Category: Uncategorized

At the very moment our Founding Fathers issued the declaration, applicable to the new Nation, “All men are created equal,” the death knell was sounded for the ages-old, European system of privileged birth and of privileged classes.

Such radical, 18^th Century determination, ultimately, led our new Nation to unprecedented, and universally recognized success, wealth and power; albeit, it has taken decades of personal sacrifice and hard work, for the ideal of equality to be universally applied to all, regardless of race or gender. Yet it may truly be said that great progress toward the full attainment of universal equality has been made.

Liberty of action resulted in the development and encouragement of entrepreneurship, and with it, the unrestrained opportunity, by many enterprising Americans, to succeed in the acquisition of wealth, social standing and influence.  This laissez -faire system also resulted in a far greater number of citizens, of various degrees of financial success, including a lower economic, but self-supporting Middle Class, and a less fortunate economic class, referred to as the “Lower Class,”; the latter, with, manifestly, inadequate resources for its subsistence. The phenomenon of “class difference,” it appears, now morphed into relative considerations of temporal wealth, as opposed to the European, accident of birth.

In the early 20th Century, starting with the Presidential Administration of Franklin D Roosevelt, new,  empathic programs of governmental assistance to the Nation’s needy, (folks who apparently, fell into the cracks of the free enterprise universe) were enacted, for the purpose of granting needed assistance. Relief in many areas, including, social security and survivor’s insurance, unemployment and disability benefits, reforms relating to wages and working hours, sick leave and labor conditions, in general, were enacted. The governmental expression of empathy and concern for the working, and lower class, in general, developed into the salutary system we now call, “compassionate capitalism.”

An equitably essential concomitant, to the declaration that “all men are born equal,” is the officially declared, foundational principle of, “Freedom of Opportunity.” No longer would it be the case that the son of a tradesman or a blacksmith’s son be socially constrained to seek an apprenticeship with his father, or some other craftsman, and follow his trade or calling. As society progressed, the principle meant that, young men (and much later, women) could better their lives, economically or otherwise, if capable, by seeking to follow another life path such as in medicine, law, the church, apothecary, finance or other calling or profession.

Time tested experience, inarguably, demonstrated that the most successful route, to an improved life, economically and otherwise, was by the initial pursuit of a higher education, by matriculation into higher institutions of learning, Colleges and Universities, and graduating with a recognized degree; such graduates, demonstrably, have better jobs and earn far more, than non-graduates. The foundational assurance of equal opportunity for all, has motivated a great many young people to improve their lives and economic status by means of this propitious route. An unfortunate problem is the very high cost of college tuition, forcing many students, who cannot get a scholarship, or attain entrance to a City University, to borrow, and undertake significant long term debt, in order to obtain their necessary diploma. This, however, has been empirically demonstrated to be the most successful route to a better and more fulfilling life, and the effectuation of the phrase, “Freedom of Opportunity.

There would appear to be a hierarchy of purported “better colleges” which, have been adjudged, somehow, to be “superior.” Among the latter are the so-called, “ivy league” colleges and universities, for example, Stamford, Harvard, Yale and Columbia, among others.  The public perception, whether accurate or not, is that these “better” schools attract the best, and most desirable students, and furnish a distinctly superior education. Such reputations may, or may not be deserved, however, highly motivated, success-oriented students (and unfortunately, many economically privileged and ego-driven parents) actively compete for entrance to these “elite” success factories.

At this point in this “mini-essay,” we would observe that, based upon considerable personal experience, it may, creditably, be said that any motivated and capable student, can obtain a prime education from any decently accredited college or university, and be a desirable candidate for employment, or further study, anywhere. Any student seeking a sound college education, need not be concerned, regarding his future, with the public relations statements promoting any so- called “elite” college. His success in obtaining a good education and his consequent self- advancement is more dependent upon his character and accumulation of wisdom.

It is disappointing, even egregious, to note that despite the solemn promises of our great country, greed and the neurotic aspiration for publicly acclaimed success, unabashedly and shamelessly fly in the face of our historic proclamations and dedicated purpose. Two wealthy and successful mothers of would-be candidates for admission to the “elite” school, Harvard University, have been charged with the crime of bribery, the motivation for which was the purchase of Harvard’s consent to their admission to the school. We are of the depressing opinion that there may be minions of such ambitiously dedicated mothers, anxious to crow to their elite entourage. about their brilliant child’s meritorious admission to Harvard. From the student’s point of view, unless he is inclined also to be crass, he will, in any event, always remember that his seat was paid for, and not earned on the merits.

