Month: March 2024

It is our considered view, that the appellation, “Immigrant Crisis” is descriptive of a multi-faceted problem having a domestic impetus as compared with the populist cavil, as arising because of the multitude of applicants seeking entry to our nation. We have often observed the irrefutable fact that our nation has been, and remains uniquely populated by immigrants and their progeny. We have often called attention to the explicit welcoming invitation to all needy humanity, represented by America’s “Lady Liberty,” strategically located at a prominent venue in New York’s East River, holding aloft her welcoming lamp to the outside world. Additionally, the right to immigration is officially recognized by the existence of procedural and administrative legislation, confirming its traditional acceptability.  Those, who on a xenophobic or other alleged basis, decry the propriety of the franchise of immigration are patently illustrative of the qualities of deplorable ignorance and insensitive bigotry.

The orange-haired high priest of self-interested, mendacious amorality has, consistent with his tactically demagogic inclination, bizarrely engaged the devotion of our nation’s discontented, inadequately educated horde of populists by, among other tactical deceits, his bigoted designation of immigrants as “caravans of rapists and criminals…” It is to be emphatically noted, that this narcissistic cult (MAGA) leader, himself, has been judicially adjudged a “rapist,” and a “fraud,” and has been officially charged with 91 felonies, ranging from tax fraud and voter interference to treason By contrast, it is to be noted that official studies attest to a remarkably low crime rate and a commendable industrious record concerning immigrants, who also serve in the nation’s armed forces and pay taxes.

Trump’s egregiously false designation of the substantial flow of immigrants as “Caravans of rapists and criminals,” is, in reality, to be appropriately and accurately amended to, “needy families, undergoing great personal hardships in their valiant efforts to seek an acceptable life.” It may also be relevantly notable that all three of the would-be dictators’ marriages were to immigrant wives.

The despicable right-wing (MAGA) devotees of Donald Trump have enthusiastically applauded his ruthless policies of criminalizing and wrongfully arresting immigrants, separating babies and young children from their parents, caging immigrant children, creating dangerous physical barriers, such as barrier walls and sharp razor wire at America’s southern border and merciless, summary deportation of refugees back to their country of birth, to face the imminent perils of the autocracy from which they bravely and fearfully escaped and unrestrained abuse and unjust imprisonment. An exorbitantly high human price has been wrongfully and cruelly exacted by MAGA officials for the perceived crime of innocently seeking a safe and acceptable life, an extended right, traditionally and empathically, consistent with our peaceable prosperous, and historically generous nation.

Recently, we experienced mixed emotions responsive to an editorialized, statement in support of immigration; such personal satisfaction, however, temporized by an explanatory long, and statistically detailed report on the pressing need of many industries for additional (immigrant) labor. We were, of course, interested in the economic report concerning the nation’s need for employment, but were discouraged by its citation as the enunciated basis for immigration policy’s acceptability and propriety; the “accent was on the wrong syllable.” The criterion of economic need should not be the sufficient or appropriate criterion, determinative of the nation’s moral and appropriate recognition of its humanistic, and empathic program of assistance to fellow human beings, in extremis and existential need of its assistance.

-p.

The long cold winter has visibly, albeit reluctantly, resolved to take its leave and with it, its bulging travel suitcase of hailstorms, snowfall, and ice. The long-awaited seasonal declaration is met with the burgeoning fertility of the woodlands and the stirring of the hibernating forest critters (See: M.44, “AN ANTICIPATED GUEST”). Humankind’s celebration of the rebirth of the planet, in our view, is the annual metaphysical precursor for the joyous celebration of the holy days of the Christian Holiday of Easter, traditionally commemorating the Biblical account of the “Resurrection” of the Christian Deity.

The metaphysical and symbolic significance of the Biblical Resurrection is perceived to be one of the eternal rebirth of universal peace and brotherhood. Yet the history of mankind is disappointingly replete with accounts of zealous autocrats and demagogic personalities, arrogating to themselves the duty to exterminate persons of nuanced, diverse, or no religious belief. In our view, all inhumane actions taken in the name of religious belief are immoral and notably, inconsistent with the New Testament’s philosophy and its citation of the teachings of said Deity, therein referred to as, “The Prince of Peace.”

 However, it is not the intended theme of this writing to reprise our frequently expressed views on Man’s long and deplorable history of religious conflict, genocide, and unspeakable tragedy, as, for example, in, “The 30 Years War,” “The Inquisition,” and “The Holocaust;” but rather to observe the contemporaneous state of discord and injustice, caused by certain deluded American citizens, dedicated to a reductionist and unconstitutional “re-establishment” of a “White, Christian America.” The groups styled, “White Christian Militias”  appear to have but minimal interest in Nature’s miraculous rebirth of spring, the actual age-old Biblical admonitions,  societal integrity, metaphysical morality, nor, indeed, the exercise of human reason.

