Author: plinyblogcom

Caution, dear reader, brace yourself. In a few days, the perennial tsunami, appearing every February 14, will predictably reassert itself, in all its traditional force. The sole fans of the feared flooding are the usual suspects, the greeting card companies, the chocolate manufacturers, the florists, the retail jewelry businesses, the pajama industry and the novelty sales folk. The expected high tide of the Valentine’s Day inundation, judging by previous experience, will submerge all land masses, human population and baffle all reason. Among other phenomena, the advertising industry will publish a stage 4 hurricane of notices, featuring photo-shopped, seemingly amorous couples, in intimate proximity, to their highlighted sales merchandise.

Since (mercifully) this holiday has only a short half-life, one day, the need for effective, sales propaganda becomes urgent. Unaccountably huge profits are earned by companies who, presumptuously, maintain that there is a realistic (and commercial) need to supplement the interaction of couples, who love one another, with their manufactured paraphernalia. Greeting card companies are especially guilty of this self-serving assumption and hire distinguished “poets” to create trite doggerel, consisting of inane expressions of love and fidelity, for the thousands of presumably, aphasic, anonymous consumers.

The most objectionable of the various Valentine’s Day symbols, is the trite, red valentine “heart,” an outmoded and retro- configuration, broadcast without relief; on all holiday products, greeting cards, gift wrapping paper, stuffed toys, pillows and candy boxes.This  stale symbol is glaringly imprinted on all items for sale on Valentine’s Day, as well as on the consumer’s mind, by some Manchurian Candidate type, propaganda.

Various research people [ who apparently have no more pressing fields of inquiry for the employment of their PHD acumen] have uniformly reported that the classic red symbol is derived from an early, incorrect understanding, by [no less than] Galen and Aristotle, who believed that the heart contained only three chambers. [It may be noted, that Dr. Galen and Mr. Aristotle were, innovatedly, accurate on many other subjects]

The valentine depiction of the human heart, maintains the very same proportionate degree of accuracy, as a wood duck, in appearance, bears to a moose. Nevertheless, it has, over the ages, been foisted upon, and willingly accepted, by the consuming public.

In truth, the human heart is shaped like a pear and is the approximate size of a man’s fist. This life-or-death chest muscle is taxed with the existential job of circulating blood and oxygen throughout the body. It has no time, or noticeable inclination, for holiday Hallmark sales propaganda, as the purported source of love, courage, strength or kindness. The statement, “He has a good heart” should be reserved, solely to a positive determination by a cardiologist, and not a comment on such traits as a person’s, love, generosity or empathy. We are only concerned with cardiologists and not “cardeologists.” How would you value a positive comment on generosity, like, “He has good kidneys.”

It is certainly inarguable that all human thought and emotion are exclusively functions of the brain and, empirically, not the traditionally romanticized heart muscle. Admittedly, however, it would be impractical to artistically create a brain-shaped cartoon figure to serve as a symbol of the holiday.

The senseless valentine “heart” is best replaced by a preferable love symbol, the unique and marvelous tulip bulb. Certainly, the outline of the traditional bulb is simple to replicate, artistically. More important, the bulb has always been a reliable symbol of future growth and predictable beauty. Relative to the modern conception of true and healthy love, the tulip bulb is independent and self-sustaining, having within its inner self a sufficient systemic source of future nourishment as well as the natural ability and inclination for growth and the achievement of its innate potential.

The tulip bulb, in the Middle Ages, was thought to be magical and priceless. There are historical records of its individual sale for the modern equivalent of several thousand dollars. If you should offer one to him/her and it is refused, we earnestly suggest that you look elsewhere.

ADDENDUM:

Why should it be necessary to dedicate a one- day holiday in recognition and expression of love; and, further, to do so by trite gifts of holiday nonsense? Love, where it is genuine, is experienced on a regular basis, and expressed in tender interaction and caring, personal acts. This one- day holiday is sadly  comparable to gifts of free turkey dinners on Thanksgiving to the needy. Hunger exists year- round and the poor and unfortunate need more than a gratuitous symbol.

* perienniel message

-p.

In these distressing times, of bizarre and unsettling National governance by a veritable, Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter, we have been, occasionally, inclined, as temporary relief, to turn off the sputtering, loud faucet of the present surge of events, and engage the less kinetic spigot of the remembered past.

Readers old enough to remember the universally sung, “School days, school days, dear old golden rule days, reading and writing and ‘rithmatic,’taught to the tune of the hickory stick….”, may, with especial nostalgia, share in the foregoing recollection. Regarding the ditty, we would observe, at this point, that that the principle of the “Golden Rule,” at present, sadly, appears to be obsolete; the Hickory stick, was always an abomination, whose obsolescence we celebrate. In any event, if there were “charts,” in the past purview of schoolboy music, this song would top the list.

While, our present recollection is focused on the stereotypic, New York City classroom, of the forties and fifties, much of its traditional, antique, phenomena and nuanced, folkways were, empirically, universal.

To set the nostalgic, classroom scene, we would arrange, several rows of wooden, forward- facing wooden desks, to which seats attached, by iron bars, or similar material.  The desktops could be lifted to access books, school supplies, lunch and “contraband,” in the box-like space, below. A cursory glance would reveal, at each top right corner, of the desktop, a small circular, opening, an “inkwell,” in which a small, inserted glass vessel, did service, as a container for the liquid ink (usually, blue-black). After raising the small, circular metal lid, covering the wooden inkwell, the student would, as often as his writing required, dip therein, his (wooden pen’s temporarily affixed) metal point, for ink.

Writing with such a pen tip, would necessarily, be scratchy; excessive droplets of ink had to be absorbed, using an ink blotter (a small, thick, usually colored, piece of soft-absorbent cardboard). The blots from the excessive ink, were, practically speaking, unavoidable (with the uncontrolled, non-uniform, quantity of ink, regularly transported by the dipped, pen point), remained, as enduring blemishes on the written paper, and, the young student would invariably acquire articulate blue-black, visible, evidence of his, achieved literacy, on his fingers, and shirt.