These selfish, miscreant, women are shamefully guilty of criminal behavior, but also obnoxiously, of a neurotic sense of personal entitlement. They should, certainly, be punished, but also pointedly reminded of having, acted in derogation of our Nation’s solemn promise, of equality of opportunity.

Harvard, itself is no less a disgraceful offender. The institution, originally created to teach the Christian faith to potential ministers, has an ages long, programmatic history of immorally and intentionally playing favorites, for “legacy” families, for substantial donors to it, of money and for other policies of favoritism, contrary to our Nation’s historically established promise. We do not consider such an intentional and consistent offender “elite,” in any sense of the word.

It might be well to remember the insightful statement of Socrates, who said. “It is not the equalization of property, but the moral improvement of man.”

-p.

Many of our readers are old enough to remember the events of the Second World War. In the Pacific Theater of that war, the (then) enemy, Japan, devised a desperate and cruel plan of attack on the empirically superior, American warships, by heartlessly recruiting hapless young Japanese men to serve as suicide pilots.  Their sole assigned, mortal mission was to intentionally crash their airplanes into American Naval Vessels. These suicide pilots, called “Kamakaze” were recruited by means of a combination of personally applied, intense nationalistic propaganda, and threats of potential “shame,” (the latter, still remains a profoundly impactful critique, in Japanese subculture). The recollection of this period, and particularly, of this program, continues to inspire nightmarish recollections for our nation, and undoubtedly, as well, for our contemporary friend and ally, the modern Nation of Japan.

For a considerable period of time, we had been puzzled at the vast number of Americans, observably,  those of modest education and low information, who were, especially in need of, and entitled to, government programs of assistance (including nutrition, health education, disability), who have opposed such assistance and programs. The sole reason for such self-denial and, effectively, “suicidal” tendencies, as we have, more recently been able to discern, is a falsely implanted, and ingested meme, concerning a purported America’s current, steady metamorphosis into a dreaded “Armageddon” State called, “Socialism.”

Perhaps it would be useful (once more) simply, and accurately, to define “Socialism.” The latter is a political-economic theory of governance, pursuant to which, the Central Government, is the owner and manager of all industry and business (in direct contrast with private ownership, by entrepreneurs, termed, Capitalism). Such Socialist brand of government, identified by a totality of government ownership and control of nation’s economy and business, is manifestly distinguishable, from an empathic nation’s programs of governmental assistance, to its legislatively defined, needy citizens.  We would, once more declare, that there is no existing American political party of any significance, nor any governmental official, throughout our entire Nation, desirous of change to a Socialistic Government, or to “Socialism,” from our existing, Capitalistic, Democratic Republic.

Thus, the previously presenting conundrum, viz., the unexplainable opposition to such assistance, by deserving citizens, has been discernably accounted for, by the false meme, cynically and tactically, implanted into the under-schooled, and persuadable minds, that he same is purportedly, “socialistic”, and ipso facto, evil. One can be supremely confident, that the tactically selfish promoters of this, apparently successful, faux meme, do so for personally nuanced, self-interested reasons, and, of course,  have the good fortune to live comfortable lives, in which government assistance is irrelevant. We find the situation referentially analogous, to the subject of the inhuman Japanese World War 2, Kamakaze program. It is an evident fact that the Japanese military people who were the propagandists and enablers, employing the false and effective meme of manhood and national valor, did not risk their own lives, only the lives of others.

We continue to confidently maintain, as observed in previous posts, that America’s consistent exercise of empathy, best described as “compassionate capitalism,” is by any measure, the most effective and tactical, preventative against exotic governmental change, but, far more significantly, is a manifestly appropriate and just expression of truly foundational, American morality.          –p.

The large, noisy crowd in attendance at the publically pre- announced event, Wednesday, December, 2099 @ 11:30 A.M., taking place in the rural town of Adherence, Pa., was far too distracted and animated to take any notice of the low, dark and disapproving rainclouds, rumbling, overhead. The attendees were exclusively men and boys; women, having been unanimously deemed, by the male Town Officials and the local Church Authority, as having no proper place at public events. In Adherence, Pa., women’s time was to be satisfactorily taken up with cleaning house, preparing meals, seeing to the proper maintenance of the Town Church, “Our Lady of Dire Repression,” and taking turns, cleaning and polishing the 25 ft., reverential Copper statue of a smiling, confident Donald J. Trump.

