Category: Uncategorized

“You are talking apples and oranges,” is the usual local vernacular and censorious response, to an attempted comparison, between two subjects or principles, which the hearer feels are completely unrelated. It is often used as an annoyed response, to an obviously reductive and uninstructive comparison.

We have previously written on the subject of the unhealthy societal phenomenon, recently developed in American society, described as “tribal” relationships. Such descriptive adjective has been used to signify the development of singular groups of people, in loose but insular groups, each enjoying the brotherhood of identical political opinion; in mutually antagonistic relations with other such groups of similar description, holding disparate political views. In one of our past writings, we identified an additional, unrelated, group of people, neurotically desiring “acceptance,” who will join and vote with one such unified group, or another, solely to satisfy such personally felt specific need.

In another past writing, entitled, “The Death of Civic Amity,” we observed that, contrary to the expectations of our (optimistic) Founding Fathers, to the effect that citizens of disparate opinion, would amicably debate the controversial issues, would be of use in the administration of a government, “for and by the people,” the actual experience was, instead, citizen feelings of disaffection from, and even hatred of, those with opposing views; which hatred developed and then morphed into “tribalism.”

In contemplating the many facets of the human persona, one perceives a great many which are rational and productive, as well as, unfortunately, some that are otherwise. Among the useless traits, is a psychological and reductive inclination to, irrationally and reductively, associate a point of view, inapposite to the belief system of the observer, with an unrelated and universally despised feature, of human personality, such as “un-American,”” larcenous,” “ungrateful,” “arrogant,” “selfish,” “disloyal,” or whichever imagined, despised trait is most deplored. Such unhealthy, irrational and reductive inclination, provides appropriate raw material to examine, and make constructively relevant, the subject expression and concept of, “apples and oranges.”

Such instinctively irrational and reductive inclination, to project imagined and privately attributed, negative character traits, on to persons of disparate view, together with other individuals with a neurotic aspiration to be accepted by “the tribal group,”( even at the cost of surrendering their own beliefs) accounts for the un-American, antisocial animus felt by many, toward their fellow Americans, who merely vote differently; and disastrously, leading to the consequential death of mature, healthy and useful civic amity.

The solution to this profound, nationally divisive problem, may actually be as simple, in principle, as separating apples from oranges. It resides in the rational and traditional feature of the democratic tolerance of diversity of opinion. Should one find it, indeed, possible to accept the proposition that every normal American citizen, residing in this Country with family and friends, desires that it should prosper and be free (and we do not understand how it can be believed to be otherwise), but may not always share his nuanced view as to the best way to accomplish that common end, the problem would be solved. Attributing fictional manifestations to another American citizen, who votes (his opinion) for the other party, and who may simply differ, from you, in that one choice, is among the fruits of our free society, and, rationally, not a symptom of some reprehensible character trait. He may, in truth, be almost identical to his critic, except that the latter would seem to have difficulty with the identification of the local fruit, most especially, apples and oranges.

-p.

We would like to introduce our readers to a newly minted classification of homo sapiens, the  “Penumbrians.” The name was derived by us, from a term, used by solar scientists, “penumbra,” to designate the large, dimly lit, indiscriminate area, of a planetary body, located between the fully dark and the bright (sunny) areas, during an eclipse.

Penumbrians are found everywhere, and in great numbers, however, any useful estimate of their membership is not possible for practical reasons, as will be disclosed below. Otherwise, they are not distinguishable or identified by national origin, ethnos, language, creed, dress, extent of education, or culture. Speaking the language of their respective country, they have babies, dine out, take vacations and, generally, look and act like everyone else (with the one salient exception); it is that exception that qualifies them for inclusion into the category, and to the denomination, “Penumbrian.”

Initially, by way of disclaimer and for purposes of perspective, we would profess that we subscribe to the practice of compromise and the mitigation of disputes and contested issues, by means of accommodation, wherever possible and when consistent with right principle and practical justice. Yet, we have also approved of the healthy exercise of amicable, vigorous debate, in the event of the presentation of competing principles. We do not shy away from the possibility of being ultimately found to be in error, and will unhesitatingly, and vigorously, contend for what appears to us, just and equitable.

