Category: Uncategorized

There is too little said or written, notably, in the sport pages of the daily newspapers, or on sports television, concerning athletic performance, in the compelling and challenging area of literature. Reading literature is a silent, albeit, popularly participated in and followed sport, which, akin to football and arm wrestling, can be appropriately catalogued as a contact sport. It’s rare appearance in the sports pages, may conceivably be due to the absence of motivated crowds, or, as equally possible, the dearth of reported physical injuries.

In the subject sport, the first physical contact, occurs at the very start of the event, when the newly purchased, hard-cover novel is brought home from the bookstore. When emancipated from its Barnes & Noble paper wrapping, it is athletically, suggested to turn the book around a few times, to admire the attractive book jacket, confirm the new acquisition for your home library, re-read the name of the auspicious novelist, and the title of the book, both as artistically presented on the book cover and its binding.

We strongly recommend, for reasons of safety and comfort, sitting in a comfortable chair, one that you have broken- in previously, as most suitable to optimum performance. Sitting down and adjusting your equilibrium for a few moments, is a crucial, meditative, warm-up. Then, determinatively and confidently, click in the reading lamp, and ergonomically and strategically, place your body in such a position as will insure your safest, most efficient, and comfortable performance. The book should now be turned over to an upright position for the “kick-off” or commencement of the activity. Caution: in the event of a protective wrap protecting the book-cover, the same is to be, strategically, removed and carefully inserted, in an appropriate receptacle; always bearing in mind, that the light-weight, fly-away material of such plastic protective covers, can easily by-pass the intended target (often due to a residential draft).

The next step is especially crucial to any acceptable performance of the sport; it involves the slow opening of the volume, at about half-way (empirically, the most effective point) and subtly, and very gently, inhaling the very faint, but pleasant, scent of the new book (in large part, freshly printed paper) and listening to that slight click of the new binding. We recommend that these latter two, fore-play activities be performed in private, in order to avoid the potential of a possibly puzzled reaction on the part of any sports spectators. The next recommended stage of the sport, will require some manual dexterity. As often is the case with this athletic endeavor, there may be one or two pages [still] stuck together, from its manufacture. Here, contact is to be effectuated with empathic surgical dexterity. Should you be equipped with long fingernails, a very careful slitting of the stuck pages may be accomplished with success and without damage. Should the fates be such, that the player’s fingernails be too short, a thin letter opener may be employed, but with appropriate surgical care.

We affirmatively encourage the reading of the book jacket for the purposes indicated above, and, as well, the preface, since the latter, often relates the intention of the author. For the purpose of properly engaging in this serious sport, however, we would discourage the reading of the “Introduction,” before reading the book, for several reasons. The most obvious reason for this admonition, is that many introductory statements, prematurely, reveal the action and outcome of the novel’s plot. An even more compelling reason is to assure the original, independent understanding of the work by the reader, without any previous influence. We do recommend reading the Introduction, but, only after the completion of the book; good books generally have erudite analyses authored by knowledgeable people, and such reading is interesting, and often illuminating. The sensitive and experienced reader may also enjoy comparing his personal perceptions and analysis, of the book, with that contained in its scholastically written, Introduction.

In the physical participation in the actual, physical, activity, or sport, of reading, we recommend that, all pages be turned from the top edge of the next succeeding page, that there be no simultaneous eating or drinking  (in order to protect the pristine appearance of the pages), that only a flat bookmark be used, to indicate the place last read, that the book, when not being read, be kept on a flat surface, or a bookshelf, and that, absolutely, no pen or pencil markings or notations be made therein (these are annoying and mar the page’s appearance). An available pad and writing implement, for any impulsive notation, should always be closely accessible.

The completed book should be granted its well- deserved respite on a selected bookshelf, with care, not to wedge it into a very tight space, in order to preserve the book jacket and the book itself. When painstakingly seeking the optimum venue for the book, especial care should be taken, to avoid stepping on the cat.

As is prudent in cases of all athletic activities, generally, participants should have regular medical check-ups, eat a nutritious diet, and get adequate sleep.

-p.

We have, on an earlier occasion, lamented the apparent wide-spread general degradation of the American population, in terms of literacy and aesthetic standards.  Too many citizens prefer ephemeral, surface-depth diversion to life-enriching pursuits, such as literature, dramatic presentations, musical concerts and the like. The elevation of an embarrassing and inept President of the United States, may have been an indirect result of this sad and disappointing, phenomenon. Many citizens, however, have held on to their hope for a return to the recent past, where reading a good book did not depend upon assurances that it is short, or funny. There was an era when people attended public lectures, pursued subjects of extra-curricular interest, wrote letters to each other, spoke directly to friends (as opposed to transmitting electronic images to their screen) regularly read newspapers and debated politics in a friendly and sociable manner. We have just previously, lamented on this sea-change in society, but unfortunately observe great disappointment, as well, with our American institutions, formerly the protectors of our Republican Democracy.