The town’s two old abandoned buildings, one formerly a public library, and the other, a deserted local newspaper office, have been designated to serve as the banquet halls for this major municipal event; thereby, effecting an economy of cost, and, as well, furnishing a current and rare use for such long neglected and steadily deteriorating edifices.

The entire cost of this municipal event, has been generously subscribed to, as usual, by the town’s two philanthropists, the patriotically outspoken, energy supplier, “Climate Change No- No, Inc.,” and the salubrious chemical company, “Mute the Pollute LLC,” both again honored for their perennial charity.

The established dress code for attendees, liberally permits the carrying of pistols and other defensive automatic weapons, but strictly mandates unsoiled jeans. The wearing of red baseball caps, bearing the patriotic meme: “Make America Great Again” is strongly encouraged, and optional bullet cartridge belts, or those of ordinary leather, with large western buckles, are equally acceptable.

The crowd is restless, almost unruly, and is impatient for American justice to be meted out to the despised miscreant, one, Mr. A. Page Turner, a confessed, former children’s librarian. It was reported that during one of the Town’s regular surprise searches, Mr. Turner had, with full intention and deliberation, secreted a shocking quantity of illicit literature, behind a secret wooden wall panel. These were said to include the nefarious, “Little Dorritt”, and “Great Expectations”, by Charles Dickens, “Moby Dick”, and “Billy Budd”, by Herman Melville,” Vanity Fair” by Charles Thackeray, and “Middlemarch”, by a brazen female author, pretending, by use of her nom- de- plume, to be male, the shameless hussy George Eliot.

The accused, Mr. A.P. Turner, has demonstrated absolutely no remorse whatsoever, by compounding his previous crime, with an attempt at still another heinous crime. He was intercepted by surprise, and caught in the archaic and atavistic act, of expressing his “last words” before execution of the sentence, by means of a hand- written letter, instead of by electronic transmission the patriotic, American way.

The Vicar of the aforesaid Town Church, the Right Rev. I.M. Priggish, in his dual role as Town Magistrate, directed, that, considering the serious extent of venality, together with the multiplicity of the accused’s crimes, he be punished by communal stoning, as provided in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible. However, due to the recent shortage of such natural materials, urgently needed for the repair of the broken Church Wall, that the criminal be administered the decreed Biblical punishment, by means of the punitive casting at him, of each and every hard cover volume of the 7^th Edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica.

Thus, decent folk can breathe easily, knowing that justice has again been restored in the town of Adherence, Pa.

-p.

The earliest Western statement of the basic and absolute need, for a mandatory standard of societal morality and moral behavior is that, no doubt, contained in the directives and proscriptions, of the apocryphal “Ten Commandments.” To simplify its archaic, thematic admonitions in more secular and contemporary language: where, in any group, of at least two persons, the action of one party affects the other, an agreed understanding of acceptable social behavior is mandatory. The laws limiting liberty of behavior are enacted by the relevant legislature, responsive to its perception of the contemporary societal morality (within, of course, the strictures of our Constitution).

In order to protect legitimate liberty and assure ultimate fairness, the Constitution of the United States, importantly, provides, that for any behavior to constitute and be prosecutable as a crime, the relevant penal statute satisfy the legally prescribed standard of clarity; viz., “capable of being fully understood by a person of ordinary intelligence.” A Statute that is adjudged as not meeting this standard, is constitutionally, “void for vagueness,” and unenforceable. It is the American jurisprudence, that a potential criminal offender, be, fairly, put on notice that he will be committing a crime; before he can be prosecuted as a criminal. The Penal Codes of the State or Federal Government are drafted and legislated with this principle of human intention in mind.

Sexual abuse may fairly be described, as the wrongful performance of undesired sexual behavior, by one person respecting the other. At times it is committed by force; most often it is perpetrated by a person in a superior position or one with influence over the victim. The shameful number of such offenses, (many, unreported) led to the organization of the currently well known, “Me Too Movement,” an organization, properly opposing sexual harassment and sexual assault. It was reportedly begun in October, 2017, at the same time when the shameful allegations against Harvey Weinstein were publicized. The movement, contains, in addition to those who, properly, support it merely on moral principle, injured women from the areas of the American media, the Fashion industry, the Church, Education, Finance, Politics and Government, Sports, the Music Industry, and others. The numbers of such reported miscreant acts are virtually astounding. We can offer no estimate of the unreported ones, whom we are told, fear retaliation and exposure to shame. Many of the prominent women leaders of the protest movement, have stated that the problem is so numerous that it will, without doubt, require, in addition, men, to take a hand and also render their support. [We agree and dutifully volunteer our total support.]