However, there is a substantial category of people who seem to have so disciplined themselves, that the existence of disagreement or disparate opinion, is not tolerable; prescribing that any and all differences, irrespective of the merits of the issues in contention, are to be disposed of by means of a “middle of the road” or some middling compromise. Such people would, eternally, prefer any possible, even unrealistic, accommodation, to the existence (or fear) of disparate opinion, and are thereby, properly entitled to admission into the class, “penumbrian,” with all of the rights and privileges thereunto appertaining.

Penumbrians, named after that indeterminate, hazy-lighted, middling planetary area, between dark and light, at eclipse, seem to dedicate their lives, to an evangelical-like dogma, that there exists no dispute, regardless of issue, that cannot be properly settled, by a middling compromise. Established principals of legal precedent, considerations of justice, or the concept of equity and fairness, to them, pale (like the planetary penumbra) into insignificance, compared with their mantra-like approach: settle, at any cost.

Our Founding Fathers, foresaw the regular practice of amicable debate, between dedicated citizens, having disparate views, as the desired route to the government’s determinacy, as to the popular sentiment, and thus, as a guide to a “nation, run by and for, the people.” This is to be contrasted with an eternal call for middling compromise, regardless of the controverted issue. Penumbrians are therefore useless as representative citizens, contributing nothing to the nation’s perceived body of opinion. Nor will they suggest innovations, or improvements, since change, is potentially, a possible invitation to controversy.

Their lifelong mission is to avoid confrontation, and at any cost. Accordingly, they, stubbornly and sheepishly, pursue a lifelong mission to avoid controversy and the possibility of personal offense. They have little interest in the merits or justice involved in the specific issues, between the contending principals, merely in their reconciliation, at any cost.

They are not very desirable as friends or social acquaintances, preferring rote recitation of self-approving aphorism, to the risk of the unpredictable, normal give and take, of interactive conversation, for fear of the possibility of disagreement (the latter may be inapplicable to discussions with immediate family). Like the dull, limited light projected by their namesake planetary area during eclipse, they have  limited light to project, in any socially interactive circumstance.

The internal cost of such lifelong, self- imposed program of external restraint, is very high, notably in areas such as, self-image and illusions of personal identity. The day-to day frustration, bought about by their programmatic repression of anger and emotion, makes the life of the true Penumbrian, unbearable; certainly, far worse than any conceivable dread of the natural, and understandable, occurrence of personal contention.

-p.

Assuming it were logistically and practically possible, it would certainly seem appropriate, to establish a long overdue special thanksgiving holiday, on an international basis, celebrating the generous and invaluable gifts to mankind by evolutionary Nature. Principal among the many invaluable grants, of course, were, an advanced brain, the ability to walk upright, and the utilitarian, and marvelous, opposable thumb. The latter made grasping and holding (prehensile) possible, thus enabling the making of tools and weapons, and ultimately, the construction of human societies.

Mankind appears to be ungraciously unmindful, of these priceless evolutionary gifts, except on the occurrence of illness or injury, such as glaucoma or a bone fracture, at which time man is reminded and made keenly aware of the relevant (in)capability. As an illustration, most humans do not take conscious notice of the existence and utility of their (unique) opposable thumb, except when hitchhiking, indicating a positive or negative inclination, or in observing the public expression of an umpire’s negative decision, at the baseball stadium.

We are told that during the evolutionary process, man developed his prehensile capability, after the development of his ability to walk upright, since brachiation, thereafter, became no longer necessary. In any case, it is immutably the case, that the organization and construction of human society, everywhere on the planet, would not have been possible, without this marvelous capability.

