Month: March 2022

Our scene is set at the side entrance of Thomas Jefferson High School, Pennsylvania Avenue, Brooklyn, in November of 1952. It looks like it is going to start raining. We are standing at the side steps with the intention of entering school; there was no rush because we were 20 minutes early. Along comes a  schoolmate of note, Selwin Arbesfeld, attired in the stereotypical manner of a Brownsville, Brooklyn savant, corduroy pants and flannel shirt, oversized belt, and, mandatorily, a sharpened pencil with a worn eraser, assertively, resting behind his right ear. We knew there was going to be trouble; especially, since he had his sidekick, with him, “Little Geenzie” Edelman. We attempted to avoid confrontation by suggesting we go inside before it starts raining. Selwin, in his customary, brusque manner, ignored our suggestion since he had something important to assert.

“Do you remember last week when you said that you are a pro at solving riddles?” he said. We, grudgingly, and fearfully, had to admit the truth of the latter statement, anticipating a premeditated and deliberate challenge, from Selwin (especially, since he had that sharpened, yellow, Eberhart-Faber pencil, with a worn eraser, behind his ear and, tellingly, had brought Little Geenzie, no doubt, as an official witness.). To be truthful we previously did furnish the answers to two easy riddles, proposed by Selwin, and were therefore foolishly encouraged, to make the referenced boast.

We were anxiously, about to suggest going inside the school to avoid the threat of rain, when Selwin, challengingly and arrogantly stated, while smiling shrewdly and knowingly, at Geenzie: ” I have a riddle, that even you, (mockingly) the “big expert”, cannot solve.” In the interest of hiding our fear and stalling, in the hope and expectation that we would be rescued by the promising rain, we stated, in manly fashion, “You will have to make it worth my effort and time”. Selwin, confidently responded, “If you can solve it, I will give you a Chunky Bar. Hoping that we could discourage the challenge, we responded assertively, with a bold counteroffer: “Two Chunky Bars.” Selwin miraculously accepted, supremely confident of success.

It may be enlightening, at this point, to reveal the nature and value of the prizes offered. Chunky Bars were two-inch chocolate square candies, containing raisins and nuts, attractively wrapped in silver foil with red printed letters. Unlike the mundane chocolate bar, the bite of a Chunky was deep and well-rewarded by the blended taste of the chocolate and the scrumptious filling. In our estimation, it was the Mercedes or Maserati of chocolate candies, each candy costing a full twenty-five cents.  Selwin’s challenged response, agreeing to the counteroffer, was, at the time, rather high stakes. We might well observe that the young residents of Brownsville, Brooklyn, were entirely unfamiliar with the nature and value of the trove of gold bars, stored by the Federal Government, at Fort Knox, but were certainly familiar with the valuable status of the Chunky Bar.  Little Geenzie trembled in awe and excitement, at the contemplation of the contest, and especially, the munificence of the agreed winning prize.

All right, Selwin confidently and joyfully announced, this is the riddle: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Little Geenzie confidently smiled at the presumed impossibility of any solution.

We had been studying evolution, that week in class, so we immediately responded, “The egg.”

Selwin and Little Geenzie chuckled, and both, exuberantly, demanded to know the origin of the egg.

“It was laid by the bird, or animal, that, in evolution, was the immediate predecessor of the chicken; the egg, in question, would hatch into the first chicken,” we correctly responded.

I soon discovered that Chunky Bars, (2) taste even better, eaten in the rain.

-p.

** The classic conundrum was actually, solved by the author, in his second year of High School, for which he continues to privately take credit, but wonders why the expression, “Chicken and Egg Problem” is still used in the parlance to describe seemingly unanswerable questions.

-p

We thought that considering the prevailing divisive and contentious atmosphere existing in our Nation, we would take the liberty of writing this open letter to you. It would appear that as things stand, friendly debate, the preferable mode of citizen political discussion, has suffered from the apparent increase in divisiveness and that correspondence would be socially, preferable. We would request that you review this letter, and furnish a cogent response if desired. As fellow American citizens, we undoubtedly, share a mutual concern for the well-being of our Nation.