Our initial [ but not sole] gesture of support is, to our mind, an important, and potentially effective approach to, at least, limiting the numbers of transgressions. With respect to this constructive suggestion, we completely exclude the entire class of intentional sex abusers, like Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump and the hordes of miscreant adolescent- neurotics who intentionally, get their perverted jollies by acts marginalizing and harassing women. This species of venal miscreant deserves adequate punishment for its misdeeds, and perhaps, optimistically, many years of psychological therapy.

Our suggestion would specifically apply to accused persons like Joe Biden, whom we continue to believe, is a completely honorable man, and a respecter of women. From our appraisal of the former Vice-President, a warm and socially communicative personality, he had no idea that the two complainants were feeling demeaned by his innocently intended, mere touching, which was, throughout all his life, a concomitant of his conversation. He has apologized, and ruefully explained that he had no idea that his communicative style was objectionable to them. He indicated that realizes that it is now, unfortunately, a new (Harvey Weinstein) world, and that he would, therefore amend his conversational style. It seems evident to us, that Joe’s intentions were, as always, warm and communicative, and unrelated to sex. He seemed shocked to apprehend the new sensitivities, which were totally unknown to him, albeit a public figure.

Our promised, contributing suggestion to the problem is as follows: Most men we know are like Joe Biden and not Harvey Weinstein; they do respect the rights of women to their dignity and privacy. From the matter of Joe Biden, we have, also, learned that the latest, expressed sensitivities to touching, are justified and real. Most people we know, however, touch occasionally when communicating. We are friends with people who are not criminals, yet, actually even hug and kiss others, affectionately.

With similar concern for fairness, analogous to the principles stated above regarding criminal responsibility, a potential offender (in this case, most especially, one of purely innocent intention) needs to be informed in advance, concerning the new red lines which recently have been re- drawn, gerrymandering areas previously considered, acceptable and normal social behavior, to those which are now to be described as abusive. We do a lot of hugging around here, and would be totally appreciative of the latest legal guidelines.

-p.

As any cursory review of history will reveal, the first independent guild of pharmacists, was established in the 17^th Century England by King James 1^st.  Originally called “apothecaries,” early day pharmacists not only prepared and dispensed remedies,they also offered the latest in medical advice to their customers. It is to be noted that the tradition of apothecaries accompanied the English Colonialists, to the New World.

It also appears, that the first regulations, requiring a physician’s prescription, prior to dispensing a (non- “over the counter”) medicine, was passed as an Amendment to the U.S. Food and Drug Act, in 1951.

We have chosen to revisit this subject because of our negative reaction to the persistent, daily, continuance of the irresponsible practice of marketing medicine, to the general public on television, despite the consideration that the  lack of knowledge concerning any potential user, may result in adverse effects and dire outcomes. Miraculous “snake oil” results, in aid of sales, portrayed by the parading of beautiful models and actors, before suffering members of the viewing public, is a most reprehensible practice. Following the glitzy presentation of an assured personal Valhalla, a series of rapid, virtually unintelligible, disclaimer statements, are routinely broadcast, in Gatling gun, rapid-fire fashion. The latter practice represents a ludicrous, inadequate and amateurish attempt at legal cover, for any injuries proximately caused by the advertiser’s false representations. Neither does the tactical and sophomoric solicitation, to “consult your doctor,” detract, one bit, from the potentially devastating impact of such tortious and anti-social behavior.

Where medication is factually indicated, its selection is properly within the jurisdiction and  knowledgeable responsibility, of a qualified, experienced physician; most importantly, one who is well acquainted with the individual patient, and his personal health history. The routine suggestion, presented in all media sales pitches, that the viewer-sufferer to ask his doctor about the advertised medicine, is merely a deceptive tactic, designed to falsely assure the purchaser of the purported validity of the advertised product. At its least venal, such suggestion may be interpreted to mean that the physician may not be “up to date,” as to the latest available medicine. In reality (as known by the entire “pharma” industry), doctors are regularly besieged with sales representatives, energetically lauding the virtues of their pharmaceutical company’s new products. In such instance, and by obvious contrast, the physician has the education and practice experience, to enable him to evaluate such purported virtues.