Yet, as appears, many fortuitous blessings come with a cost. In this case, the cost of this precious and indispensably necessary manipulative thumb, has now become, regrettably, exorbitant. The unfortunate and unreasonably high invoice seems to have first been incurred and submitted in recent years, with such impact, as to seriously (perhaps, permanently) impair natural human interactive communication, the latter constituting, inarguably, the very lifeblood, of human society.

One has only to casually observe any crowded street scene, the many visitors at a public park, at any movie theater lobby, public place of assembly, or public means of transportation, to observe the occult-like, eerie fact, that most humans are looking, abnormally downward, instead of straight ahead, or at each other; simultaneously manifesting a rapidly moving, manipulative thumb, tracing irregular patterns on a rather small appliance, held firmly in the convenient hand. Few people, these days, seem to speak to each other, wave, or call out to others. The present, gothic street scene, seems relatively quiet, unnaturally devoid of other than routine traffic sounds, and the occasional drone of an airplane. We find this odd, ominous and personally unsettling.

Humans evolved, fortuitously, equipped with a brain and the necessary equipment to rationally communicate; to speak to each other and timely respond, utilizing a societally developed phenomenon, called language. But the gift of natural, interactive speech, consisting of the spontaneous exchange of spoken words has, of late, it seems, been replaced, with the popularly preferred, transmission of electronic, data-like symbols. Gone is the assurance of the familiar voice, gone is the timely and meaningful response; and in exchange, cold and impersonal, computerized, data-like transmissions.

One has merely to observe the vast multitudes of the species, homo sapiens, bearing hand held “smart phones,” frenetically drumming away at e- messages, or employing (misusing)  the marvelous  evolutionary gift of the opposable thumb, “ texting,” at Indianapolis Raceway speeds, (not knowing when, or if, a response will be forthcoming and if so, to appear in computerized text, in their miniscule phone window), to confidently deduce the empirical and rational conclusion, that this was not nature’s plan; in generously granting to us, through the evolutionary process, the capacity for advanced reason and the societally vital, and creative, opposing thumb. The unnatural, unforeseen use of these magnificent gifts to homo sapiens, can be seen to amount to a disgraceful blasphemy against the evolutionary process and design of anthropological evolution, itself.

We may, conceivably, be outliers, but we are disappointed and embarrassed by man’s thoughtless misuse and ungrateful response, to the vast cornucopia of advantages and generous gifts afforded to him, by the planet’s Natural Evolution.

Observably and sadly, such profound ingratitude appears to be logically consistent, with the ineffective and hapless response of mankind, to the dangers of scientifically proven planetary climate change.

-p.

With all respect, we find it positively mindboggling, that, despite their determined, radical aspiration to do away with unfair and corrupt institutions, historically existing in ancestral Europe, the Founders authored a replication of the arbitrary and corrupt institution of the “Royal Pardon”. (U.S. Constitution (Article II, Sec.2, Clause 1). The understood, intended foundational theme of the new, experimental, democratic republic, as envisioned, would do away with class privilege and arbitrary justice, and, instead, provide for an equitable nation, with “liberty and justice for all.” We are thus perplexed with the inclusion and perpetuation of this arbitrary royal privilege, in our foundational document.

We have read that one of the revered, Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, explained, that its purpose was, in times of national unrest, to quell retributory violence and promote peace. History reveals that the Presidential privilege was exercised to assure harmony and avert insurrection, by President Abraham Lincoln after the conclusion of the Civil War, and that it was employed to the same end, more than once, during the publicly divisive Viet Nam War period. Yet we have ascertained that this “royal privilege” was exercised in excess of 2,000 times, for sundry other reasons, including instances of political and social purpose. One is inclined to question the sincerity and accuracy of our protestations of proportional justice.

A sleeping dog was awakened, by the despicable pardon granted to Sheriff “Joe” Arpaio; known for his racism, physical torture of Hispanic immigrants, and public immorality. Our “ good old boy,” Sheriff Joe, had been convicted by a Federal Court of flagrant contempt, for intentionally disobeying the Federal Judge’s Order to appear in Court; to, no doubt, the celebrated delight of his rebellious red-neck followers. Our Solomonic Head of State, who counts such despicable miscreants among his loyal [“base”] supporters, summarily granted such monster a full pardon, even by-passing a statutorily prescribed administrative process, mandated to preliminarily take place, before the U.S. Justice Department, respecting pardons. This dishonorable, non-Presidential behavior, of Donald Trump, has caused much criticism and unrest in our nation, but no doubt, little surprise.