Dear American Radical:

As American citizens, we share many invaluable rights and protections generally denied in many other countries. In addition to our natural personal liberty and Bill of Rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, we are secure in our homes, enjoy the right of personal privacy and are free from the fear of “a knock on the door,” as exists in many countries. We have the right to select our Nation’s Chief Executive, the right to vote, and to run for public office, the franchise to address our complaints in Court, the freedom of choice to pursue education and a job, freedom of commerce, the unlimited right to travel, freedom to own, sell and accumulate property, to be personally safe, in and out of our homes. Domestically, we have the protection of the police (who may be sued by the citizen for alleged wrongful acts), and nationally, by the Nation’s Armed Forces. We have regulations, assuring clean drinking water, outlawing air pollution, assuring the safety and efficacy, of medicine and the health of foods, labor regulations to protect workers, for better or worse, the right to own firearms,  efficient postal and communication systems, fire and ambulance services, business protections (prices, anti-trust, equipment regulations), free public parks and recreation facilities (parks, museums, pools and beaches), free or low-cost use of infrastructure, (bridges, tunnels, highways) and the unlimited right to travel, anywhere in the Nation, freedom to petition, the unlimited right to leave and re-enter the country, among other implicit and statutorily protected rights.

It is by now a matter of historical record that on January 6, 2021, a violent mob of the radical right, citizens attempted to overthrow an election, in which Donald J. Trump lost, to Joseph Biden. It is obvious, that the setting aside of a democratic election, is the antithesis of democracy, nevertheless, Donald Trump spared nothing  in his failed attempt to do so, by, among other things, calling for the violent insurrection, criminally requesting a Secretary of State (Georgia) to falsify the vote count, instituting 60 lawsuits ( all of which were dismissed), claiming voter fraud, and convincing many right-wing people, that the “election was stolen from him.” The latter ploy has been identified as the “Big Lie,” a tactic, traditionally, employed by autocrats. Trump, who, during his single four-year term, made it evident that he saw his role as an autocrat does, fully expecting to continue in office, despite the (certified) vote count which clearly demonstrated that he lost the election. The January 6 insurrection, initiated by Trump, was irrefutable proof that he, undemocratically, planned to remain in office, like his good friend, Vladimir Putin.  

Despite the many delusional ideations of the Radical Right, Trump’s illegal efforts to remain in office, albeit with their loyal assistance, failed. The purpose of this writing is to realistically, assuage your feelings of defeat, and to actually, demonstrate the virtues of the outcome, for everyone concerned.

Let us for the moment assume, that “The Big Lie,” with the loyal assistance of the right-wing, was successful and Trump, permanently installed as an (autocratic} President. We would relevantly refer to Robert Louis Stevenson, who said:

 “Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.”

Both history and recent events have highlighted the profound misery of a Nation and its citizenry, under an autocracy. From Napoléon Bonaparte, to Adolph Hitler, from Idi Amin and Kim Jong-un to Vladimir Putin, it is the same sad dirge. The predictable result is the total absence of such citizen rights as are set forth at the top of this letter, and, instead, the presence of such phenomena as arrests, jailing, political trials, fear and repression, xenophobia and militarism.

Have you considered the ultimate effect of your political wishes? Would you have a better and more fulfilled life, if the insurgency had been successful? We would suggest that we both are, indeed, fortunate to have mutually experienced an unsuccessful result.

Sincerely yours,

pliny (please address your response to: plinyblog.com.)

                    

McDonald’s, the fast-food restaurant, in the Kremlin district, was festooned,  with flowers and decorations for the special day’s big event. Crowds of fur collared Russian citizens nervously fidgeted as they waited in close proximity to the parking lot for the start of the internationally advertised, gay nuptials. It was a most auspicious occasion, the wedding of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

The large freezing crowd, after waiting several hours in the heavy snow, went suddenly silent with universal anticipation, as the first of a line of twelve black, highly polished, SUVs began arriving (Official Car # 1), the enchanting, bride and groom, Vladimir and Donald, plus eleven other vehicles, (Official Cars ## 2 through 11), carrying the top dozen or so, of Russian Oligarchs,  dressed in expensive Russian Sable Coats, smoking large black cigars, and flaunting their ornamental canes and gold watches.

