and entertainment of varied cultures or ethnos, for simple enjoyment, and for the education of the public. Art and folkloric shows, representing the myriad talents of our international community, would be enjoyable and enlightening, especially to those with no such previous experience, and tend to engender interest in, and respect for, other cultures.

An international commission of qualified educators, sociologists, academic and financial people, should be cooperatively established, composed of recognized experts from all over the world to initiate, implement and permanently oversee the suggested programs.

The initial, universal recognition of the existential need could, conceivably, be the most difficult stage of the recommended programs of action. Nevertheless, irrespective of the required amount of persistent effort and human resources, required in this existential endeavor, we must persevere and not, in good conscience, continue to perpetuate the shameful “Dark Ages” of atavistic xenophobia and needless tragedy, which, is so sadly evident, in our World and National History, and in the current week’s Press.

-p.