Author: plinyblogcom

In any elemental comparison of Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, it can emphatically and accurately be stated that by far, the least significant difference, is the mutual spelling of the first names. The differences in character, persona, appearance, moral personhood, grace, empathy, candor, and just plain decency, are, demonstrably, light years apart. It is eternally to be remembered, that Putin, autocrat and self-appointed, President for life, of Russia, without provocation, caused his Nation to declare all-out war against the Nation of Ukraine, of which Zelensky is the democratically, elected President. The contrasting features of the two Vladamirs are, empirically, so numerous and stark, that we felt that it would be useful to summarize the salient differences, by means of the following, comparative, format:

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

Putin: “Sly Fox” demeanor, half-closed eyes, unsmiling, mirthless, cold, threatening visage of a predatory reptile, merciless, faux arrogance

Zelensky: Warm, approachable, affable, friendly eye contact, neatly trimmed beard, sense of humor.

PERSONA

Putin: Autocratic megalomaniac, delusional, psychopathic, corrupt, power hungry, narcissistic, lacking empathy or humane sensitivity, mirthless, cruel and viciously competitive, power hungry.

Zelensky: Responsible National leader, public benefit and family oriented, communicative, social, empathic, easily approachable, healthy sense of humor, courageous, highly intelligent, patriotic.

POLITICS

Putin: Autocratic, merciless ruler, corrupt, insanely ambitious, fascistic perpetrator of the Big Lie, dishonest, arrogant, totalitarian, merciless killer and jailor of dissidents, repression of newspapers and general media, xenophobic, bigoted, Messiah complex.

Zelinsky: Democratically elected, believer in human rights, dedicated to family and Nation, advocate for democracy and personal rights, humane policies, responsibility to citizenry and family, ethically and empathically oriented, patriotic, non-bigoted (Jewish), well informed and highly educated.

The extreme and obvious differences between the two Vladimirs is interestingly and coincidentally, demonstrative, of the stark contrast between Republican Democracy and Autocracy or Totalitarianism. In democracy, we have the aspirations of rule by and for the people, as well as Statutory, provisions for universal equality. While these democratic aspirations, in America, in many instances and to various degrees, are still a “work in progress,” nevertheless, these definitional aspirations are determinative of the signature moral aspirations of the American Nation.
In Putin’s autocracy, we see arbitrary rule, corruption, and denigration of human rights, extreme repression and absence of human liberty. Should Putin (Russia) be successful in his unwarranted and illegal adventure into the Ukraine, these repressive and fascistic phenomena as exist in his Russia would be mandatorily, visited upon that defeated nation.

 By contrast, should Ukraine triumph over Putin’s illegal incursion, it salubriously would remain a democracy.

 The marked differences in outcomes are directly analogous to the manifest differences between the two Vladimirs.   

-p.

* Apologies to Mr. Charles Dickens, for the title ( “A Tale of Two Cities”).

As has been authoritatively written, human thought (thinking) is the mental process in which memory forms psychological associations and models of the world. Thinking is managing information, such as concepts, problem solving and decision-making.

Before we proceed to our theme, viz., objective, or clear thought, we feel constrained to once more, refer to the 18^th Century, English philosopher, John Locke. Locke declared that Man is born with a clean slate (which he termed, “tabula rasa”) and that he acquires (all of) his knowledge by his life experience (“empiricism”). This enlightened philosophy, to which, we fully, subscribe, leaves no room for irrational thought or inherited or transmitted beliefs. Thus, one’s life involves an ongoing process of learning and is factual and anecdotal (presumably, including human emotion).

After much initial frustrating and disappointing attempts at some cogent analysis, we have fundamentally, concluded, that much of our Nation’s (and democracy’s) problems have, as their foundation, a too-ready believability, or instinctive gullibility, of a vast segment of the American society. In addition to this human weakness, there are many other individuals, who are inclined to support a particular mode of thought, because it happens to be, in accord with their religious beliefs. This latter inclination, by illustration, may explain the ardent passion of those, of the Christian right to, eternally, oppose a woman’s right to abortion. Many beliefs are irrationally, maintained, not because they have merit, but because they “seem right.” For this reason, individuals find it unseemly, or improper, to deign to question, the existence of a Deity.

It is a matter of public record that many citizens, most especially, members of the extreme right, have declared and circulated (perhaps, even believed) an entire plethora of bizarre conspiratorial ideations, which may, properly and clinically, be ascribed to schizophrenia or paranoia. These delusions are taken as valid by those whose political persuasion induced them, as fellow party members, to loyally subscribe to a (their) groupthink. An important caveat is that to make rational decisions, one must have sufficient confidence in himself and in his ability to accurately, see the world.

We would be overjoyed to observe the decline of ignorant, irrational thought in society; however, such subjective (irrational) mode of thought seems, unhappily, to be flourishing. The popular admonition, “Do not believe propaganda,” is of no practical utility, unless one has the ability to distinguish empirical fact from the tactical falsity.

We need to efficiently, promote a universal respect for science, for legitimate, newspaper media, for academia and scholarship, for the maintenance of our democratic government, with its Constitutional checks and balances, and, most significantly, the existential importance and positive utility of rational thought, to achieve human progress in understanding, health, interpersonal relations, and, to enhance the quality of human life.

It is certainly conceivable, that we may be able to, include, as a vital part of our educational system, the useful and important subject of the fundamental and existential necessity for rational thought.

-p.   

