Author: plinyblogcom

Individuals, inclined to consult the Bible for wisdom and comfort, are familiar with the portion of Genesis, concerning the mythical Adam and Eve. The “Good Book” declares that God made Adam from the “dust of the Earth” (“Adam” means “Earth” in ancient Aramaic and Hebrew), and then made Eve, from a rib of Adam. Thus, from the very earliest conception, women were relegated to a subsidiary place from men. Remarkably, such eternal assumption, still abides, in this age of super-sonic air travel and “smart” phones.

Religious dogma, has, more often than not, attributed man’s sin to the tactical allure (or temptation) of women. The Biblical tradition of “Original Sin,” portrays the first Man, Adam, being induced, by the temptress, Eve, to eat an apple from the forbidden “Tree of Knowledge.”  We have radically chosen, to interpret the symbolism from quite a different perspective. A cursory review of many cultures, would reveal that the snake (the “serpent”) was a symbol of fertility; perhaps because he makes his home in the earth or, for classical Freudian reasons. However, as we, in our nuanced fashion, perceive it, the symbol of fertility (coiled up, in the so-called “tree of knowledge”) speaks to mental fertility, or reason, and the “infamous” temptation of Adam, by Eve, to eat of that “forbidden apple,” might well be seen, as the delivery of the newly evolved gift of reason to Mankind; hardly a sin. Apparently, adherents to ancient superstition, as the enemies of reason, tactically created myths, in which, respectively a deliverer of knowledge, is reviled, and cruelly punished by the Gods. An instructive illustration is seen in the ancient Greek Myth of Prometheus. The Titan, Prometheus, was cruelly and painfully punished, by being chained to a mountain, and his liver, eternally eaten by predatory birds, as proclaimed punishment, for bringing fire (knowledge) to mankind. This myth tends to articulate, an obvious dissonance in Man’s early days, relating to rational thought and the more popular, traditional ignorance.

Since the creation of the Adam-Eve story, conceivably, because the male animal is bigger, and the designated wielder of the lethal war club, the status of the woman in society, has been a secondary one, under the control and tutelage of men. The proper place and occupation of women, was to care for the family and perform light domestic chores. ln mankind’s history, as late as 19th Century England (“the Victorian Era”), women of the upper and middle class (lower class did farming and hard labor, or were servants), occupied their time, playing the spinet for their husband’s diversion, supervising the rearing of their children by hired, educated tutors, sewing their husband’s linens, or perhaps, embroidery. The woman properly, had no social relationships, aside from family and relatives; having friends was the sole privilege of the man of the house.

In the 19thCentury, women could not legally own property, even by familial inheritance; any such inheritance, legally, went to the husband, who would extend to her a negotiated “settlement.” Legally, under the “couverture” of their husband, could not enter into contracts or engage in business.  In America, it was not until the 1844, that the State of Maine, enacted revolutionary legislation, giving women the right to separately own property; other States of the Union, slowly and reluctantly, followed suit. A similar law was passed in New York, in 1900.

It was not until 1920, that the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, granting to women the right to cast a vote. This victory was attained though the substantial sacrifices and militant efforts, of many great American women, leaders of the “Women’s Suffrage Movement.” Kudos to those brave Suffragettes. It is shockingly, only 100 years ago, that women established for themselves, the right to participate in American democracy.

It is no less than miraculous, that, despite the substantial limitation on a women’s life, inclusive of the right to a liberal arts education, that so many truly, world-class woman authors emerged; including, the Bronte Sisters, George Eliot, Elizabeth Gaskell, Elizabeth Barret Browning, Kate Chopin, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emily Dickenson, Louisa May Alcott and Jane Austen. That such great literature was produced, in the face of the social leg irons of the 19^th Century, is surely deserving of kudos. In or about the next Century, starting with the sophisticated, Virginia Woolf, society was fortunate to produce a, virtually unlimited number of great female novelists and poets. We would, therefore award them the maximum kudos, and most especially, those brilliant flowers, who bloomed, during, and despite, the Victorian repression of women’s freedom and education.

The eternally revered Florence Nightingale, a daughter, born to an elite British family, chose to amend her comfortable lifestyle, to serve as a nurse, for the poor and grotesquely injured military casualties of the Crimean War. These injured soldiers were housed in dirty, squalid quarters, causing a great many to die from sepsis.  She would brave the horrific sights and visit each wounded soldier, in the evenings with her lamp, to bring them some hope and cheer. For this reason, she was known as the “Lady with the Lamp.” She became a great and effective reformer and philosopher of the profession of Nursing. By the time she left the employ of the hospital, she had effected many reforms, concerning the avoidance of infection, by the regime of cleanliness and the mandated sterility of bandages and medical implements. Florence Nightingale was deservedly awarded the name, “Founder of Modern Nursing.” Today, many thousands of well- educated nurses, assist in the care and cure of the sick and disabled, and, together with Ms. Nightingale, are deserving of substantial thanks and kudos. In the past we have written an homage to Florence Nightingale, and to the nursing profession in general, entitled, “Florence’s Lamp.”

It would be a practical impossibility to list the names of all of the remarkable women, deserving great praise, or kudos. We cannot, however, resist furnishing a relatively modest, representative compendium of some people, still alleged, by some, and by reason of their gender, to be, like Eve, “subsidiary” or “second” category: Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, Clara Barton, Annie Oakley, Marie Cure’, Helen Keller, Eleanor Roosevelt, Georgia O’Keefe, Golda Meir, Amelia Earhart, Margaret Meade, Rosa Parks, Margaret Thatcher, Anne Frank, Sandra Day O’Connor, and, honestly, thousands more.