Such groups have the dual distinction of the perpetuation of the shameful and inhumane history of religious oppression, and the addition of racial prejudice to their despicable policy of hatred and bigotry. The theme of their reductive and unconstitutional menu, supplementally, and nuanced manner to their biased evangelical style, is a faux, populist meme of xenophobic nationalism; which latter prejudice they prefer to shabbily rationalize as “patriotism.”

There is little time or inclination for such acolytes of ignorant reductionism to enjoy the soft beauty of the perennial miracle of the spring primavera, the company of friendly society, or the personally beneficial indulgence in an elective interest. The overriding ignorant and reductive sense of dedication is that of purging the nation of non-believers and non-white intruders,  through their malign efforts, toxically,  construed as mandated to exemplify the holy  description as “White” and “Christian.”

We have experienced consistent futility in our various efforts to remind such religious-xenophobic “patriots,” (1) that the Founders who, cognizant of the history of  misery and injustice brought about by autocratic religious rule in the centuries of repressive history of Europe, specifically articulated, in their foundational statements of intent, the manifest intent to leave “God” ( religious belief) entirely out of the Constitution, (2) that the foundational theme of the newly created republic was expressly one of “equality of its citizens,” (3) that there was pride in the inclusion of all peoples in the nation, by its eternal motto, “E Pluribus Unum,” (4) that there are statutory provisions, implicitly  permitting and providing procedures for immigration, and (5) that our nation traditionally displays its welcome to all  immigrants, without specification (of ethnos or race) by its vaunted “Statue of Liberty,” and, (6) reminding him that, foundationally, the American nation is, and eternally,has been, entirely populated by immigrants (all credos, colors, ethnicities) or their progeny.

Our various efforts to enlighten such recalcitrant reductionists have all met with abysmal results, presumably due, to some perverse idee fixe regarding minorities, buttressed by universally false and distorted factual ideation. Nevertheless, per our ardent aspiration for true American equality, we have, after much deliberation, conceived an effective seasonal cure for this ignorant and atavistic style of prejudicial ideation.

Our conceived panacea consists of sitting together with a recalcitrant bigot, on a warm, slightly breezy, day, on a comfortable grassy field, in meaningful silent, and uninterrupted contemplation, for approximately ten minutes, followed by dramatically handing him a pulled bunch of pretty, newly spouted yellow dandelions; which, unquestionably, should “do the trick.”

-p.

Frank R. Stockton’s 19th-century short story, *The Lady or The Tiger,” in effect, portrays the hazard implicit in the exercise of “Freedom of Choice,” viz., the individual’s autonomous choice to select from (at least two) available options and its unpredictable, fortuitous or tragic, consequences. The tale’s protagonist is obliged to arbitrarily choose one of two identically solid doors, one is to his beloved damsel, and the other a hungry, vicious tiger.

Life seems to manifest the prophetic enigma that the less consequential the choice, the more predictable the result. The risk of materially adverse consequences in casual choices such as selection from a restaurant menu, the arbitrary choice of a necktie or decorative pin, and choosing a televised movie or a day’s outfit has minimal and predictable sequelae. On the contrary, the exercise of more consequential choices, such as the selection of a spouse, venturing into a new business enterprise, or embarking on a chosen career, sadly, lacks the assurance of success or the predictability of failure. As we see it, the highly acclaimed philosophical right to “freedom of choice,” the prudential attempt to minimize the possibility of an adverse outcome by rationalizing perceived possibilities, at times may prove to be an imperfect predicate to any venturesome choice. 

In patent factual distinction to the narrative dilemma presented in Frank Stockton’s short story, is the soon-to-be presented significant choice of the re-election of President Joseph Biden or the errant past President, Donald Trump. Such choices unquestionably involve impactful results, however, unlike the fictional unseen and arbitrary choice of lady or tiger, the designated choices are fully disclosed and, have been experientially evaluated.  

An interesting feature of our thematic (Presidential) choice resides in the fact that the decision in question confronts the large, interactive population of American voters, the latter, evincing nuanced perceptions and divergent expectations. It may be useful to discuss a representative sample of some known and articulated perceptions and consequential choices relative to the two identified and fully disclosed candidates. It is an unusual guideline that each has previously revealed to the deciding public, his characteristic persona, and capability in the relevant role.

It is tautologically understood that the free exercise of personal “choice” is based on (accurate or imagined) criteria, founded in personally held principles, or, is the result of transmitted and accepted convincing views of persuasive others. In the singular presented instance, featuring disclosed choices, the personalities can be rationally evaluated by their revealed persona and actions. This feature affords experiential criteria enabling an empirically rational decision (in sharp contrast to the hazardous, lady-tiger dilemma of impulsive choice.) In the most useful of circumstances, however, the determinative criteria need to be rational and supportively factual.

The record of the bizarre and shameful performance of Donald Trump, signified by ignorance, immorality, egocentric neurosis, and a plethora of criminal indictments, is well known; as is his treasonous behavior and intention to be a “Dictator.” During his singular, twice-impeached term as President, little, if any, National benefit, is discernable. On the contrary, his incapability and ignorant egocentricity manifestly injured the Nation’s standing and its people (ex., COVID-19 gross malpractice, treasonous relations with America’s autocratic enemies). These objective flaws were demonstrably adverse to the Nation, as is his internationally demonstrated lack of moral compass, inappropriate greed, and most worrisome, his stated intention for monarchial rule.