If more were needed, we would, additionally observe, tha the prescription of medicine for known patients requires consideration and judicious decision as to the vitally important subjects of, proper dosage, method of administration, allergies, possible side effects, plus any and all other applicable and singular facts concerning the treated patient.

In the interest of public safety and health, television commercials promoting the sale of medicine should be legally banned, by the F.D.A.

-p.

It is disconcertingly difficult, and painful, to comprehend and actually accept, that a revenant of “Dark Ages” fear and ignorance, still persists in the minds of many people, regarding the salubrious and responsible societal practice, of vaccination of the young against the onset of serious and potentially lethal disease.

History demonstrates that prior to the development and practice of vaccination, childhood deaths were legion. Tolls for diphtheria, measles, mumps and other early-onset illnesses, were no less than astronomical.  Earlier periods in literature, routinely speak of families, who had lost multiple young children to diseases, especially, but not limited to, diphtheria and measles.

With great kudos to scientists and clinical physicians, childhood vaccines were developed, improved and thereafter, routinely and responsibly administered, resulting in an immense decline in the onset of childhood maladies, cases of childhood disability and death. These vaccines proved to be effective in averting the scourge of diphtheria, polio, whooping cough, tetanus, chickenpox, influenza, and other tragic and dangerous diseases. Today, schools and institutions wisely require, as protective policy, prior to enrollment, the child’s official health record, attesting to the responsible program of vaccination.

For modern informed families, it would be unheard-of, to fail to have their young children routinely vaccinated. In fact, such omission would be frowned upon by society, as irresponsible and hazardous to the child. We would, describe such behavior, deservedly as, child abuse and its consequent mortality as “filicide.” Such irresponsibility, threatens not only the child, but others, the most critical being young cancer patients, prohibited from vaccination, and those suffering from diseases characterized by immune deficiency. Every creditable hospital, clinic and licensed health practitioner, including, for example, the notable Mayo Clinic, has consistently and mandatorily promoted, regular programs of vaccination for the young.

The persistence of the “Dark Ages,” superstitious belief, that vaccination causes autism, was debunked years ago, such false supposition, having been officially withdrawn, long ago, by its former proponents. The denial of any child’s right to good health and an opportunity for a normal life, upon the ignorant repetition of this hobgoblin-type fear, is nothing short of classic child abuse.  The advent of tragedy is easily preventable, and the inherent, moral and legal responsibility of the parent. We see its omission as akin to irresponsibly, permitting a young child to play on a heavily trafficked boulevard.

There is yet, another despicable, pseudo-sanctimonious group of people, who defend their atavistic position against vaccination, upon purported religious grounds. Before reviewing this ludicrous defense, we would restate, the well- established, constitutional principal that no freedom (such as the freedom of religion) is without limit; and that the (constitutionally) legal limit of any and all of our freedoms is at the point, where it causes harm. The denial of a simple procedure, to ensure a child’s freedom from disease, is not a denial of religious liberty; there is no religious liberty to cripple your child, nor to perpetrate child abuse. There is no ascribed, benevolent Deity who would favor ill health and childhood disease; and no “religious” right to harm, only religious travesty.

Empirical experience has shown that the practice of simply waiting for natural cure, is extremely hazardous; mumps easily leads to deafness, polio to paralysis or death, measles to pneumonia.

We find it to be unspeakably unjust, that the health and life of children should be threatened by their own parent’s obstinate ignorance; accordingly; in a proper case, we feel, in the best interest of the young child, that society execute its moral authority, as well as its protective responsibilities, and enforce the health and safety of the child by legal process.

***************

ADDENDUM: We are vehemently opposed to recent suggestions that unvaccinated children be officially denied admission to parks and other places of public assembly; the implementation of the suggestion is impractical, logistically, but most significantly, such policies would improperly smack of Nazi mentality and apartheid type exclusion.

-p.

Albert Einstein, indisputably, the greatest theoretical physicist and genius of our era, portrayed (to those capable of its comprehension), a novel definition of energy in a miraculously simple algebraic formula, and, in addition, announced a theory (“Relativity”), to the effect that space and time (the latter, our present subject) are integrated to a degree, previously unknown.