A further enumeration of the uncountable, scientific, societal, military, academically innovative and artistic accomplishments of Eve’s female progeny would are “infinite” in number, and classification It is remarkable to us, that, after having accomplished so many victories, in confirming their rights as equal citizens [ in entrepreneurship and commerce, voting, the arts, government and politics, the judiciary, in the military and municipal services, such as police and firefighters, as educators, as capital investors, in medicine and health, in the law and, virtually every sundry calling and profession]  women are obliged to convince certain atavistic members of our society, that they are, sufficiently capable and morally responsible, to make mature decisions concerning their own bodies, regarding the necessary and emotionally painful, choice to terminate their own pregnancy. Those who have deceptively, advertised themselves, as* “Right to Life, have arrogated to themselves the right to decide for others, the extent of ownership of their own body, in their psychoneurotic preoccupation with the early fetus [*they oppose needed assistance to the child after birth, generally oppose gun regulation and favor capital punishment; They have, actually, committed premeditated and deliberate murder, to forward their cause.] Kudos to those who support the citizen- women’s right to make responsible decisions, concerning her own body.

Finally, in our evaluation and assignment of kudos, let us not lose sight of the plain fact, that it is the woman that, exclusively, delivers to Mankind his progeny. Can anyone reasonably deny mothers (and all remarkable women) the highest degree of praise and kudos?

-p.

We are completely receptive to possible criticisms of, “very idealistic,” or, “Pollyannaish,” by reason of the dream-like, aspirational hope expressed in this note; we will however, firmly reject any possible adjectival accusation, as “unrealistic,” or, much worse, “impossible.” We do affirmatively maintain, that lasting World Peace is indeed, an attainable, concrete, albeit long term goal, if and only if, it is sincerely and universally sought.

It is our belief, that the following goals and aspirations, inarguably, are globally shared:

World peace and eventual brotherhood; elimination of worldwide poverty and want; elimination of the troubling and unscientific, concept, of “race;” improvement in planetary health; elimination of cancer, and other serious and exotic disease; acceptable and practical policies regarding the amelioration of economic disparity; and by far, the most important, policies concerning the promotion of citizen education and reason, of enlightenment, in lieu of former superstition and ignorance.

We are confident that, with the one proviso, consisting of an adequate level and consistent presence of sincere desire, regarding the amelioration of such all-pervasive issues, success is empirically attainable. Progressively renewed hope, and the adamant refusal to be bound by perverse world history, could appropriately be credited, in our judgment, as the most recent step, in the long, continuous march of man’s evolutionary development.

Indisputably, the greatest of all impediments to the attainment of these positive goals, is the atavistic, and, needless, phenomenon of war. Significant policies, and action taken towards the elimination of that historic phenomenon, would, constitute a fundamental step, in the solution of the enumerated, world-wide problems.

We are obliged to learn from our previous unsuccessful attempts to eliminate the scourge of warfare. Past efforts to encourage the brotherhood of mankind (Nations) proved to be unsatisfactory, because they were erroneously conceived, albeit well intentioned. The League of Nations, proved to be a failure, as does, in many vital respects, the ambitious organization of The United Nations, appear to prove ineffectual.

With reference to the League of Nations, and its successor, the United Nations, it would objectively appear, that the founding assumptions and ambitious goals were a failure, because the Member States, desired, despite their membership in the respective international organization, to respectively, retain their historic sovereignty. To employ a useful analogy, John Locke, (19^th Century) speaking of the creation and underlying dynamics of human Society, that Man, contractually surrenders certain of his rights, in exchange for the benefits of living in Society (“The Social Contract”). Real world-wide peace would be attainable, if the Members of an international organization, mutually surrendered, to it, sufficient of their, power of determination, in analogous manner, to that referred to in Locke’s Social Contract. The U.N. must emphasize policies that seek international rectitude, such as, world climate change, poverty, health, human rights, disaster assistance, agriculture and commerce, rather than specific Nationalist considerations of politics and business. This defect is seen in the identically outmoded nationalism, enabling English, Trump-like, populist voters, to manufacture the current “Brexit” fiasco. England would continue to derive a great many diverse and essential benefits from its continued membership in the European Union; in addition to the most important benefit, the preservation of lasting peace between Members.

The Nations of the World must engage in policies discouraging xenophobic nationalism, and emphasize the cornucopia of benefits of communal or societal relationship, with other Nation States. Each of us has to personally identify as members of the identical, evolved species, homo sapiens, fortunate co-tenants of this green planet. But how does one accomplish this idealistic co-existence? We would humbly offer some generally useful ideas, with the confidence, that they will be given serious consideration, in the context of the tragic world history. We further hope that any all- pervasive pessimism, will, one day soon, be functionally replaced, by the happier practice of sincere positive action, and the nurturance of long-term, patient, and undeterred hope:

• We have previously written in severely critical terms, of the potentially dangerous future, in planting the seeds of ethnic lessons of “we” and “they,” in the very young (presumably to give the young child, a sense of identity and security). However, those categories of “we” and “they” factually endure, and often ripen and become transmogrified into myths about the “other,” leading to the subsequent advent of hatred and war. We must learn to teach, in addition to the child’s particular ethnos (acquired by him, merely, by the sheer accident of random birth), a sense of other, perfectly acceptable, and possibly interesting, ethnic identities; and advise that the world consists of many diverse, and admirable, cultures.
• We must, as soon as possible, eliminate the word, “race,” permanently, from our lexicon. We have, in earlier writings, declared that the term has been shown to have no scientific, sociological or anthropological basis, and observed that the term has been only used to perpetuate mischief.
• An international commission of specialized and expert educators, should be convened to investigate the World’s modern schoolbooks for mythic xenophobic nationalism. As a shameful illustration of domestic travesty, as we recall our childhood education, in which the young student was taught the “patriotic” and divine, concept of “Manifest Destiny.” This was the propaganda-like National rationalization, for the immoral program of forcibly displacing from their historic homes, and the murder of peaceful, Native Americans. Neither we, nor any other society have any special, God given destiny to acquire land by infamous means. Other countries, we understand, have their own ethnic clap-trap, used as purported rationalization, for similar criminal conduct against their own Aboriginal people. A universal recognition of the true worth, of each and every inhabitant of the Earth, would rationally, and morally, do away with the possibility of such detestable, xenophobic travesties.
• We earnestly recommend, that another try be given to the historically failed program called, “Esperanto.” As those who are old enough, may remember, the “Esperanto” movement represented an idealistic and principled attempt, to create a common world language, with the hope that it would unite disparate people, in order that they would not make war against each other. There are people, reportedly, who still speak in the Esperanto language. This well-intentioned and intelligent program, however, did not succeed. Considering the modern technology, such as smart phones and skype, it could, if implemented, and now successful, prove to be an effective eraser of National boundary lines. We might also suggest another attempt at establishing a universal, international system for liquids and solids, weights and measures.
• Joint scientific efforts, by international partnerships, composed of the best and brightest international representatives, in the areas of medicine, space, archeology, engineering, chemistry, earth and climate science, might prove to be very effective in the achievement of the goals sought by their respective disciplines; and, importantly, be a source of international, collegiate fellowship and peace.
• International travel, the study of “foreign” languages, the reading of translated books by fine foreign authors, and the study of foreign cuisine and culture, should be subsidized by the various nations, to promote understanding and appreciation of others. This would be far cheaper and represent moneys preferably spent on education, and world peace, rather than on deadly international violence. Cultural clubs could be formed, availing themselves of the music, books and entertainment of varied cultures or ethnos, for simple enjoyment, and for the education of the public. Art and folkloric shows, representing the myriad talents of our international community, would be enjoyable and enlightening, especially to those with no such previous experience, and tend to engender interest in, and respect for, other cultures.

An international commission of qualified educators, sociologists, academic and financial people, should be cooperatively established, composed of recognized experts from all over the world to initiate, implement and permanently oversee the suggested programs.

The initial, universal recognition of the existential need could, conceivably, be the most difficult stage of the recommended programs of action. Nevertheless, irrespective of the required amount of persistent effort and human resources, required in this existential endeavor, we must persevere and not, in good conscience, continue to perpetuate the shameful “Dark Ages” of atavistic xenophobia and needless tragedy, which, is so sadly evident, in our World and National History, and in the current week’s Press.

-p.

Stress may permissibly be described, as a disturbing feeling of emotional and/or physical tension, which suddenly is elicited from any event, or thought, that leads to feelings of frustration, anger or fear. It is a reflexive bodily (chemical and muscular) reaction to a perceived challenge. It is to be noted, that, in this essay, we refer to episodic, and commonplace stress, as opposed to long-term or chronic stress; the latter is best left to those who have been professionally trained in that discipline. In any category, however, constantly recurring, or persistent stress, can lead to physiological problems, and unquestioningly, has a deleterious effect on the enjoyment and appreciation of life.

An apology may be appropriate, for this revisit to the subject, (“Redux”). However, the eternal aptness and importance of the subject of stress reaction, is repeatedly signaled to us by our everyday perception, and it appeared useful to write once more on that compelling subject. Lest our observations and recommendations appear to be presumptuous, we would quite willingly and comfortably confess, that they are based solely upon our personal understanding as derived from long-term empirical observation.

While the occasions of stress reaction are apparently varied and innumerable, we would unhesitatingly prescribe, the salubrious, ubiquitous and magic elixir (panacea) of “Proportionality,” as the universal analgesic.

We have (justly) been accused of traditionally delighting in the use of analogy, similes and comparisons, for the purpose of the elucidation of our points of view; to this serious charge, we plead, “Guilty.” If the reader will kindly permit a repeat transgression, we would refer to the satirical Opera, by Gilbert and Sullivan, entitled, “The Mikado.” A memorable parody, sung by the great Mikado himself, includes the following refrain:

My object all sublime, I shall achieve in time

To let the punishment fit the crime,

The punishment fit the crime.

In addition to our profuse apologies to Messrs. Gilbert and Sullivan, and a servile thank you, to the august Mikado, himself, we would at this point, choose to pour out an instructive portion of the above referenced, ubiquitous, magic elixir, the very panacea, itself, “Proportionality.”

Considering the many variations to personality, with reference to the characteristic of “sensitivity,” the usefulness of our recommendation may vary somewhat, but our magic elixir is, without fail, universally ameliorative, for those for whom it is applicable.

Just as the fictional Mikado, declared in Royal song, “Let the punishment fit the crime,” one ought to train himself, emotionally (by means of his firm resolve), that sudden and emotional responses should, appropriately, suit the nature of the disturbing stimuli; whether the stimulus be an event, occurrence or merely, a thought. There is a large universe of potential disturbing stimuli, and a limited, but definitely controllable, continuum respecting the phenomenon of immediate emotional reaction.

There are existing personalities who will, immediately and automatically, react with identically extreme panic, to whatever variety of stimulus is presented, within the wide experiential spectrum, ranging from the barely significant, to the truly tragic. These emotionally undisciplined individuals, manifest extreme and unhealthy reactions to any and all such unsatisfactory stimuli, ranging from a broken fingernail, to the grim advice of a terminal medical diagnosis of a loved one. This, of course, is unnecessary, unhealthy and can be, at times, even ludicrous. The natural capacity for negative emotional reaction, or stress, is a painful franchise, and the well-adjusted person should train himself to apply only that degree of stress as is appropriate, to the objective materiality of the event (stimulus); this is the ultimate message of our small essay.

It is, necessary, preliminarily, for the individual to be truly cognizant of the true source of his stress reaction.  Conceivably, an individual, already under the emotional weight of stress from an unrelated, past stimulus, might react in an extremely inappropriate, fashion, [by over-reacting] to a presenting unimportant stimulus, by reason of the combination of stressors. An individual, already straining under 90 pounds of stone, will, predictably, overreact to the addition of one more pound, to his already heavy load.