Affixed to the front wall of the classroom, at convenient location, behind the teacher’s desk, was a black slate writing surface, known as a “blackboard,” or “chalkboard,” a dark, easily erasable, writing surface, on which, text or diagrams may be written and drawn with “chalk,” (calcium sulfate or calcium carbonate). Each afternoon, a lucky student would be, selectively chosen, by the teacher, for the bestowed office, of “blackboard monitor,” to clean the blackboard, concomitantly, acquiring honor and esteem, higher than the window monitor, and even the “door monitor”, but of course, below the august grandeur of the “lunch monitor.” These sinecures were awarded to those saintly students, who didn’t chew gum, or perform “hijinks,” in class, or on recess, paid attention, did not talk in class, were responsive to teacher’s questions, and, importantly, manifested the epitome of demonstrated and unassailable virtue, by sitting, upright and keeping his arms on the desktop, with tightly entwined fingers, thereby, tacitly symbolizing flawless behavior, and complete, canine-like submission.

Each class, recognizably, had a class clown, a class bully, “a “teacher’s Pet” and a “dunce”. The class clown, owned the hearts of his fellow students, but not that of his punitive teacher. The teacher’s pet, often a girl, would flatter the teacher, water her classroom plants, and, bravely, accept the hatred of her classmates. The class bully would, in time, learn that acceptance is not as difficult as previously feared, and that companionship, far outweighs physical prowess.

The dunce, often was assigned, the ignominious, task of sitting, in an upfront corner of the classroom, on a “dunce stool,” and, mandatorily, wearing, for the hour or two of his internment, a pointy, “dunce cap.” The intrinsic value of this arcane pedagogic process, to this day, still boggles the mind; it does however, underline the existence of variant personalities of some, of the so-called, pedagogues. Clearly, shaming a young student, before his contemporaries, is a bizarre and cruel way, to improve scholarship.

On a designated, day of the week, often a Wednesday or a Thursday, the entire school, teachers and students would assemble, en masse, in the school auditorium, for a school program, which invariably, started out with a salute to the flag. The flag monitor, inarguably, was among the most elite of the entire genus and species, of school monitors, also, usually, the tallest and most corpulent student in the school. After the salute to the flag and the singing of our National Anthem, the Principal would deliver speeches and make announcements, generally ignored by the students, and, no doubt, politically analyzed by the attentive teachers. Often, after teacher announcements, there was a song, reluctantly sung by an assigned class, final homiletic remarks from the principal, and, at last, dismissal.

In those days, at such an “assembly day”, boys were required to wear white shirts, red ties and, if owned, blue slacks; for girls, white blouses, red kerchiefs or scarves and blue skirts. In hindsight, it seems to have been a foolish and atavistic exercise in Nationalism, requiring all the students wear the colors of the flag. We now can perceive, a bone-chilling, analogy, with the brown shirts, worn by Hitler Youth. Pride in America, is the resultant of the teaching and  the assurance of our liberty and citizen rights, and certainly not, demonstrated by the wearing of mandatory uniforms.

Recess periods, usually scheduled for the middle of the school day, were normally enjoyed out of doors, weather permitting, in the schoolyard. Games for boys, too small to play basketball, were chase games like, ring-a- levio and hide-and-seek; less active games were marbles, yo-yo’s and spinning tops. Girls played jacks, jumped rope, and laughingly discussed the boys; who worked hard, at pretending not to care.

The better part of a Century has elapsed, since, the era of the “schooldays” in which the recited events of this retrospective took place. It would not be possible to categorize the myriad of subjects, let alone the universe of new and consequential changes; not only in pedagogy, the context of this note, but in every conceivable aspect of our society. The age of computers and technology, has evolved exponentially, to the point where, frighteningly, computers can do our thinking for us, as well as dominate our inter-active social lives, (perhaps in greater degree, than they  contemporaneously do),  global travel and international interface has already become mundane, we are at the very threshold of inter-planetary travel, and perhaps residence, medicine and science have seen enormous development, many diseases have  been rendered obsolete, and announced new  breakthroughs in all fields and disciplines seem, almost routine, and uneventful. Looking back, may possibly, cause us to smile, sheepishly, in our newly sophisticated fashion, at the contrast, between the former, prevailing rudimentary simplicity and lack of scientific and societal sophistication, as compared with contemporaneous society.

We are, of course, pleased with man’s advanced, vast technological and social progress. What we do, painfully, mourn, is the contemporaneous decline, in respect for the truth, decency and empathy, the prevailing existence of insular tribalism and lack of civic amity, the lack of respect for knowledge and aesthetics. We especially mourn the recent pathology of uneducated and reductive populism, now predominating America, the resultant, wide-spread lack of respect for wisdom and rectitude, and the infestation of our White House with a termite-like rot.

Separate and apart, from our blue-black, ink stained fingers, technological ignorance and naiveté, of past years, we did universally maintain a respect for truth, for knowledge, for rectitude, and an abiding faith in our avowed American values. We, presently will, as long as it is rationally acceptable, persist in looking forward to a return to normalcy, and the continued pursuit of the full realization, of those, American values.

-p.

The recent neighborhood mugging, by the U.S. Senate, of The U.S. House of Representatives, and arguably, of the American people, has caused us to re-think the democratic validity of that arrogant body. It is well known that, in our bi-cameral system, there are two houses, one, made up of State Representatives (the “Lower House”), with elected representatives, proportionally allocated to the population of the respective State, and a Senate (the “Upper House”) composed of two Senators per State, regardless of population. We find it, curious, that the Founders, saw fit to emulate the British, bi-cameral system, with a House of “Commons,”elected by and representing the people, and an unelected Upper House, the House of” Lords”, [whose members are appointed or inherited], inconsistent with their pretensions of concern for citizen equality and one man, one vote. Moreover, it was principly, at odds with their dedicated efforts to reject the European system of privilege and hierarchy. The Founders’ historic and radical dogma, “all men are created equal,” seems to have had an exception  respecting  the design of the Legislative Branch of Government.