We see no need to again discuss the present state of the Executive Branch of government. We have, more than sufficiently described our frustration and despair at the present degradation of the Office. We are also of the opinion, that most Americans, who pay attention, have observed that the Legislative Branch of Government, appears to be largely composed of individuals who are generally, concerned more about their re-election to office, than the responsible duties of their office.

We had, however, maintained our respect, and our hopes regarding the third branch of our Republic, the Judiciary. This institution, has also, recently, dashed our determined hope for the return to the Nation, as depicted in the better periods of our history.

Despite a long and consistent history of observing the black letter law, that no case will be accepted for adjudication, by SCOTUS, which is at all political, {because of the Constitutional Separation of Powers} the high Court accepted [and shamefully decided] Bush v. Gore, and the Democracy damaging, Citizens United case, the latter permitting corporate interests, by the determined right to inject unlimited funds into an election, dilute and outweigh the (democratic) vote of the American citizen.

We have also, unhappily, lost faith in the application of the law, by the [now, apparently politically driven] U.S. Justice Department. We would inquire of that August and infallible, legal institution, as to the following two questions, (1) How can the President be granted the authority to pardon criminals, for crimes in which he has been shown to be complicit?  (2) How can the “Justice Department Rule” (unwritten) against indicting a sitting President, be applicable to the crimes which put him in that office, in the first place? [What, in the name of Yogi Berra, is going on?]

As we breakfast this morning, we do not seem to feel our usual Sunday morning, cheery optimism, and although, generally, while we try to avoid negativity, find that attempt, at this moment, challenging. [Oops, we just spilled our coffee.]

-p.

One may wonder, at the actual degree of faith in the optimistic expectation, of the revered Founding Fathers, experienced politicians, literati and philosophers, that their newly created Democratic Republic, actually would realize their famously articulated, optimistic prognostications. As we read the founding history, Thomas Jefferson instructively and perhaps, warningly, declared that for a democracy to be successful, it requires an informed and literate society. Based upon such expectation, the founders assumed that that members of the new American Society, would, in good faith, engage in debates regarding subjects of controversy; the results of which would inform the legislators, thus effecting the idealistic goal of “a government by and for the people.” It boggles the mind, to speculate that these wise prognosticators completely overlooked the eternal nature and proclivities of the perverse human persona.

It requires no especial competency or discernment to observe the recent, tragic death of civic amity, manifested by   the disappointing behavior of citizens of divergent political persuasion. Those who differ in opinion are considered by others, to be arch enemies; forming insular groups, the members of which are people of like opinion, and effectively waging propaganda -like war against like groups of divergent views. This disappointing phenomenon has resulted in a fractured and deeply divided nation; hardly the vibrant, cooperatively run and dedicated democratic republic envisioned by our idealistic, “pie-in-the-sky”, founders.

In disappointing contrast to the envisioned democratic Nation, consisting of well-informed, literate and involved citizens, the insular, divided society that developed, in large part, disparages learning and scholastic pursuits, in favor of ephemeral, common and cheap diversion. Consistent with such pronounced downgrading of education and the pursuit of knowledge, it has elected, and elevated to the Oval Office, an ignorant, incapable, criminal and bigoted, former television game show host. As a result, we are fearful that national leaders will, precedentially, no longer come from the Nation’s universities or its established institutions of government, but from the tawdry pits of populist afternoon television. It may well be the case, that a great many Trump supporters value the cheap entertainment furnished by his caricatured behavior, over our nation’s proper governance and destiny.

As a part of our Nation’s largely, reductionist-populist mode, we are confronted with a popular denial of the findings of world-class scientists concerning man-made climate change. This display of ignorance may, by degrees, eventuate, so that our (still) verdant planet is, eventually, degraded to the replication of the lifeless, rocky Moon. It is dangerous and revealing, that considerable numbers of uneducated, populist, flat- earth people have been tactically, and successfully, manipulated, in this area, by big- time, entrepreneurial polluters who greedily and psychopathically, value short term profits, over human life.

It is only such poorly informed  and demagogically pliable citizens, that could have been such a significantly important factor, in the elevation to the Oval Office, of a disgraceful, incapable and embarrassing persona like Donald J. Trump; evidently, a completely ignorant, hopelessly inept, attention seeking adolescent, who has, improperly and shamelessly, turned the Oval Office into a shopping mall for the profit of his family, and his elected position, into a profitable vehicle for the blatant violation of our Constitution’s Emolument Clause. To add fuel to the fire, he is also an outspoken bigot and a perpetrator of serial mendacity. Do we need more?  He is a woman abuser, a critic of our established media, a friend to despotic rulers and an enemy of our historic friends. The list is too full for any patient delineation.

