Category: Uncategorized

July 4 is the day of America’s perennial, “birthday party.” This is the specific date on which America annually, celebrates its victory in the War of Independence from England, and the creation of an independent, sovereign Nation. The celebratory day is, customarily, recognized by fireworks, symbolizing the war, by festivals, parades, parties and joint barbeques.

The creation of a Democratic Republic, by the Founders, was, at the time, a “radical experiment.”  There were no longer to be “privileged classes,” (“all men are created, *equal), and, rather than a Monarch or the Church, they created a tri-partite, polity, viz., Executive, (President), Legislative,(Congress), the latter, two branches elected by the vote of the people and, as well, a Judicial branch, (Supreme Court), each with mutual authority to prevent unconstitutional excess (“Checks and Balances)  by the other.  As opposed to the historical experience with a King, the newly conceived Republic was to be, by and for, the “People.” History recounts that at the last day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked, Founder, Benjamin Franklin, “What have you created here?” His now, famous, reply was, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” We would inquire, on America’s birthday of July 4, 2023, whether we have been “keeping it?”

We would, once more, thematically, refer to the sage and prescient statement of another Founder, Thomas Jefferson, later to be elected to the Presidency of the United States. The statement, as we read it, is, essentially, an admonition, whose wisdom and prescience, are demonstrated by current events; and which provide the theme and impetus for this brief essay. Jefferson warned that in order for a democracy to succeed, it requires educated and well-informed citizens. The unfortunate insufficiency of educated and well-informed citizens is at the systemic root of the Nation’s ever-weakening, retention of its basic principles regarding democratic rule.

The Nation has experienced the following traumatic and existential dangers, about which we have copiously written: an incompetent and criminal demagogue turned President, a violent insurrection against the government, by hordes of the Nation’s populist underbelly, the derogation of “truth,” and the exaltation of “alternate facts,” paranoiac, ideational conspiracy mongers, a plethora of criminal and ethical public investigations, the rise of anti-Semitism and gender prejudice, the autocratic denial of privacy to women (abortion rights) the increasing threats of White Christian Militias, systematic police homicidal acts against black citizens, book burning and fascistic censorship, voting interference, the cessation of needed assistance to minorities in higher education, irresponsible opposition to policies to ameliorate global warming, a shameful and immoral paucity in assistance to the poor and needy, the cynically, outrageous, granting of judicial favor to well- financed and powerful interest groups., the deluge of gun ownership and the concomitant pandemic of public homicidal tragedies, but, unfortunately, we could go on, ad infinitum… ad nauseam.

Jefferson, in our view, was “spot on.” We find ourselves, at this July 4 reprise, possessed of sufficient reason to feel morose and be especially, concerned, by the anticipatory, knowledge that the chronic continuance of America’s current populist, malady of endemic, reductionist ignorance, characterizing many citizens, is an empirically, predictable, matter of potential tragic, existential consequence.

Happy Birthday!

-p.

In a 6-3 decision, the six Conservative Justices of the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) declared that colleges’ use of race as a factor in student admission by Universities (“affirmative action”) is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits racial discrimination. To capsulize the fundamental problem with this determination by our highest Court, we would take the liberty of citing a portion of the response by dissenting Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, “… The decision cements a prejudicial rule of colorblindness as a Constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.” Stated differently, the decision is erroneous in that it fails to align jurisprudence with reality.

Try as they might, MAGA supporters (judicial and otherwise) would be hard pressed to deny that for centuries, our Nation wrongfully, kidnapped, chained and used black human beings to toil in the cotton and other agricultural fields, as slaves, and be legally assigned the status as mere, chattel property (SCOTUS- Scottsboro case). Their autocratic-style attempts, by literary censorship and opposition to educational instruction regarding the Nation’s sordid history of black enslavement, is analogous to the apocryphal practice of the ostrich, denying empirical reality by hiding his head in the sand.

“Affirmative Action,” (following the Bakke case) was designed and intended to implement the policy to affect the treatment of Black applicants for admission to institutions of higher education, consistent with the fundamental principles espoused in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). A compliant institution of higher learning would, permissibly, consider, in addition to other factors for admission, considerations of race, geography and gender. Traditionally, the most sought-after universities had an established policy of giving preferential consideration for admission, to high-performing, athletes and “legacy” applicants (relatives of prior graduates), but ignored such social and racial factors.