A review of the Federalist Papers, would reveal a mistrust of the uninformed mob, which, after much contention, seemed to predominate. Consequently, a “more, sober and responsible” upper House was agreed to. This does seem to be, inconsistent, at best, and hypocritical, at worst, for the brave declarants of the message of “all men are created equal.”

As provided in the Constitutional system,  Senators represent States (which are neither people, nor citizens) while, by contrast, the Members of the House of Representatives, represent the people, viz., the Nation’s voters. In addition to its insult to any purported claim of a democratic voting system, it, in actuality, is antithetic to the very definition, of a representative democracy. The undemocratic effect, is that the relatively small populated States, like Idaho, Nevada and Montana, are awarded the same number of Senators, as States with very large populations, like New York. California and Illinois. Why should real estate have a greater influence than the human voter? How can this possibly, square with the purportedly, avowed, rectitude of the American Constitution?

It will be remembered that this purportedly, deliberative, part of Congress, unanimously refused, for purely partisan reasons, to deliberate upon a legitimate candidate for SCOTUS, properly nominated by a Democratic President, refused to process a plethora of the people’s legislation, passed by the House of Representatives and, refused to Constitutionally, convene a legitimately constituted trial to honestly deliberate, upon the crimes and misbehavior, indicting our President.

This essentially undemocratic architecture, was responsible for the outcome of the Trump Impeachment matter. The entire, Republican Senate, under the puppetry of their hound dog like, affect-lacking, laconic puppetmaster, Mitch McConnell, compliantly and, in 100% lock-step, partisan fashion, found that Trump’s intrigues with Russia, and its autocratic leader, the most threatening enemy of the United, States, concerning the outcome of  American elections, was not punishable.It is to be emphasized that the published results of respected National polls, revealed, that most American citizens wanted a meaningful trial and, if proven warranted, a conviction.

An analogous, anti-democratic, incongruity, with the principles of, “one man, one vote vote” and the “equality” mantra, was effected by the Founders, in their creation of The Electoral College. Their diffidence and evident disrespect for the common man, apparently, was also operative, in its prophylactic creation. In this undemocratic institution, electors, respectively, equal to the number of House representatives of each State, plus two more, ultimately, decide for the American public, who is to be its President and Vice President.

Why have Americans historically tolerated such travesties against our avowed ideals?  According to our research, no less than, five American Presidents, including our present miscreant, have been awarded the Presidency, by the Electoral College, which awards were inconsistent with the popular (people’s) vote. Any citizen who will persist in maintaining some reservation, concerning a direct, popular vote, without the deliberative, “check on the mob,” ought to be reminded of the past election, in which the purported, firewall of the Electoral College was solely, responsible for the election of the choice of the “populist, mob,” Donald Trump.

With respect to the inequity of the present architecture of our bi-cameral Legislature, it may be that the solution would be, to increase the number of House Representatives, to arrive at fair, and proportional, expression of the National voice, and thereby, effect a true democratization of our Legislative Branch of our government

We, in the interest of (our) democracy, earnestly recommend, that the unfair, vestigial, institution of the Electoral College, be relegated without delay, to the, infamous, dust bin of History.

-p.

We are obliged to preface the following, essay, with the declaration that it is written, exclusively, from a secular, empirical point of view. The statements concerning man’s, “purpose” and his “destiny,” refer specifically, and respectively, to the potential capabilities bestowed upon him, by evolution, and the nature and extent of his empirical employment of such singular abilities.

Inarguably, most notable, was nature’s generous bequest to mankind, of an advanced brain, affording to him extensive resources for survival, and the potential for social advancement. Supplementing and assisting such capabilities and potential for success, were his given, perceptive senses, opposable thumb and an upright posture. Man’s purpose and future destiny, as we refer to such concepts, relate, respectively, to the (mental and physical) potential capabilities, given to him by nature’s providence, and his ability to achieve success, by their future application.

Retrospective study of early homo sapiens, will readily evince, a long, steady, dedicated march, anthropologically and socially, in the direction of modernity, by virtue of the utilization of such unique, evolutionary endowments. It will reveal Early Man’s, slow, but steady, morphing, from a lonely, short- lived and greatly endangered new species, existentially and singlehandedly, obliged, to daily, search for food and water, adequate shelter, warmth, safety from wild beasts and marauders, and contend with the harsh natural elements, to the later, enhanced, societal living, where joint existence and enterprise replaced such solo challenges.

Societal living, began, reportedly, about seven thousand years ago, when man turned to agriculture, as a primary way to obtain food. Living together in society with other human beings, afforded relief from loneliness, the cooperative sharing of skills, joint enterprise and the increased security of a common defense. Inter-dependent, shared, communal life made necessary and practical, the creation of a common language, and the need for an agreed system of governance, and led to a common culture and social system, inclusive of indigenous folkways.

The future witnessed the development of self- governing, City States and still later, the consolidation of such City States, resulting in, consolidated, independent, Nations. Questions of philosophy of rule, political obligation, rights of the individual, relationship of ruler to legislation, the nature of political liberty and social justice needed definition. These States, coexisted, traded and communicated with each other, and at times, began to contend over trading rights, territories and religion. Meanwhile, a dedicated sense of personal “Nationality” developed, as an integral part of individual identity, and while, the existence of cultural and political solidarity, generally, is salutary, it carries the proviso that it does not fester, into a bias, or prejudice against other cultures or States.

It appears to us, that, it was, generally, at this, developmental stage of mankind’s march to modernity, that man’s anthropological character, visibly, seems to have taken an undesirable, “U turn.” While some conflicts and violence, did exist in the earlier stage of his development, man seemed now, to manifest, latent or innate tendencies, far from the ends for which he had been equipped by evolution, and antithetical to the ends intended, in his given, natural purpose and destiny.

To reluctantly summarize, mankind seemed, markedly, to effect a U- turn to the opposite direction. From his general desire for communality, living amongst other humans, generally, to an insular preference for his own familiar citizens, to the hostile exclusion of others. Factors, leading to such hostility, with other groups or Nations, included, competition, differences in belief (primarily, religion), territorial disputes and wrongful aggrandizement, desire for power or natural resources, historical and ethnic disputes, economic motivation, propaganda and populist myth, or any conceivable dispute du- jour. In too many cases, the ensuing consequences were wars, some of which led to permanent estrangement.