The late Senator John McCain, was among a great many Americans, who felt that the pardon granted by President Trump, to Arpaio, for the crime of criminal contempt of an Order of The Federal Court, created an illegal and dangerous precedent.

We are also concerned that the witnesses, appearing before the Special Prosecutor, as well as those who are to testify before the various Congressional Committees, will be tainted with the stain of arbitrary Presidential pardon.

The American Public which, is by now, unquestionably aware of the many scenarios, in which many people, close to the President, are charged with serious crime, of all sorts, domestic and international. It  appears that these felonies were committed on behalf of President Trump, himself. Many have been shown to have the actual participation, in fact, of the President, himself. It would seem to be a Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, if the President could pardon people for the commission of crimes in which he, himself, was complicit. How about his own proven criminal acts? Those of his miscreant family:  does the Mad Hatter, himself, have the authority to pardon?

We wonder, under the circumstances, whether a  Constitutional Amendment, eliminating the Executive Pardon, altogether, or at least, providing proper criteria for its exercise, would have requisite citizen support.

-p.

We can still recall from our childhood City summers, seeing long strips of yellow sticky paper, vertically hung, in grocery stores and other small retail establishments, slowly undulating, in response to the weak breeze emanating from the noisy and functionally impotent, revolving ceiling fans. The long, yellow strips of glue-sticky paper were taxed with the rather grim and thankless duty, of attracting hapless members of the Brooklyn fly population, to suffer the ignominious fate of death by involuntary adherence. The present title and this post refer to hapless, insecure and needy human beings, immobilized in a flypaper-like adherence, to their neurotic need for (group) acceptance; and voluntarily sacrifice their individuality in the process.

In most cases, the attribution of any of our societally positive adjectives, instantly summons up a Pavlov-style, reflexive, feeling of approval. Among such numerous laudatory adjectives, are words like, kind, loving, trustworthy, moral, honest, sincere, and at applicable times, our mot de jour, “loyal.” Generally, the employment of any of our lexicon’s inventory of positive words, unfailingly portrays a specific, distinct and admirable virtue. However, the adjectival term, “loyalty,” by lone contrast, has potential for double-edged attribution, and thus is not necessarily positive, but is, rather singularly, dependent upon its specific contextual application.

“Loyalty,” as generally understood, is a noble term, suggestive of righteous sentiment and faithful behavior appropriate to a recognized, devoted relationship (i.e., family, friendship, nation.) The underlying dynamics of this word, however, are somewhat distinctive from the other words in the class of positive adjectives. The subject word appears, uniquely, to be grounded, in large part, on emotional underpinnings and sentiments of mandatory homage, and in a far lesser part, on rational consideration. These dynamics can be problematic and deserving of our consideration.

We have only to look to Munich, Germany in the 1930’s to see the positive adjective, “loyalty” perverted to its most nightmarish application; a literate, educated society was, in the name of loyalty to the State, caused to dutifully exterminate fellow Germans, including babies, who happened to be Jewish, as if they were mere cockroaches, as literally portrayed, in Hitler’s insanely hateful “Mein Kampf”.”

Moreover, the misleadingly healthy and positive connotation of “loyalty,” has in fact, seriously challenged the very fabric of our democratic republic. We have previously written on the subject of “tribalism,” wherein insecure persons, vote exclusively for the candidate deemed preferred by their insular group, rather than, based on their own determination. And as well, of the “one issue” voters, loyally adherent to their singular issue, who vote for a candidate, solely, based upon the latter’s declared position on that issue. This latter practice, of course, ignores the other major positions in the candidate’s professed platform, thereby skewing any democratically attempted analysis of the national will. The phenomenon of loyalty, and the neurotic need for acceptance, in such instances are mutually indistinguishable, and as well, selfishly counterproductive.