The disapproval of “affirmative action,” (attributable to the votes of the six conservative Justices) was a shocking setback to the historic National effort towards the establishment of racial justice and was hot on the heels of SCOTUS’ scandalous overturn,( similarly, attributable to such hexagonal group of Justices),  of the half-century precedential case of Roe v. Wade. The latter ruling, confirming the legality of a woman’s right to an abortion, founded upon her personal right to privacy and self-determination. The unexpected, religious, and conservative influenced, overthrow, was not merely, unconstitutional under the “Establishment Clause,” of the U.S. Constitution and a clear disturbance of the stabilizing, jurisprudential concept of settled legal precedent, but, as well, an autocratic style, invasion of a women’s natural and personal right to choose whether, and when, to give birth.

Regrettably, for quite some time, the once, revered and honorable, highest Court in the land, has, observably, deteriorated, (with the notable exception of the three, eternally outvoted, “liberal-oriented” Justices, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson) from a recognized, authoritative and entirely impartial, judicial guardian of the Constitution and of the rights of the American citizen to,  a “politicized” entity, unconstitutionally, receptive to the influence of influential third party interests, religious, political and corporate. It is notable that three of the six, (politically, right-wing) Justices were appointed by the deviant and atavistic Trump administration.

Simultaneous with the date of this writing, we were advised that President Biden‘s just and empathic, program of student loan forgiveness,  as well,  has been declared unconstitutional, by the vote of the larger conservative wing of the high court; despite the fact that this Nation, is precariously, behind other developed Nations, in academic achievement. We would question, regarding the latter determination, what litigant had the required and permissible) standing, as an aggrieved party, to prosecute such a case?

Until recently, we had perceived SCOTUS, with the greatest respect and admiration as the legal watchdog of the Nation and the ultimate protector of the Constitutional rights of American citizens. Its neutral and non-partisan determinations of issues brought before it, assured even-handedness and equitable justice to the Nation, and strictly monitored the Founder’s intention in their establishment of Constitutional architecture, viz., “Separation of Powers,” Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches.

 Thus, in order that any litigant to obtain acceptance of his case for review by SCOTUS, he was procedurally, required to be successful in the preliminary proceeding known as the “Writ of Certiorari,” which, among other mandatory criteria, was to, demonstrate not only, the absence of political issues in the proposed, case for appeal, but the lack of possible legal impact of its determination. The requirement’s foundational purpose was to avoid violation of the Constitutional, “Separation of Powers” provision and had, eternally, been SCOTUS gospel.

Such traditional and salutary policy was strictly followed, until the Bush v. Gore case, (2000) which was concerning the results of a contested election, (procedurally, impermissible, since a “political matter”) was, unprecedentedly, accepted and then determined in favor of the Republican candidate.

Ten years later, the errant, Conservative Majority of the Court, in the Citizens-United case, (2010), irrefutably, demonstrated its blatant violation concerning the High Court’s, historic, prohibition of political issues, and, moreover, did so in a manner which, disastrously affected the fairness and equality of democratic elections. The conservative majority of SCOTUS, stretching law and human logic, and, improperly, yielding to the influence of big business, removed the democratically, equitable, limit on campaign contributions by big business; thus, revealing a new policy of unethical and illegal responsiveness to interest groups. The Conservative-driven ruling, is based upon the bizarre theory, that business corporations, purportedly are “persons” and, accordingly, may not be limited in the amount of political contributions, which would violate their “freedom of speech.” Thus, American elections, by virtue of the removal of the limitation on corporate contributions would thereafter, be, significantly and undemocratically, weighted in their favor.

The Citizens-United case clearly demonstrated three, undemocratic and cynical tendencies of the Conservative Justices, (1) Corporate “personhood” is a commercial fiction, to avoid unlimited liability, of the entrepreneur, not a living, breathing, individual. Every freshman in law school knows this, and one can conclude the cynicism of the Conservative Justices, by such stated, sophomoric reason. (2) The same, clearly, indicates the political intent to favor the influence of one voting population over another, (3) the foregoing are irrefutably, violations of the “Separation of Powers” Clause of the Constitution.

The six controlling, Conservative Justices have, improperly, and unethically, demonstrated irresponsible and unconstitutional favoritism towards lobbied interests, including, religious  ( Abortion), political (Citizens United) and the more recent determinations, concerning the destruction of the Nation’s salutary and historically, appropriate policies of Affirmative Action and Student Debt amelioration. (Civil Rights, Economic Equality). From an institutional standpoint, they have effectively, undertaken to ignore precedent and settled law and thereby have improperly and unconstitutionally, arrogated to themselves the authority to legislate policy and new law.