We, like many other somewhat, well educated, and somewhat sophisticated, mortals, based upon the acceptance and positive valuation of Einsteinian theory, by the World’s premier academics and physicists, are not scant in our obeisance to the great man; we accept the majesty of his reported contributions to human knowledge, but candidly speaking, we do so, as a matter of appropriate, secular faith in, and encouragement of human endeavor and advancement. We, unfortunately, cannot pretend to understand it, but do recognize and join in, the universal homage paid to him, by those who do.

We sincerely hope that we are not committing philosophical or scientific blasphemy, when we state that we would have enormously appreciated it, if the great and celebrated genius, would have defined for us, just exactly what “time,” itself (as a conceit) is; or whether our nonscientific, mundane use of the word is merely an attempt to fill a needed, and meaningless, void in our language. If he had chosen to tell us what the concept, “time” (which he integrated with space) signifies, such limited, but much needed, enlightenment would be shared by all, and much appreciated.

In all of our readings, we have never come across an explanation of the word, “time”, nor any description of its properties; which appears to us, strange, because of its frequent use in literature and in conversation. We know, or can discover, the properties or essence of most planetary phenomena, such as, wind, sunshine, soil, river, daffodil, moonlight, carbon (unfortunately), flora and fauna; but what can the essential characteristic, or the physical properties of “time” be? Is it possible, that it only has existence as a needed word (a filler) for an elusive concept that we can utter but not describe?

Many people use “time” only with reference to a “timepiece”, viz., the numbered revolutions of he hands on a wristwatch or clock. But what if there were no timepieces, no clocks or watches, would there still be a shared understanding, or any understanding, of what we choose to call “time.” A butterfly lives out its short span of life, homo sapiens lives longer, the germination of the tulip bulb will occur, at its own nuanced pace, provided there is sufficient water and sunlight, the four seasons arrive and depart when they do. What is it that orchestrates the natural order of nature? Will you answer, “time” simply because you are stuck for another available word, or some explanatory conceit?

We are very humbly obliged, absent any available and useful enlightenment on the subject, to admit, in unscientific fashion, our conjecture, that (1) either the word, ”time” exists, simply out of necessity, for the lack of a more useful descriptive noun, (2) that the word “ time” is, in essence, merely an awkward description for the natural, or expected order of things, or (3) that it has no intrinsic substance and is used simply out of practical necessity.

Albert, you could have helped us!

-p.

At the very time of this writing, we are uncomfortably ensconced in the Executive Offices of plinyblog.com, nursing a painfully injured right knee and occupied in an alternate, shifting and re-shifting, of our position in a frequent, and so far fruitless, endeavor, to discover some comfort.

Times like this, afford ample opportunity for rumination, and we seem to have a tendency to conjure up previously unremarked subjects, for written reflection. Our relevant preoccupation, under the circumstances, seems to be, admittedly, with the general and competing concepts of pain and comfort. Yet, since “physical” pain and discomfort, are unfortunately, all too frequently experienced and universally understood, our elective subject is the quest for relief and comfort, at times of uncomfortable, “emotional” challenges.

There would appear to be a differential and varied level of equilibrium for each individual, ranging widely from the placid persona, to the highly charged one. The status of each individual’s nuanced equilibrium, and the extent of his personal tolerance for stress, may already be somewhat known to each individual, based upon his recollection of his experience concerning past stressful situations.

Since we are not professionally qualified to make useful observations regarding personalities whose upset is eternal, being the result of disorder or pathology, such categories of sufferers are not included within the scope of this writing; those unhappily challenged individuals should, of course, pursue their goal of comfort with the aid of a qualified physician. The theme of this post is limited to, and merely concerned with, more mundane, commonly encountered, situational life challenges.

Even in times of unremarkably routine, everyday life, we may suddenly find ourselves confronted with difficult, critical choices and personal challenges; some of which are, in various degrees, anxiety producing and personally disconcerting, depending upon the affected individual’s resilience and nuanced past experiences. Most capable individuals, possessed of a reasonable amount of personal empirical experience, or who have witnessed analogous problems and solutions, on the part of other societal members, will have an advantage in accepting and resolving presenting problems, with the assistance of past perspective.

At times of personal challenge, in our observant and empathic experience, the dual possession of a stable self-image and an acceptable level of self-esteem, are the most critical. The latter qualities, built, in part, upon previous problem solving experience, result in an enduring and useful reality- based confidence.