Automobile drivers and their passengers, regularly traveling the public highways, predictably, have experienced the repulsive sight of animals, (or what is left of them) run over by automobiles (“roadkill”). The sight is hideous, but, somehow, seems to urgently, compel a quick but most unrewarding view. We have experienced an analogous abhorrence in seeing, on television, Putin’s pathologic and homicidal actions against Ukraine, particularly, the Ukrainian civilians.

The autocratic and corrupt, lifetime “President” of Russia, Vladimir Putin, a former KGB gangster, in full testament to his apparent, Napoleon complex, experienced little difficulty in annexing Crimea and the Donbas areas of the Ukraine, (2014), and so, was encouraged to continue and expand his illegal and immoral war by, absent provocation, invading the Nation of the Ukraine. His false rationale, communicated to the Russian public, was stereotypic of the autocratic, “Big Lie,” a classic tactic, also employed by his friend, Donald J. Trump, regarding his election loss to Joseph Biden.

Putin, on his own, initiative and, reportedly, absent consultation with any Russian Branch of Government, autocratically, declared war against Ukraine, employing the full complement of the Russian Armed forces, infantry, artillery, tanks, air force and navy. Reportedly, his expectation was that, when confronted with such overwhelming force, Ukraine would surrender in a few days. However, the stalwart Ukrainian people, led by their admirable, forty-four-year-old President, Volodymyr Zelensky, mounted a fierce, dedicated and imposing defense. The conscripted and uninspired, invading Russian soldiers, unlike the patriotic Ukrainians, have been bogged down, held off by the ardent and dedicated defenders of their homeland.

The United States, as appropriate assistance to this wrongfully besieged, democratic Nation, has given billions of dollars in military arms, including anti-tank missile launchers, and other weapons and equipment to Ukraine. Several other Nations furnished like support. The defense mounted by the Ukrainians has been stiff, efficient and effective, apparently causing much angst to the egotistical and ambitious Putin. Weeks had passed and Putin’s expectation of a quick victory was entirely frustrated.

As a disgraceful and pathological response to his disappointed, military expectations and the relative incompetence of his armed forces, Putin resorted to a brutal, inhumane and illegal attack upon civilian targets, and the civilian population (as distinguished from military targets). Hospitals, filled with patients and staff, were cruelly and unjustifiably, destroyed by bombs and artillery shelling. The, inarguably, homicidal and psychopathic bombing of a Maternity Hospital, occupied, as expected, by its hospitalized mothers, infants, staff, and other human beings, was horrifyingly viewed, on international television. Occupied residential apartment houses, food storage depots and other civilian targets, as also shown, were bombed and shelled, mercilessly. Families and Individual citizens were murderously, gunned down, including those, who were deceitfully, lured to their fate by being falsely and pathologically, assured a “safe corridor” for their escape. The International Legal authorities have seriously discussing the applicability of charges of “War Crimes,” against Putin; regarding which we strongly agree.

 We were witness, on television, to a Ukrainian doctor unwrapping a soiled blanket, containing the remains of a twenty-two month baby. These numerous deaths are not in any sense, “casualties of war.” This is nothing short of intentional and pathological (human) roadkill; as markedly distinguished from the purely accidental and regretted, killing (of wild animals) on the public highway, by automobiles.

Notwithstanding the admirable, valor and patriotic zeal of the Ukrainian soldiers and armed civilians, televised pictures of the Nation, evince bombed out buildings, residential and business, destroyed infrastructure and automobiles, from the unrestrained bombing by the Russian air force. Zelensky and others of his government, have been desperately requesting the creation of a “No Fly Zone,” or, as they have termed it, “that the skies be closed.” Who can blame them, being vulnerable, and defenseless against the Russian homicidal bombers, responsive to Putin’s lust for empire?

 To date, our Federal Government has been of assistance with the furnishing of military weapons, and other vital support, but has emphatically declined to establish a “No Fly Zone” the rationalization for the latter, declination, is the avoidance of U.S. entry into a “Third World War.” As we understand it, the enforcement, by the American Air Force of such a prohibition, would insert America directly into the war. Presumably, it is felt that the supplying of arms and other substantial support to Ukraine does not result in our Nation’s direct participation. We would humbly disagree with this calculation or distinction, which, no doubt, is happily, approved by Comrade Putin.

We are far from being authorities on matters of warfare, but find it difficult, to accept the proposition that supplying one side of a conflict with billions of dollars in munitions and other forms of support, is not equivalent to the dreaded concept of “participation.”

Putin is undoubtedly on a march of conquest; first, Crimea and Chechnya, then the Donbas. If he succeeds in the theft of Ukraine, he, predictably, will not stop his Napoleonic march to his next desired acquisition. He must be stopped, at once or his ambitions will indeed, ultimately result in a Third World War. Air support is sorely needed, and its assistance could ultimately, prevent such dreaded, World War. Nevertheless, the existential need for air cover might be satisfied, by the supply of fighter planes by the U.S., Poland or some other source, such airplanes to be operated by Ukrainian pilots.

The United States and the free World cannot, for political and moral reasons, sit back, as mere spectators, and watch the psychopathic Putin assault the Ukrainian people, to satisfy his neurotic, lust for power, and as mere grist for the large-scale manufacture of human roadkill.

-p.    

Its ever this time of year
My senses seem to feel
“Neath the soil’s white quilt
Bulbs and perennials, and
Small woodland critters-
All curled up, warm- breathing
Winter- sleeping with the tulips.

When its wake-up time
There’ll be no need of summons,
Only the slow melting quilt,
And warming topsoil and air
My joyful senses will then see-
The bulbs’ green intelligence, and
Furry things that cavort and squeak.

-p

Leonard N. Shapiro 3/15/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-p.

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

-p

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

Dear American Radical:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

-p.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-p.