The Manager of the Kremlin District McDonald’s fully decked out in company apron and McDonald’s uniform, walked over to the first car, genuflected and then opened the door to the flushed and smiling couple. The long line of shiny black SUVs was then opened by the ten winners of the monthly, “Short Order Cooks’ Contest,” and escorted the somewhat inebriated oligarchs inside, and to their designated places of honor next to the cash register. The affianced couple was ceremoniously, led indoors to the special seats of honor, adjacent to the modern, florally decorated, “all gender,” restroom facilities.

After everyone was settled down and seated, all eyes turned to the store manager who ritually, paced, slowly and ceremoniously, toward the affianced couple, while carrying a small pot, a towel, and a very large bag of chocolate only, M&M candies. The loving couple, Donald and Vladimir, flushed with excitement and anticipation, stood up to face the manager who reached into the small pot, (containing the run-off fats and oil from the grill)  while softly and reverently, chanting, (sotto voce) the tune of the very latest of the McDonald’s television commercials, anointed each of the two lovebirds on their foreheads, then wiped most of the warm hamburger grease, from his slippery hands. Next, he, ceremoniously, gave two (“chocolate only”) M& M candies, respectfully, to the bride and the groom, each of which, in turn, ate one of the (“chocolate only”) M&M candies, and, then fed the second to the other, classically representing, as the store manager explained, the mutual sharing of life and the sweetness of love.

The official then religiously, sliced a cooked McDonald’s, hamburger,( medium-well, no ketchup, hold the pickle), into two equal halves, and gave one- half to each celebrant, reciting the following formal vow: “Do you Donald and Vladimir join in marriage, and responsibly swear never, ever, to be a loser?” The parties, each with one-half of the ceremonial hamburger (medium well, no ketchup, hold the pickle) and, dripping grease from their lips, answered, sloppily and eagerly, in the affirmative. The married couple then embraced, the guests departed and the romantic nuptials deemed, officially completed.

The newlyweds on their way out of McDonald’s, were dumfounded and panicked, when a bespeckled, precocious twelve year old, boy, holding an open reference book, inquired: How can you two, be in a marriage, when the word, “autocrat,” means, rule by one, and not the marital sharing of authority? The erstwhile couple immediately panicked, and jointly agreed, that the problematic occasion was suitable for the exercise of the autocratic, tactical, “Big Lie,” and both angrily declared:” but, we were never married.”

-p.

We have chosen to title the present writing with a designation, normally applied to non-deciduous trees, like the pine or spruce, which, dependably, retain their full function, regardless of the season. Like the continuous or enduring function of the evergreen tree, we invariably, retain our most consequential memories, albeit, possibly, colored by subjective or personal considerations, developed, since the event. Yet, since man’s life on earth is finite, so even such evergreen memories, perforce, are transient.

At an advanced stage of life, we find ourselves, on occasion, inclined to, review the many past decades, and extract recollected observations, some, positive, others perhaps, less so. In order that the review and evaluation of past actions and events to be useful and fair, one is mandatorily, taxed with the objective responsibility of recalling, the full context and relevant personal perceptions, extant at the time of the recalled memory. Retrospective judgments made without reconstructing the relevant facts, personal and objective, would offer little valuable insight, and, likely be erroneous.

We have often referred to a life-long, very significant inner phenomenon, which we have blithely and unscientifically, termed, “one’s lifelong, ongoing, inner conversation with himself.” Upon attaining adulthood, this inner communication largely, is guided by, and reflective of, our perception of our inner self-image. The latter, is ultimately, derived from conclusions, conceived, from personal evaluation of our typical past responses to stimuli, exercise of judgment and considered actions. Thus, by illustration, questions of morality, properly, ought to be resolved on the principle of consistency, with our moral self-image; and not, alternatively, based on the expectation of external rewards and punishments. The development of a consistent, realistic, self-image is absolutely, essential and well-deserving of lifelong, evergreen status.