A highly tempting, but certainly far less useful, response, to the presentment of a stressful problem, is the initial, defensive impulse of avoidance; thus putting off, at least for the moment, the uncomfortable expenditure of anxiety, and a possibly laborious search for solution. Not unlike our present attempts to discover a comfortable position for our injured knee, the same amounts to an attempt, merely, at ephemeral comfort, as opposed to a realistic aspiration for a solution. In reality, it is an unhealthy and ultimately costly, postponement of the need to accept, and to come to grips with the problem. More profoundly, perhaps, we suggest, it may be remembered as a tacitly personal, confession of weakness and incompetence, undoubtedly, having an evaluative impact on the solution of the current problem, and one’s self-esteem and self- image, with negative dividends, predictably, for future challenges.

The painful challenge of our injured right knee will, in its time, resolve itself. Would that more complicated and significant challenges, similarly, have the marvelous and convenient capability of self –resolution!

-p.

 

The contemporary JOLLY GREEN GIANT, (recognized trustee, celebrated advocate and acclaimed guardian of the planet’s flora) recently, seems to us, much less concerned with his celebrated role as television purveyor of frozen and canned vegetables, than with the current status of the ongoing societal debate, concerning the decriminalization of marijuana.

We would like, at this early stage of this writing, to clarify our position regarding the subject issue.  Having never smoked, and not presently being a smoker of any kind, we assuage our need for oral gratification and pleasure, such as it exists, solely from the activities of eating and drinking. We do not, therefore, “have a dog in this fight.” Nevertheless, we are keenly interested in the subject of legislation, of any kind, which curtails or prevents the full exercise of promised citizen liberty.

Our Official National motto, is a recitation of an express guaranty to our citizenry, of their inalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” A recognized, appropriate and necessary corollary, of course, is that no particular exercise of liberty be such, that it causes injury or damage to another citizen. Illustrative of this basic principle is the popularly known limitation on the right of freedom of speech, consisting of the admonition, that one may not falsely cry out: “fire” in a crowded theater. A similar, protective corollary, for reasons of practical necessity, is properly applicable to the exercise of all citizen rights.

Restrictions on freedom and liberty, by reason of the violation of the nation’s protective penal laws, have always been categorized into two distinct strata:

1. Malem in se. These are wrongful acts which are manifestly evil in themselves, ex., homicide, robbery, assault and arson.
2. Malem prohibitum. These are crimes which were created by legislation, ex., fire and health regulations, traffic infractions, and operating a business without a required license.

The criminal laws relating to the sale and use of marijuana, are inarguably, malem prohibitum, i.e., criminal, solely and only, by reason of their designation, as such, by existing statute.

In view of our nation’s publicly proclaimed guarantee of liberty for all, it is a foundational prerequisite to any statutory criminalization of an exercise of citizen liberty, that there be a rational showing that such  legislation, is vitally necessary to the continued health, safety or moral underpinnings of society. In the absence of a convincing demonstration to such effect, any such limitation on citizen freedom would (ultimately) be deemed arbitrary and invalid. To our main point, we have never been made aware of any rational reason, or reasonable justification, for the Government’s declared criminalization of marijuana. In view of its expansive guaranty of liberty to every citizen, it would seem that the heavy burden of such a showing, would, ethically and responsibly, fall on the government.

It may be of some interest, to refer to an illustrative experience of decades ago, regarding legislation outlawing alcohol beverages (the Volstead Act). This period, later referred to as, “the prohibition era” was a textbook demonstration of the very theme of this post; i.e., that liberty when constrained by Statute, is required to have a rational and necessary purpose, on pain of being perceived as arbitrary and unjustified. The sole discernable cause for this circa, 1920’s instance of interference with American liberty, was limited to a relatively small, but highly influential, religious group, favoring temperance. The legislation was ultimately withdrawn; but not before a major upset was caused to American society, an enormous increase in crime, including the birth of dangerous criminal gangs and celebrated criminal personalities, the wholesale failure of numerous legitimate businesses, and at long and exasperated last, the repeal of the unwarranted limitation by Constitutional Amendment.

A strange phenomenon does exist, regarding the sale and use of tobacco. Despite consistent medical evidence showing that smoking is predictably harmful to the health, and demonstrably lethal (which would clearly seem to justify legislative prohibition) no such prohibitory laws have, in fact been enacted, or even, presented. This exotic phenomenon exists in strategic concurrence with an eternally rich and powerful tobacco industry, in existence since the colonial era. A not dissimilar dissonance, is the plentitude of scientific proof that our planet is being adversely affected by the increase in hydrocarbons produced by major industry, and the immoral and irresponsible absence of effective prohibitive, or regulatory statutes. As shown regarding the tobacco industry, political influence and profits, seem to supplant legitimate concern for the health of our nation, and its inhabitants.

