Category: Uncategorized

For those who may doubt the gravity of defamatory language, we would illustratively cite the results of the recent successful lawsuits brought by columnist, E. Jean Carroll against former President, Donald J. Trump. In the earlier matter, seeking damages for “Sexual Assault,” plaintiff Carroll was awarded damages in the amount of five million dollars; in the second case, based on “Defamation” [our contextual subject] the damages awarded were contrastingly, Eighty-three Million.

The nature of the harm (“tort”) caused by the intentional use of false words to defame another’s reputation amounts to the deplorable infliction of potentially enduring damage. The wrongful act is not, to any degree, mitigated by the principle of “free speech” which, is empirically limited, as is the case with all inherent and Constitutional rights. One’s liberty of action which would entitle him to throw punches stops just before the tip of another person’s nose. The seriousness of the defamatory use of words, may, in our view be more extensive and enduring than a criminal stabbing which may heal, but the damage to, or engendered suspicion concerning reputation, inflicted by defamation endures.

In addition, some words are used as epithets or critical comments which are based upon their misapprehended or ignorant understanding. MAGA cultists seem prone to label all programs of governmental assistance (such as social security, disability, and health benefits) as “Socialist,” a perceived epithet, notwithstanding their universally willing acceptance of the same. The fact that the designation of “Socialistic” is an entirely irrelevant designation of an economic-political system in which the central government owns all business and industry, (totally unsupported by anyone) is ignorantly utilized. Indeed, policies of capitalistic compassion empirically deter exotic political aspirations.

The salient, context of this writing resides in the recent use of the historically egregious, highly defamatory term, “genocide,” in reference to the Israeli military response to the barbaric assault by Gaza’s Hamas. It is our perception that the horrific effects on the non-participant Gaza civilians in the Israeli response to the barbaric assault by Hamas are patently excessive and we will be relieved when peace brings such a nightmare to an end. As lethally heartrending and essentially unjust as it appears to be, it does not justify the expletive, “genocide.”  

Before the justification of the latter declaration, it seems appropriate to summarily review the facts underlying the conflict. Hamas terrorists surprised Israel with a barbaric attack in which babies were beheaded, and women, young and old, suffered the indignities of rape, and the pain of torture, amputation. The attackers took hostages, and as planned, retreated to underground tunnels, tactically constructed beneath Gaza hospitals and community centers with the hideous and pathological intention that the predictable retaliation by Israel could, by necessity, only be taken against the civilian population, their shield, living on the surface.

The pernicious intent was to engineer a tragic spectacle in which the angry Israeli military response would necessarily be effected against innocent Gazan civilians and thereby invoke the wrath and enmity of the international response to the tragic events. Hamas, aware of its military incapacity to eradicate the State of Israel (genocide) would thereby cause its abomination in international opinion. The hapless Israelis suffered the success of this tactically pathological intent, by its undeserved condemnation, by many nations for genocide; itself the repository and homeland for Jewish survivors of Hitler’s genocide of upwards of six million Jews. The event is tragic and undeniably horrific, but the State of Israel does not deserve the (anti-Semitic, convenient) epithet of “Genocide.”

Genocide is defined as the pernicious effort to eliminate a people, as took place in the Balkan Wars, the Tutsi-Hutu conflicts, and the Nazi Holocaust. The tragic extent of wartime horror, especially in defensive response to a (factually genocidal) aggression is not definitional or empirical genocide. If that were appropriate, it would empirically, follow that the carpet bombing of Dresden during World War 2, and perforce, the dropping of Atom Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would, likewise genocidal. In the present case, as in such historical events, there was tragedy but no intent to eradicate an ethnos.

The negative impact of false or defamatory charges can have enduring, painful results and should be chosen objectively, thoughtfully, and with accuracy.

* Thanks to the generosity of Mr. William Shakespeare for the use of the title, (as altered) from Romeo & Juliet Act. 1: “What’s in a Name?”

-p.

The historically coined phrase, “Manifest Destiny,” is descriptive of U.S. historic policy in 1845 of America’s aggressive expansion from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. It was morally and tactically “legitimized” as compliance with a directive emanating from the Deity. It is noteworthy that such national and cultural aggrandizement was opposed on humanistic and moral grounds by many eminent and revered historical figures, such as Abraham Lincoln.

After the responsible publication of 1,021 essays, we feel it deservingly permissible to express our candid beliefs relevant to the source of the historic phrase and its convenient rationalization, purporting to legitimize such colossal aggression and autocratic cultural dominion. It is past time that such ubiquitously asserted, expiation, “faith in a higher power,” relative to plain acts of profound immorality, and inhumanity, be at long last, relegated to the atavistic, irrational, and tactically averred dustbin.