The extant criticism of Joseph Biden by Trump supporters seems to center on their argument that he is “too old” to govern (Trump is only three years younger). As negatively demonstrated by the shamefully incompetent and disreputable term of Donald J. Trump, it is age-nuanced capability and effectiveness that accurately constitute the rational and pragmatic criterion. Unlike Trump’s scandal-ridden, do-nothing term of office, Joseph Biden in three years has demonstrated a high degree of capability and has rendered great benefit to the Nation, including, merely as a partial illustration, proper management of the pandemic, overseeing a greatly needed, National infrastructure bill, decreasing inflation, lowering student tuition debt, greatly increasing jobs, while significantly reducing unemployment   

It would appear that despite the identifiable personae, and awareness of the notable contrast between the two candidates’ previous performances, the Nation, nevertheless finds itself in an existential (“Lady or Tiger”) hazard, existentially dependent upon the discreetly proper choice of the analogical “Lady” (Joseph Biden) as opposed to the vicious and malevolent “Tiger” (Donald J. Trump). There exist opaque and threatening indications of substantial populist and irrational support for the fictional Tiger (the latter miscreant, like its feline alter ego, warningly identifiable by the (hazmat) color, orange). Such unknown and unpredictable factors are dynamically symbolic of the opaque doors obscuring the outcome.

-p.

Grift # 1, the “Reverse Mortgage”
This writing was prompted by our vocalized angst at (again) experiencing the smarmy-solicitous style of the handsome- mustachioed, and charmingly mellifluous, Tom Selleck in a personally disturbing television commercial. In the commercial, Selleck, solicitously makes an earnest eye-contact, faux-solicitous pitch to senior citizens on the salutary features of “Reverse Mortgages;” on behalf of the not-so-salutary finance companies.
Seldom, it appears, do the routine daily commercials contain commercial propaganda as intensely as when the mission is to hawk financial “shtick,” to the presumably vulnerable elderly. In dramatic, intra-familial-style pitch, Selleck initially appears and slowly takes a few steps before comfortably settling into a lawn chair (like older people do?) and then with loving and respectful, laser-like eye contact and in mellifluous tones, solicits the targeted elder audience, lauding the purported virtues (but, none of the drawbacks) of the advertised sales merchandise, the “Reverse Mortgage.” “Two things are sure,” he crows, “you love your home and you want to stay in it.” (A notable piece of propagandist cruelty).
Prior to our brief remarks on the notably, undisclosed and obligatory aspects of the vaunted enterprise, plus thematically, a few other categories of elder-hawked “benefits,” we would make clear our present thematic effort, which is to express our displeasure at the arrogant television “snake oil” presentations of “financial benefits” and “a better life,” to the presumably vulnerable, cash-strapped elder. The implicit contextual hubris of such presumption and faux-solicitousness may exceed the hazard of the negative impact of such universally indiscriminate and irresponsible advice.
A reverse mortgage loan, like the traditional mortgage, allows a homeowner to borrow money on the value (“equity”) of his home. The title remains in the homeowner’s name, but he no longer makes monthly mortgage payments. The loan ceases and is repaid when the homeowner dies or, otherwise is no longer resident in the home. Interest and fees are added to the loan and, each month the balance grows. What the smarmy Selleck commercial does not disclose, includes the homeowner’s financial responsibility (on pain of summary foreclosure) for the taxes, levies, and the cost of repairs, the insurance on the realty, consideration of the salient issue as to agreed equity value, the high cost of loan fees and the title closing expenses of the transaction, the intrusive inspections to assure maximum care, and, of course, the monthly decrease in equity value. An undisclosed and potentially tragic feature is the lender’s right of eviction of any non-owning inhabitant, for example, an elderly parent or child living in the home when the title owner dies.
We especially detest the misleading and cynical statements concerning the purported “tax-free” benefits, since the source of the monetary benefit is the homeowner’s property, a previously owned asset and irrefutably distinguishable from income. This shameless and cynical representation as to “tax-free money,” is revealingly, snake-oil salesmanship. The guidance of a capable attorney may be relevantly needed.
Grift # 2, Cash Redemption of Life Insurance
Television commercials that seek to extoll the financially pragmatic wisdom of redeeming life insurance policies, by elderly, possibly, cash-challenged policy owners, need to be considered in a personally applicable and evaluative context. Unless the situation is financially desperate, we would recommend that the elderly policy owner materially consider the following factors. (1) The policy was taken out for the anticipated receipt by the (possibly needy) familial beneficiary and will no longer be of potential assistance or benefit to him, (2) the proceeds of the redemption may be taxable, (3) fees may be due for the transaction and, most disturbingly,(4) The policy for which, premiums may have been paid for decades, during a period when he was younger and the statistical (“actuarial”) possibility that the insurance company will be obligated to pay the death benefit is relatively remote, is redeemed later on in life when the actuarial possibility of the payment of the face value is as a pragmatically greater, results in a significant windfall to the insurance company, and in our view, is an actuarial “grift.” In practical effect, the televised promise of a “windfall” is received by the insurance company, as opposed to the policyholder, and definitively, not by the policy’s intended beneficiary. The televised suggestion that policy redemption makes sense if the policyholder “no longer needs it,” is grossly misleading.