We are disturbed, that the Democratic Party has been, expressly and insecurely, concentrating its efforts on seeking a “Candidate who can defeat Trump” (albeit, a complete failure as President, with an obnoxious persona), rather than a Candidate with the traditional American values and citizen empathy, the Democratic Party’s historic and appropriate mantra. Is this a confirmation and acceptance, of the steep decline in the estimation of the quality of the American citizen? Heaven or Mother Nature, help us!!

-p.

It would seem useful to consider the difficult, but interesting, conception and dynamics of the word “boundaries,” in the context of its recent use, as regarding social relationships. In general, the pluralized word, has, in modern times, acquired a functionally versatile, practically, ubiquitous application.  Classically, we are familiar with “boundaries” as a mandatory and proprietary declaration of limitation, as applied to the limits of territorial ownership, related to legal issues of ownership and trespass.  Yet the word has, in modern parlance, permissibly, been extended to signify as well, one’s extent of tolerance for language or action, as determined by his perception of the relevant relationship. If challenged to give an all-inclusive, generic, definition of the noun, “boundaries,” we would, simply define it, as a line that separates two things, spatial or behavioral.

With regard to previously established human relationships, there will already have been, tacitly, or expressly consented to, personal and subject matter boundaries. In traditional settings, such as weddings, funerals and other public or familial events, expectations and boundaries of speech and behavior, are situationally circumscribed within the normal and expected societal context. There are similarly, respective expectations of the observance of traditional boundaries and limits, on the job, in school, the theater, in museums, school, houses of worship, at parties, other gatherings and at dinner (home or restaurant). The accepted and customary boundaries of relationship and behavior, in these traditional contexts, are not open to question, since they are predictably defined, and delimited, by precedential social expectation; and may even be described as stereotypical.

In this essay, we are interested, in the establishment and existence, of the more nuanced and problematic boundaries, experienced in the normative context and setting of the intimate family; the occasion of the birth of a daughter’s first child; and, additionally, our suggested boundaries, applicable to new social relationships.

The variable nature and quality of the spousal, interactive relationship, as we perceive it, is a joint product of their interactive personalities and married history. In a healthy marriage, there will have been established, a working partnership of sorts, respecting mutual responsibility and function. However, of the greatest importance, is mutual recognition and observance of respect for the separate integrity and needs, of the other. Most matters are shared, based upon their affectionate and recognized relationship, yet each may have particular areas of private concern and sensibility. These are appropriately private, and not inconsistent with a mutually loving and faithful relationship; but are purely personal, and are to be considered as boundaries, not wisely trespassed.

Parents must establish reasonable boundaries of respect and action, consistent with a secure, loving, and trusting relationship, with their children. These should be appropriate to the respectively defined roles, of parent and child, and evidence the usual and normative boundaries, which begin to be gradually, nuanced, consistent with the children’s changes in age, dependency and stage of maturity. Intimacy is an essential ingredient, affording the feeling of security in the child, but never practiced to the extent where a parent trespasses the appropriate, parent-child role (boundaries), and becomes the child’s “friend.” The singularly most important factor, aside from the utilitarian nature of the parent-child established boundaries, is unfailing and respected, consistency.

A more complicated matter is the subject of family “boundaries,” is presented upon the birth of a daughter’s baby; most particularly, her first born. The new parents, themselves, are for a time, somewhat, in the throes of disbelief and mild shock.  Often the maternal grandmother by evident necessity, takes on the surrogate task of instructing the inexperienced parents, in the care and maintenance of the newborn baby. It is appropriate, and essential to appreciatively, and fully, recognize the multiplicity of generous services and instructive advice, rendered, when such assistance was needed. However, at some point, the mother of the newborn, will need to assert her desire to personally and exclusively, exercise her maternal role in succeeding to the full management of the affairs of her child. These boundaries should be, gently and lovingly urged, and done so, with recognition of the intimacy which had developed between the newborn and the helpful grandmother. It is important, for the continued, amicable relationship of the family, that this timely assertion of determinative authority, (boundaries) on the part of the baby’s mother, be clearly and definitely, but, thoughtfully and empathetically, articulated.

Clearly communicated boundaries are essential in all social relationships, but most especially, in new ones. The adequate understanding of one’s self, and the mutual communication to, and exchange of, those mutual understandings, respectively, to one’s new partner is essential, including, when appropriate, the subject of desired goals and intentions. When both parties are clear on the subjects of identity and intention, there reportedly develops, mutual feelings of comfort and retained self-esteem. Each party should be aware of the desired boundaries of the other, socially and sexually. Preferences and tastes, as well as dislikes and uncomfortable subject areas, should be expressly and clearly communicated.  As time goes on, and the parties to the relationship proceed to know each other more intimately, they become more comfortable with the desired boundaries, asserted in the relationship.

The universally insurmountable boundary, consisting of evident neurosis, or personal insecurity, is predictably, and all too often, a cause of failure. Each party to the relationship must be, and appear, reasonably confident and independent, and not desire to lean, or depend upon the other. This feature is a determinative boundary, seldom crossed.

-p.

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.