Evolution’s singular emergence of a sentient being functionally encompassed its potential development (by the continuing dynamics of Natural Evolution) to mature, utilitarian, and morally enshrined enlightenment. It is our optimistic credo that, despite the inarguable existence of a plethora of deplorable travesties, past and present, such beneficial dynamic persists, albeit, in a gradual fashion. One may reasonably presume that the developmental journeys of evolution relative to the lizard, salmon, and goldfinch have attained their respective potential destination; however, we are of the view that Man’s potential for critical (and moral) reason has not.

The 17^th Century Philosopher and Physician, John Locke, cogently defined the metaphysical basis for epistemology, as empirical; the latter, representative of the “Enlightenment Movement” which, in the (gradual) evolution of the Homo sapiens, constituted an existentially vital and pragmatically useful advance. The latter may be contrasted with the atavistic “Dark Ages” style superstitious belief in superior unseen and unproven forces. As famously declared by John Locke, man is born with a “tabula rasa,” (a clean slate), and the sum of his knowledge is derived from his experience. This philosophical understanding would effectively promote Man’s aspiration for rational enlightenment and consequent progress.

In any didactic review of Man’s past, one may observe the ignorant and fearful understanding of presenting natural phenomena, such as seasons and meteorological events, life, birth, sickness, and death, and the myriad concomitants of human experience, positive or otherwise. The demonstrative example of the pre-historic, widespread specific belief in the “Sun God” suffices as an instructive example of the need to propitiate the unknown source of life and well-being by the ubiquitous ignorant and fearful submission to an omnipotent, and judgmental being.

The era’s perceived source of life, the Sun God, was believed to be dying during the cold months of the year. Except for the miraculous evergreen trees, all vegetation was dead or dying, and the animals were gone, it was seen as a Code-Blue signal that the omnipotent source of life, the Sun God, was in the throes of death. In the areas of Western Europe, during these lifeless winter months, observances of religious rites, notably the ritual of burning the magically green, evergreen trees, proved to be reliably successful in the restoration to life of the dying Sun God.  Dare we analogize this prehistoric folkway with the religious concept and belief in the miracle of “Death and Resurrection” and the traditional significance of the unique and magically sustained life of the (evergreen) “Christmas Tree.”

The arrival of Spring was the perennial occasion to celebrate and give thanks for the miracle of the Divine restitution and its restoration to life. The continuing tradition later encompassed the mirthful adoration of jumping bunny rabbits, colorfully painted eggs, and jelly beans. [In all candor, we wonder as to the ancient source of jelly beans.]

The tradition of rendering subservient homage to an intangible and immaterial “higher power,” took on the arrogated obligation in each of its varied folkloric iterations, to proselytize and attempt to exterminate any “errant,” or diverse, mode of superstitious belief by others; the latter, a bloody and historic tradition loudly cascading down through the Centuries and clinically metastasized into our contemporary time. It seems untenable for believers in an ethereal and conceptual conceit of a Divinity of some description, to tolerate other modes of such irrationality; perhaps assuaging the need to buttress or confirm the personal existence of doubtful rectitude. In addition to witch hunts of the European Inquisitions and the 30-Year’s War, there exists an ample historical Cornucopia, of hatred and animus, relevant to all divergent iterations of “faith,” compatible, solely in their coordinated hatred and desire for retribution relative to the “non-believer.”

It may be seen that the cultural “indisputability” of such beliefs, is memorialized by successive inheritance and generationally perceived as culturally, or societally, obligatory and culturally mainstream. Non-believers are deemed to be “outcasts” or, often, dangerous enemies. We will confess that it may be uncomfortable for the reader to override cultural and familial understandings.

A demonstrative and extreme illustration of the animus, simply created by variations in belief is exemplified by a known, seemingly eternal, bloody conflict, in the Muslim world. The conflict, remarkably, dating back to the 7^th Century, has concerned the religious dispute between Sunni Islam, (for example, Saudi Arabia) and Shia Islam, Iran) concerning the dogmatic issue of whether the Prophet Mohammad is properly to be succeeded by inheritance ( I.e., birth, as in England) or by popular vote.

The observance of these diverse, contextual, and archaic beliefs and observances has long ago, clinically metastasized and descended to our contemporary world, generally, and our “advanced” and “enlightened” Nation, inflicting a blemish on the fundamental American assertions of liberty of thought and action. Despite the unmistakably express declarations of our “Founders” regarding the fundamental secularity of the newly created Nation and the clear and specific provisions of the “Establishment Clause,” of the Constitution (providing that government is prohibited from any role in religion), populist citizens have eternally maintained that America was created to be a “Christian Nation.”  Prejudicial expressions of the same are evidenced by the un-American White Christian Militias, and too many ardent evangelical and misled religious sycophants. We have suffered the undemocratic imposition of Blue Laws, abortion restrictions, and the official practice of gender discrimination. The egregious harm to life and liberty is far too numerous to document.