Grift # 3, “Youth Restoring” Pharmacy
Memory: We have consulted various physicians who have informed us that the pharmaceutical products advertised to the elderly as effective memory boosters (with, or without, jellyfish protein) and re-booters of the youthful capabilities of the human brain have not been scientifically proven nor officially sanctioned. Our unprofessional view is that the benefits of mental acuity are derived from the regular use of the brain in useful contemplation, reading, pursuing personal interests, and the regularly understood recognition of one’s good fortune in the continuance of the personal franchise of life.
Physical Appearance: The representation that youthful appearance can be commercially extended to later periods of human life, may deserve the gold medal for the most insidiously profitable marketing grift in the entire panoply of deceit.
The profit-making claim of a youthful, or younger appearance is deceitfully based upon the persuasive neurotic ideation that, (1) Younger is more acceptable, (2) looking young is the exclusive standard of attractiveness, (3) looking younger by the application of the advertised product is a timeless and appropriately universal aspiration. All sorts of merchandise are publically advertised (especially to aging, female members of the television audience) purporting to amend and presumably, improve, their appearance by disguising the normal physical progress of human growth and aging.

Our views in this area of commercial propagandist grift are not in the purported quality and potential effect of the advertised myriad of creams, lotions, washes, oils, nutritional aids, balms, powders, and make-up, cleansers, hair supplements, hairstyles, dyes, miracle diets, tooth whiteners, skin treatments, wrinkle removers, eye shadow, false lashes, support apparel, freezing or surgical cosmetics. We have little knowledge of this purported cosmetic alchemy. We are, however, contextually concerned with the lack of mature perspective on the part of the aging consumer and the tactically, deceitful commercial practitioners of deceptive grift who immensely profit from such immature insecurity.
We cannot, in this context, refrain from an expression of relevant concern, respecting the advertised use of botulism toxin for the removal of forehead and other facial wrinkles. Our readings inform us that this chemical toxin is scientifically rated as among the top three dangerous poisons. In our view, the legal sale, purchase, and most bizarre, the voluntary application of the same for the inane, egotistical removal of a natural wrinkle or two is more than a submission to a scam, but a display of unnaturally hazardous behavior.
We have grappled with understanding the inability of many people who appear to lack mature perspective in their inability to perceive human beauty in its naturally changing and maturing developmental context. There is a nuanced and age-appropriate standard of attractiveness relevant to each stage of human development. Neurotic insecurity and consequent attempts at emulation of idolized youthful appearance, as one matures, is a demonstration of lack of mature perspective and an open invitation to cosmetic grift. We would offer, as an aesthetic illustration, one of our favorite actresses, Ms. Sophia Loren, who is appropriately beautiful in the context of her late feminine maturity, as she was, in the stages of her contextual youth and later maturity.
-p.

The comprehensive impact and scope of the COVID-19 pandemic have admittedly been the subject of earlier writings. Accordingly, it would now seem to suffice to briefly, but pointedly, again refer to its medically mandated prophylactic measures notably, inclusive of the limitation of human contact which was empirically productive of a substantial and enduring negative impact. Said evaluation is based upon the observed result of the effects of such absence of normal interactive personal contact. The observed, unhealthy sequelae were motivated by the dearth of person-to-person communication (except by absentee hand-held, impersonal devices), radical changes in workstyle from the place of employment to the unfamiliar, stay-at-home performance, with “virtual” interaction,” non-attendance at schools, restaurants, theaters, museums, stadia and other venues of social gathering. The universal impact of the virus protective program encompassing the lack of social contact (augmented by the recommended use of dystopic-looking face masks) had a crippling effect on the functional dynamics of society. Such separation proved to be especially harmful to society’s younger members, regarding whom the resultant rates of depression and mental illness, are reported to have skyrocketed. Such worrisome COVID-19 developments (sequelae), nevertheless, have been the subject matter of several past essays.

Accordingly, it may instead be useful, to reference the negative sequelae following our contextually stated, second National calamity, attendant upon the popular ( populist) rise of the politically toxic Donald Trump to the political scene and bizarrely thereafter, his elevation to the Oval Office.

The historically established supporting foundations of our Democratic Republic were intentionally and tactically weakened by the would-be autocrat, Donald Trump, during his one (twice impeached) Presidential term. Such egregious damage, unfortunately, has persisted, through his successful populist tactics of cultishly seductive demagoguery and publicized anti-establishment policies. The societal results of such enduring behavior are diagnostically identifiable as resultant sequelae, inarguably, dangerous to the (internally) vulnerable, existence of democracy.