In the course of our personal reflections, the eternally, available and useful, resource, is the precious facility of the human mind and its reference library of memories. With regard to long-term memories (evergreen) one must be scrupulously, careful, to recall the actual empirical facts, unaffected by subsequent ruminative, thoughts or images conceivably, recollected from past dreams.

Ordinarily, in the immutable and temporal passage of time, it is the ultimately salient events, which are evergreen in nature and readily, recalled, i.e., important family details, marriage, birth and personality of children, and the like; as contrasted with one’s mundane and unremarkable experiences, as above stated, which fade into oblivion. As to the latter, an Ashkenazi Yiddish aphorism translates to “The days are long, but the years are short.” Nuanced and material events, happily memorable or regrettably, painful, have a far better chance to earn a place in the evergreen catalog of our recollection.

Depending on the person, the occurrence of time-related changes, such as a child’s graduation from college, the marriage, or the birth of grandchildren, represent objective, indicators of the passage of time, and reminders of our temporality, and may become a cause of concern. The latter phenomena, empirically, vary in-depth with the personality yet predictably, at various moments in our life, we find ourselves concerned with the issue of our ultimate mortality. This may affect each of us in a nuanced fashion. It has been our observed impression, that individuals whose perception seem to be that of a life being well spent, or who accrue a sense of personal fulfillment, are less troubled, respecting this subject, than those, whose lives are perceived as empty and without present meaning. Whatever the differences may be, it seems natural to recognize (but not to perseverate) on the objective fact of our mortality.

At some point in life, we may take note of the instances of mortality among relatives and acquaintances and evaluate the evergreen recollections of such changes or losses, with feelings of depression, fear, or even mortal panic. In the confrontation of such matters, it is relevant to recognize the temporality of our lives, and of those close to us, with some apprehension; the frequency and degree of which, empirically varies with the occasion and individual personality. The evergreen recollections at this point, morph into immutable time markers, never to be repeated or relived, and, accordingly, as ominous reminders of the steady and immutable passage of unrecoverable, personal, lifetime.

Nevertheless, it is indisputable, that the dilemma of one’s painful vulnerability to the loss of loved ones is far preferable to the absence of such relationships, just as the dread of mortality is far preferable to the curtailment of the franchise of life.

-p.

A harrowing, systemic, and metastatic, disease, “populism,” long ago intruded into our body politic, will, predictably and tragically, survive,  the persistent permutations of Covid.  This virulent pathology challenges the principles of Republican Democracy and supports the meme that the common man is possessed of virtues and wisdom, far in excess of that of government.

In the increasing atmosphere of populism, the mob has grown in confidence and power so that the politicians, fearing for their political position are often, caused to cow-tow to them. As an unfortunate consequence, there has been a decline in the status of education and the informed, democratic rule of law, and an increase in influence on the part of the ignorant, reductionist cohort.

According to the populist mob, society is ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, the “People” versus the corrupt “Elite;” and that governance should solely be an expression of the populist. They see society as binary, the mob against the elite, the former being the “good guys” and the latter being the “foes.” The “elite,” are subjectively, perceived by the mob, as society’s intellectuals, scientists, and experts who are, among other and various paranoid delusions, taxed with the imaginative and paranoid charge, that they exalt the interests of immigrants, above the native population.

The element of fear in populist demagoguery (like that of Donald Trump) inspires fanatic delusions of conspiracy, additionally, to the ignorance, hatred and desire for violence of the mob. Such fear and ignorance bring such people together in the interest of mutual support, who choose to enclose themselves in a room where there are, exclusively, voices of those who make them comfortable. The representation that such leaders represent the “common people,” is tactically false, when their actual tactical motivation is their exploitation. Truth and objective reality, in this context, are subservient to the designs of such leaders.

Donald Trump, who seems, alarmingly to have a unique gift for appealing to the populist mob, is apparently willing to operate in a manner, preciously close to fascism; as revealed by recent, undemocratic, and unprecedented events such as the insurrection.  Such exploitation of the ignorant mob, for false and underhanded purposes, is an efficacious destroyer of the voice and the will of the legitimate community and poses, an existential threat to Republican Democracy.