In sum, we recommend that in an individual’s “reaction,” to any perceived, alarming “stimulus,” amounts to, initially, considering its source, its practical (objective) significance, and then, to customize, or tailor, a measured and specifically appropriate response. The customizing requires but a brief moment of reflection.

-p.

We had been puzzled and totally frustrated, in our exhaustive and unsuccessful attempts to divine some reason, for some individuals’ consistent and eternal preference, for retrogressive and atavistic points of view, over modern empirically proven, science and socially demonstrated fact. This dynamic, consistently seen in the contested issues of climate change, abortion rights, gun regulation, racial equality and immigration, observably, appears to be shared in some sort of retrogressive consensus. This phenomenon, understandably, appears to be puzzling, to most contemporaneously informed citizens. Yet, we can announce that we have happened upon, what we believe, is the answer to the puzzle, to be revealed following a brief, relevant and necessary, description of history.

Any American schoolchild and adult, familiar with our Nation’s past, knows that meteorology, as a science, is a rather modern discipline. In history, humans observed the natural phenomena, and attempted to predict the onset of rain or its absence, by observing the sky in conjunction with the wind and clouds. It was usually hit or miss. However, no one was scientifically aware of the nature of the natural phenomena, nor, especially, its dynamics. Humans prayed for rain and fair weather, in accordance with their own ethnic fashion. Among the best known of mankind’s supplications for rain, is the ancient Hopi Indian Rain Dance. Weather was traditionally considered, by our antecedents, to be a divine phenomenon, and at times, believed to be an omen, of the pleasure or displeasure of the Gods. [There was then no concern regarding the present issue of climate change.]

Any reader of literature or history, would be aware of the plethora of religious or superstitious beliefs and fears, relative to the phenomenon of childbirth. The protection or guidance of the Divinity, or the Natural Spirits, were traditionally invoked, seeking the birth of a properly formed and healthy child, and the survival of a healthy mother. In many disparate cultures and ethnos, special prayers, incantations and even magical or holy objects, were employed to shoo away the evil spirits, and safeguard the newborn infant and mother. [ Abortion was not a presenting issue.]

In the early history of our Nation, people lived in more spread out and remote venues. There were no protective institutions, such as the police department, nor the instant availability of emergent assistance. Guns were necessary ingredients in a family’s protection from the beasts of the forest, and from the threat of marauders. Men, women and older children, by plain necessity, had to learn to use firearms. Stories of the earlier periods of the development of our Nation, always featured the element of protective firearms. [Gun regulation was not among society’s concerns].

Particular periods of American history, evinced such immoral and shamefully accepted, practices as the eviction of Native Americans from their ancestral homes, and their removal to territories, way out west, which were barely arable, remote, windy and desolate, the institution of the enslavement of black people as agricultural workers, approved by society and the “good book,” and their subsequent treatment as second class citizens ( a despicable and immoral practice, still in the process of amelioration) and, lastly, the Acts preventing the immigration of Asians to our country. These institutionally immoral practices affected the mindset of the average citizen. The opposition to immigration, eternally based upon false fears and propaganda, concerning the “other” were, and still are, a travesty, and a valid basis of a critical charge of hypocrisy, against a Nation composed of immigrants and their progeny.  [“Other people” were generally considered, less equal].

Thoughts regarding these issues, in contention in modern times, led us to the relatively recent history, as set forth above, concerning those selected subjects (among others). Further, in the process of attempting to discover the fundamental basis, or etiology, of opposition on the part of folks who reject reason and rational thought and progress, in favor of atavistic beliefs and attitudes, we have come to the realization that their fixed views, adhered to, like lichens, may have proven acceptable, at some time, in the contextual past history, as cited, of our nation.

If we believed in reincarnation (transmigration of souls, or “metempsychosis”), we could make an easy job of it and conclude that these folks are the transmigrated souls of their forebears, who comprise the source of these ancient beliefs; but we do not believe in “souls” nor, in their purported reincarnation. But we needed an explanation for these outmoded, outre’, but, at one time, traditionally, American, concerns.

We realized that the only logical answer was simply, the one of social transmission. These retrogressive attitudes and beliefs, analogous to the introduction of young children, to a particular religion, are articulated and passed along in one’s family or social milieu, perhaps, by an elder, for whom such beliefs and attitudes, at one time, had the basis of contextual reality. The more susceptible one is to oral or bygone history, the more one is affected and convinced, by the transmission of outmoded attitudes and obsolete concerns. The great English, empirical philosopher, John Locke, declared that man is born with a clean slate (“tabula rasa”), and that all knowledge is learned [including outmoded, or stale, concerns].

Our (promised) answer to the posed question, then, is that, somehow, people who are recalcitrant in their acceptance of modernity, have learned, and retained, their atavistic lessons from the past, by way of ideological reincarnation, delivered, not from some transmigration of souls, but from the anachronistic, obsolete, lessons of a living and loving Grandma.

-p

On this Fourth of July holiday, one is civically encouraged to dedicate a few moments to consider the celebrated founding of the Nation. Perhaps, while one is thus (perennially) distracted, from his daily, mundane routine, he may additionally, take a rare opportunity to responsibly, consider certain other subjects of major significance; vital subjects, even those of existential importance which are eternally and irresponsibly, dismissed from consideration.

It is alarming and disheartening to learn from the world’s accredited experts, that it is no longer the challenge to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change (despite the atavistic and profit hungry deniers), the effects have already been felt; the challenge now, is to mitigate them, if possible, and live with and adjust to those of major, or, horrific significance. We have, frighteningly, crossed the red line, the Rubicon, by our negligent disinterest.

Global change is all too evident in the unusually monstrous and frequent forest fires, numerous major hurricanes and flooding rainstorms, rapidly melting artic glaciers, rise in water table, highly unpredictable, seasonal, climate and temperature changes, alterations and severity in winds and rainfall, even unexpected tsunamis.

