Post # 419        QUOTIDIAN FRIENDSHIPS (Redux)

The word, “friendship,” to us, denotes a relationship of mutual affection, between people, more intense than the status of friendly associates. It is inclusive of the mutual benefits of. assurance as to ego support, regular assurance of self-identity as well as physical support, the ability to exchange and understand, confidential or intimate thoughts, sincere empathy and a ready willingness to render assistance.

The assertion that man is a social animal, has been empirically demonstrated, over the millennia of his existence, and should require no supporting argument. While it is true that cooperative association with others is no longer required for survival purposes, as in the case of Early Man (defense, food, safety, joint enterprise), the existence of the relationship of friendship, is a proven, vital factor, in the healthy, social and emotional life of contemporary humankind.

There are traditionally, recognized categories of friends, “old friends” (ex., from a foreign country, from childhood, from college, from the “old neighborhood,” “both dating since childhood”), new friends,”(ex., new neighbors, newly joined organization or house of worship, new neighborhood, new co-workers or colleagues and newly introduced people. “Good friends,” or “Close friends” are subcategories of “friend” in which the relationship is virtually familial, in intimacy; these are usually, but not always, identified in the old friend category. It would generally appear, in any event, that a life which does not include friends is a lonely, insular and unfulfilling one.

We would propose an additional category of “friend,” (the main subject of this note), which is, in essence, a composite the benefits of old and new friends, which we have chosen to recognize as “quotidian.”  Such relationships are too often, undervalued, and wrongfully denied the deserved category “of good friend,” for reasons which we will treat in the next, succeeding, paragraph. These include, regular fellow commuters, babysitters, young mothers, with baby carriages who daily accompany other such young mothers, to the park, your regular dog walker (if applicable), the regular members of your carpool, your regular barber or beautician, your mailman and supermarket clerk (if the latter two have been performing regular services for you, consistently, for no less than one year.

It is inarguable, that the role which a “good friend” plays in one’s personal life, is the definitive factor in the awarding of such exemplary status. While we treasure our traditionally designated, “friends”, and acknowledge the vital role they play in the fulfillment of our life, yet, how often do we see them? The “quotidian friend” is seen and interacted with, conceivably, every day. The function the latter play in our lives, may be properly designated, by some, as small in nature; but it is a regularly expected or desired one. We believe that the salient features of this daily relationship are its emotional and psychological benefits. They serve as an assurance to us, of our assumed reality and our unchanged identity and consistently furnish, to us, an assurance of continued normalcy. Their daily regularity, consistent exchange of greetings, their well- wishing, their sincere inquiry as to family health, all play an important (and often overlooked and much undervalued) role in our lives. The regular performance of their expected routines, offer assurances of stability and normalcy, wherever, and whenever, needed.

Some years ago, we would travel, on a regular five- day basis, by from the suburbs, to Manhattan, by Long Island Road. As it happens, we would, habitually, sit in the same railroad car.  We observed, on a daily basis, the regular conduct of a card game, between a man we recognized as a neighbor, with the same, identical commuter. We understand that these two commuters, have, similarly, done the same for decades. There was always, little said between them, other than what was required by their game. It is our understanding that they knew each other’s first name, but little else. We noticed the relaxed and satisfied looks on their faces, as they cheerfully, commuted together, with cards in their hands. Although, little was ever spoken between the two, based upon their mutual trust and dedication to their, long-term, mutual relationship, we consider them qualified for the status of,  “good, quotidian friends”.



Post #418 (poesie) TWILIGHT SONATA*

Once more, the diurnal dark descends,
Upon a hushed, expectant woodland.
Mild zephyrs dance the highest branch,
In semblance, to some lofty maestro,
Cueing the players now, to re- commence,
The quotidian rendition, of the eventide music.
Ss-Scratch-sounding insects, impart the treble
Sonorous bull frogs, the true basso- profundo
Woodwind sharps, blown thru the thickets,
In polyphonic tandem, with the forest serenade.