Neither our best medical nor pharmaceutical science, can reasonably, or relevantly, be expected to develop an effective vaccine, to protect our democracy from this lethal, non-viral pathology; we must stay actively informed, vote intelligently, and do all we can, to preserve the rigorous health of the Founders’ great experiment in American democracy.

-p.   

   * [Apologies, for the title, to Thomas Hardy, author of “Far From The Madding Crowd,”]

As of the date of this writing, no one, to our knowledge, has mistaken the bi-annually used expression,   “spring forward, fall back,” as, either, a choreographic direction, or a military defensive maneuver. Proposed, in France, in 1754 by Ben Franklin, it amounted to a bi-annual, one-hour time shift, to save cost, (specifically, he said, to lower the expense of candles). If modern society continued to employ candles for illumination, such bothersome practice, conceivably, might have some modicum of value. We would definitively, and initially, declare that this, traditional (but, non-uniform) practice has little if any, practical utility. Pragmatically speaking, this traditional routine consisting of a one-hour, shift, twice per year, is an annoying inconvenience, an utter waste of valuable time and money, and creates unnecessary opportunities for mistake or misunderstanding.

On the forthcoming dates of March 13, and November 6, respectively, society is expected to, perform the Daylight Savings dance, and, dutifully, set all of its personal timepieces, first, forward, and thereafter back, one hour. This includes all non-digitalized clocks, time-keeping radios and household appliances, wristwatches, pocket watches and women’s worn clock pendants; a bothersome task that can, indeed, consume the better part of the very hour saved, and is fraught with potential errors in schedule, some, conceivably, resulting in consequential misunderstanding.

Proponents of this traditional, useless, and time-consuming ritual, argue that more daylight reduces the need for expensive, possibly, air-polluting energy, promotes healthy outdoor activity by reducing sedentary behavior thereby, promoting good health, provides more light for safer driving, reduces crime and is beneficial for general retail and department store business. We are entirely unaware of any contemporaneous comments, regarding Franklin’s rationale on the crucial subject of candle economy.

Opponents of the established DST tradition, bizarrely argue that the practice of shifting one hour affects the health, is responsible for unnecessary expense (monetizing the time spent in clock changing and by correcting the time of confused business appointments). Lastly, it is seriously, maintained, that it is responsible for loss of sleep.

From our point of view, the DST controversy, both pro and con, is thrice unique. The issue, as well as the ardent, contending arguments, in our view, are unredeemably, petty and, as a practical matter, of minimal consequence. Pragmatically, it concerns the evaluation of the potential effects( mandatory in some jurisdictions)of a time shift of only one hour (60 minutes). We deem it totally absurd, and inconceivable, to  attribute to it, as respectively claimed, either, good or bad consequential results, such as  purported, cardiac arrest, depression, changes in criminal activity, benefits to commercial enterprise, increased driving safety, major sleep deprivation or, significant savings of electricity, encouragement of outdoor active lifestyle,  reduction in crime statistics; all of which has been strenously asserted, are proximate consequences, of the practice of moving the clock’s hour hand, one numerical digit.

We feel obliged to declare that the entire exercise is a petty, useless, nuisance and an empirical invitation to error and misunderstanding. Aside from Ben Franklin’s, 18^th Century well-grounded argument, concerning  economy in the use of candles, we are unable to see any merit, whatsoever, in the bothersome practice, nor, by the way, in the entire controversy.  

-p.

 

Our sense of propriety and fairness enjoins us to, initially, disclose to the reader the basis and intended meaning of the concededly, bizarre title of this writing.

Readers of Greek Classical literature may recall the legendary tale of “Oedipus and the Sphinx.” In accordance with the myth, Oedipus came upon the town of Thebes, where he encountered the Great Sphinx, standing guard at its gates. Anyone wishing to enter Thebes was obliged to answer a riddle. If he could solve the formidable riddle, (which no one, yet had been able to do) the Sphinx would let him enter. If not, the Sphinx would devour him.  
The riddle went as follows: “What goes on four feet in the morning, two feet at noon and three feet in the evening?” The arcane answer is, Man, viz., as a baby he crawls on four feet, as an adult, walks on two feet, as an elder, uses a cane (i.e., three feet). Oedipus, as expected, had the solution.