Shockingly, the public media has recently, reported numerous, verified, instances of illegal and immoral, substantial gifts accepted by the members of this hexagonal club of elegant charlatans, from wealthy donors whose financial and business interests have been litigated before SCOTUS. Our astonished,  response was mitigated, somewhat,  by our recent, empirically, developed, principled disrespect, for our highest court shown by these “August” personalities. Yet, it is mandatorily, important that Congress investigate such public deceit.

Whatever happened to the highly revered, institution and its eminent and philosophically, ethical Justices, such as Cardozo, Holmes, Marshall, Brandeis and Frankfurter?

-p.

Recent media accounts of the ill-fated, deep water bathyscaphe, “THE TITAN,” and its tragic victims, effected for us, a reprise of our long-standing feelings, concerning the tendency of some members of the anthropological category, Homo sapiens, to evince, a foolish, perhaps, immoral, desire to put at risk, their given, singular franchise of life. Sky diving, race car driving, spelunking, passenger space travel bungee jumping and the like, may serve certain idiosyncratic needs of the participants but ungratefully, and we feel, depravedly, put the inestimably, precious element of “life,” at risk.

Considering the multitude and variety of living things on Planet Earth, from amoeba to aster, chrysanthemum to cactus, and gorilla to giraffe, the salient drive and aspiration are for life. To further life, animals and birds will migrate, globally, for food, certain insects and reptiles will, defensively, evince bright colors which warn of poison, porcupines and roses have painful barbs to discourage attack, many species of fauna have camouflage features for protection from predators, others have defensive claws and sharp incisor teeth. Inarguably, with respect to all of Mankind’s planetary fauna and flora, it is, empirically and eternally, true, that the most fundamental, function or drive is the protection of the precious franchise of life.

Accordingly, the most onerous and punitive criminal retribution, is reserved for homicide, the intentional taking of life. Unfortunately, in many States, the atavistic punishment of the death penalty is still imposed, albeit, arguably, inconsistent with the planetary commitment to preserve life.

For the moment, we would, briefly, modify the theme of this essay, to a somewhat, related subject; that of the individual’s aspiration for the attainment of ultimate happiness. We have, in earlier writings, declared that, observably, personal evaluative judgments, including that of attaining (or, failing at) the feeling of general happiness are internal. The accumulation of expensive assets, viz., large residences, showy automobiles, pools, motorcycles, helicopters, money has certain advantages and can serve the purpose, as desired, of the demonstration of material success; yet, the acquisition of assets, however substantial, does not anecdotally, equate with the feeling of personal happiness. These physical assets are showy and possibly, prestigious, but are external, and may, indeed, have limited effect on the internal sense of ultimate happiness.

It has been our observation that one’s ultimate feeling of personal happiness, is, doubtless, an inner, accrued, perception of the attainment of self-fulfillment. In the life-long, private conversation with oneself, a rational comparison between, “the hand that has been dealt to you,” and your personal growth and achievements, in later life, constitutes the telling calculation. It is not what you own, or, have done, per se, but rather, what you have become, (i.e., what you are, now), that is the empirical and rational measure.

Regarding our initial subject of the invaluable and reverential franchise of life, it is logically and empirically possible to live a fulfilled and perfectly, satisfactory life (“happiness”) without putting to the test, your capacity to overcome the element of fear in a bathysphere, rocket ship, or your extent of courage at the edge of an active volcano. These are useless and irrational endeavors, and, most significantly, done at the frightful, costly and irresponsible, risk of the cancellation of one’s singular franchise of life. Rationally, successful survival in such endeavors does not mitigate the profound ungratefulness and the profound immorality of the casual and foolhardy choice of life-threatening, behavior, There are untold numbers of infirm people, relegated to hospice care, who would earnestly, desire to have an extension of time, regarding the implementation, of Nature’s decreed sentence of mortality.
 

-p.

A reference to modern history would be useful in its resultant, instruction as to the necessity to be competent enough in our judgment to distinguish actual empirical threats to our democracy, from those that are conceived merely, for various political or cultural purposes.  

The 1920s America, as exemplified by the infamous, Sacco-Vanzetti case, was a period of time in which the purported, National threat, du jour, was identified as “Criminal Anarchy.” Historians accorded the name, “First Red Scare,” to the era since immigrants were feared to be, either, anarchists, communists or socialists. We can easily conceive of the possible basis for such purported threat to the Nation, as having its impetus, rather, in a general populist prejudice against the immigration of foreigners.