Mellifluous strains of the classic Sonata,
Nightly played, by the verdant woodland.

Leonard N. Shapiro (Sept. 2019)

Post # 417 WHAT’S (WHO’S) IN A NAME

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Shakespeare (17th Century) Romeo & Juliet, Act 2, Scene2. “A rose, is a rose, is a rose.” Gertrude Stein (1933).

As a brief respite from the frustrating news of the day, we have elected to power up the time machine, for another sojourn to the 1940’s-50’s world, of the Eastern European Immigrant, recently settled in an exotic, unfamiliar venue, the East New York section of Brooklyn, N.Y. ( U.S.A.) Previous like visits, have dealt with their limited degree of success, in prematurely, trying and failing, to Americanize; such grand and unobtainable goal, being realizable, as a practical matter, no earlier than the next generation. Our writings, on the subject, note the endless number of mandatory adjustments, and the plethora of concerns, relevant to this multi-cultural, international polyglot of humanity; transplanted, at long last, to safety, but nevertheless, retaining, ( eternally, their plight), the feelings of strangers, in a foreign land.

Mercifully, there were no pogroms in the new country, but, there were, trolley cars, traffic lights, elevated trains, automobiles, movie theaters, telephones, unfamiliar foods, and most significantly, an unfamiliar language. As observed, in prior essays, language difficulties as between emigrants from varied national backgrounds, led to the necessity to use Yiddish, as a lingua franca, and at times, usein a nuanced style, which has recently, been acceptedly recognized, in the somewhat popular term, “Yinglish.”

In this transient setting, we are selecting for discussion, one of the most problematic phenomena, the byzantine complications involved in the naming of a newly born child. It might, somewhat further understanding, to be made aware (or, in some cases, reminded) of the folkways, expectations and cultural traditions, attendant upon baby naming, which, in the case of European-Jewish Immigrants, evince a great many eras of ethnic replication.

Many of our readers may be aware of the ethnically, traditional practice, of naming a newborn, after a revered, deceased relative. The practice, while consistent and expected, is not, to our knowledge, founded upon religious law, but is followed, so to speak, “religiously.” Jews, worldwide, never fully accepted in their country of birth or residence, ( for example, Russia), had more than one name; perhaps an official Russian name, but as well a Biblical Hebrew, or a Yiddish name. In the company of other Jews, the Yiddish name, and language, would customarily be employed. A further complicating factor, was the common use of the Yiddish name, as well, in an informal, diminutive, or endearing form. Thus, Igor, born in Russia, might have the Yiddish, Biblical name, David, (“Duvid, in Yiddish) the diminutive of which might be “Duvidl.” The daughter, Rachel, “Ruchel”, in Yiddish,” the diminutive of which might be (phon.) “Rucchalleh.” Her Russian name might have officially, been Sonya. The brother might have the Russian name, Boris, his Yiddish name, “Berel”, the diminutive, “Beralleh”.  It would appear uncomplicated, in the chosen illustrative, cases, to name the American born progeny of such deceased, forebears, “David”,” Rachel” and “Barry,” but things, unfortunately, were too complex for such simple resolution.

To make matters dicier, many members of this ethnic persuasion, bore middle names, which might have been selected, in honor of other deceased relatives, who were not chosen to be memorialized in their first name. In a great many cases, as a further challenge to the uninitiated, the most familiar reference, in casual conversation, was often to the diminutive form, of that middle name.

Now, let us steel our resolve, for the truly Herculean task, of attempting to import, this byzantine, naming tradition, to the New World, specifically, to the subject, 1940’s-50’s Brooklyn, New York. [Please fasten seat belts for the bumpy ride.].