It is obvious that the virtue of loyalty, founded on good principle, love of family, moral standards or self- respecting morality, is inarguably commendable. When based on irresponsible, neurotic need, shared bigotry, or exclusionary ignorance, it portends an act of blind and irresponsible self-immolation, very much like a fly’s persistent adherence to the fly paper.

-p.

 

We have recently, and unhappily, observed a remarkably popular tendency in modern oral interaction, to preferably, substitute the very latest jargon (“cant”), whenever conceivably possible, in lieu of traditional vocabulary. This worrisome practice appears to be no less than rampant, despite the undeniably experiential fact, that the use of standard, traditional language, predictably affords far greater assurance of accuracy of the transmitted message. Yet, uncannily, it appears that once uttered, the slang word is accepted, repeated, and shortly thereafter, exponentially morphed (metastasized into) general, wide-spread use.

It may be useful at the outset, to offer a modest sample of such referenced terms, as available illustration. We would also offer the ominous and remarkable observation, that every one of the provided examples, somehow, has already acquired formal and official acceptance, into the historic American lexicon:

[Examples: discombobulate (confuse), bamboozle (trick, defraud), flummox (surprise, disorient), bail (abruptly withdraw, or leave), crash (sleep), pig out (eat excessively), dude (guy), sweet (nice, fortunate), totally (I agree).]

We are of the view, that the extensive popularity of such terms, is demonstrably attributable to an apparently current (neurotic) need, to publicly appear to be “au courant,” or “with it” (in touch with) the latest trend in modernity. Our criticism of this modish preference for such cobbled together and widely distributed lingo is, in a few cases, merely aesthetic (depending upon the particular word employed); but, as to most of it, far more importantly, it is substantive criticism, based the universal need and civic responsibility, for members of modern, civilized society to communicate with other members, and be reasonably understood.

From the standpoint of aesthetics, such words fail to provide (even) a modicum of assurance of sincerity of personal expression. They are too familiar and unoriginal, non-personal, over- used, “warmed over,” tired and inarticulate expressions, as opposed to original, spontaneous expression, carefully and meaningfully worded. In emotional, personal interactions, an attempt at truly sincere apology will predictably fail in desired effect, if a well-worn slang term is trotted out, instead of a personal and applicable one; a sincerely intended remorseful statement, will be taken as dishonest, if one of the usual catch-words are employed. A nervously and hesitantly enunciated, proposal of marriage, clearly deserves far more, by way of a responsive and loving expression of assent, than “cool.”

It is to be emphasized that the English language fortuitously, contains an inventory, consisting of virtually unlimited number of word choices, making possible any appropriate, personally meaningful, choice of expression, suitable to any perceived need, and in any context.

In daily, mundane, situations, conversation is personalized, trusted and credible, most especially, when communicants speak in accordance with their normal and expected parlance. It is particularly important in business, viz., contractual undertakings must be specific, and clearly expressed, to attain the requisite (legal) meeting of the minds; the mere reply “sweet,” to a formalized contractual offer, just will not do.

We earnestly hope that, if the use of these bizarre slang words, or “cant” is at all chosen, that it’s expression be strictly limited to such appropriate venues as the club house, bar or sport stadium; and, further, that it be artfully exercised, in order to avoid the imminent danger of some sweet, dude getting totally flummoxed.

-p.

 

It is universally understood that the existence and successful functioning of human society, is fundamentally dependent upon the availability and use of a common language, as part of a system of interactive communication. Interdependence, problem solving, mutual sharing of empirical experience, as well as mundane social communication, are the basic structural supports, found in the underpinnings of any societal life.

Thus, because the element of interactive societal communication is basic to the establishment and perpetuation of society, we have, from time to time, deemed it useful and responsible to offer our comments regarding selected words, drawn from the American lexicon, which were felt by us to be deserving of comment.