In sadly, predictable fashion we have, similarly, crossed the red line, or Rubicon, societally and anthropologically, as we had fearfully predicted, on the all- important, and fundamental human level, that of societal interaction.

In several urgent posts, we have expressed our fears and misgivings about the substitution of cell phone interaction for more intimate, personal conversation, by person and telephone. We have shuddered at the thought that the transmission from one person’s screen to another, of data-like messaging as an exclusive substitute for normal conversation, did great damage to our societal interaction, and ultimately the institution of society. We noted that, the absence of spontaneous response, and of the comfort of voice recognition and conversational nuance, the inability to emphasize feelings and thoughts (emogees are an inadequate and substitute and a direct admission as to the inadequacy of electronic communication), the individual exercise of distinctive persona, the sense of impersonality at the time of transmission, are all among the many interactive losses caused by cell phone conversation.

These robot-like, in absentia, data like conversations, greatly suffer from the loss of natural, spontaneous, conversation, and tend to distance the parties from each other by its impersonality; don’t we all experience enough transmission and receipt of electronic data, without substituting it from our human interaction? What is urgently needed at this time of strife, racial, ethnic, sexual and xenophobic is the peace- making feeling of closeness and personal identification with others, and not their electronic access.

It is downright distressing for mature members of society, to observe younger members of society who have already lost the memory, awareness, even the concept of natural interaction, so important for a working and successful society. Many, if not most, are without resources in the absence of their “smart phones.” Reference to the hand-held electronic box is all that is necessary for the acquisition of information and contact with the outside world. Human reason and expressed, nuanced personality is retro; robotic data transmission is in.

It appears that we have crossed the red line, the Rubicon, in this vital area as well. We read a work wherein a College Professor gave an assignment to his class to go to a favorite place, with no technology, for 45 minutes, and when they return, write a short essay on the experience. The author indicated that most of their reflections filled him with sadness. Often, they shared how difficult it was for them to be separated from their phones. The author stated, that some actually experienced withdrawal symptoms including increased anxiety and that, typically, it takes students several minutes before they can experience the natural surroundings. Many of the students, he wrote, “comment on how the experience brought back memories of their childhood, when they often played outdoors with friends, enjoying the sights, smells and sounds of their environment”.  [ Outdoors for All”, by Richard Louv].

The Rubicon is very slow, due to unprecedentedly heavy traffic.

-p.

The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”), the highest and the final authority on federal legal issues, and the top tier of the Judicial Branch of our Government, (Congress and the Presidency, constituting the other two Branches of Federal Government) has been an institution which, by its significant and august role, should be deserving of the dignity and stature afforded to it by literature and National tradition. It has been the beneficiary of some of the most brilliant and reverenced Americans, such as, Holmes, Cardozo, Marshall, and Frankfurter and some less so. It is to be borne in mind that U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justices are politically appointed and confirmed, and that accordingly, these life-time appointments may be selected on the basis of their political leaning, rather than their legal scholarship or judicial erudition. In general, most of the Justices, historically, have proven to be capable jurists, and have rendered legally supportable, and usually just decisions.

We have employed the words, “…Intermittent Justice,” in the title of this essay for the reason that, as will be shown, SCOTUS has rendered, both the most significantly heroic and truly American decisions, as well as some which, as we see it, tear at the fundamental American tapestry of democracy and justice. The two examples of deplorable decisions, one, providing the main theme of this writing, will be referenced below, as will the two cases exemplifying American rectitude.

In 1857, Justice Taney of SCOTUS, rendered, inarguably, the worst and most deplorable decision in American jurisprudence. In that case, the Court held, with regard to a runaway slave, Dred Scott, that the “owner” could recover the slave because negro slaves were just “chattels”, viz., agricultural equipment. Fortunately, this repulsive decision, was overturned by later cases, but is a demonstration of the atavistic and inhuman capability of SCOTUS. The particular SCOTUS decision, which prompted this writing, will be discussed at its end.

We would cite two decisions, rendered by SCOTUS, which were eminently just, and in keeping with our Nation’s tradition of liberty and equal justice. The first decision is the historically significant and praiseworthy, 1954 case, of Brown v. Board of Education, wherein SCOTUS ruled, to the applause and relief, of all right-thinking Americans, and to the dismay of segregationists, that, legally, and in fact, “Separate is not equal.”   This positive case had far-reaching and major impact on our society, and has been constantly in the process of universal application.

The second SCOTUS case we would cite, as another example of justice and the exercise of right reason, is the 1977 decision of Rowe v. Wade, in which, it was determined that a women’s right to privacy, under the 14^th Amendment, gave her the right to choose an abortion. Privacy and the rights of an American citizen to be free from the religious strictures of others, was upheld. Disappointed opponents of the Rowe decision, have been attempting to frustrate the woman’s recognized (and natural) right of choice, for decades

If SCOTUS deserved credit, for its many decisions, protecting the rights of minorities and effecting justice where the Nation needed it, such credit will have been totally negated, by the infamous and extremely puzzling, 2010, Citizens United Case.

Preliminarily, it should be stated that the Supreme Court, being only one of the three branches of government, would traditionally, properly and by precedent, refuse to accept a case for determination, if the issues in question were “political,” or had political implications. The reasoning was sound, as being based upon the fundamental Constitutional provisions for a discreet “Separation of Powers,” an American sacramental principal. Litigants were, routinely, and historically, denied access to the highest Court in the land, for this sacrosanct purpose.

The more recent decisions of the Supreme Court, in cases such as Gore v. Bush, seem to show a current disregard for the precedential law, the legal purpose of which, was to enforce the American foundational theory, of Separation of Powers. We continue to remain confused and shocked. Our concern and disappointment is based upon our unhappy observation, that the highest legal arbiter of American issues of concern, has become political, and possibly partisan. We are greatly disturbed when both political parties seek to install Justices who favor their respective views. This, undoubtedly, is the etiology of the present unsound health of SCOTUS.