Returning to the anthropological subject of the fundamental evolutionary advancement of the Homo sapiens, it is irrefutably observed that retrogressive belief in the “supernatural” has not resulted in peace or humanistic advance or benefit. Superstitious belief is not the source of the discovery of penicillin, the cure for polio, the academic disciplines of mathematics, language, and science.

The dark, blinding, handicapping hood of irrational servitude to an external, judgmental, and omnipotent, entity, admittedly culturally painful, must be lifted from mankind’s ability to freely and constructively reason, so that evolving humanity may attain its ultimate goal of enlightened empirical thought and the long-awaited establishment of universal and principled justice.

-p.  

We would permissibly describe sense experience as a systematic physiological phenomenon by which the individual gathers relevant information through his response to stimuli. We appropriately reserve the physiological-neural dynamics of Man’s five senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing) to those professionally qualified, such as neuroscientists or medical practitioners. The context and theme of the present writing are instead centered on their perceived varied and ubiquitous impact on Man’s memory and expectations, an empirical, as distinguished from a physiological or neural matter.

Sense experience observably, has vital utility as a warning against danger. A bitter or unpleasant taste may portend sickness or poisoning, a sudden or harsh sound, physical danger, a foul smell, sickness or destruction, the espying of a predator, danger, and the touch of hot coal, pain, and injury. It also serves as an inducement to pleasure, the smell of exotic cooking, attractive perfume, the feel of velvet or a pussy willow, the sound of music, the sight of a field of multi-colored Dutch tulips.

Nonetheless, our present interest is centered on the occasional, and random, spontaneous recall of past experiences, simultaneously triggered by a sudden reactive and contemplative, albeit fleeting, response to personally nuanced stimuli; specifically, the excitement of a personally nuanced stream of autobiographic consciousness. We have observed that the extent of response to presenting stimuli may range from an instantaneous one to a correlative series of recollected experiences, positive or otherwise. We find it fascinating that a mere, momentary response to an objective stimulus can range from being merely instantaneous to the incitement of a subjectively significant (poignant or dreaded) recollection. This experience is dynamically equivalent to spontaneously, flipping an electrical switch to “On,” or selecting a particular “App” on a handheld television “remote.”

Most often, there is only a momentary response to sensory stimulus, however, it is not uncommon that the experience triggers an enduring personally meaningful, and suddenly impactful recollection. A pragmatic, and possibly illustrative, analogous example of such a contextual phenomenon, is demonstrated by the unexpected discovery of a subjectively meaningful object or perhaps an old photograph, which has remained for a long time unseen.  The sight and perhaps the touch, of the sentimental, emotionally significant, object sets in force assorted, relevant, memories of persons, events, or experiences, possibly nostalgically pleasant, or intimately painful and recriminating. The scent of fresh, salty air may evoke an instantaneous response or else invoke memories of long pleasant summer afternoons at the shore; it can also summon up unpleasant experiences such as a witnessed drowning or a plan for a picnic disappointed by a rainstorm. The far-off sound of a church bell may evoke happy countryside expeditions or personally tragic funerals. The outdoor taste of a grilled hamburger may be associated with thoughts of cruelty to animals or with the happy experience of a social family get-together.     

It would appear that Man’s unique and versatile brain possesses the ability to dually comprehend the utility and responsibility of an extremely vital, full-time official repository of thought and, as well the occupation of a librarian of (mostly, accurate) experience.  Nevertheless, in our pursuit of empirical accuracy, and candor, we are obliged to express the wise and necessary application of pragmatic caution as to the possibility of the existence of some subjectivity of “confident” recollection, whether the recollected experience is summoned up by the contextual reaction to presenting stimuli or to ordinarily occurring but possibly, subjective or dissembling memory.

*Thanks are extended to Ms. Jane Austin, for her gracious permission to use the name of her 19th-century, romantic novel.

-p.

The public media has reported a curious event that transpired in the coastal Atlantic Ocean, approximately three miles off the beach of Palm Beach, Florida. The incident was reported, by the three-man crew of a locally owned fishing trawler to the local offices of the Coast Guard. The real estate record indicates that such offices had been relocated to the premises of a former resort known as “Mar-a Largo,” seized by the authorities for the payment of legal obligations of its former owner.