In the late 1940’s a “Second Red Scare,” saw political dissension and repression of liberties in a manic campaign led by Senator Joseph McCarthy, to combat a purported “ Communist conspiracy” to exert influence and damage America and its institutions. Many hearings were held, charges lodged, and careers ruined, but after much energy and effort were expended by the “McCarthy Commission,” the alleged, pervasive infiltration of undercover, communist agents and spies to the United States was never demonstrated. However, the paranoid Senator, can, deservedly, take appropriate credit for the many innocent careers and lives that were adversely affected and, (similar to the decreed fates of Sacco and Vanzetti), Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed, on the charge of treason.

Despite the controversial divisiveness, the major disruption of the Nation and the injury to the reputations of many innocent American citizens, no organized anarchist or communist threat, as alleged, materialized. However, with the surprise elevation of Donald J. Trump to the Oval Office, a legitimate and frightening, legitimate threat to American democracy, was set in motion, namely, “Autocracy.”

In fulfillment of the classic stereotype of all fascistic autocrats, Trump, immediately, initiated a vicious attack upon the media, claiming that the media published news was “fake,” initiated  the concept of “alternate facts,” denigrated learning and academic enlightenment, ignored the provisions contained in the United States Constitution, illegally enriched himself and immediate family in willful violation of  its “ Emolument Clause,” asserted an alleged  immunity from prosecution for his copious criminal behavior, promoted race and ethnic bigotry, courted, Russia’s  Putin and other autocrats, took illegal liberties, such as purloining government classified, documents and refusing to return them when subpoenaed, undemocratically, rejected the results of a bona fide election and then caused, encouraged and aided  an insurrection, seeking to overthrow the democratic government, encouraged the insurrectionist mob to hang his Vice President for refusing,  illegally, to certify him as (the faux) winner of the election,  otherwise committed copious election fraud, committed bribery, illegally failed to pay  taxes, and assertively, lived and behaved, licentiously,

In sum, Trump plotted to be a permanent chief executive, responsible to no one nor, to any legal strictures, and irrefutably, demonstrated his autocratic intention to perambulate in the stereotypic footsteps of other tyrants in the classic style of Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler or the contemporary, menagerie of autocrats, viz., Putin, (23 yrs. In office), Victor Oban (Hungary, 13 yrs.) and Xi -Jimping of China. Despite two Congressional impeachments in his single term, indictments for numerous federal and state crimes and is at the brink of the first trial for sedition and espionage, yet imperially, intends to run again for President. His stereotypic, intentional, blindness to the law and non-recognition of moral compass,  encompassing  his amoral absence of allegiance to anything but himself, added to his singular lust for power, certifies him for inclusion in the identical, atavistic, museum exhibit, as Putin and Oban, et al., labeled “Autocrat.”

On June 23, 2023, the world experienced a veritable, laboratory demonstration of the operation of the classic autocratic signature. On that date, Putin’s private, paramilitary army, tasked with doing the dirty work for Putin in Africa and elsewhere, (including his illegal land war against Ukraine, the latter, opposed by many Russians), known as the “Wagner Group,” led by one, Yvgeny Prigozhin, as such leader (no doubt, a “wannabe,” Autocrat) embarked on a rebellion, against Putin and Russia, in keeping with the autocratic signature, encompassing a desire for power, unrestrained by principle, or  loyalty. 

The resultant outcome of the above, head-on, bloody, collision, for the specific, contextual purposes of this essay, may be of less significance, than the vital elucidation of the existential danger of autocratic rule, an inevitable outcome, should Trump be re-elected President, and predictably, employ the classic, tyrannical signature.

-p.

Analytic discussions concerning the seemingly, eternal persistence of ignorant and reductive, bias in the area of gender identity (as well as “prejudice,” in general) is to us, as emotionally and intellectually, affective, as the experience of finding oneself, irretrievably, drawn to view roadkill.

It appears to be fruitless and ineffective to insist (to gender bigots) that biological factors, such as genetic influence, prenatal hormone levels and early life experiences, all contribute, objectively, and involuntarily, to the transgender phenomenon. Despite such empirically, involuntary causation, transgender citizens experience bias, in employment, education, the legal system, real estate, and, at times, in subtle intra-family relationships. Too often, many are targets of hate crimes as well as being victims of subtle discrimination. It is unfortunate to observe that, generally, anti-discrimination laws do not protect transgender people from discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression and as a consequence, transgender people in most cities and states find themselves unprotected by law.