Conflict and warfare, seems to predominate in our histories, for a multitude of reasons, among which was the aspiration for territory or power. Religious differences may top the list as the most cogent, and enduring, motivation for conflict. Even more enduring than the thirty year’s war in Central Europe, between the Catholic and Protestant faiths, is the never-ending warfare between Sunni and Shia Muslims; the latter having its cause, stemming from a 7^th Century, dispute, as to whether the Prophet Mohammed, should be succeeded by a blood relative (as in England) or by popular vote. As is the case with all conflict and war, including the two World War the eternal (if unreasonable) causes are, “we” and they.” It may not be possible, or useful, to recount the plethora of bloody wars, all of which in which in the causes, reside in the taught concept of “we” and “they” as shamelessly, the case in hostility based upon racial or other prejudice.

The salient and painful a question, is what caused the “U-Turn” in man’s character and persona, from a peaceful being, seeking survival, human company and mutual association, to the later (and contemporary) pathology of fear and loathing of the “other?” Why has societal communication atrophied to the the utter absence of civic amity, as between our fellow citizens, with differing political views? Why have the uninformed people of the world, predominated in their atavistic Nationalism?

Recent examples of such human pathology, are seen in the unfortunate global metastasis of the low educated, flat earth, populist, who have exacerbated the pathology of Nationalism, on a World basis, and caused a rejection of efforts expended toward uniting people of other Nations, thereby, preventing efforts toward peace and mutual cooperation. The latest victory, of the uncountable efforts, of the less educated and uninformed, flat earth denizens, were rewarded, recently, by the withdrawal of Great Britain from the European Union, thus, undercutting a joint, and historically salutary, effort to improve relations, economic and political, between European Countries.

We have no pretensions, whatsoever, to being anthropologists, sociologists nor psychiatrists, but will, nevertheless, bravely venture to state what we sincerely believe to be, the provenance of this human failing, provided, the reader, consider that, as titled, above, this is an original, unverified and academically, unstudied perception.

At the start of this mini-essay, we posited the proposition, that man’s future and destiny, [meaning, man’s naturally inherited capabilities, and his use of them] were generous gifts, to homo sapiens, from natural evolution. It is our necessary surmise, that nature is, and was, concerned, solely, with the existential subjects of survival and reproduction. In accordance with our speculative supposition, while natural evolution, is the driving force, behind growth, survival and reproduction, it is systemically and categorically unrelated to human psychology or, to man’s persona. Nature’s evolutionary gifts and destiny, as previously noted, concerned with species survival and reproduction were a complete success; man, the new, advanced species, survived, flourished, and presently exists, in great number.

Man, alone, must take the full blame for his selfish, insecure, inapathetic and immoral persona, and its shameless, historical manifestation of culpable behavior. What appears, to be needed for the securing of a better planetary inhabitant, is an evolution, now, of man’s facilities for morality and brotherhood.

-p.

The protagonist, Cedrick P. Boobish, (“C.P.”), having recently immigrated to the United States, from London’s East Side, and residing (“for the moment”) in a modest flat on Tremont Avenue, Bronx, New York, slyly, acknowledged to himself, with a subtle smile, that he, indeed, was an especially fortunate man.

Despite his recent, unjust expulsion, as a recently hired, adjunct professor, from a small, “non-descript,” College in England, he was, nevertheless, exultant, in the confident recognition, of being uniquely in possession of a rare, unorthodox and remarkably advanced, gift of reason. It was that rare and precious gift, he came to realize, which, no doubt, was the underlying basis, of his summary, tactical, dismissal from the College. To be specific, he felt that his discharge was motivated by the Dean’s apprehension, that, if he were further retained, the members of the college’s professorial staff would find themselves professionally challenged, threatened, by his especially nuanced and deeply insightful observations, relative to curricular subjects, taught at the College.

One illustrative, and typical example, of this, singularity, was his ongoing, disdainful, dismissal of the marvelous, 17^th through 19^th Century, Enlightenment thinkers, including, Copernicus (heliocentric theory of the solar system), and Erasmus. It was Boobish’s vehement, and often expressed, belief, that, the universally acknowledged, paramount contribution, to mankind, of said Age of Enlightenment, viz., the scientific and philosophical, disproval and rejection, of the ancient, religious trope, that Man was placed, at the center of the Universe, was itself, “incorrect.” Boobish declared, that such historical breakthrough, and the “purported, rejection,” lacked, even one scintilla of redeeming merit”.

Continuing with the intended narrative, we might, observe, that, our protagonist, Mr. C.P.Boobish, albeit, born to modest, economic, circumstances, was, by some propitious chance, possessed of the fulsome, theatrical accent, normally attributable to the British upper class, a  phenomenon, rarely, if ever, previously, encountered in the West Bronx. By virtue of its ethnic comparison, with New York speech or, even worse, with the Bronx diphthong, lent to his speech, in such venue, a misleading and undeserved, aura of authority, and far more troubling and deceptive, a false aura of wisdom.

Boobish’s self-serving, rationalizations for his total inability, to find employment in New York, were, dual; as to high scale positions, it was his evident brilliance, causing corporate representatives, to fear their own replacement, and, regarding lower scale jobs, was his obvious over- qualification. Rather than being discouraged, B.J. perceived, that it all was destiny, an inspirational message, directing him, by virtue of his unique natural endowments, to establish for his fellow man, a public advisory service.

Such advisory service, purely for practical reasons, would have its first and temporary location, at his ground floor, street facing apartment, until the time of its expected success, and predictable major expansion. The first week, following his affixation of an elegant sign, to the center-front window of his front-facing apartment, advertising his advisory service, was disastrous. The only parties that came to the door were, in order, the landlord, demanding her two month’s, unpaid rent, two solicitors, vacuum cleaners and magazine sales, and, finally, a young high school student, desperately, requiring tutoring in intermediate algebra. They were all sent away, the young student, angrily dismissed, on the firm grounds, that Boobish, as he haughtily proclaimed, “never, even once, heard of the subject of algebra, whether, intermediate or final.”