Despite the two cited outliers, our hero, the celebrated Jolly Green Giant, joins us in an earnest inquiry concerning the possible existence of a legitimate basis for the criminalization of marijuana, one of JGG’s myriad verdant products; failing which, an official determination that the continued criminalization of this product is an an illegal and arbitrary breach of the traditional American assurance of citizen liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The resolution of this moral and legal dispute would, also, importantly, enable the JGG to get back to the commercial television business of selling veggies.

-p.

 

 

In the early 20^th Century, the iconic poet, Gertrude Stein, penned the now famous, phrase, “A rose is a rose.” Our own nuanced understanding, of what otherwise might appear to be an enigmatic statement, is that she was declaring the ultimate aesthetic beauty of the flower, such that no metaphor, or descriptive choice of words would be adequate or sufficiently accurate.

We, too, share the metaphysical belief that there are some phenomena, in man’s wide range of experience, whether, aesthetic or contemptable, desirous or reprehensible, which are the ultimate in their respective category, or in conception, so unique, that their essence or meaning cannot be verbally replicated.

The principle, that certain phenomena or concepts cannot be verbally replicated, is especially applicable to many words in our American-English lexicon, either because they are stated in the superlative, and cannot be further enhanced (like “very” excellent), or, that their intrinsic nature does not lend itself to an adequate alternative. Our such “word du jour,” is the exceptionally admirable concept, “empathy.”

Empathy, may perhaps be acceptably defined as, the capacity to understand and feel what another person is experiencing, from within one’s frame of reference; it is the human capacity, not merely to understand and sympathize, but to be able to place oneself in another’s shoes. We have previously written on the subject of this noble quality, see: for example, “Love Without Words.”

The phenomenon of empathy, like that of love, loyalty and creative aesthetics, are among the most admirable, non-skeletal advances in mankind’s natural evolution.  The development and continuance of such capabilities, have historically, contributed potential for man’s higher plane of societal and individual life; one, beyond the basic survivalist drives for food, water, shelter and safety.

On a beautiful day, recently, we were driving upstate to visit a friend. The early promise of Spring was in evidence in the air and sunlight, moderate temperatures were prevalent, and the ground’s melting,  residual snow, was candidly revealing the early stages of the annual flora resurrection. We noticed high altitude, reconnoiting hawks, as well as a number of rodentia and other small ground dwelling critters, pursuing cover, in this perennial game of survival.

At one point, we reached a modest curve in the roadway and when easily negotiated, we observed through the windshield, several modestly attractive residences, one of which featured a large, commercially made sign, strategically affixed to a post on its front lawn; the advertised language of which was, to us, no less than positively bizarre. The sign advertised: “School for Empathy” The large,  intentionally conspicuous sign, was located front and center, probably as a “savvy” marketing strategy.

We are still non-plussed by the absurdity and evident ignorance of the sign. However, we were at first entertained by its absurdity, then annoyed, at the ignorance unashamedly broadcast to the public, by the nature and description of the advertised business. We, among other things, attempted to envision the specific homeowners and their family, nonchalantly, passing to and fro, in front of such sign, the mystery of neighborhood consent on that busy street, the nature of the patrons, the didactic background of the instructors and administration, the nature of the textbooks, term papers, final exams, grade criteria, the length of semester, whether there was fieldwork, the established criteria for graduation, the professional use to which the successful graduates are expected to apply such rarefied learning, and whether graduate degrees and/or employment opportunities are made available to specially deserving alumni.

How can it be at all, rationally possible, albeit the general ignorance and low level of education, manifested by so many of our disappointing citizens, that such an Alice in Wonderland project, can, sanely, exist on planet Earth (inclusive of upstate New York) wherein an “educational” organization (presumably, employing a faculty of “Mad Hatters”) is dedicated to the belief that the precious, entirely innate virtues of homo sapiens, such as kindness, love and empathy, can be transmitted by instruction.

Still, it was not April Fool’s Day and, to our great astonishment, we did, in fact, see the permanently installed sign, and continue to wonder, whether the advertised, ambitious and enterprising school administration, also offers, far more relevantly appropriate, academic courses, on “shame.”

-p.