According to the report, the crew of the “Alfred E. Newman,” the latter, a vessel trawling for pompano, upon surfacing the heavy-laden nets, discovered to their amazement, that it was not the expected cache of the highly prized fish, but instead, a quantity of flotsam and jetsam, including a water soaked Ship’s Log and a large, cracked section of a gold-leafed, wooden placard, bearing the sunken ship’s name, “The Winner.” Also discovered floating among the assorted debris, were six unopened plastic bags of M&M’s, a half-full bottle of orange hair dye, three water-stained red neckties, a plethora of “selfies” taken with various hosts of Fox News, fan letters from a Steve Bannon and Steven Miller and a red baseball hat, its letters faded and entirely washed out and no longer discernable and a profuse number of small plastic, ketchup-stained  hamburger boxes, imprinted with the designation, “McDonald’s.”

The floating “Captain’s Log,” turned out to be barely legible, due to several blotchy stains from the ocean water and further complicated by its childish handwriting, replete with profane and misspelled expletives. It seemed to recount, rather than a standard, experiential record of the vessel’s nautical experiences, such as weather, navigational and steering detail, bizarrely instead, a daily shipboard recitation of self-serving personally ascribed attributions of personal praiseworthy accomplishments, and also sundry and repetitive harsh criticism of various media reports, liberal politicians, the general press and, most emphatically, of women who have “absurdly” refused his aesthetic and ardent advances. A water-logged file folder was recovered containing several letters of profuse commendation from Steven Bannon, Betsy Devos, Steven Miller, and Mike Johnson.

 Also discovered afloat was a carton, still clearly labeled, “Mar-A-Lago Restroom” containing assorted documents bearing the official governmental seal. The final items recovered from the trawler’s fishing nets were two megaphones and personally autographed photos of Jeffry Einstein, Rudy Giuliani, Stormy Daniels, and Vladimir Putin, the latter, in a sexy bathing suit, stern-faced photos of Xi Jimping and an angry, cigar-smoking Viktor Orban, as well as a virtual plethora of “final demand,” unpaid legal invoices.

A noteworthy entry in the orange-haired Captain’s Log was a dramatic account of an insurrection, or “mutiny” of the ship’s crew, ordered by him. The insurrection was immediately halted when the First Mate, revealingly, made clear to the Captain, that any shipboard mutiny, by definition, would, be against the Captain, himself; but not before three sailors had been thrown overboard. The log then relates that peace was restored and nautical pardons, were benevolently granted to all surviving crewmembers.

However, most excruciatingly painful, as further recorded in the recovered shipboard log (apparently by the First Mate), was that the violent uprising had resulted in substantial damage to the vessel, causing it to sink rapidly and to do so with an enormous “whooshing” sound, which to the vigorously water- treading, orange-haired Captain’s embittered dismay, while he was panicky treading water, sounded identical to the dreaded word, “LOSER.”

-p.      

* Thanks to novelist Nicolas Monserrat for the title.

This writing is not a critique of the popular (and populist) movie, “The Bucket List,” starring Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson. It singularly focuses on the quixotic absurdity and empirical irrationality of the basic conceit of the narrative. The entertaining movie consists of the inquiry, by the protagonists, albeit, late in life, as to who they as individuals are and as to what they have done with their lives. This concern leads to their quixotic aspiration to engage in sundry exotic activities to assuage a felt desire to fulfill unrequited lifetime aspirations (fantasies) before death, i.e. before they “kick the bucket.”

The conception itself is foolhardy in that it involves the aspiration, before the time of death (“kicking the bucket”) to assuage a desire for ultimate personal fulfillment, by engaging in extreme and heroic activities, such as climbing Mount Everest, skydiving, swimming the English Channel, or running in a Marathon.   It should be contextually noted, that such activities are entirely physical, and from an empirical point of view, reveal a sophomoric understanding of the meaning of success or achievement in life. Wisdom and experience teach the contemplative individual that the ultimate personal sense of the attainment of a fulfilled life is demonstratively otherwise.

The conceptual theme of the movie reveals the bizarre nature and quality of a society that acceptably approves the remuneration of many millions of dollars to professional athletes and, by marked contrast, modest salaries to scientists whose lives are dedicated to curing cancer and scholars who impart the enlightenment existentially required to maintain a democratically informed society.

It is only the disappointing and reality-skewed populism of our society that can elect a Donald Trump to the Oval Office, can blatantly, ignore the existential despoliation of our air and environment, shamefully denigrates the education of the young in the accurate history of the Nation, and which, atavistically, fears other Homo sapiens who look or believe differently.