Trump’s criminality (91 felony indictments), revealing his innate, pathological amorality and his publically demonstrated egocentric persona, has been causative of an ugly blemish on the historically high standing of the American Presidency, and remains an existential concern of mainstream, traditional American citizens. Of salient concern is the enduring effect of his publically declared, aspirations to autocracy, the ultimate anti-democratic “sequela.”

Borrowing, insidiously and reverentially, from history’s, perverse “Autocrat’s Handbook,” Trump at the very outset of his Presidential term, commenced its instructive program of  toxic metaphysical disparagement of factual truth and the (fascistic) acceptability of “alternate facts,” disparaging the Nation’s established media,  tactical encouragement of divisive prejudice to scapegoat selected targeted groups as un justly responsible for extant National problems, election denial, seditious sponsorship of a violent and bloody government insurrection, treasonous relations with America’s autocratic enemies, his protective practice of selection of incapable, but “loyal,” partisans for major federal positions, shockingly inclusive of  SCOTUS  and the United States Justice Department, his arrogant claims of autocratically privilege from prosecution and punishment for his criminal actions, his promotion of “patriotic” xenophobia by viciously defaming immigrants, his demeaning of science and education while, simultaneously, promoting divisive and absurd paranoid conspiracy ideations.

It is signally instructive that Donald Trump has publically, declared his intention to be a Dictator (“on the first day?”). The latter statement of intention may be the singularly, notable instance of the utterance of a truthful statement by this accomplished and systemic practitioner of serial mendacity.

The ominous sequelae following upon the Nation’s toxic epidemic of “Trumpism, in office, and, rationally foreseeable, in any aspirational second term,” predictability represents a continuing danger to American democracy, engineered by way of Trump’s manipulation of the Nation’s sizeable and tribal-cultish horde of inadequately educated and badly informed populists, with their eternally perceived grievances; financially supported by certain large industrialists (especially those in the fossil fuel industry) and other inhumane and pathological industries, that value profit above human life and health and thus oppose (Democratically supported) governmentally protective regulation.

We fear that this moment in time, presents the imminent and hazardous possibility that the foreseeable sequelae, in the unspeakably tragic, nightmarish event of a Trump re-election, would, uniquely, and unprecedently, be far worse than the precedent disease. However, much foreseeable hope does exist in the determinate vote of the traditionally mainstream American citizenry, to prevent such toxic disease and its noxious sequelae.

*Thanks to the great [and humanistic] Victorian novelist, Charles Dickens, for the (amended) use of the title of his classic, “The Tale of Two Cities.”

-p. 

As known, the President of the United States is expressly authorized by the Constitution (Art.2, sec.2, clause 1) to unconditionally (except in impeachment) grant a pardon for federal crimes. President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for the shocking and widely publicized, major crimes identified by the media as “The Watergate Scandal.” Donald Trump pardoned the psychopathic bigot, Sheriff Arpaio, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort and Charles Kushner, his son-in-law’s father, and dozens of his errant supporters and political figures, a remarkable total of 73 pardons and 70 commutations.

We have eternally been intellectually troubled and morally disappointed by the bizarre incongruity of the Founders’ inclusion of the Presidential power of pardon and commutation in the Nation’s constitution and their inconsistent statements of avowed purpose. Such replication of the unjust and arbitrary power of the historical European Monarch is bizarre in that it is in bright contrast with their expressed intentions regarding the foundational philosophy and dynamics of their “radical experiment.” Those intentions saw effectuation in the elimination of privileged classes, and the creation of a Nation, distinguished from the despotic rule of a Monarchy, or the Established Church, and one that promoted citizen equality and functioned “by and for the People.”

Our readings indicate that at the Constitutional Convention (1788) Founder, George Mason argued against this Presidential franchise, concerned that a future President (unlike George Washington) might not always be someone of sound character and intelligence. He stated that a President might even be someone who wanted to change our form of government. In our view, Mason’s concerns were eerily prescient, as best evidenced by the shameful recent episodes of the despicable use of this vestige of the atavistic, arbitrary, and unjust rule, historically prevalent in 18th-century Europe. The above-referenced, expedited pardoning by Trump, cynically accomplished in his final hours of office, of hordes of criminal politicians, his supporters, and criminal confederates, in our view, was not only un-American but visibly obscene.

As we see it, the concept of the Presidential power to pardon appears inarguably, inconsistent with the avowed concept and dynamics of a legitimate Republican Democracy. Like the human appendix, the same is an atavistic (and inappropriate) vestigial impediment toxically existing in the American body politic; the same being of no positive use and one that should be surgically removed prophylactically to prevent further infections of political peritonitis as our Nation’s history has clinically presented and most evident in the toxic Trump term of Presidency (and is empirically predictable, should he, heaven forbid, be re-elected).