After approximately two months, more local people, started to slowly, drift in. The first was Mr. Bernstein, who was a tenant, upstairs, on the fifth floor of the same building, in which the advisory service was located. He explained that he is a medical student, needing funds and heavily in debt, having, recently, graduated from medical school, and presently, pursuing a course of specialization, in orthopedics. The problem, regarding which he needed advice and help, was the refusal of the landlord, to furnish sufficient heat to his apartment, thus interfering with his study, and causing him personal discomfort. The advice, and service, for which the indigent tenant, paid $50.00, was succinct, and frustratingly disappointing to Bernstein, (who, in truth, expected advice on legal redress) was simply: “Buy a warm sweater.” The young, Student-Doctor, pursuing orthopedics, left, disappointed, angry and embarrassed.

The following is a quick recitation, in summary form, of problems, brought to Boobish, seeking advice and assistance, and the nature of the advice, offered by such sage advisor: Problem, wrongful firing and loss of employment. Advice: “get plenty of rest”. Problem, wife being constantly beaten, by violent husband. Advice:” Get a big stick.” Student with claim of wrongful expulsion from University. Advice: “Get a job”. Severe alcoholism. Advice: “Stop drinking”. Problem, incessant, verbal battles between married couple. Advice: “Stop talking to each other, if you both remain silent, the argument will be ended.” Problem, Expensive, newly purchased, washer and dryer, do not work. Advice: “Do not use them”.

After the first few weeks of operation of this, remarkable consulting service, Boobish gathered his receipts together, for the purpose of prudently, depositing his net receipts, into his local bank account. It was raining heavily, that day, and so, he decided to take the bus. When the City bus stopped, at the proximity of the selected bank, Boobish, politely thanked the bus driver, and then, intending to routinely, step down, awkwardly, turned his foot, and slipped, to the sidewalk. He arose with some help from a bystander, apparently unhurt. However, when he attempted to walk, the leg, which he had twisted, stepping off the bus, at first, could not be moved, without extreme pain. Shortly, thereafter, he was able to walk home, very slowly and painfully.

He, awkwardly mounted the front steps to his apartment building, alternately slipping and catching himself, opened the heavy outside door, and painfully, limped to his first floor apartment. He had come close to slipping, yet, again, when he fumbled in his trousers, for the key, and, finally, sweating, shaky and puffing, let himself in, and tumbled, in relief, on the couch. He painfully, sat, for a while, noticing that his knee was, red and slowly swelling. After a few minutes, Boobish recalled, that the nice fifth floor tenant, Bernstein, is a doctor, working toward a specialization in orthopedics, of all things, and attempted to telephone him. He was not home, and disappointedly, and, in a state of impatient anxiety, he left an “urgent” message, for Bernstein, to call back, immediately, reciting the facts and his extreme pain and suffering.

Two hours later, Bernstein, “at long last,” came home, and in the process of accessing the message, recalled the insensitive and insulting, short shrift, previously afforded him, by the caller. As expected by Bernstein, it wasn’t long, before Boobish called again. Bernstein listened patiently, for a full five minutes, to the detailed description of the incident, and to an extensive account of the consequent, pain and disability. At last, in the midst of his frantic complaints, Boobish anxiously, asked Bernstein, the very question, for which Bernstein had been patiently awaiting: “I can’t walk on that leg; what should I do now?” Bernstein, smiled devilishly, after hanging up, but not before having advised, “So don’t walk.”

-p.

We are encouraged by examined history, literature and our personal, empirical, experience, to conclude, that there exists in mankind, various problematic proclivities, never critically evaluated, and seldom considered, but privately, put away “in storage” in his internal attic (unconscious?).  Included among these stored items, would be, as expected, hurtful, traumatic, and disappointing memories; but, also, inclinations which may be irrational but, stubbornly, enduring. Stated alternately, the personal assurance of a positive self- image is, eternally, of paramount importance, to man’s self- perceived identity and personal sense of worth, thus, indefensible, or unpopular, negative, inclinations, may be privately laid away or secreted, in his darkened attic.

Among such atavistic and retrogressive, inclinations, is a fear of, or antipathy to, “outsiders” or strangers. This pandemic neurosis, may help, somewhat, to explain the erratic objection, to immigration, by certain people, in a Nation, composed entirely of immigrants and their progeny. It is fear and insecurity, somewhere, locked away, perhaps more profound, than the popularly ascribed, “xenophobia”, that seeks to prevent immigrants from fleeing from the danger, or poverty, of a foreign country, to the safety and normality of a family life, in the U.S.A.

It disappointingly, often appears that after a generation or two, following their immigration to the United States, and adjusting and settling in, to a new and better life, many people oppose relief to others, suffering from their previous plight.  As shamefully and disappointingly expressed, “How soon they forget.”

We might be possibly inclined, as are many, to surmise, that patriotic, loving and steadfast protection of country, is involved, but we do not agree. Xenophobia, we are convinced, is the ostensible symptom, like fever, but the pathology resides, upstairs, in a pile of basic, psychological and infantile dust, in man’s dark, human attic. Immigration has seldom been easy, and has, often, been shamefully at odds, with the world famous, Statue of Liberty, welcoming the tired, poor, downtrodden and endangered immigrants, as expressed by the poetic words, of Emma Lazarus.

Federal Statutes, not very long ago, forbid the immigration of all Chinese, and other Asian peoples. Our saintly and revered, President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, yielding to populist anti-Semitic sentiment, refused entry of hundreds of Refugee Jews, returning them to Hitler’s Death Camps. Today, our autocratic President, Donald Trump, has defamatorily described, all Mexican and Central American people, yearning for a safer and better, family life in America, as “criminals and rapists.” He has restrained immigration, a right, expressly provided in our Federal Statutes, and has incredibly, and evilly, chosen to break up immigrant families, and, nightmarishly, put the separated, young children, in wire cages, on the American border.