We are, unquestionably, included in the elder category, and thus, as “Man,” in the myth, we walk on “three feet”, perhaps, even monstrously. The varied subjects to be discussed here and in the future, (we are planning other, similar, posts), for what they are worth, will all be “perorations,” or our personal, conclusory observations, based upon personal, long-term, idiomatic experience. We offer the first three perorations for the readers’ possible interest and critical appraisal.

• Old age is not a disease.

The popular, stereotypic pictures of the idealized, individual, man, woman and child, are tactically, and seductively, portrayed by the advertising industry, to enhance the marketing of goods; and such standard of idealized images are, in one form or another, eternally and scrupulously, reiterated. The super-attractive human images portrayed for such purpose are critically and ideally, selected and configured, for the mass media, posing alongside, or in utilization, of the goods, advertised for sale. Supplementing this idealized, commercial convention, are media images of the relatively rare, famous athletes, super-fit as well as especially, proficient in their particular sport.

The ordinary or commonplace individual, as an empirical matter, scarcely resembles these tactically demonstrated, avatars of youthful high fashion; not to mention the elderly, or senior citizens, whose bodies evince many years of progressive aging; whose abdomen may not be attractively firm, and whose gait is, observably, less than athletic. Those who would normalize those unnatural, projected images, selectively portrayed in television ads, or seen at the televised, sports arena, might be easily tempted to perceive that the senior citizen, by grim comparison, is, sadly, in decline, generally incapacitated, useless and of minimal worth.

Of course, it is unhappily the case, that aging is, in fact, naturally and inevitably, associated with observable decline in prowess and physical fitness. However, assuming reasonably good health, and a thoughtful perspective, old age can be a time of fulfillment and mature understanding; the latter, often painfully and destructively, needed, but missing, at younger ages. The resolution of life-long dilemmas, the review and appropriate rational hierarchy of aspirations, the calm acceptance of life’s basic truths, are all matters acquired, empirically, at the time of one’s maturity.  The physical prowess, inevitably, lost, due to aging, is acceptably compensated for, by a sense of internal satisfaction, derived from a mature audit and thoughtful understanding, of one’s past.

• Appropriate response to stimuli.

Stress is an automatic, physical, mental and emotional response to a chilling event. It is, as known, acceptably, a normal part of man’s life. Managing stress can help lead to a more balanced, healthier life. Analogous to the words of the famous song in the Comic Opera, “The Mikado,” My object is sublime, I shall succeed in time, to make the punishment fit the crime…” one should strive to make the extent of his emotional response, appropriate in degree, as is warranted by the objective nature of the stimulus.

It is common to experience personalities, who will inappropriately, and unhealthily, react with their most intense level of stress, to any presenting disappointment or negative event. Like, Mikado’s aspiration that the degree of punishment be appropriate to the seriousness of the crime, the rational individual should strive to make his level of emotional response to any stimulus, in accordance with the relative gravity of the event. A broken manicured fingernail is not equivalent to learning of a friend’s dire diagnosis; losing a favorite fountain pen is not as consequential as the death of a beloved pet. This admonition is not only protective of life and health but is determinatively, appropriate and rational.

• Success and Happiness

Our experienced conception and empirical understanding of the context of the word, “happiness,” can accurately, but perhaps, not adequately, be appropriately summarized, in four words, “it is strictly internal.” The mature and truly empirical measure of “happiness,” is not quantitative nor properly analogized to a scoreboard in a sports match; revealing the winner as the player who has earned the most points by the end of the competition.  Man’s evaluations, most especially, his ultimate, impactful inner life determinations, are not quantitative, but qualitative.

