Month: March 2026

The designation “family” has traditionally been defined as two or more people related by birth, marriage, or adoption, who reside together to form a core unit. It has eternally served as a foundation for love, support, and shared ideals. The transmogrification of society, from personal to digital, has tragically resulted in it’s observably less intimate conception and dynamic. Such a loss of conjoint identity, in our view, is a notable emotional loss and a persistent factor in the continued erosion of mutual participation and nuanced identification that underpin a happy and secure personal identity and a stable society.

In a much earlier piece, we recalled a common scene from our childhood: our family sitting together in our living room, engrossed in the radio reports on the progress of the Second World War. We listened as individuals, but also thematically, as an impacted unit, a family, mutually anxious for good news. The concern was palpable, but shared, by the “Family” listening mutually and attentively. The anecdotal recollection is representative of the traditional family’s organic nature, shared and, when relevant, comforting or jointly distressing. A member of the family who has achieved publicly recognized kudos from the community, redounded to the honor of the family, as well as the achiever. Analogously, the dynamics of derivative attribution would apply, as well, to a family member’s miscreance.

The traditional family sat down to meals together, often vacationed together, celebrated holidays and birthdays, and shared losses. The stereotypical family was consistently relegated to the established social status, stereotypically conferred on the head of household, the father.; viz., someone might be identified as “the Doctor’s son,” or the Principal’s eldest daughter.

The societally salutary context of “the Family” was tragically transmogrified with the advent and popular use of impersonal digital devices. principally, the “smartphone.” Studies demonstrate the unfortunate morphing of the individual’s perception of the self from the societally salubrious state of a participant in the universal world of social interaction and interdependence to the perceived status as a singular and lonely participant in a cold world of competing strangers. The social and emotional cushion of close family or other close and empathic intimates had become unavailable, inarguably, as a proximate result of the contextual change effected by the computer- altered perceptive dynamics of the societal individual.

There appears to exist a causal and direct relationship between the exponential rate of computer algorithmic innovation, robotization, and other Silicon Valley “advancements,” and the ubiquitous decline of beneficial humanism, generally, and specifically in the case of the “family. Existentially vital thought needs to be given to the irreversible trade-off of the uniquely human and irreplaceable characteristics of Natural Evolution’s generous gift of Homo Sapiens and the ungrateful and self-destructive challenge of digital “progress.”

Nothing to us is as dismaying as the not uncommon scene in which the modern family, at long last, sits down to a rarely attended family dinner, at which the twelve-year old daughter is simultaneously communicating by smartphone, held under the table top to avoid detection.

-p.

We have often derided the despairing, delusional expressions of older citizens: “Those were the good old days.” With the understandable exception of the recollection of better health, physical prowess, and personal appearance, the bleak statement, if cognizable at all, effectively translates to a discontent with one’s extant condition. In more verisimilar cases, such as ours, the “good old days” were empirically characterized by economic need, pervasive insecurity, and social and psychological stress.

Nevertheless, in the ubiquitous mix of such earlier experiences, there existed valued phenomena, which, unlike life’s extant presentation of less-than-desirable temporal physical and social impediments, were redolent of humanistic and aesthetic value; which, in our later years, we find lamentably missing. These are matters of notable value, possessing the potential to add quality and significance to life. In this context, we would highlight the beneficially impactful category, conversation..

Interactive spoken communication, as we perceive the societally existential phenomenon, can be thought of as encompassing two qualitative or substantive categories. (1) Talk and messaging, and (2) conversation. Talk and messaging pragmatically endure as matters of social and psychological necessity.

“Messages” are traditionally short (sometimes, abbreviated), publicly undesignated, and solely informative communications; messages may be expressive of hazard, geographic location, or assertions of ownership. Interactive oral messages are definitionally unlimited in size or purpose, but are limited in context by their nature of purposeful, terse relevance

Talk is a common, voluntary personal interaction, frequently of a mundane and unrehearsed nature, between friends and neighbors, and an existential feature of civilized society. Talk can be serious, informative, entertaining, loving, belligerent, or purely social, but is traditionally a spontaneous interactive expression of personal observation, opinion, news of mutual interest, or merely a plain exchange of familiarity. Talk can be accomplished by phone, albeit more often in person. The subject can be politically opinionated, but is always informally expressed.

While “messages” are empirically vital, “talk” is the essential concomitant of the natural dynamics of society and empirically, constitutes its commonplace interactivity. “Conversation” offers personal enrichment and the necessary confirmation of individual identity and worth; sadly, concomitants of the personally enriching potential of “conversation” have been, to society’s profound detriment, relegated to the dustbin of past human history.

It is referred to as “The Art of Conversation” for good reason. The participants more often than not,s know each other, indeed, are familiar with the views of the other, but enjoy the personal validation and the benefits of meritorious controversy. The parties, more often than not, know each other’s respective points of view, but enjoy the enhancing experience of aesthetic, didactic discussion. It is an admirable and rewarding experience, personally, socially, and intellectually.