We do not diagnose these policies, nor their, respective, “populist” support, as xenophobia; it is latent, hatred and ignorant fear of the “other” (prejudice), residing, in the attics, of, both, sub-rosa, or publically acknowledged, un-American bigots.

For those, unfamiliar with the “Dust Bowl” tragedy, in the 1930’s in America’s Central Great Plains, we would, earnestly, suggest the reading of George Steinbeck’s great novel, “The Grapes of Wrath.” The classic, historic novel, set in the 1930’s, America’s Great Depression years, dealt with an historically representative family, migrating from the horrific and deadly, Oklahoma Dust Bowl, to a better life in California. The suffering along the way, is moving; but more to the point, of this writing, is the unfriendly reception, upon arrival, by Californians, fellow Americans, of these desperate migrants, derogatively, called “Oakies.” The novel is a portrayal of actual reality, an historical work, and not a fanciful creation of the author, as confirmed by any study of the period.

One could not rationally, relegate the selfish and offensive treatment of the Oklahoma migrants, refugees from unprecedented, mortal danger, by the more fortunately resident, Californians, to xenophobia; all the involved people were unquestionably, American.

The cause is long packed away in the mental storage attics of those, who, instinctively, oppose the admission of the “other.” Is it fear of the stranger (in French, the word for foreigner, is “etranger”)?, symbolic self-loathing (remembering themselves in an analogously situated condition)? Basic, “we, they,” reductionist, or tribal bigotry? unsympathetic selfishness? insecure fear of change? Bigotry, plain and simple?

We would recommend, for the who selfishly, or, fearfully, oppose the charitable and empathic, practice of immigration, to brave the dust and detritus of an audit, of their personal attic to discover.

-p.

We have often been diagnosed [with ample justification], as suffering from the chronic pathology of optimism, which we would prefer expressed, as “idealistic imagination.” The following writing, was created during one of our recurrent bouts, of that malady.

We have, tirelessly, maintained, that the recognition of the universal and eternal replication, of mankind’s classic issues, as portrayed in great literature and the arts (see for example, the previous mini-essay, “Hamlet in Iran”), is contemporary mankind’s available reservoir of wisdom and mature perspective. The great American writer, William Faulkner, is known to have written: “The past is not dead. It is not even past.”

The idealistic and imaginative question, we would raise is: if history eternally, repeats itself, and history is perforce made by man’s behaviors and action, is it empirically possible, to eliminate the eternal existence of tragedy, by a knowledgeable, and dedicated, alteration, where needed, of man’s faulty perspective, and thereby, his behavior? Put another way, does the historical existence of the classically analogous, recurring issues, a mandatory predicate for humanity? Or is there something better? Is tragedy and suffering, baked, by some evolutionary phenomena, into the human persona? We think not, but we are, after all, confessed, pathological optimists.

Recent, spectacular, and endlessly promising, advances and discoveries, have been made, in the scientific study of the human genome, in the prediction and [hopefully, soon] scientific amendment, of the undesirable features of targeted genes, thereby averting the illness, therein, chemically dictated.

Could there exist, in analogous fashion, a non-scientific, empirical possibility, that a useful protocol, or method of analysis, can be developed, to indicate objectively, an individual’s potential inclination, towards wrongful, excessive and other, anti-social behavior.  If so, might not the therapeutic disciplines of medicine and/or psychology, be utilized, as preventative avenues of reference, regarding such miscreant behavior, for the mutual benefit of the relevant individual, and of society?

Down through the ages, man has unsuccessfully attempted, by means of various primitive conceits, and accepted folklore, to predict the character and potential behavior of human beings. In the Elizabethan age, we have Shakespeare’s concerned, statement in Julius Caesar, “Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look.” The 18^Th and 19^th Century, saw the theory of “Phrenology,” the analysis of individual’s persona and capabilities, by observing the bumps on their head, later, travesties took place, such as the Salem Witch Trials, the evil practice of burning of old, and haggard, looking women, as “witches”; the 19^th Century, featured the popular theories of Lombroso, viz., the prediction of criminality, by the discernment of “atavistic” (Stone Age) traits, in an individual’s appearance.

The foregoing instances of futile attempts, to predict the inclinations of man, were, predictably debunked. However, we would choose to raise a compelling question, as to the possible facility, of using modern and rational methods of medical and psychological science, to identify and prevent, the existence of an inclination for potential, anti-social behavior? Is it possible that an experienced, capability of the discernment of empirically relevant, nuanced characteristics, in participating individuals, to be societally and personally useful, in this endeavor? At a minimum, it would seem, at least, worthwhile to consider such possibility, and, positively, engage in such novel, targeted programs.

Prescribed sessions of regular psychological visits, (“check-ups”) especially in the developmental stage of younger people, similar to regular doctor and dentist examinations, could, prove valuable to the life of the participating individual and to his society. Routine inquiries, regarding developmental issues, phobias, insecurity, fears, disappointments and frustrations, anger and impulse management, sexual and gender issues, abuse, undue shyness or assertion, may prove beneficial in furnishing early solutions to many unspoken problems. With respect to adults, any of the areas, cited above, as relevant, might be explored. Additional adult subjects, such as perception of failure, perseverations concerning social, political, personal injustice, inclinations and “innate,” prejudices, social and financial issues, disability, aging, and other compelling personal issues, explicit or unconsciously feared, might be productively discussed and explored.

Such programs of (at a minimum) annual, personal check-ups, psychological as well as medical, could prove to be of vital importance to the quality of life of the participant; and, in terms of the possible avoidance, of mass shootings, assaults and other, anti-social behaviors, of existential importance, to society and its members. Thoughtfully construed, implementing legal requirements, as necessary, would not amount to, an “invasion of liberty,” at least, no more than required school attendance (at certain ages), taxes, registration of automobiles, and other routine, citizenship duties; all part and parcel, of each individual’s “Social Contract.

-p.