“No one is above the law,” is among our basic and most fundamental democratic principles and should have no exceptions; most especially, including instances of criminal wrongdoing, contextually forgiven in an arbitrary manner by officially (constitutionally) designated franchise. A Constitutional Amendment providing for the surgical excision of this toxic and vestigial roadblock to the authentic practice of democracy and the salubrious health of the American body politic would be logically consistent with our Nation’s traditions, its avowed aspirations, and with universal moral justice.

-p.  

We awoke the other morning to a vague feeling similar to the anticipation of an imminent happening of a singularly delightful yet undefined experience. We did recall that it was the “Ides of March,” from Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” but that literary landmark clearly would not evoke sentimental emotion.  As we sleepily peered out of the window we perceived that the tall trees appeared to be eerily motionless, with no branches or seasoned leaves stirring, as if in portrayal of a state of deferential anticipation. By contrast, the evergreens viz., pine, fir, and spruce trees, seemed engaged in a well-earned rest, presumably relishing the successful completion of their annual green winter vigil in the responsible assurance that Nature was, despite appearances, eternally animate.  It took a few additional moments to resolve that the tall deciduous trees were seasonably engaged in rapt concentration in eager anticipation of the imminent arrival of the perennial visitor, “Spring,” slated to arrive, on Tuesday, March 19, 11:06 AM in the company of the Vernal Equinox.

We entertained the fanciful illusion that the ground was vibrating almost imperceptibly, as if responsive to an ethereal natural alarm clock, naturally pre-set to reliably activate a few moments before the prescribed time for seasonal change. The subliminal sound of the clock and the subtle response of the topsoil were revealed to be functional backstage theatrical cues for many underground players to commence their annual performance. The tulip bulbs, on cue, began to subtly moisturize and the thin green blades of daffodils and wild onions now commenced their early seasonal ascent. As might be empirically expected, the singularly impatient crocus had already begun its surface performance.

The vibrations proceeded downward, causing the small, hibernating critters to gently stir. A pregnant member of one sleeping furry assemblage, gently scratched her expanded belly, soon to deliver her six pups on the surface; a few of the others merely wrinkled their small black noses, in disturbed annoyance. We had the conception that if one should attentively listen he could hear the beginnings of a diminutive flow of water, beginning beneath the sluggishly thawing surface of the nearby stream.

One might stand outdoors with closed eyes in concentrated attention and predictably once more, sense on his cheek the subtle beginnings of a moist and warm flow of sweetly floral-scented air, at the start of light rain. While thus engaged he might espy the two tan-colored deer, standing at the stream, the doe thirstily licking the slowly melting surface while the ever-vigilant male nervously wagged the tail on his white furry backside, furtively looking for signs of possible danger while hungrily ruminating on some tasty green newly sprouted shoots.

As traditionally done in previous pleasant expectations of welcome guests, we brushed off the “Welcome” mat, and partially opened the door.  After then setting the living room table with tall wine glasses, utensils, a cold bottle of Prosecco, cheese, crackers, and various fresh fruits, we joyfully awaited the arrival of our notable guest, “la Primavera.”

-p.

Although the facile use of stereotypes, can, at times, boast a measure of descriptive convenience, more often, said lazy and reductive mode of characterization is effectively unfair and grossly misleading. Notwithstanding any perceived commonality (viz., race, ethnicity, work, or profession) it is rationally appropriate and empirically fair, to characterize and treat each individual as singular and individually nuanced. No more is this reductive practice of facile stereotyping more evident, unfair, or on occasion, demeaning, than when applied to lawyers.

Before retirement, we were engaged in the public practice of (civil) law in the City of New York for no less than fifty years, and feel confident as to the experiential accuracy of our present observations on the subject.

The publically televised interminable saga of Trump’s full-to bursting, cornucopia of shameful criminal prosecutions may, understandably engender the viewer’s perception of lawyers as unprincipled, millionaire, servants of the felonious rich, plying their cryptic alchemy to assist them in evading justice. Contextually, we would declare the mathematical formula that, in the same proportion as every American President is a replication of the unprincipled and amoral Donald Trump, so are the Nation’s lawyers appropriately personified by that amoral miscreant’s nuanced and well-paid counsel.  Yet, we would be overjoyed to be able to empirically declare that said positive observation is universally applicable. We admit that our principles are colored by our declared foundational sentiment that attorneys should eternally evince the standards of scholarly, fiduciary services to their clients. The latter principles constituted our navigational compass and are reprised by our selected successors.

Over the years we painfully experienced the populist, cynical conception of the “lawyer” as being a devious, unprincipled “shyster” (civil law) or a hypocritically “paid mouthpiece” (criminal law). We are not Pollyannaish enough not to presume that, in keeping with the nuances of the human persona, such people do not often exist. But to saddle all legal practitioners with such epithets would be equivalent to the atavistic dismissal of such adjectival vocabulary as, “sincere,” “trusted,” “wise,” “protective” and “caring.” Just as Donald Trump has polluted American standards and traditional moral expectations, the contextually populist and effectively defamatory stereotype has unjustifiably branded, without exception, or empirical experience, an entire population of ethical and venerated legal practitioners. The plethora of shameful Trump cases displayed on the public media is a toxic encouragement to such uninformed and factually prejudiced insults.