We have observed the impatient desire of this immigrant group, to assimilate and (while maintaining their own religious traditions and beliefs) become fully a part of the American mainstream. Accordingly, their newly born, American children, were given American first names, or in the case of the rare, ambitious desire to aspire to phonetic heights, a British first name. In rare cases, the original, foreign first name, was retained, such as “Dora”, or “Boris,”, if they were seen as unremarkable, in the new culture.

The amicable contest, among the group of natural parents, and the child’s (new) grandparents, as to the selection of the newborn’s name, conceivably, was no different than in the case of the non-immigrant situation. Once a side in the debate gained the day, a new problem, of the prevailing immigrant grandparents, ensued, as to which, deceased relative, would be honored, by the replication of his Hebrew or Yiddish name.

The first letter sound, of the Yiddish name, was normally a guide to the choice of the American name, in an agreed upon, lingual metamorphosis. If the selected European forebear was named, “Avrum” the newborn (retaining for life, his Yiddish name “Avrum,”) might be given the new world name, “Allen.” His expected middle name would, also be taken from a deceased relative (perhaps, on the familial side of the other grandparents); who’s foreign name might be “Mischa”, and thereafter, bear the Yiddish middle name, “Michale”, the diminutive name” “Michaleh,” and the American middle name, “Michael.” Within the interactive life of the ethnos, these Yiddish names would be treated, as permanent and official, as the New York Department of Health Birth Certificate, which would legally, list his first two (given) names as “Allen,” and “Michael.”

In the lives and perceived status, of young male members, within the neighborhood group, the most impactful, was his Street Name. This name, arbitrarily selected by the reigning big kid, in the neighborhood, could be benign, critically descriptive, or, actually, cruel. A neighborhood kid’s name was, in most cases, permanently adopted, in the all-important, street genre of the “guys”. It defined his permanent, public persona, often without justice or basis. One was lucky to be awarded a street name, as often was the case, which was harmlessly founded, on his English, or Yiddish name, for example, a Stewart, might be called “Stew,” ”Stewie.”  “Mike” could be harmlessly, called, “Mikey.” However, a hapless, “Richard,” was eternally, and cruelly, called, “Dick,” regardless of how amiable he was.

The permutations and combinations of the use of ( one of) a kid’s names, appeared to be infinite, depending upon the creativity and inclination, of the authoritative “big” guys. A remembered example of a neighborhood boy, having being assigned, by his aspirational, immigrant parents, the British name, “Sherwin,” was awarded and obliged to bear, the meaningless and euphonious, moniker, of “Geenzie.” Some street names, like the latter, were completely meaningless, and bore no attribution to any of his actual names. Thus, we had,  ”Juice”  “Natty,” “Jitty,” ”Fuzz,” “Stymie,” “Otto,” “the Hyme,” as well as, “Stevo,” “Jo-Jo,” and an entire menagerie of, arbitrary and fanciful, denominative references.

A great many street names in time, underwent (non-Darwinian) evolution. The street evolutionary etiology concerning one of the names, listed above, may be enlightening, as to the procedural dynamics, of street name evolution. In the relevant neighborhood, there were, problematically, two boys, named,  “Jerry.” The wise and august neighborhood savants, creatively, and brilliantly, settled upon the distinguishing names, “Little Jerry” and “Big Jerry.” Repeated use over time, led to an edited, compact version, of “LittleJerry” to the creative iteration of the name, “ Jittlelerry;” an unlimited inclination towards further aesthetic creativity, led to the morphing of “Jittlelerry”, finally, to “Jitty.”

The great Elizabethan Bard asked, “What’s in a name?” to which we would promptly, and humbly, reply,” it all depends upon, who you ask.”

We would, respectfully, leave the memorable, Gertrude Stein, to her beloved, multi- repetitive and incomparable roses, without final comment.