Tragic events, recently appearing in the media, can well be seen as another confirmation, of our ever-present message, that great, classical literature and art, eternally, depict mankind’s universal challenges. We have declared that this enlightened realization, is what makes great art, meaningful and referentially useful, and have consistently, recommended the reading of great literature, and participation in the arts, as mankind’s best route to acquiring wisdom and mature perspective.

The recent shooting down of a Ukrainian (Boeing, Airliner), killing all 179 passengers, [mostly Iranian] is the latest example of the historically tragic, atavistic, and useless aspiration for revenge. The previous, tactical, American killing, of a highly placed Iranian General, Qassem Soleimani, reportedly, was the motivation for the downing of the plane, mistakenly, thought to be American. The fact that many of the airline passengers, of the aircraft, destroyed by such military reprisal, were Iranian, not American, is ironic, as well as tragic; were it a play, it would be within the canon of a “revenge tragedy.”

However, the intended theme of this writing, is the ethical, and eternal dilemma, of the temporal desire for revenge, and its ultimate and complete, uselessness.

In William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” the issue of revenge, is central to the plot, but as we, ourselves, read and interpret the bard’s meaning, is dealt with, dismissively.  The play, with which admirers of Shakespeare, are certainly familiar, examines the subject, and as we interpret it, subtly demonstrates, that revenge, is nothing short of, existentially, futile and useless.

It will be remembered, that the plot of Hamlet, is centered around Hamlet’s desire to exact revenge for the murder of his father, the late King of Denmark, by Claudius, the pretender to the throne, as demanded, by the ghost of his father, the murdered King,

The play, as a Shakespearean tragedy, predictably, ends badly, but, to the point of our theme, not before the famous, and, to us, meaningful, graveyard scene [“alas, poor Yorick, etc.”]. In the scene, the skull of a familiar of Hamlet’s childhood, is held up and the deceased, nostalgically and painfully, mourned and remembered.

As we perceive Shakespeare’s [electively inserted] graveyard scene, which expressly, articulates, mankind’s, virtually, imminent, mortality, one is invited to see the existential futility, of revenge, and, it’s pursuit, as a waste of precious, days, in the time-limited franchise of mankind’s life. We are of the considered opinion, that Shakespeare may be suggesting, that the ethical dilemma, posed by the wasteful, and often useless, desire for revenge, is subordinate, to our obligatory need to live life, while we still can.

According to the media reports, revenge was the obvious and admitted motive, for the intentional, downing of the erroneously chosen, [Ukrainian] Airliner, and the consequent, tragic deaths of its many innocent passengers. It was inarguably and unjustifiably, a tragic and meaningless, waste of many innocent lives, and, unfortunately, yet another cogent instance, of history repeating literature, repeating history.

-p.

We willingly confess to an irresistible inclination to dwell on the vital formation and referential utility, of a candid, self- identity and image. As we perceive it, and have written, one’s felt self- image, is the result of a cumulative recollection of his past actions, particularly, his responses to external stimuli, favorable or, otherwise, his established capabilities and his personal perceptions. This may be what Socrates meant, when he famously taught, “Know thyself.”

We have often made the declaration, that every major judgmental determination, such as, the question of “morality,” is arrived at internally. Accordingly, we have written that the attempted instruction of the latter virtue, using the popular practice of external rewards and punishments, (religious or secular) is useless and potentially, harmful; it teaches the wrong lessons, viz., those of stealth and selfish motivation, instead of the valuable and enduring standard, of self-respecting, judicious, choice.

We would take the liberty to cite one more, among the many cogent, illustrations of the dynamics, of internal judgment. As can be readily and empirically demonstrated, the true essence of “personal success,” is an internally generated, sense of self-fulfillment, and not some publicly demonstrated, symbolic, accumulation of treasure.

The proper jurisdiction and venue, where such internal determinations, are forensically litigated and decided, is within the Courtroom premises of one’s own introspective reason and perception. It may be noted that, there are no statutes, in such consequential environment, authorizing the right of appeal; although, an impulsive, or unduly harsh, personal self-determination, is often capable of amelioration, or thoughtful amendment.

As a caveat, we do not dismiss or downgrade, iny any way, the indispensable function of overt appearance or demonstrated persona, especially, regarding essential, societal interpersonal communication. Conversation, itself, would not be possible, as a practical matter, without the mutually, recognizable identity, and familiar frame of reference, of the engaged parties.  In this writing, however, we are concerned, specifically, with the private, intrapersonal audit of the thoughtful individual, rather than his publicly displayed, appearance.

We have one more caveat, for purposes of clarity of intended meaning. The general practice of taking photographs, of ourselves, or with friends or family, of babies, children, events, places visited, pets, sunrises, and other subjects of interest, for future recollection, is certainly an approved, one. Depicted, memories of people and, of reminiscent events, are valuable, for many reasons, not the least of which, is a recorded, sense of continuity of life, and the nature, and history, of our personal relationships. Such phenomena, additionally, assist us in our perceptions of our evolving and changing reality, and our successive adjustments to reality. We, on the other hand, are concerned about the often observed, apparently incessant, drive to take selfie, after selfie, presumably, in the vain attempt, to produce a photo of oneself, which ever more closely, comports with the photographer’s fantasy about him, or herself, [usually inspired by, and modeled upon, unrealistic, criteria, observed in the media].

Even the kindest and most patient of readers, may by now, be [justifiably] puzzled. How is the subject of the futile, multiple recording of one’s appearance, in the vain search, to satisfy a selected fantasy, at all, related, to the subject of “carrots?’ The latter, an orange colored, root vegetable, has admittedly, been paired, by us, with the word, “selfies,”  in the title of this note. The salient reason, is that while the carrot plant evinces a nice green display in the garden, its real intrinsic value and exceptional beauty, is under the visible surface.