In our decades of practice, we have come to know, and quite often befriend, clients to whom we have taken personal and professional pleasure in rendering utilitarian and dedicated legal services and guiding advice; helping to navigate their business through the, often labyrinthine, intricacies of the legal and juristic Federal, State and Local Statutes and precedential law, and when necessary, providing legal relief from business injury and legal injustice by means of litigated services, trial and appellate.

To describe an individual as a “lawyer” (or, for that matter, any other profession or calling) is merely to designate the nature of their employment or profession; it appropriately and relevantly, says nothing about character or persona.

-p.

Tall, skinny, 24-year-old, Humphrey Tyrone Turner, a chronically unshaven bachelor, and inveterate loner, arose from bed in his sparsely furnished apartment in Mobile, Alabama, looked past his soiled window curtain, upward at the gray skies and then downward, and profoundly sighing at the sight of the smashed and befouled motorcycle, furtively abandoned by him last night following his inebriate and resonate encounter with a large roadside Porto-potty.

Our protagonist had been granted two days of sick leave due to a painful injury to the right wrist of his tattooed and colorfully festooned, right arm. The injury was caused by his unorthodox and unbalanced style of flipping “burgers” at his regular job at the local site of a well-advertised fast-food franchise.

It can be seen as ironic that, in arguable contrast with his wan appearance, introverted persona, and misanthropic lifestyle, Humphrey, was the scion of a rather distinguished family; said elegant provenance attested to his maternal grandfather, Percival P. Pooke, who achieved world notoriety by being the first man to reach the earthshaking, radical and innovative decision to put cotton in aspirin bottles. His uncontestable claim to elevated familial standing (in contrast to his aforesaid, nondescript appearance) is supplemented by the achievement of no less than three environmental awards to his Uncle, Sedgewick T. Dumpster, an enterprising pig farmer for his utilitarian development of a much-needed woodsy-smelling deodorant for suburban septic tanks for homeowners with unstable lawns and olfactory- sensitive visitors.

Humphrey’s originally anticipated course of higher education had sadly, and eventfully, been curtailed. After graduating, from Wistful Vista High School (albeit two years late) he was successfully admitted to the local institute of enlightenment, “Saving Grace Evangelical Academy,” for which his late Mother, Elvira Swine Dumpster, lovingly and proudly, paid for tuition and board from her accumulated savings, (her “egg money”) accumulated during twelve years of employment as an egg Candler. However, he was unfortunately expelled by the Dean, in less than two years of intense study for “hedonistic behavior.” Among the institution’s allegations of wrongdoing were that of improperly playing harmonica music during his instructor’s recitation of the Biblical “begets” and, as also charged, “Sinfully and “Heretically” creating an abomination by chewing wads of bubblegum and blowing pink bubbles during the College’s solemn Eucharistic ritual.

Our protagonist had a rather limited social life. His one friend, and neighbor, “Moose” (Maynard) Creepes, an upstairs tenant and assembly line employee at a baseball hat factory, (attaching the stereotypic top buttons) would come downstairs on Wednesday or Thursday evenings, to mutually share pizza and watch television.  Humphry’s sole contact with the opposite sex was his initial, but ill-fated crush on Wanda, a 22-year-old, blonde, and shapely co-worker at the burger place. Unfortunately, it would appear that they had one too many things in common, notably, their mutual attraction to girls.

When Humphrey, on occasion, chose to watch the evening television news, he did so in a state of disinterest; as he saw it, the so-called “issues of the day” were of no personal interest to him. He had no opinion or views, on politics, crime, racial inequality, or any of the prevailing issues of the day.  Humphrey’s singular insularity and minimal scope of life led him to the determined view that such daily societal, and political discourse were personally irrelevant since they took place outside of his residential apartment and were merely, a reflection of the “sick” inclination of the “ elites” to engage in meaningless disputes.  Regarding the unavoidable necessity to choose an American President, after a few moments of head-scratching reflection, he decided to support Donald Trump, who he observed as more entertaining than Joseph Biden, and, of the two, importantly the sole possessor of orange hair. (His favorite color had always been orange, thus eternally determining his choice of ices, lollypops, juice, and frosted Halloween cupcakes). Joseph Biden, he observed, with a measure of distaste, by contrast, has gray hair. Humphrey T. Dumpster had always hated gray, as unpleasantly evinced of late, in the overcast skies, the color of overcooked hamburgers, and the eternal stains on his window curtains. Perhaps of even greater decisional importance was the generous gift from his upstairs friend, “Moose,” of a red-colored, and stylishly white-lettered, Trump baseball hat. Humphrey Dumpster earnestly promised himself with clenched fists and tightly closed eyes that this time he would “definitely” vote.

*[Thanks and a cold mug of Guinness Stout to James Joyce, for the amended use of the name, “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man”].

-p.