Research reveals that the United States is home to more gun owners, than any other Country in the world, that by far, gun owners tend to be male, that, being male is one of the two top predictors for committing acts of public violence, that a gun present in the household, is far more likely to kill a person who lives there, than a burglar or even a serial killer, that tens of thousands die each year because of gun violence, that more than one woman in 16, is killed by a gun, in domestic violence, every 16 hours, that mental illness is responsible for only 4% of interpersonal gun incidents (inclusive of the regularly occurring mass shootings), and so on, ad nauseam. One does not require, the plethora of additional data, regarding the horrific effects of the ownership and use of guns, to comprehend the all too obvious, point, guns and the wholesome existence of human society, like oil and water, do not, at all, mix.

A great many Americans, particularly those of us who live in the large urban areas, find the desire for gun ownership, difficult to assimilate. A knife, for example, can be used for cutting string on gift wrapped packages, for slicing cheese, for cutting fruit, for whittling and many other positive purposes; a gun, on the other hand, can only be used for one purpose, inflicting grievous injury, and death.

Authoritative statistical studies show that owning guns is dangerous, and does not afford desired protection, that the fictional rationale, of “good people, preventing crime by bad people” is a myth, manufactured by the NRA, the lobby group for the gun manufacturers and their sales outlets, among other mendacity, such as, that it protects women and families against violent criminals, and that carrying instruments of death by citizens, is protected and encouraged by the United States Constitution. No other Western or civilized nation, in the entire World, permits the ownership and use of firearms by its civilian population, for any reason, including the spurious rationalizations referred to.

Why is it, then, that The United States of America, purportedly, the avatar, of morality and enlightenment, the only Country disgraced by the atavistic acceptance of itself as a gun culture? What happened to America’s avowed historic dedication to peace, brotherhood and love?

In accordance with our customary, fearless inclination, we will, humbly, render our considered opinion, on this dilemma. The correct answer, while seemingly elusive, is, in our view, demonstrably simple, but far wider in scope, then the specific gun problem. The solution is capitalism’s moral improvement and its acquisition of an unalterable sense of public ethics and responsibility. The Nation needs to re-evaluate its present criteria, so that, the recognition of the good of humanity, exceeds the exotic lure of profits,

We have written, on numerous occasions, on the subject of the unprincipled entrepreneurs in the fuel industry, whose concern regarding the harmful impact of carbon emissions, on the very life of the planet, and its inhabitants, are apparently, subordinate, to its sociopathic greed for profit. Ina past writing, we have, frighteningly, postulated a possible future, in which, our planet was degraded to an unpopulated, inert rock, like the moon. Yet in some neurotic lust for unlimited billions in profit, these despoilers of the Earth, and its surrounding atmosphere, maintain their selfish practice of, knowingly, spewing carbon and methane into the responsive atmosphere.

Financially selfish successful sociopaths, inclusive of the subject gun manufacturers, buy off hungry politicians and perform whatever fraudulent, Machiavellian deeds, they find necessary, to render desired homage, to the gods of profit. These despicable misusers of the free enterprise system, including the gun lobby and the fuel industry, are the prime cause of existential threats to our civilization.

On the larger scale, it is Capitalism’s need for moral improvement, that is the fundamental problem. Other proposed theories on the prevailing problematic issues, such as the gun issue, we would maintain, are relatively, beside the basic point.


Blog # 415          AN OPEN LETTER

Mr. Mal Content *
13 Wistful Vista Blvd.
Philadelphia, Penn., 10001
cc: blog list

Dear Mr. Content,

We are located at the editorial offices of, in the City of New York, and are the publishers of mini-essays (blog posts) transmitted to the general public. We are completely independent, secular, non-political and non-commercial. Our mini- essays, in essence, amount to, considered, personal observations of the mutual relationships (political and social) between the modern American citizen, and his society. The salient and dedicated, theme and purpose, fundamentally, encompasses our nuanced, empirical observation of the present state of progress of mankind, toward the goals of the development of wisdom and mature perspective. We comment on politics, and the political scene only, when it is felt that the Nation’s security or well-being, seems to us, to be in question.