By way of illustration, we have written that certain, apparently simple words, such as “repetition,” “nice” and “like” were unjustly given short shrift and, for the reasons proposed, ought to be accorded significantly more intrinsic value and respect. We have, as well, denigrated words such as, “tolerance,” as an expression of bigoted, faux self-praise, (who is it, that is qualified to tolerate, and to tolerate what?) and the hateful term, “race,” the latter, an entirely unscientific conceit, employed exclusively, for despicable purposes.

Our recent ruminations have centered around the tiny, seemingly inconspicuous, two letter word, “us.” The selected word is functionally and contextually, distinguishable from the similar word, we”, which latter term is frequently employed, merely to connote a first- person plural subject, viz., an objective, numerical observation; this characterization is, contrary to the case of the emotion-packed word, “us.”

It is with our sincerest of apologies to Robert Louis Stevenson, whose classic novel, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, we have chosen as a syntactical metaphor for our subject word “us,” based upon our word’s potential for polarity. On the positive (Dr. Jekyll) side, the subject word, “us” summons up warm feelings of acceptance, security, inclusiveness, sympathy, belonging, assurance, identity, safety, concord, mutuality, commonality, and other terms of positive societal attribution. On the negative (Mr. Hyde) side, the same word, autonymically, refers to insularity, bigotry, exclusiveness, asserted superiority, class or economic distinction, religious discrimination, political or social tribalism, xenophobia, anti-immigrant trope, selfishness and other like anti-social or reprehensible reference.

We have often written of a singularly, but common, instance, in which a Dr. Jekyll, (good) intention, nevertheless unwittingly but inevitably, results in disastrous (Hyde) outcomes. This well- intentioned practice amounts to the parental inculcation of their young children in the ethnos and belief system of their birth, [but, significantly], to the exclusion of a respectful and enlightened picture of other, divergent belief systems. While this practice offers the child the desired and intended sense of identity and belonging (Dr. Jekyll), it often delivers a harmful (Dr. Hyde) message, of a reasonable “we” (“us”) and a bizarre and irrational “they” (them), ultimately leading to a distorted emphasis of perceived contrasting differences, and subsequently, the development of hostility toward the “other.” This historically repetitious travesty can be avoided, in the practice of good sense and enlightenment, by a program of teaching, not solely limited to who we are, ethnically, [“us,”] but also inclusive of a fulsome and positive explanation in the Dr. Jekyll mode, which is inclusive of others.

The personal use and intended meaning, of the somewhat ubiquitous word, “us,” in any context, will depend upon whether the preferred self-image, is one comparable to a Dr. Jekyll, or to a Mr. Hyde.

-p.

Thoughts of younger years bring to mind a High School course in Euclidian Geometry; a course that may have proven to be the most impactful in later years. The study and accumulated ephemeral knowledge of angles, planes and concentric circles, were valuable to a degree, but far less valuable that the taught discipline inherent in the experience of the subject.

A set of facts (a “given”) was presented, in each instance (the “theorem”) from which, by logical steps, the desired principle was finally deduced. What was eternally significant, and impressionable, was the instructed process of orderly reasoning to a conclusion, from a fixed set of facts. The subject of Euclidian Geometry instructed the inestimable (lifetime) practice of the application of reason to the solution of problems.

We often reminisce about past events, most especially, our choices and decisions, to act upon, or refrain, from doing something which may have turned out to have considerable significance.  Any regrets or self-praise, in such instances, is not only useless, but illogical, and amounts to ex- post facto rationalization. We often make the fundamental, albeit common, error in the comparison of our personal choices, with the choices of others, perhaps erroneously ascribing to ourselves, comparative credit or error. In addition to being simply useless, these inclinations are totally senseless and irrational.