We have often declared that the appropriate recognition of a successful life is the objective personal recognition of self-fulfillment, by the ultimate attainment of mature perception and a measure of experiential wisdom. No skydiving, mountain climbing, or auto racing is required.

-p.

The media recently reported the case of a person, who, judicially convicted in 1989 of murder in the first degree and sentenced to capital punishment, tested the patience of the Criminal Justice System by surviving the legally prescribed lethal injection, administered, remarkably, less than two years ago. We can only attempt to gauge the feelings of the patience of the criminal person, himself, however despicable, languishing on death row in contemplation of his imminent brutal execution for 35 years. It has been argued, with significant legal and humanistic merit, that a reprise of the homicidal process constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment,” forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

Official methods of homicidal “retribution” have historically, and selectively, varied between “stoning,” burning,” “beheading,” (the latter, [“cap” meaning “head” as in “beheading”] the etymological source of the legally euphemistic term,” Capital Punishment,”) “hanging,” “shooting,” “lethal injection” and the infamous “electric chair” or “electrocution.” Readings of history readily inform of early executions which, acceptably, took on a carnival-like atmosphere to which people brought their children for family entertainment.

Botched killings of such evildoers, by the various temporally preferred modes du jour, cruelly and empirically are not rare occurrences. Further comments on the recent case and this subject will be offered after the following historical paragraph.

Reference to the relevant literature reveals that the long and bloody empirical history of capital punishment has demonstrated that, contrary to its eternal morally enunciated purpose, and its principled justification, capital punishment, does not deter crime nor provide closure for the family of the victim. Moreover, all too frequently, experiences have revealed the legally appropriate exoneration of many erroneously convicted individuals, interred on “Death Row;” for those who are posthumously discovered to be innocent, justice (and the innocent person) is tragically and poorly served.

Our troubled moral compass and innate sense of human rectitude, persist in declaring, that if the premeditated and deliberate killing of a human being by another has constituted the paramount, classically evil crime, should it be replicated by an official representational institution of the “People” under the atavistic umbrella of the prehistorically, primitive desire for Biblical “vengeance.” If killing is verboten, should society eternally be brutalized by the inconsistency of its public approval, provided homicide is committed by the State?

The media has reported that the State of Alabama can at long last engage in self-congratulation on its 2024, successful killing of the 1989 murderer, Kenneth Smith, by the innovative use of nitrogen to bring on lethal hypoxia. It is to be noted that the official method was itself preceded by a rather substantial debate among chemists, executioners, and ethicists as to the issues of efficacy and rectitude of the untested use of nitrogen to accomplish the scheduled, statutorily prescribed homicide. The controversial debate might have easily been avoided by a cursory (and heartless) reference to the irrefutably efficient use of the gas, “Zyclon-B,” in Ausvchvitz.

-p.

We maintain that all Man’s social relationships are in essence, transactional indeed, contractual.  Our metaphysical analysis, however, does not, prosaically, eliminate the element of sentimentality nor blandly commercialize human relationships, but merely notes their fundamental, and ubiquitously present commonality of interest, perceived need, or situational happenstance.

In the commercial world, contractual relationships are motivated by the desire to make profits, as a result of contractual relationships. Legally, a “contract,” may be defined as the mutual exchange of promises, concerning, for example, the delivery of goods or the performance of an act. It consists of an “offer,” an “acceptance,” and, ultimately, the performance of the undertaking. In commerce, its motivation is simple and singular, i.e., the profitable conduct of business.

In its social or humanistic context, the dynamic of the transactional undertaking (contract) is far from singular. By situational contrast, the variety of human expectations is couched in a plethora of varied and profound contexts. We have taken the liberty of advancing the proposition that all voluntary human relationships are, in metaphysical fact, functionally, transactional, and can permissibly be described as contractual. Man’s interactive relationships, empirically, are based on the mutual satisfaction of jointly perceived assumptions, needs, or the commonality of situational circumstances, brief or enduring.

FRIENDSHIP, FAMILIAL RELATIONS:

 The transactional feature of friendship fundamentally rests on a mutual tacit acknowledgment of compatibility by the parties, regarding their predictable responses to stimuli as well as the commonality of interests and points of view, especially in the political context. The relationship is transactional in that it is grounded on the mutual satisfaction derived from such a common accord.  An obligatory, tacit understanding or implied agreement, indicating the convergence of mutual perceptions, constitutes the dynamics of the transactional foundation of the relationship.

We include “familial friendship” in this category since said transactional features are identical, with the obvious addition of the existence and valued recognition of the familial relationship.