This unusual, “letter” format has been selected, because of its direct and timely delivery, as opposed to our usual, blog post (or, “mini- essay”) to be reviewed at the reader’s leisure time. This correspondence partakes, in large part, of a rarely elected, political theme, for the reason, as above explained, that it appears that the Country’s proper administration is at stake.

The Nation is at present, engaged in the exigent, historic process, of the selection of a Democratic Presidential Candidate, to oppose President Trump, in the next Presidential election. It is believed by many, that the defeat of this incumbent President, is mandatorily necessary, to the restoration of normalcy of the Nation, and its return to its traditionally, admirable standing,

We closely approach a state of despair, in yet continuing, to hear the term, “Socialist,” used as an expletive, and applied, with negative, critical intention, to Democratic Party Candidates and their programs. Socialism, is neither an epithet, nor is it, in any way, relevant, to the present procedure for the choice of Candidate.

Socialism is an economic-political system (having little in common with “Communism”) in which, all industry and means of production, are completely owned by a Central Government. There is absolutely no Candidate, who, to any degree, whatsoever, believes in the Socialist System. It is unfortunate that Senator Sanders and some others, hold themselves out as, “Democratic Socialists,” to a public, too many of whose members, are reductively ignorant, as to the meaning of the term, and see it as an expletive, perhaps, similar to “Communism.” Not one Candidate, is espousing “Socialism,” which is, in any event, a socio-political theory and neither an accusatory adjective, nor related to Communism.

All of the Democratic Candidates, without exception, unreservedly, believe in Capitalistic, free enterprise.  What Senator Sanders and others are espousing, in fact, is “Compassionate Capitalism;” viz., the free enterprise system, with appropriate, humane protections, and benefits, provided for workers and their families. In the age of Adam Smith, the early philosophical proponent of free enterprise capitalism, (“laissez faire”), when profits, and the “natural law” were the only relevant considerations, workers were uniformly subjected to lives of extreme privation. One has only to read the great reformist novels, of Charles Dickens, to fully appreciate, the unbearable living and working conditions, of the lower class, of that time.

Commencing with the post-depression era, Presidency, of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American workers and their families were, for the first time, justly accorded, needed relief, by way of Federal Government programs, of assistance and protection, (as at present) including, Social Security and Survivors’ Benefits, Disability Benefits, Laws concerning compassionate working hours and reasonable working conditions and many other humane and empathetic protections; which, at the time, many labeled as, ”Socialism,” and ipso facto, evil. The reality is entirely to the contrary; such humane treatment ensures and preserves Capitalism, and the free enterprise system, against the prevalence of other competing economic systems, like Socialism. We submit that, most importantly, it morally and empathically, recognizes the humanity of American workers.

It verges on the intolerable, to observe that there still exists, hordes of ignorant and reductionist American citizens, who’s systemically induced, (ranting) screed, persists, in the assertion of the” charge” of “Socialism,” regarding any governmental program of legislated assistance or service. Such reductive individuals, who lack, even one iota of awareness, or rational perception, are, themselves, undoubtedly, the fortunate recipients of several of the following governmental programs, Social Security, Welfare, Food stamps, Retirement Benefits, Old Age and Survivor’s Insurance, Disability Benefits, Veterans Benefits, Federal Mortgage Loans, Federal Infrastructure, including highways, bridges and tunnels, Federal Flood Control Projects and Assistance, Student Loan Assistance, FEMA Disaster Relief, Unemployment Sickness benefits, FDA Protection of Medicines, Federal Regulations regarding Safety, Research and Disease Control, Purity of Food and Water, Federal Health and Labor Codes, Mortgage Assistance, Public Health Regulations and Service, Agriculture Management, Air Traffic Safety, Efficient Postage System, Currency Control, Banking and Financial Services, and vastly and exhaustively, too many other vital citizen services, to sufficiently recount, not to mention, necessary Military Protection.