An extreme, but true to life example, of the unfortunate and dangerous decline of the traditionally revered, SCOTUS, is the 2010 anomaly known as “The Citizen’s United” case. The sophomoric reasoning in the case, by intellectually gifted jurists, is more worrisome than confusing.

In the Citizens United case, the Court held that a Corporation is a “person,” and as such, has the legal right to contribute as much money as it chooses under the 14^th Amendment, which grants all citizens, the right of free speech.  This is not only erroneous and unjust, but is the main impediment to our democratic system. At the very least, the unlimited franchise to pour money into an election, would naturally tend to artificially and corruptly, skew the result away from the impact of individual votes. But this disgraceful and undemocratic decision, besides destroying the principle of one man, one vote, and, instead, electing government by donation of money, is the subject of completely spurious explanation.

Every law school freshman knows, that a “Corporation” is a fictional, concept, created by law (going back to the English Parliamentary Statutes of Elizabeth) for the purpose of limiting liability. Thus, an entrepreneur can do business, contract, sue and be sued in the registered corporate name; if the business failed, he would not become a pauper, since he could simply cease doing business under the fictional corporate name. The entrepreneur was free since the debts were owed by the fictional entity or “person,” the Corporation. The laws are identical in every State of the United States, where the “personhood” of a Corporation is limited to its use for contractual or litigation purposes. It is ludicrous to conceive that this fictional concept, this commercial vehicle, is a true person with rights under the 14^th Amendment or otherwise; it is statutorily defined and limited “person” and bears the understood and limited status, expressly, as a “fiction,” created for the sole purpose of commerce.

What is truly terrifying, is the realization that, as every law school freshman (and most business people) know that a corporation is not a living, breathing person, with the right of free speech, (but only a statutory “person” for certain very limited, procedural, commercial reasons) most certainly the eminent SCOTUS Justices, and their minions certainly know it. We are fearful lest political considerations rather than law, sadly, may be behind this mystery. It may also be asked, who has ever considered the (unlimited) donation of moneys to an election, free speech?

SCOTUS is morally and constitutionally, duty bound to protect our Representative Democracy, not injure it, as it has; and, moreover for the highest Court in the Nation, to do so, upon sophomoric and ludicrous reasoning, leaves us in a state of confusion, and in a sudden deep concern for our Democratic Republic.

-p.

We have been in the throes of a disturbing ethical conundrum. It has eternally been a necessary and appropriate assumption that, pursuant to the universal social contract, members of society are equally obliged to comply with its established rules of acceptable behavior; and that miscreants who are not in such compliance, be expelled therefrom. The existence and maintenance of a fixed and understandable set of societally determined standards, results in the equitable treatment of society members, and the security of uniform expectations.  The erratic and unpredictable behavior of Donald J. Trump, since occupying the highest office in the Nation, has regrettably, raised fundamental questions concerning American’s historic perception of the uniformity of application of America’s ethical and moral standards.

In a Nation emphatically and determinatively dedicated to the equal status of all of its citizens, this President has, in his demeanor, intentionally violated every conceivable societal rule; and continues to confidently do so. Should illustrations be necessary, he has earned, what we have termed, the title of practitioner of serial mendacity, which signifies constant prevarications (often inconsistent with each other) while, simultaneously, attacking the veracity of our institutional and respected media, has been a serial abuser of women (complaints persist from scores of traumatized women), has boasted about his lewd sexual practices on public television, has turned the Oval Office into a profitable Shopping Mall, for the members of his family, has befriended traditional enemies of the United States, like Kim, of North Korea who has murdered his half-brother and his uncle, while starving his own people,  in order to have money to carry on his xenophobic nuclear rocket program, and Putin, a KGB gangster, who has interfered in the American Election to help Trump, and who  has practiced international homicide. Trump  has been responsible for a Nazi-like immigration policy, ruining lives and separating babies and children from their families, placing them in wire cages without healthy sanitation and sustenance, has demeaned education and learning, has committed crimes of a planetary stature, in denying proven climate change and supporting polluter-industrialists, has made enemies of our historical friends, as he has befriended our historic enemies, has broken relations with NATO, an existential preventer of war, has withdrawn from the important Tokyo Climate Treaty, scrapped the Nuclear Agreement with Iran, with which they were judged to be in compliance by experts,  whose ignorant policies concerning tariffs has hurt our economy (especially farmers),  his numerous violations of the Emoluments proscription of the U.S. Constitution in greatly profiting from the Office of the Presidency and on and on, including an adolescent, public boast that he can shoot someone in Times Square and get away with it.

We are as frightened for the Nation, as we are appalled. What is the character of a Nation, which has to concern itself about beating such a villain in the 2020 election? Why are Democratic Candidates for nomination to the Presidency, advised to emphasize their traits, such as “toughness,” above platform principle, to assure the defeat of this neurotic degenerate?

What is especially intellectually disturbing and emotionally frightening, is the working assumption, that Trump supporters will again vote for Trump. It would appear that the moral expectations for this degenerate, are judged by his unique amoral criteria and expected behavior, as if behavior defines the rules and not the other way around. Because this miscreant is expected to violate societal standards, they are, somehow, waived, or redefined for him.  This especially includes the deluded and insincere Christian Evangelists.

Contrast this with the pathetic attitude of the Democratic Primary. The Democrats have declared that their primary concern is to select a candidate that can defeat Trump! Seriously! What kind of Nation are we? An upstanding American statesman and leader is soundly criticized (maybe decisively) for stating that, in former years, he was obliged to negotiate and deal (by necessity) with bigoted Senators, by another (black) Candidate who is roundly praised for such “devastating” criticism?  What is the necessity of action, to deal with bigoted Senators to get fair and non-bigoted legislation through, compared with Trump’s friendship with Kim and Putin? We have distain for that democratic Senator, for making such a cheap, pre-meditated, populist shot, and a greater disrespect for those who declared the winner of this round of debates, because of it.