LOVE: The poetic and aesthetic relationship of love, in practical reality, and from an empirical view, is based upon a far more profoundly psychological and emotional dynamic, but one not factually dissimilar to that of friendship. One must add the existentially relevant ingredient of mutual sexual attraction to the transactional mix of required mutual response. For the relationship of love to be sustainable, as portrayed by literature and the arts, both parties to such an intimate transactional relationship are mandatorily required to observe the contractual obligation of singular loyalty. It is notable that since ancient times, the Hebrew tradition has been to have the parties to a marriage, preliminarily, enter into a written and witnessed contract.

SITUATIONAL AND TEMPORARY FRIENDSHIPS: In temporary or situational friendships, the formal strictures are somewhat more relaxed in the required nature and degree of mutuality of perception and commonality of interest. In this category of situationally or temporally limited experiences, the nature of the definitional relationship is the joint consideration and express acknowledgment of the similarity and commonality of their intimate situation. Next-door neighbors, Army buddies, school classmates hospital patients, vacationers, and  individuals,  suddenly finding themselves mutually threatened with danger and those who become disabled or aged, are examples of situational friendships viz.,, dependent upon the acknowledged commonality of personal circumstances. Such temporary transactional requirements merely require the mutual recognition of the common experience and the innate persona to identify with the plight of the other, equally affected, be it good or tragic. In dire circumstances, their bond is contractually dependent upon their innate, or feigned, capability for empathy, as opposed to sullen, singular despondency. In a happier context, vacationers and sightseers may enjoy the temporary friendship of similar experiences, provided they mutually, or transactionally, recognize the existence of the other’s separate and personal experience, in addition to their own.

DEPENDENCE:  The ubiquitous and relevant feature of “dependence” is essential to the dynamics of all relationships, such as those referred to above. The predictable reliance on another’s expected response is the basis of mutuality and constitutes a transactional necessity.  Specifically, recognition of the relationship with doctors, lawyers, and other professional advisors and certified experts requires implicit transactional confidence in their expertise.  Reliance upon educators and religious leaders requires the commonality of acceptance of the respective relationships, resulting in the basis for confidence and the interactive feature of such transactional relationships. The experience is meaningless absent the mutual acceptance of the designated roles or the lack of confidence in the advisor. Respective transactional confidence and role acceptance are mutually required.

It should be stated, that, by notable contrast, the unhealthy dependence, diagnosed as “co-dependence,” amounting to the destructive, extremely dependent attachment to a specific party, as opposed to our contextual social dependence, is neither mutually, nor recognizably, transactional.

In our declaration that all socially cognizable, interactive relationships are transactional, we do not ignore or minimize the significant elements of emotion or sentiment; but have simply focused, contextually, on the dynamic epoxy of reliable (contractually understood)  mutual sympathies or experiences as implicitly existential to such relationships.

-p.  

 Blogpost # M.16                                           POLITICAL MYOPIA (pliny editorial)Sad experience often teaches us that facile decisions or solutions to problems, made in times of stress or frustration, all too often run the imminent risk of effectively exacerbating the problem. The mainstream, loyal American, in understandable apprehension of the extant (MAGA) threat to American democracy, has variously sought solutions to such threat. We have, in prior writings, suggested that all aspirants for the Presidency be, initially and mandatorily, vetted by an impartial board to screen out Trump-like, anti-democratic candidates; thus, preventing their harmful election by America’s unfortunately, large population of the misguided and populist horde. Regrettably, it is too late to implement said solution since the nightmarish Trump has already been designated as a Presidential candidate.

We would be eternally grateful to learn of any proposed solution that would if implemented, serve to protect and preserve our Democratic Republic.  However, this writing is specifically dedicated to the considered restraint of a popular and doubtlessly, well-intentioned, but precariously flawed solution.

The universal dread of mainstream Americans, simply stated, is that the coming Presidential election might result in a populist re-election of the proven and declared autocrat and acknowledged enemy of democracy, the immoral and ego-centric, Donald J. Trump. The demonstrated behavior of Trump, in his one term of office and his public declarations, leave little doubt of his intention to replace our unique democracy, for which many have sacrificed life and health to preserve, with the institution of a fascist autocracy. The cause for panic is, regarding this occasion, empirically rational. Because of worrisome poll numbers indicating only tepid support for President Joe Biden, compared with the huge MAGA cult support for the autocratic and felonious miscreant, Trump, the disquietude of the mainstream American is inarguably realistic, even palpable.

In the dense fog of such anxiety, a solution has been proposed to the effect that an acceptable third-party candidate might be interposed (nominated) who would predictably support a democratic republic; let us say, for example, Gavin Newsome or Liz Chaney. This suggested solution may be well-intentioned, but it is, in reality, myopic and dangerous.