Prior to retirement, we were engaged in the private practice of a profession in New York City and met many hundreds of people. Our clientele was in large part, highly educated people, of every lifestyle and personality. We learned that provided one’s financial situation was reasonably acceptable, happiness and the feeling of success did not turn on material acquisition, but on other criteria. We encountered many people with great wealth and assets, who were disappointed in life, and those in similar circumstances who felt flushed with success and felt successful. We also met a great many individuals of more modest financial circumstances, who evinced success and happiness.

Over the decades of our professional practice, we were, empirically, able to confirm our understanding that success and resultant happiness, do not depend upon the extent of personal accumulation of assets (boats, real estate, money) but rather, upon the ultimate recognition and inner sense, of a life well spent, and a balanced and realistic, personal sense of self-fulfillment.

-p.

  We have often deliberated, on the subject of the likely origin and fundamental dynamics, of the age-old, iniquitous practice of race prejudice and bias, in general. To be candid, we disclaim any special knowledge or formal study in this area. However, subject to possible critique by those more academically qualified in this discipline, we would humbly, express our resultant understanding of this difficult and sensitive subject, and would modestly, venture to suggest a possible (long term) resolution of the age-old travesty.   

Let us assume, solely for the sake of academic examination, that the entire extant species of Homo sapiens, were somehow, rendered identical, in every conceivable characteristic, age, gender, and sexual persuasion, color, height, hair color, vocal tone, etc. We might then pose to the reader, the question as to whether he thought that personal bias, or racism under such circumstances, would be possible. It would be readily understandable if the response were in the negative.

However, those less optimistic, inalterably, believing in some innate and compulsive tendency, of Man to be selective in an eternal and natural perception of hierarchy, might pose some of the following possibilities: there is an innate inclination in man, to establish a “pecking order” and some manufactured rationalization would be created, to adjudge the necessary perceived differences; the human persona has the need for intimacy, and would create necessarily perceived, personal distinctions; the feeling of insecurity, responsive to complete uniformity, would tend to motivate the individual to subjectively, perceive nuance within the group; the emotional need or desire to bond with another person would, creatively, provide some criterion for his discreet selection, or a purported, natural drive for dominance, would find artificial criteria, for the determination of an imposed submission.

As the followers of this blogspace know, we are unwavering subscribers to the empirical school of epistemology, and of its renowned philosopher, John Locke. Locke declared that man is born with a clean slate (“tabula rasa”) and that (all) knowledge is acquired or learned, by man’s personal life experience. This proposition would lead to the ineluctable conclusion (the proposed theme of this writing), that racial and other biases are not the product of some innate inclination, or natural tendency attributable to the Homo sapiens, but, are instead, learned by means of human empirical experience. Such learning, like other experientially acquired knowledge, is, as a matter of course passed on to future generations. Our basic conclusion, if valid, is perforce, excellent news. What is learned, viz., racial prejudice and other biases, presumably, with appropriate method, can be altered, or unlearned?

It is relevant and necessary, in this context, to set forth the presumed circumstances and source of such presumed learning. As stated, above, we have no special training in cultural anthropology, but would, bravely venture, a possible (probable?) scenario, underlying the proposed early learning experience, leading to Man’s basic, development of prejudicial thought and consequent discriminatory action.  

Our deliberations have resulted in the (hopefully, valid) conclusion, that this most serious, life and death, determinative problem, is but a disastrous old anachronism. It is our confident assumption that Early Man would experience defensive terror and repulsion, upon encountering another animal or living thing, unfamiliar or “different.” It would naturally, be perceived as a threat to his life; a life, which was otherwise, short and precarious, filled with danger, actual and perceived, and ultimate mortal threat. Unfamiliarity or exotic nuance could well spell big trouble.

We would propose, that this protective fear, of anything or anyone “different,” was, foundationally, a natural, prehistoric caution, or fear, and that this primeval discrimination, or mortal fear of physical difference, was the contemporary, anachronistic, cause of human discrimination, or differentiated treatment. Upon the assumption that our thoughts have validity, this instance would by far, be the most atavistic, and repulsive, of all anachronisms; but if learned, perhaps, could be fixed, or, unlearned.

We would earnestly, hope that some technique, psychological or educational, be soon devised, for its eternally long, disgraceful and belated, termination.