Weighed against such compound criminality, unethical and disgustingly uncivil and uncivilized behavior of the President, Democratic Candidates, and the Media, should not conclusively transmogrify, every spontaneous word spoken, by other Candidates, without considering the context of the nightmarish behavior and the alternative of more Trump.

-p.

The employment of a creative analogy, would seem to be the most effective of all available tools, in making a possibly, controversial presentation. Accordingly, we have chosen to use two separate and distinct minerals, for the analogous expression of our desired distinction, between avowed religionists and those who aspire to agnosticism and free thought. For this distinctive difference, we have electively chosen the minerals “adamantine” and “marble.”  The first, adamantine, is, in actuality, a fictional mineral, often used in action novels, purportedly so constituted as to be resistant to any penetration or change. The second chosen geological specimen is Marble, an authentic metamorphic, rock, whose properties are such, that it is capable of having its form altered, or shaped, for the purposes of art or architecture (examples, Michelangelo, Bernini, the White House).

We have, in the past, diplomatically refrained from writing on the topic of organized religion, except to observe that one’s particular ethnic and religious affiliation, are merely the result of the simple accident of birth; and that early childhood lessons taught in the (accidentally acquired) family religion, often produce the seeds of future religious discord, resulting, ultimately, in warfare and related atrocities, examples, Sunni v. Shia, The Thirty year’s War, Tutsi v. Hutu, Hindu v, Muslim, Northern Ireland v. Dublin, and so many other such travesties, far too much, as a practical matter, to recount.

The present post, however, is an attempt to understand the mindset of moral religionists, [whose inner direction, founded on the Bible, or some other applicable, “Good Book”, and/ or congregational and Ministerial criteria and seem, generationally, is enclosed in unalterable Adamantine beliefs], and by bright contrast, the population of moral freethinkers, whose positions have been remarkably altered, as can the properties of Marble, far from their former religionist Adamantine intractability.

Any student of the founding of our Nation, will have learned that the origin of our country, was the establishment of the first secular Nation, in the entire course of World History. The founders were of the unanimous opinion that, to put God in the Constitution, would be to put man out. Those who adamantly (“Adamantine”) persist in declaring that the United States was, originally, founded as a “Christian Nation” are ignorantly and self-servingly wrong. We would recommend to such Adamantine person, especially, the readings of Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or the 20^th Century scholar, Robert Ingersoll.

Despite the more enlightened Marble-like alterations as the creation of the Protestant Church and of Reform Judaism, the Adamantine nature of atavistic superstition, persisted. The spirited outcry against Darwin’s theory of Evolution, the 1925 Scopes Trial (wherein a teacher was arrested for the “felony” of teaching evolution), and the present, misbranded, “Right to Life” movement, are but a few of the best known, of a myriad of examples of the persistence of superstitious prejudice. Religious belief should play no part in the administration of the law or the operation of our democratic government. The few examples cited, show the foresight and wisdom of the Founders, who, wisely and unanimously agreed, that, as cited above, to put God in the Constitution (government), would have the effect of keeping man (reason) out.

We had the recent experience of being confronted by a “Seventh Day Adventist,” an authentically, pure specimen of Adamantine, who persisted in asking us if we have read the Bible. Thinking that we could conclude the interview, we then responded, “Yes, for its value as cultural literature.” He appeared to be taken aback, and stated angrily, don’t you know that it is the holy word of God?” I succumbed to the challenge, and stated, “But it was written by several men, at different historical periods”. He replied, in true adamantine spirit,” Maybe so, but the words were all inspired by God.” I abruptly left, in order to avoid telling him, that the “divinely inspired” words in the Bible stated that the Sun traveled around the Earth (rather than the other way around), provided for stoning and capital punishment, permitted slavery and xenophobia, placed women in the position of men’s servants, provided for a caste system and indentured servants, condoned “just” war, and severely punished non-belief. With regard to the belief that the sun travelled around the Earth, many good people were put to the torch, for believing otherwise, until the European, 19^th Century Period of Enlightenment which witnessed the approval of the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. We could also have accurately informed him, that every religion has its own respective, “good book” several of which, we are advised, are mutually inconsistent with each other, in many of their “inspired messages.”

Living in accordance with the tenets of reason, science and lessons of empirical experience, is the mature, healthy responsibility of man. If religious beliefs are found comforting, and there are no untoward attempts to enforce the beliefs on others, it should not be the subject of disapproval; but any falsely claimed, arrogated superiority of superstitious, or “religious” belief, over empirical science and reason, if permitted, would be an atavistic, adamantine, regression, and would impose needless roadblocks, in the continuing journey of homo sapiens, towards maximal progress, to the full extent of his natural capability.

-p.

As a matter of precedential policy, we have been reluctant to publish our mini-essays, on subjects, regarding which we have previously written.  Our explanation is that we have already expressed what we thought was appropriate, and possibly of interest to readers. We have seldom varied from such policy, and have done so, only sparingly, on subjects felt to be warranted by their perceived intrinsic importance, especially where we have seen no progress, in the issue, but rather, a worsening, or exacerbation.

We would suggest that there is an acceptable analogy between our blood stream, which circulates throughout the systemic human anatomy, delivering where needed, nutrients and vital chemistry, on the one hand, and the phenomenon of language, on the other, which serves as the epoxy of societal structure, and facilitates the systemic interactive transmission of information.

In the previous post, we observed the virtue of truth and accuracy, largely from an anthropological – sociological point of view.  As societies developed, there evolved a practical dependence upon mutual assistance and joint enterprise, for the improvement of the quality of life and the maintenance of peace and safety. Interdependent members of society relied on the necessary credibility of reports, regarding food and water sources, reports of danger from the elements, or hostile tribes, as a necessary matter of basic survival. In daily cultural interaction, there were social developments for discussion, the transmission of skills, trade, impending marriages, births, religious subjects, deaths and the significant subject of leadership and control. It is inarguable that veracity and accuracy were assumed, and relied upon by reason of necessity, and that such proper exercise of veracity had significant, practical import.