In this context, we need to initially consider America’s (unjust and undemocratic) institution of the Electoral College. Although a popular vote would be significant in ensuring that each vote counted equally and thus, result in a truly representative, democratic nation, we are constitutionally hobbled by an archaic, non-democratic vestigial organ, “The Electoral College.” It is an undeniable fact that it is not the voters who select the President and Vice-President, but the Electors.

This outmoded and undemocratically archaic system affords each State the number of electors, equal to its total number of U.S. Senators and Representatives (total of 528) who select the winners. The voter, in truth, casts his ballot for his party’s State Elector, and not directly for the candidate. The winning Electors choose the President and Vice-President [remember 1/6/21!].

It is puzzling and distressing that the current poll numbers, do not seem to reflect the notably successful performance of President Biden. A sample of his accomplishments would include, his Covid-9 policies, managing and greatly ameliorating the dire effects of the pandemic (following the criminal negligence and mishandling of the problem by Trump, the latter, irresponsibly causing, upwards of one million, avoidable deaths), the lowering of inflation and unemployment, the increase in thousands of jobs, the lowering of prices for medicine, such as insulin, the reduction in oppressive college and professional school indebtedness, the shepherding of a substantial and much-need national infrastructure bill, the wise and competent handling of the Ukraine and Israeli Wars, the appointment of capable cabinet secretaries (as contrasted with Trump’s selection of incapable sycophants) and his compassionate regard for immigrant refugees and the downtrodden in general.

The horrendous and bizarre one-term, twice-impeached, Presidential record of Donald Trump, is undoubtedly, well known. Despite the same and his indictment on 91 felonies, ranging from tax fraud, gross violations of the Emolument Clause, bribery to cover up his brisk commerce with prostitutes, and rape, to the commission of Treason against the Nation, the immutable voting power of his numerous cult of MAGA supporters has effectively destroyed the Republican party and the dynamic functioning of our democracy. Further, in addition to his election denial and promulgation of an insurrection against the nation, he has expressed his clear intention to become a dictator.  There is a rational basis for alarm.

However, we must point out that a certain, popularly proposed solution, consisting of a third-party candidate, as an attempted mode of assurance of the defeat of Donald Trump, and the consequent survival of democracy, is quixotic and perilous. In our view, given the flawed dynamics of our electoral system, viz., the existence of the Electoral College system, should the result of such a proposed three-candidate election, result in the failure of any one candidate to win a requisite number of Electors, the House Of Representatives, then, has the constitutional choice of electing our Chief Executive.

It is instructive to recall the diminished responsibility of the majority MAGA-loyal House and to consider the public spectacle of its shameful inability to agree on a Leader. The practical result would be a bizarre combination of an un-American and Kafka-like nightmare.

The appropriate, safest, and most effective solution is for the mainstream, democracy-loving, citizen to energetically undertake to actively and responsibly assure the continuance of our democracy by being a vocal spokesman for its continuance in promoting the re-election of the proven capable and democracy-loving, Joseph Biden.  

-p.

You must remember this,
A bris is just a bris
A “Sy” is just a “Sy”
There’ll be a savory breakfast,
Bagels, lox, or matzo brie.

It’s still the same old story,
To strive for ritual glory
On that, you can rely
Commencing with this elemental fete,
“As time goes by.”
-p.

For clarity, we have employed the adjective, “Societal” before the dynamic noun,” Evolution” to distinguish our intended theme from the classic Darwinian use of the term. Darwin’s classic, secular explanation of the origin and progress of the earthly species is fundamentally grounded on the development and inheritance of physical traits, advantageously adaptive to survival and procreation in the presenting physical environment. Our chosen theme is distinguishable from that of Charles Darwin since its chosen context is not relevant to the subject of adaptive physical traits (or” mutational” development) enabling survival. It is specifically and narrowly confined to our perception of human transformational behavior and mindset, responsive to modern technology’s exponential “advances,” notably, computerization.

The present writing notes the striking contrast in humankind’s regressive alteration in perception and evolved societal lifestyle (“evolution)” responsive to the rapid and revolutionary changes in technology as compared with the same existing only less than one century ago., It is our considered view that metaphysically and fundamentally, humankind’s resultant changes in perception and lifestyle have far more humanistic, societal import than the facile convenience afforded by such advancements.

For reasons of practicality, and brevity, we have selected modest, but illustrative, samples of such changes. Moreover, our discussions of such observed social changes (social evolution) are relatively brief since many have been amply included within the scope of previous essays.