As previously written, we worry about the future nature of humanity, its substitution of computer facility for human reason, its preference for video games and ethereal entertainment over good literature, and the beneficial growth of knowledge, in search of wisdom. The tragic death of human conversation is another frighteningly significant sign of the ongoing electronic destruction of humanity and, in our view, a grave insult to Natural Evolution.

-p.

In anticipation of our regular readers’ predictable reaction to our multi-reprised expression of concern for the quality and existence of humanism in the age of ubiquitous computer dominance, we would defensively respond that the relevant metaphysical dilemma seems to be irresponsibly passed over in favor of less fundamental, temporal subjects such as Epstein-Gate, the Super Bowl, and Donald Trump. We would permissibly maintain that our sensitive concern for the patience of our kind reader is principally and responsibly outweighed by our continuing, existential concern for the nature and quality of future sentient Mankind.

Man’s avowed ubiquitous demonstration of its capability for computer innovation has revealed an overriding concern for its remarkable and profitable capability (“can”) as thematically contrasted with a responsible consideration of metaphysical propriety (“should”). The lack of sufficient (or any) consideration of the humanistic and societal impact of new advancements in computer technology has the potential to reconfigure or eliminate Man’s beneficial inclinations towards humanism, moral decision-making, aesthetic expression, and systemic human empathy.

In sad contrast to Man’s beneficial efforts at self-improvement and personal advancement, we seem to be exclusively striving for facile improvements in the performance of human activities of all kinds; inclusive, most injuriously, of normal human interaction, personal sensitivity, and morally inspired humanism.

The virulent infection of the toxic, rapidly metastasizing virus of impersonality and deprival of human nuance, as we have eternally observed, had its empirical etiology with the development and ubiquitous (now close to universal) substitution of the small, hand-held appliance, which came to be functionally misnamed the “smart phone.” With the facile use of the latter computer-screened digital device, normal and salubrious conversational interaction was empirically reduced to the exchange of impersonal digital messages, often contextually no longer timely or relevant.

We have, perhaps too often, referred to the unhealthy and non- expressive, emotionally sterile, “advancement” in societal interaction as unfulfilling and productive of personal loneliness, instead of mutual identification and comforting joint experience. We have also referred to the resultant effects of loneliness and singularity, with multiply documented increases in depression and anxiety disorders among the young. This “advancement” was our initial introduction to the ethical and humanistic significance of Silicon Valley’s costly failure to balance capability (“can” ) with “should.” It would empirically seem to be that by the exponential increase in the ubiquitous category of digital prowess, the considerations of profitability and competitive challenge of capability have completely and irresponsibly erased “should” from its viable concerns.

We have observed, by contrast, a morally boundless corcucopia of digital replacements for human conduct, ranging in category from drone military bombers to domestic vacuum cleaners and medically diagnostic wristwatches. The dire predictions of the elimination of white-collar and industrial jobs by A-1 robotization are societally concerning, as is the robotization of thought and physical activity.

Our cursory reading has furnished us with the understanding that the word “algorithm” refers to a universal data tracking system that can endlessly interpret individual search history and browsing habits and present them in natural or social media. We have read that dozens of lawsuits in recent years have gone to trial, seeking billions in damages for programs created to sustain an addictive media, with special intention on the consumption of the young, proximately resulting in depression, anxiety, and body-image issues, analogous to those of earlier cigarette advertisers. It appears evident that the insidious nature of such subtle influential activity, without relevant guardrails, redounds to a subtle, insalubrious influence on individuals of all ages. In our observed experience, responsible considerations of health and well-being are overruled by unrestrained, potentially harmful, but profitable, competitive freedom of business activity and commerce.

A responsible study should be undertaken to determine if specifically proposed computer goals are consistent with the health and well-being of human society. However, we are fearful that the process of algorithmic manipulation of human behavior, for any purpose, is contrary to the beneficial existence and advancement of Man and human society.

-p.

We are supremely confident, based upon the daily dystopian conduct of the Trump Administration and the titanic size of the demonstrated National opposition, that the egregious, execrable Presidential rule of Donald J. Trump will go down to a certain and ignominious defeat in the next Presidential election.

The extent and ubiquity of Trump’s Paleolithic-like hubristic terms as the American President are aptly symbolized by his imperial vandalism of the East Wing of the American Nation’s historically reverential White House. He has also, in service to his monomaniacal desire for recognition and unlimited power, and with the sanction and approval of his populist (MAGA) base support, destroyed the authority of the United States Constitution, the Nation’s rule of law, and its basic moral compass. His neurotically inspired, baleful service as the National Chief Executive has also metastasized to the toxic stage of bellicose and dangerous behavior on the international scene.

As stated, his neurotically inspired policies have elicited huge, widespread, multifaceted expressions of citizen opposition, such as the huge “No Kings” protests throughout the Nation and ubiquitous opposition from the institutional media. There is an observable sentiment in the Nation that a resounding’ defeat of another “would-be Dictator” would be of existential importance to the endurance of our venerable Democratic Republic.