We would hope that this letter has been seriously read and considered, and that the recipient-reader, is in accord with the view, that our American government, is not “in the way,” but, rather, is a vitally necessary participant, in the efficient, and as well, the moral and empathic management, of our Capitalistic Democratic Republic.


* [ fictional name and address]

Post #414 Delayed Exigency                  

It was the universally, venerated sage, Yogi Berra, best known for his wise and cogent declarations, who said, “New York City is too crowded; that’s why nobody goes there.” The eloquent savant also declared,” We’re lost, but we are making good time.” It is the wisdom of the latter expression, which is relevant to the theme, and intent of this note.

In the second statement, the speaker admits that the traveling parties are lost, but seeks to soften the dread of being lost, with an irrelevant announcement concerning speed. The statement is humorous, because the speaker seeks to mitigate the bad news, with a positive, but absolutely irrelevant, fact. [The latter declaration, as well as all of the wisdom of the inimitable Yogi Berra, we understand, has been permanently preserved and duly enshrined, for the edification of future generations].

However, the principle of the complete lack of impact, of an attempted rationalization of a problematic situation, by the recital of an unrelated, positive one, is the intended theme of this writing. Our concerning problem is the existential threat posed by climate change, or “global warming,” the dire effects of which, are not, at all affected, by its successful acceptance by rational human beings, nor its irrational denial.

This note, however, is specifically intended for the earthlings, who believe in the findings, by virtually, all reputable scientists, as to climate change, and its significant exacerbation by human lifestyles. We refuse to deal with the purported “issue,” as to whether harmful climate change exists, or not. It would be a manifest waste of very precious time, to expect that the disbelievers will be cured of their lichen-type recalcitrance, in sufficient time for the prevention of further damage to the planet. It is our present belief, that far too much energy and valuable time, has, already been dedicated, to the fruitless purpose, of attempting to convince non-believers of global warming; it amounts to scientific evangelism without a useful goal. Like Yogi’s, useless and irrelevant, rationalization of “making good time,” mere debate does absolutely nothing, to ameliorate the damage caused by global warming nor, as in Yogi’s case, the problem of being lost.

The objective facts are, that there is an almost 100% consensus, among climate scientists and professional meteorologists, that there exists an ominous and existential threat to our planet, by man- made climate change (added to the small amount of naturally occurring warming.) The English, Royal Society of Science,  The American Geophysical Union, the Joint Science Academy, The Integrated Panel on Climate Change, The American Meteorological Society, The American Association of Science, and upwards of 95% of accredited climate scientists agree, with the assessment, that the progressive problem of global warming, and its dire effects, have been in existence, for the past 50 years, and that the same is due to greenhouse gases and other contaminants, such as methane and other gases, all, caused by human activity.

In light of the above, it boggles the mind, that so much human effort is being wasted, trying to convince the deniers of the proven condition. The latter are either, ignorant, have been swayed by irrational religious dogma, or have an interest in profit making, which, sociopathically, overrides their personal morality. While one is foolishly wasting precious time, trying to convince the ignorant, or cynical, our one and only planetary home is being steadily and mercilessly, damaged and deteriorated.

It is reported that the natural temperature of the earth has increased 1.8 degrees in the last 20 years, with serious ramifications, some of which are permanent, that the greenhouse gases, plus methane and other harmful gases have greatly increased, in our planet’s atmosphere, that there is a loss of sea ice, permafrost and significant losses to the earth’s glaciers, a general sea level rise, the loss of seashores, major deaths of irreplaceable flora and fauna, temperature anomalies, stronger and more frequent storms, and flooding, while, in other areas, death-causing draughts. Further, it has been shown that temperature anomalies, themselves, further exacerbate global warming, that average temperatures on earth have been increasing at unnatural rates, that oceans, in addition to melt and rising, are experiencing a general and unnatural increase in acidity. The overwhelming consensus of scientists, affirmatively believe, that human activity is responsible for no less than, 97% to 98% of climate change. It does not matter, whether or not your next-door neighbor, or Uncle Max, or even the Grinch himself, Donald J. Trump, actually believes the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists. Like the irrelevant, vaunted speed or travel time, of Yogi Berra, he is still lost, and our only planetary home, is  being degraded, nevertheless.