[Interactive communication] We have consistently maintained that computer (smartphone) communication in its signature transmittal of impersonal and inexpressive digital symbols to a small, lighted screen of another’s like device, and responded to (in the like manner) at a subsequent time, by bright comparison with natural interaction (in person or by telephone) is socially and emotionally inadequate; such inadequacy as reported, often portending feelings of loneliness, insularity, and even depression. The absence of the assurance of a recognizably nuanced voice and the untimely response from the conversant has resulted in a notable unhealthy, impact on society, particularly, the young; the latter, as reported, often characterized by increases in episodes of anxiety and depression. The negative impact of said digitally, impersonal “advance” was exacerbated by the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which mandated the prophylactic separation of individuals.

[The Family] We are old enough to remember a time and tradition when families routinely spent time together at meals, vacations, and holidays and often in the evenings, listened together to the family radio for news and programs. The latter activity was later upgraded to the mutual watching of a small screen, black and white television, which progressively improved to a large screen color television. The programs, themselves, advanced from primitive offerings (ex. Howdy Doody, Milton Berle) to todays, virtually unlimited access to popular sports, sophisticated programs, and choices of (Roku) films.

The radio, as mass entertainment, is virtually dead as is, lamentedly, the tradition of familial activities and general togetherness. In many cases, the former “family” dynamic has now functionally morphed into an analogous, “Bed and Breakfast” relationship among family members; the nature of the latter, often exemplified by younger family members privately addressing their smartphones, held under the table at family meals for conversational or other use.  In our view, the traditional context of “family” was further downgraded by the stated, computerized impersonality of interaction. In addition, the context of the stereotypical family contemporaneously portrayed by the entertainment industry has furthered the morphing of the close, and self-sustaining unit to a mere familiar, functioning, legal entity.

[Letters, Shopping, “Fast Food.”]  We are somewhat dubious as to the extent of the functional utility of the U.S. Post Office Department, given the apparent and truly unfortunate extinction of social letter writing. The ubiquitous use of hand-held digital cell phones for facile messaging has, inarguably, replaced said uniquely valuable mode of, thoughtful and deliberative communication. Even the mailing and joyful receipt of greeting cards have been replaced by computer transmissions.

Gone are the days when Alice and Sara would participate in a “shopping date,” viz., getting together for “window shopping” and lunch. General shopping at stores does exist to some degree, but most purchases are made by computer and delivered by carriers such as Amazon or FedEx. Returns are similarly effectuated (by computer and truck). Many retail establishments have not survived this evolutionary, commercial change in behavior.

Supplementing the evolving impersonality concerning the decline in family traditions has been the advent and pedestrian facility of “fast food” franchise outlets.  For our active and mobile society, especially for the youth and young adults, street-accessible cheap hamburgers (“burgers”) and French fries, pizza, and tacos, have, in large part, replaced family meals such as roast beef and vegetables or roast chicken with potatoes. In large part, the benefit of social, nourishing, and leisurely enjoyed meals and accompanying social interaction has gone the convenient, and unaesthetic route of facile, convenience, sacrificing the ritual folkway of mealtime ritual and culinary pleasure.

[Sexual mores, dating] We can remember that following a pretty girl’s providential acceptance of a (nervously expressed) request for a Saturday night date, the following episode, (or a slightly varied factual version) would ensue. When the awaited time, perhaps 7:30 P.M. arrived, the young man, after checking his hairdo, would ring the doorbell, encounter the father of the girl, and wait until she was ready to go with him to the movies; the latter event, often preceded by some precautionary instructions from the mother.

The ensuing events, typically, were as follows. After the conclusion of the first of the two features the young male dater, might by hesitant and anxious degrees, bravely place his arm on the top edge of the girl’s seat back, which often stiffly and painfully remained in place, until the (mutually distracted) end of the second feature. Thereafter, the two, customarily, would go to the local diner or luncheonette for an ice cream soda and then, return to the girl’s home. At this perilous juncture, the male suffered from the anxious issue as to the permissible adventure of bravely attempting to kiss the cute female “on the lips.” Traditional conferences by the young man and his intimate friends, the following Sunday morning, would dwell on the valorous (or quixotic failure) of the male success at “kissing on the first date.”

The evolved change in mores can simply and cursorily be described by a brief reference to a viewed televised discussion during which the interviewed young female indicated, among other notable details, that she customarily spends a lot of money on her “dating panties.” The radical evolution of behavioral “folkways” can be attributed to an immodest “sophistication” derived from the portrayal of male-female behavior by popular entertainment sources such as cinema, theater, and public print sources.

We might cite innumerable additional instances of perceived social evolution, however, we presume that they would uniformly evince similar characteristics; the tragic and unhealthy decline in the caliber and value of humanistic relationships in thoughtless and disadvantageous exchange for facile convenience.

-p.