In the modern era, truth and veracity, of course, still retains its eternal moral imperative, despite the manifold differences in specific subject matter (viz., more complex and technological), yet the reliance on the virtue of truth, remains an existential necessity. As an empirical matter, inaccurate, or unreliably false information will, necessarily, at some point, be revealed, as will the lack of dependable reliance, of its errant source.

In this second writing, we would like additionally and specifically, to concentrate on truth and reliance, from a moral, and psychological direction, as opposed to the practical, view. The daily, unprecedented and shocking assault on truth, by none other than, America’s leading role model, its President, was the motivating impetus for this additional comment on the subject.  Mr. Trump’s confident, intentional misquotations of data and public polls are delivered with regularity to the public, on broadcast television, together with a smirk and a variety of hand gestures, not the least of which, is a thumbs up signal to his loyal, uninformed, “flat- earth,” poorly educated, base. The intentional, [perhaps, on occasion, simply, ignorant], misstatements are seldom consistent or believable and seem to be impulsively motivated by his self-serving fantasies, or wishes. Mr. Trump has uniquely achieved, our rarely conferred and august diagnosis, of “serial mendacity;” and, apparently, is to be personally credited for exponentially increasing, media fact-checking enterprises, which consistently award him dismally, low scores.

We have often responsibly written, on the subject of man’s life-long, experiential acquisition, of a valued, personal self-image. The solicitude of each of us for the maintenance of our private persona, as one of consistent honesty, rectitude, and deserved reliance, provides the regular impetus for doing the right thing, for our appropriate responses to stimuli, and to the point, for our reliable veracity. Those of us, who aspire to mature and healthy perspectives, value our privately held, moral, persona, when applicably necessary, on a higher plane than, what various others, may arbitrarily, prescribe.

Our present concerns, are not of an impending, general decline in societal virtue, nor consequent effect on properly socialized, mature and sophisticated citizens. It is an odd admixture of confusion and dismay, as to the shameful public persona of an elected American President, and its possible effect upon the public’s future perception of the Office. It is also, a felt embarrassment towards our younger generation, as well as respecting our long time, international friends.

-p.

It may be revelatory, to take particular notice of the usual responses to one’s routine social greetings. One is often met with tiresome and wearisome, responses such as, “hanging in,” “same old, same old,” “the usual,” “nothing special,” “could be worse,” or some such similar remark, articulating, at least some measure, of malaise or disappointment, with life. Occasionally, one is rewarded with marginally positive responses such as, “OK,” (tolerable) or, “not bad” as if “good” was the absence of bad, rather than the presence of good; viz., that the absence of negative events is the aspirational standard].  Such unpromising statements of personal status quo, are depressing; happiness is the positive presence of happiness, and not the noted absence of misery.  Another popular response, “Getting through the day,” evinces a shamefully inappropriate commentary on the marvelous gift of life, when used by people who are not, contemporaneously, in the throes of constant pain, suffering the recent loss of a loved one, or possibly, confronted with a hopeless medical diagnosis.

The popular observation that man’s span of life is a relatively short one, is inarguably true; our allotted time seems to, unaccountably and inexorably, slip away. As one grows older, frequently, his attempts to remember past events, results in the predictable recognition of the substantial human shortfall in personal recollection. As we have quoted in an earlier writing, “The days are long, but the years are short.” Man’s short allotment of time is best lived by him, as fruitfully as possible.

One is morally and appropriately obliged to recognize, at least a modicum of gratitude, for nature’s grant to him of the franchise of life, the most miraculous extant planetary phenomenon. In addition, man has, been generously, favored, by natural evolution, with the potential ability for advanced thought, creativity and the acquisition of knowledge; and thereby, for the capability for happiness through self-fulfillment, should he but aspire to it.

It is unfortunate, that so many individuals seem to, simply, visit life, in the manner of unschooled and uneducated tourists, as mere spectators, lacking suitable knowledge or motivation for development of the understanding of themselves and others, as well as of their environment. These people are merely “inhabiting lives”, or serving out their allotted time on Earth; we have referred to them, above, as merely, “doing time.”

Man, as a practical matter, is obliged to pursue gainful employment, in order to acquire life’s necessities for himself, and responsibly, for his family. A substantial number of weekly hours are, mandatorily, sold to an employer, or dedicated to an employment, in that endeavor. In his non-employment hours, caring for family is his primary responsibility, supplemental to the pleasant necessity of maintaining a social life. But does he, electively, expend his remaining (private) hours, pleasantly engrossed in an interest, or just “doing time?” One would conclude that those humdrum responses to morning greetings, referred to above, are probative evidence of just serving, or doing time, and regrettably and ungratefully, wasting that limited and irreplaceable resource.

There is an intangible, personal luxury, in the reservation of some completely private, personal time, during which, one can retain his own persona and truly be his acknowledged self. Such time also provides a venue where he can choose to utilize his natural aptitudes, or pursue personal interests, such as, art, reading, crafts, gardening, cooking, engagement in sports, or volunteering in hospitals, parks and institutions. These are but a sampling of the plethora of possibilities, all of which have the promise of affording pleasure to the participant, and of offering to him valuable dividends in the nature of personal growth, empirical experience and deeper understanding.

The languid avoidance of the chance to explore the potential of life enhancement and emotional satisfaction, by non-participation in any such interest or activity, amounts to an unrewarding rejection of one’s opportunity for his own advancement of life and self- realization, which inevitably, results in a lack of contentment and predictable ennui, such as are expressed in responses such as, “same old, same old.”

Simply existing, or “doing time,” is, indeed, more than a tragic waste of one’s own most precious and limited resource; it amounts, in reality, to shameless and unprincipled ingratitude, for the many generous gifts bestowed upon our species, by natural evolution.

-p.