Having received some comment on the immediately preceding “blog” [we hate the cacophonous, gagging sound of that noun and would aesthetically prefer “mini-essay”) we will happily conclude the subject with some additional extinct phenomena from our fictionalized antique store (“Curiosity Shop”).

[Food]

An institutional eating establishment, “Horn & Hardart,” was a popular eatery, more frequented for breakfast and lunch, perhaps, than dinner. In an era (the 1940s) when mechanically selected activities were virtually non-existent, the well-known establishment featured the unique ability to select from a wide variety of comestibles, each viewable through a small glass window and accessible upon depositing coins in the respectively indicated price.  The sandwiches, small cooked dishes, or pastries thus accessed were then carried to a table to be consumed by the patron. This process of obtaining selected meals was quick and pleasant. In addition to the novelty of accessing food, from main course to dessert, these institutional restaurants were famous for their cooked vegetable dishes, served from a special, well-attended counter; many patrons chose to select meals entirely consisting of a selected variety of such delicious vegetables. An excellent quality of coffee, as well as tea, and milk, were obtained from spigots, activated by the deposit of coins.

In later years, due to its decline in business, the facilities were converted to rentals for celebratory events such as weddings, and other group occasions. This item of memorabilia, as in the case of roller rinks, is represented by photographs.

Other memorable eatable extinctions included “mellorolls”, (rolls of ice cream, served in round wrappers, creamsicles, flavored ice pops containing an ice cream center, popsicles, two attached thin ice pops, the Charlotte rouse, wrapped yellow cake, topped with whipped cream, and a maraschino cherry, and warm roast peanuts, sold in small paper bags; all of the latter, sold by sidewalk vendors.

[The Brooklyn Dodgers, Ebbets Field]
The “Brooklyn Dodgers,” despite its advertised geographic designation as representative of one of the five boroughs of the State of New York, was a well-known resident of Ebbets Field. However, it singularly eclipsed its significance as a major league baseball team and was, remarkably, in this era of finite media communication, popularly transmogrified into a cultural and patriotic symbol of the Nation. In addition to being the first major league baseball team to accept a black athlete, viz., Jackie Robinson, a combination of the ubiquitously romantic conception of the team and the perceived celebrity of the nationally advertised players (Pee-Wee Reese, Gil Hodges, Duke Snyder, Jackie Robinson, and others), together with a popularized nuanced conception of “Brooklyn,” morphed the team into an American icon. An example was a 1940s movie whose scenario was set in the Second World War, in the theater of the Pacific. A tense night scene saw a soldier admitted forward by a sentry, based on his response, “Duke Snyder” to the shibboleth-like question: “Who plays center field for the Brooklyn Dodgers?”

It figuratively broke the hearts of Brooklyn residents, young and old when considerations of finance motivated the celebrity team’s painful change of venue to Los Angeles.

[Wooden Desks, Inkwells, Dipping Pens]

School desks in the relevant period were constructed of wood with an attached seat and featured in the top right corner, glass ink wells with a closable metal lid. Pens, dipped into the inkwell, for writing were wooden handled with an attached nib. Penmanship, at best was somewhat scratchy and inkblots were ubiquitous accompaniments to the most diligent of writers; despite which the hapless student was graded on his penmanship. The advent of “Fountain pens,” (whose ink was supplied by the lifting of a small strip of metal, located on the side of the body of the two-piece pen (pen and matching pen cover), exerting pressure on a small rubber bladder, the ink supply reserve) were the writing implements of adults and not a schoolboy phenomenon. The latter, unfledged, catalog of humankind was for many years, unhappily relegated to the use of a wooden, metal-tipped version of the primitive goose quills used by our white-wigged colonial fathers.

The use of the later developed, cleaner, and more navigable, ink retaining ball-point pen, was initially forbidden at primary schools. Later years saw the development of stylish and attractive “roller point” writing implements with, if desired, artistic design facilities.

[Pocket knife, handkerchiefs, small address book, tie pin]

In addition to the high, cacophonous clang of coins (now, virtually of little practical utility) a man’s trouser pocket was traditionally a requisite and necessarily accessible storehouse of ubiquitous utility.  Often, in addition to a man’s multi-purpose wallet, the latter, a tenant of a chosen back pocket, his side pockets were the repositories of vitally necessary implements, like keys, handkerchiefs, and, often, a small pocket knife to sharpen wooden pencils, cut string, and cardboard wrappers, perhaps, eat fruit or idly whittle. One jacket pocket might efficiently carry a small, alphabetized address book for convenient reference and another a plastic comb for rapid and furtive utility, preceding social encounters.

A utilitarian tie clip or a “tie tac,” of heterogeneous value and design, although not carried in a man’s pocket, was a “retro” necessity in the perception of the proper style of the time. While ties are still worn, although, currently less stylistically mandated, tie clips have followed the dodo bird’s path to  complete extinction.

[N.B. The phenomena referenced in “The Old Curiosity Shop” 1 and 2 are all either no longer existent, replaced by “improvements,” or digitalized.]

-p.