There may exist, a human tendency to extrapolate presently existing circumstances with the past. This phenomenon, obliges us to responsibly critical concerning the popularly accepted nostrum, “those who ignore the past, are likely to repeat it.” With the humblest and the sincerest of apologies to George Santayana, the popular aphorism assumes that the comparative circumstances are factually identical (inclusive of the protagonists). In an individual matter, the reverential adherence to such urging might have disastrous results. Reason and experience teach that, regardless of source, all aphoristic expressions, even this one, need a measure of additional and nuanced scrutiny.

Recently, we were advised of a mutual friend who, against professional advice concerning the manifestly dire financial condition of a certain public company, nevertheless, recklessly and heedlessly, invested a substantial sum of money in the purchase of many shares of its stock. As advised, his heedless stock purchase turned out, unexpectedly, and against all prognostications of the experts, to be a very lucrative one. There are many people who would consider that investor to be enterprising and intelligent; we, emphatically, do not at all, agree.

The rational wisdom of any choice, we insist, may only be properly judged as of the time that it is made, and under the contemporary facts and circumstances in existence at such time; certainly not at the time of its (possibly surprising) outcome. The soundness of any choice should empirically be seen, fairly and reasonably, solely in the context of the existing facts (the “geometric given”) at the time of its determination. Granting the possibility that “wise” choices may ultimately, have a disastrous result, in matters of judgment, mankind will, with rare exception, eternally benefit from the consistent exercise of applicable and contemporary reason.

-p.

Many of us still have some memory of the childhood defensive tactic of a sing-song response to derogatory attribution: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” This popular childhood strategem, generally proved to be adequate to preserve the dignity and public standing of the offended. In adult society, wrongful and intentional false accusations, or the imposition of false, hurtful attribution to another person, is an established, precedentially recognized act of wrongdoing, and is dealt with formally. For centuries, the willful employment of false and defamatory words and accusations, injurious to the name and reputation of another person, has been legally redressable under established Tort law; written defamation, classed as “libel”, “oral” as “slander.”

Recent events, have made necessary this third post, regarding the wrongful, misleading and bogus use of the word, “socialist” or “socialism” in critical public discourse. [see past posts :American Socialism” and “Compassionate Capitalism”] . The word “socialist” has recently been intentionally highjacked and misappropriated, for tactical employment as an epithet; resulting in a reflexive (negative) reaction, most especially, by the ignorant and reductionist members of our American population. We have been energetically attempting, for a considerable period of time, to make clear the wide, distinctive contrast, between the federal government’s responsible, programmic exercise of empathic morality, as authorized by the representative Congress, and the misused and tactical attribution of the newly created bogey-man, “socialism.”

The word “socialist,” in actuality, applies to political-economic systems in which the government is the sole owner and manager of all industry and business; as distinct from private entrepreneurship. It can, confidently and emphatically be declared, that there are absolutely no contenders for political office in this country, who would champion such an unworkable and un-American theory of governance, as socialism. Yet cynical, right-wing political operatives have now created the ersatz epithet, to brand all opposition, with the tactical intent that it especially appeal to that insular cohort of the reductionist ignorant, who helped install the iconic Mr. D.J. Trump in the Oval Office.

That the arrogant and cynically intended target of this false propaganda, is irrefutably, the low information base, is evidenced by print advertisements, shown on television, bearing the publicly recognizable image of Karl Marx. As is generally known among the better informed, Marx was the founder of Communism, not Socialism. Significantly, Marx sought the elimination of government, altogether, in favor of a theoretical (mythical) “dictatorship of the prolitariat,” This is markedly in opposition to Socialism, which espouses the ownership and operation of industry and business by an existing central government. Any casual student of political theory and general history might tell you that these two widely divergent and competing movements, were mortal enemies. As observed, however, it is the same base that supported Trump,who constitute the targeted audience for such manifestations of intentional falsity and arrogantly practiced cynicism; unquestionably not, the informed citizen.