-p    

        

The evolving context of American citizenship, as seen through the eyes of a thoughtful, elder American, can puzzle and elude his discernment and best comprehension. It has so morphed in his lifetime, that, at times, he has the sense of being a stranger, or, perhaps, an “immigrant” in his own native country.

(N.B. It is felt that we have commented sufficiently, on our views concerning the dehumanizing impact of electronic social interaction and automation. Additionally, in a recent essay, “Remembering Radio,” we made certain observations on the changing role, status and relationship of the family. We felt that it might be thought-provoking and useful, to express some personal thoughts and observations on our observed major changes in the general perception of American citizenship.)

It was not that many decades ago, that the words to “America the Beautiful,” were not merely the words of a patriotic song, but a description of the communally maintained image of the American citizen. The salute to the flag, performed at school and public events was observably, recited with feelings of national pride and meaningful enthusiasm. World War-2 saw a solidly unified Nation, assisting its country’s war effort in every way possible. Citizens, concerned about America’s progress in the war, bought war bonds and stayed closely tuned to the latest relevant radio news reports. Children, after school, collected scrap iron, rubber and other designated, discarded items for the war effort. America’s subsequent victory over the Axis Powers was a memorable event, universally and jubilantly, celebrated by all American citizens.

The decades rolled on, some more tranquil than others. The special nexus between Nation and citizen, fortunately, seemed to overcome the profound fractures in the body politic, during the Nixon and Viet Nam War eras. Political differences between fellow citizens, over the many years, were distinct, but socially tolerated. The “Left,” most often identifying with multiculturalism, relativism, environmentalism, governmental regulation and welfare; the “Right,” with Christianity, tradition, “family values,” and social conservatism.

Our best recollection is that, in the not-too-distant past, it was commonplace to hear American citizens observe, that while American politicians were polarized, its citizens were not. This, significantly, and regrettably, was prior to the advent of the two impactful and citizen-polarizing issues, concerning, woman’s right to an abortion and the government regulation of firearms. As we are able to recall, it was at, or about, such time that the general American population, rather than constructively engaging in amicable debate on the contested issues, opted to form insular groups of identical opinion, which groups were in conflict with other like groups of diverse opinion. Their mutual affiliation as fellow American citizens appeared to take second place in fealty, to their groupthink stances on these issues. Political candidates appeared to be nominated and popularly elected, based upon their respective positions on these determinative issues, rather than on the traditionally, rational question of who would be a better President for the good of the Nation.

The Trump election in 2016 and the inability of the American society to come together, even when confronted with a deadly virus, conclusively ended any of our long-standing delusion of a commonality of American citizenship. Social trends pushed America apart and split along partisan, racial and ethnic lines. It appeared that political disparities were now reinforced by the various levels of ethnic, racial and religious conflict. To complicate matters, Trump’s belligerent assaults on the fundamental and existential concept of the “truth,” was instrumental in disagreement between citizens not only regarding the disparate issues but, of factual truth itself.

The unprecedented violent insurrection, which took place at the Capitol Building, at the express invitation of the defeated Donald Trump, severely altered our long-standing faith and understanding, concerning the implicit identification, and instinctive loyalty of, the American citizen to his Nation. Yet something more was yet to come which, bizarrely and unfortunately, caused us to feel confused and possibly, retrograde about our traditional and steadfast understanding of the innate, universal connection between the American citizen, and his country.  

It was no surprise, that when the perverse Russian Autocrat Putin, illegally, and unjustifiably, chose to declare war against Russia’s sovereign neighbor, Ukraine, that the United States, N.A.T.O. and the entire Western and European World, would be outraged and responsibly, to the extent possible, support Ukraine. Imagine our confusion and dismay when Donald Trump, the prior President of the United States, publically lauded Putin’s violent rape of a neighboring democracy, by, together with certain other perverse Trump acolytes, describing him as “smart.”

We, it seems, need to re-examine our long-standing perception of the context and status of the term, “American Citizen,” as well as our prior conception of its predictable and functional loyalty. Have we missed something, along the way?

-p.