This mini-essay, has been denoted above, as a “redux,” because we have previously dealt with the identical theme, in a slightly different way. In the earlier writing, “Fred Rogers and Selfies,” we recalled an especially, meaningful installment of his wonderful and emotionally educative, children’s show. In the subject installment, Mr. Rogers, and his entire studio of children, sang to, and with, a young boy, confined to a wheelchair and evidencing the sad and dynamic activity of cerebral palsy: “It is you I like, not the clothes you wear, or the way you do your hair, but, it’s you…” This, insightful lesson, about true intrinsic worth, taught to the children in the studio, and those of the television audience, is a lifelong lesson for everyone, young or elderly.

We were, again motivated, to write on this subject, (“redux”) following a, disappointing, witness, from a park bench, [ while awaiting the rare advent, of an on time arrival, of the inglorious M-10 bus] of a young, rather attractive, woman, completely self- engrossed, and oblivious of her surroundings, taking and rejecting, selfie, after selfie, with, and without, the aid, of a “selfie stick.” She, we assume, was vainly, seeking a photo, which would comport with some personal, private fantasy, about herself  As we recall, when the bus finally arrived, she was still peering, intensely, at her “smart” phone.

If carrots had the ability and propensity to instruct, that intelligent vegetable, (please verify, with the esteemed, “Bugs Bunny”) would teach the lesson, that its own true value and beauty, are unseen, and exist below the ground, and that, analogously, in man, true beauty and value, eternally and universally, reside, below his visable surface.

p.

Since the nineteenth Century, the American political scene has been dominated by two major political parties, and, perforce, has accurately been designated, as a two party system of government. In a two party system, the party holding a majority of the electoral votes, is referred to as the “majority”, or “governing party”, while the other, is the “minority party,” or the” opposition”.

It would appear to us, that a democratic, two party system, is preferable to the multi-party (usually) Parliamentary system, as being more representative of the individual voter, viz., more democratic.  It has historically been the case that, in the multi-party, parliamentary system, in order to form a (legal quorum for) a ruling government, a combination of (divergent) parties is, usually required, thus giving more voice to the voters of a minority party (added by statutory necessity) than is democratically warranted. This concern is obviously, non -existent, in a two party system, where “winner takes all.” The successful election of one party, in a two party system, such as ours, thus, completely and democratically, signifies the expressed selection of one candidate and his avowed platform of intentions, over the other.

The system and tradition of two advertised candidates, affords to the voting public, a clear, known and predictable choice, between the persona and political stance of the respective candidates, and their intended programs. Under a system of, “one man, one vote,” governmental policy, thus, is democratically designated, by the prevailing choice and expression of the people.

We have noted, with great dismay and concern, the recent rise, in this country, of a new, unforeseen and perilous form of “populism.”  As known, the essence of populism is a belief which appeals to those ordinary people, who feel that they, and their interests, are disregarded, in favor of an established elite. It seems to us, that, in the U.S., such a perception, is not generally maintained, relative to the subject of economics, since there is a plentitude of opportunity, for such expression, within the traditionally, accepted platforms, of the Democratic Party. Populism, instead, appears ,rather to be, a “tribal” feeling of joint insecurity and, a felt presumption, of the haughty disapproval and dismissal, of their interests, by the better educated and more sophisticated citizenry (“the elite”).

Some of these, self-conscious, “populists” would, if they voted at all, might, in a different frame of mind, go Democratic or Republican; such populism, in general, having no ties to any one economic or political theory or another. It may well be, that many of such feelings of disrespect, are self-generated, or subjectively perceived, whereas, others may, indeed, be based on empirical experience.

Nevertheless, such perceptions, whether real, or insecurely imagined, do, in fact, exist, and appear readily exploitable by demagogues and other “snake oil salesmen,” who falsely and tactically, portray the false impression of intimate identification with their plight, and appeal to such perceived insecurity, for political or other purposes.

Donald J. Trump, a former, mediocre, television host, of an inane television game show, nevertheless, proved his acumen, as such a perverse, missionary of misleading propaganda, to these, less sophisticated, sensitive and, presumed, deprecated, people. One recalls, the tactical, populist representations, of the purported claim of superiority, and brazen, widespread scorn, directed at the common man, allegedly charged to the fictional, “coastal liberals.”

It is essential for the Democratic campaign, to recognize such dynamics and the motivation, of these millions of voters; based on their perception, of being dismissed in significance, by the portionof the nation, termed, the “elites,” (meaning more educated, and favored). They are not described by, or members of, a particular political party. The National disaster of the Trump election, was not, to our understanding, a clear victory of his Republican Party, as such; functionally, it was, in large part, a victory, based upon the additional  supplement, of amorphous populism, viz., not political science but, rather, sociology. Such segment of the National community, can be, functionally, likened to the influence and dynamics, of an additional, or “third” party.

This is, the essential reason, for the Democratic Party, to change its, present, errant, emphasis, on beating Donald Trump as its primary goal. It must wisely alter such poorly conceived, emphasis, which will predictably, help Trump, by rallying the extant tribalism, and accentuating the basic, misguided, message of the populist, voters.

The Democratic Party’s emphasis should, more effectively, be on the traditional platforms that made that party great: fair labor practices, including, working conditions and adequate wages and benefits, health care, regulations protecting the citizen, the consumer and the environment, equal rights for all, prison reform, banking and credit reforms, protection of voter’s rights, a sensible program of gun regulation, old age and retirement benefits, a vigorous infrastructure program, water purification and forestry preservation, a more equitable tax policy, relief to the needy and disabled, lobbying reforms, tuition assistance to students, support for  cultural, arts and education programs, efforts to ameliorate climate deterioration, non-political judicial selection, efforts to eliminate illiteracy, regulation of the pharmacy industry, regulations protecting the purity of drinking water, food and the safety of medicines, elimination of capital punishment, improvements in educational assistance to the States, and many other vital and needed issues.

To deemphasize the above traditional Democratic positions, in favor of the criterion, articulated, viz., the perceived ability to defeat Trump, is to exalt the importance of Trump (which would greatly please his egoistic and neurotic, persona), but far worse, it would invigorate, the extant, tribal, instinct, of that unpredictable, “third party,” the populists, and their defensive, delusions. It would also, foolishly, ignore the very platforms, that built, and won elections for the Democratic Party.

-p.