Instances of compassionate capitalism are readily discernable in such long-standing and traditional government programs, as social security, disability, retirement, federal loans and mortgages, flood relief, FEMA, environment cleanup, flood control programs, food and tuition assistance, regulations and protection of the health of the consumer-citizen and a great many additional instances of Congressionally authorized involvement with the quality of life and the safety of all American citizens. The “socialist-phobes” should recognize that they are in truth, fortunate recipients of numerous, vital and beneficial government programs, which, incidentally, and practically, makes any socialist type program from having any appeal or necessity.

The prospect of a Socialist state is rationally and empirically, non-existent; one would hope that the cynically, self-interested and tactical perverters of our system of governance, be recognized, and justly sanctioned as the real danger to our democracy.

-p.

In the European historical period, generally known as, “The Enlightenment,” man made great strides to rid himself of the widespread belief in supernatural or other-worldly influences, and to take personal responsibility for his independently determined action and decisions. In philosophical and ethical discourse, there was seen to develop, thereafter, no more materially determinant canon, than the new concept of “free will.”

We wholeheartedly applaud the elimination of the attributive influence of spirits, hob-goblins and other supernatural forces upon man’s actions and deliberations; yet we still believe that the term, “freedom” employed in the term “free will” is not yet up to the desired standard, since it is encumbered by many empirical considerations. It is our impression that the declaration of the declared concept, that man is purportedly free to make unrestrained, volitional choices, may be somewhat optimistic and overstated.

We revere independence, ethical autonomy, discretionary caution, diplomatic, as well as empathic interaction, as well as approved societal behavior; all inarguably acts of  volitional (“free will”) We are, however, interested in the extent of unrestrained spontaniety in each choice of “volitionary,” or” free act.”

Before proceeding further, we would like to reassure the reader, that it our firm, personal belief, that man is, in all respects, individually responsible for his actions and statements; our interest, here, is limited to the nature and the source of his personal motivatition. We believe that the laudatory and exemplary concept of the phrase, “free will” (viz., free from external influence) is more honored in its idealized conception than in its empirical  reality.

We have chosen to exclude the subject of “illness” from this note, except to observe that it is a matter of public knowledge, that the malady known as “depression” is caused by a chemical imbalance; either innately pre-determined, or  brought on by reaction to trauma. The motivation and behavior of the depressed patient, like a person who has ingested a psychic drug, is markedly affected, and not a product of his “free will.” The evident point is that changes in bodily chemistry, particularly brain chemistry, affect, or motivate, mood and behavior. Any  regular jogger or dedicated exerciser, knows that sustained exercise results in a felt change in brain chemistry (endorphins), resulting in increased energy and a discernably improved mood.

The concept of “free will”, might suggest to some, an independent, and unlimited franchise to think and act, in a completely infettered condition of temporal spontaniety.  The English  (l8th Century) philisopher, John Locke, declared that man is born with a blank slate and that all knowledge is acquired by learning from empirical experience. Early childhood teaching, including cultural mindset, language, societal attitudes and general approach, have been shown to be enduring, if not permanent. These early teachings affect later perception and decisional motivation.  Race and ethnicity, economic hardship, disability, state of health, economics; the remembered experience of traumatic or extremely unusual life experiences, such as fire or assault, by their enduring remembrance, may, also have their effect on our later choices.

Medieval, “Dark Ages” limitations on “free will” have, in large part, been eliminated (and where they may still exist, can be eliminated, by the proper application of mature and healthy reason). Where applicable, and needed, assistance in education, especially literacy and general education, can be offered to those who are willing. Medecine and therapies are available for people beset by chemical illness, behavioral therapies are accessible, for people whose choices of behavior are limited by previous experience of trauma or phobia, physical and medical counseling and therapies are offered to enhance the range of activities for the handicapped. For others, the portion of the American population, limited by low information and lack of vision, a resolute undertaking to participate in life’s unlimited enhancement possibilities, may be obtainable.

With the superstitious nonsense out of the way, we all now have the “free will” and the personal responsbility, to choose to take action towards the enhancement of the quality of our life, or, otherwise, simply let it grind on, meaninglessly.

Gremlins are reported to be gratefully relieved to be “off the hook.”

-p.