We must all insist that our political leaders and representatives, cease engaging in empirically, meaningless, debate, and begin to take the necessary ameliorative steps, at once, before our still verdant, life sustaining, Earth, is eventually degraded, to the extent and state, of a sterile, moon-like rock, whose sole virtue, and utility, is its lifeless, reflective property.



In the Court of Public Opinion, we now rise, in ardent defense of the pronoun, “they.” This much maligned, highly utilitarian, pronoun, whose services are mandatorily required in all spoken interaction, to designate specific plural subjects, [ of he, she, it] has unjustly suffered condemnation and great loss of respect, brought about, by abusive misapplication, by less than articulate, or by deceptive people. Our principal defense, rests upon the equitable legal argument that the accused pronoun has, at all times, been truthful, accurate and immeasurably utilitarian, when properly employed. The wrongdoing, as will be demonstrated to this wise and just, dispenser of justice, is solely, that of its unaffiliated misusers. Furthermore, as will be proven to this Court, the results of any and all false inferences, or, indeed, misrepresentations, are those of the miscreant speakers, themselves; outside of the knowledge and control of this honorable and indispensable pronoun, which morally, stands, dutifully and loyally, available, at all times, for proper and appropriate service.

We would, respectfully request this Court, to take judicial notice, that the unjust and wrongful use of the innocent pronoun, “they,” [ as will be specified, below] is a practice, generally, which was undertaken, long before the present convening of this formal tribunal. However, such use, generally known, and unjustly permitted, has materially increased of late, on an intolerable and repulsive basis. We ascribe its etiology to the nation’s prevalent lack of interest, and significant rejection, of its belief in the development of positive self-esteem and confident judgment, through academic and educational pursuits. The avoidance of self-advancement and increased knowledge, on the part of too many, has resulted in a general lack of personal confidence, and mature perspective. This has empirically led to confusion and equivocation, the needy reliance upon others, groupthink and deindividuation. This lack of confidence, inevitably, results in the acceptance of reductive inaccuracy, from others, and is the underlying cause for poor choices, ranging from the election of an unsuitable President, to the unsure need for the making of mundane decisions.

Your Honor, all too often, regarding responses to questions, posed by such insecure individuals, (as explained, above) to the miscreant responder, the innocent and unfortunate accused, word, “they,” has been wrongfully, used in the lazy, ignorant, often false, answers. Examples, “Is this coat stylish?” Answer (probably uninformed or commercially interested) “That’s what “they” are wearing.” “Is this the best fabric choice?” “That’s what “they” are all buying.” “Is that a good restaurant?” “That’s where “they” are all going.” “Is that the proper and moral thing to do?” Answer, “That is what “they” are all doing,” etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

If more need be said, regarding the wrongful use, of this blameless word, the intended utility of the same, is designed to make specific reference to clearly identified people or groups, or to mutually identified objects. The subject misuse of the pronoun, relates to a non-specific, nebulous, but, purportedly  infallible, source of information.

The above are merely a few, randomly chosen, hypothetical illustrations, of stereotypical questions and answers. Clearly, the non- specific, objectionable, and casual responses, whether the motive be laziness, ignorance, intent to falsely appear to be knowledgeable, or actual fraud are, in any case, the disgraceful acts of the responders, alone. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted, that, in view of the demonstrated proof, that  our client, the pronoun, “they,” is an eternally, innocent accomplice, your decision should result in an exoneration of any conceivable culpability.

We rest our case.


* The subject of “they,” as currently used for the purpose of avoidance of gender reference, is not relevant to this writing.