It is this observation that is fundamental to our optimistic expectation that any sycophantic replication of Donald J. Trump’s travesties of traditional American policies, including, notably, his complete derogation of the Constitution, would be soundly defeated by a much wiser and chastened electorate and our traditional Democratic Republic fully restored.

It is our hope and expectation that the Nation’s second Historic Reconstruction will be smoother and more efficacious than the one following the 19th Century “War Between the States,” in view of the fact that contemporarily, all citizens are legally and socially equal.

Based upon the nuanced history of his singular terms in office, we would suggest, instead of the traditional award of a Presidential Library, that Trump be more appropriately granted a golden McDonald’s Hamburger drive-in near the Potomac.

-p.

William Shakespeare’s phrase in Macbeth, “Like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, and meaning nothing,” was the source of John Steinbeck’s title in the great American novel, “Sound and Fury.” We have chosen to borrow the judgmental phrase for the title of this writing, as descriptive of the plethora of baffling and outre declarations of our unconventional Head of State, Donald J. Trump. The latter’s unauthorized declaration of war against Iran was confirmatory of this Macbethian reference.

The American public is only too aware of the “sound and fury” of Donald Trump’s campaign assurances of lower consumer prices, universal peace, sound immigration policies, and of ultimate national and personal enrichment. As is analogously declared in “Macbeth,” such assurances are delusional and “signify nothing.” As an empirical matter, consumer prices have substantially risen, wars are escalating in number and tragedy, and American immigration policy has been discombobulated;’ yet Trump’s delusional pronouncements of universal national success, nonetheless, continue, unabated.

In keeping with his creation of the extant orange dystopia, Donald J.Trump has unilaterally and unconstitutionally bombed and declared a state of war against Iran, conceivably emboldened by his earlier unauthorized bombing of Venezuelan fishing boats, as well as in Yemen and Syria.

Relative to Trump’s recent unilateral declaration of war against Iran, the American public had previously been officially advised that he had destroyed Iran’s nuclear potential for warfare. Based upon his known serial mendacity, one can empirically assume that Trump’s avowed motivation, viz., the liberation of the Iranian people from tyranny, amounts to Trumpian ( ironic) Sound andFury, and that his motivation is otherwise, perhaps a diversion from his Epstein involvement or the damage done to the American economy.

Trump’s public declaration to rule as a “Dictator” and the National dysropia caused by the dynamics of such bizarre aspiration, undoubtedly identify the enunciated motive, as more “Sound and Fury,” or, in post-Elizabethan, abbreviated terminology, “B.S.”

-p.

Following the relatively mild rebuke for his unconstitutional, reality-testing acts of arbitrarily declaring war, by the murderous act of bombing Venezuelan fishing boats, Donald Trump proceeded to the exercise of his delusional sense of unlimited power, to unconstitutionally bomb our nuclear-armed antagonist, Iran. The thematic “bone spur” draft dodger evinced no qualms in this recent, Congressionally unauthorized commitment of America’s Nation and treasure to his lifelong, insatiable ideation to prove himself singularly vested with unconditional and unlimited power.

We are again confirmed in our fundamental understanding that to understand the vagaries of Trump’s erratic and irresponsible actions and bizarre statements, one might conceive of him as analogous to the attention-needy child, who, in his neurotic desperation, would painfully kick his mother in the shins to garner her exclusive attention, regardless of the predictable retribution. To comprehend Donald J. Trump, one must understand that he personally subscribes to no dogma or political-economic point of view, in his monomaniacal and infantile need for adoration and recognition as a “winner.”

\
His populist election was the effective enfranchisement of a veritable orange hazmat as the prime guardian of the American Nation’s security and well-being. The resultant dystopia is profusely documented and agonizingly described in our past writings; the latter writings cite demonstrable examples of his hapless incapacity and egoistic repudiation of the Constitution and of general societal morality.

On the international scene, Trump has confused and frustrated our traditional partners by his romance with authoritarian enemies, his broken or repudiated salutary treaties, and the weakening of America’s salubrious and historically significant relationship with NATO and other defensive alliances. More specifically and contextually, he had set aside the significant treaty with Iran, negotiated and successfully implemented under the (contrasting) Presidential terms of Barack Obama, regarding the peaceful audits, or inspections of Iran’s nuclear progress; such irresponsible, ego-motivated act, providing the thematic scenario for the contextual events, principally motivating this writing.

Trump’s audacious and unauthorixzed bomb ing of Iran, undoubtedly, with the smiling approval of Israel’s despicable Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is more than Presidential overreach; it is a petulant denial of recognized constitutional authority in self-interested support of his neurotically based, hubristic assertion of ultimate and absolute power. In the sub-rosa, tactical interest of the despicable Chief Executive, such a conspicuously irresponsible act provides a deflection from the shameful offenses relative to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, Trump’s demonstration of ignorance regarding the subject of tariffs, and his dismal failure to, as promised in the campaign, bring down consumer prices and improve the economy.

We are especially fearful, in the knowledge that, included in the available toybox of this “enfant-terrible,” reside the exclusive code numbers for the initiation of nuclear action, and will not rest easy until the beneficial time of his departure from office.

-p.