This writing is concerned with the horrendous, practice of unjustified and irrational, loathing and abuse of innocent Americans, who by biological happenstance, find themselves, emotionally and psychologically, identified with a gender, other than the one they were assigned at birth. “Michael” cannot be held culpable for emotionally, feeling like, and psychologically identifying as, as “Melissa.” We have always continued to wonder at the bizarre fact that his/her gender has been of such perverse interest (or any interest) to totally, unaffected, bigoted, third parties.

We read that the same hormones that promote the differentiation of sex organs in the mother’s womb, also elicit puberty and influence the development of gender identity. Different amounts of these male or female hormones can result in behaviors and, even, external genitalia that does not match the norm of the sex, officially, assigned at birth.

In our modern times, gender incongruity is no longer considered a pathology, since, as alluded to, above, the considerable scientific evidence that has recently emerged, demonstrates a durable, biological element underlying gender identity. Individuals, we note, may make choices due to other factors, but there do not seem to exist, external forces that cause individuals to seek a change in gender identity.

The indisputable empirical facts, relative to the indisputable, non-existence of personal choice by the newborn, regarding inherited skin color, familial religion, ethnos, or, thematically, chromosomal-hormonal inheritance, are, nevertheless, no discouragement for the existing bigot, who is as resolute in assigning hatred, as he is lacking in any modicum of clear reason and sense of humanistic propriety. By sheer contrast, bigotry, itself, is not inherited, but apparently a matter of perverse choice.

A matter which has eternally, confounded us, in any event, is the fundamental source of the special interest in, and behaviors regarding, the transsexual individual (or, indeed, other targets of bigotry) when the most facile alternative is simply to choose to avoid their company.

-p.

It is but, the pure of heart,
That can, with lidded eye and open mind
Attend the verdant melodies
Of the nightly forest recital.

The drone of a Baroque-style continuo,
Of infiltrating wind thru leafy boughs
And sharp notes of cricket screech, are
Background to each moonlit sonata.

Nightly programs play eternal reprise
Of rhapsodic songs of earth and moon,
The musical almanac of earthly store
A tonal manifest of planet life.

This night, a cloudless Moon illuminates
Stravinsky-style, staccato tones, but
Nature’s evening song is boundless,
With concluding codas, at the dawn.

-p.
Leonard N. Shapiro (6/21/23)

It requires no “leap of faith,” to declare that, (1) the Nation’s present state of rancorous divisiveness poses an existential threat to its historically, unique democracy, and further, (2) that its wide educational divide is, inarguably, the most profound and impactful, cause. Accordingly, the healing of the Nation, and the preservation of its precious democracy, would, logically and empirically, make necessary, the addressing of said identified cause of such crucial and momentous, division

Concurrently, American schools face substantial challenges, as they endeavor to compete with other Nations in the global arena. There has been a consistent record that America’s schools and its general educational process, shamefully, fall well behind those of other developed countries.

The foregoing observations constitute one of the rare instances of universal concurrence, in the Nation’s current and unfortunate, plethora of militant, divisive camps. The salient issue, therefore, is the conception of a utilitarian and acceptable, means to assuage such foundational problem. We would propose a perceived and effective means to such a solution of the problem, viz., to the reduction of such antagonistic differences in citizens’ world and domestic views, caused, by the conceded, significant, educational divide. As a separate matter, but of related interest, it is notable, that nationwide political studies have consistently, shown, that voters with advanced, academic degrees, tend to favor the Democrats, and those without such higher education, seem to gravitate to the Republican Party.

Education, inarguably, and empirically, being an incremental process, it would seem logical to consider the supplemental education of our nascent, American voters and future participating citizens.

In light of the stated need for a more cohesive and well-informed, American society and relative to such identified need for the supplementation of the education of the young, we are obliged to recommend a change in the traditional course of the school year. Based upon America’s poor international, academic rankings, it would appear to be pragmatically, necessary to amend the traditional school year, in order to increase the needed instructional time.

 Until the last century, many school districts operated on a varied calendar, which was, specifically, based upon the agrarian needs of the community. We can initially, anticipate a negative reaction to our present suggestion that the school summer break, usually, eight to ten weeks, be abridged, or totally eliminated. The communication of the need, for a responsible perspective on the subject, might overcome any understandable, feelings of loss of leisure and social freedom; especially, when, advisedly, measured against the significant relationship between the quality of education of our citizenry and the perpetuation of our singular standing in the world. Interestingly, it may, be noted that, apparently, several research studies, have documented a “slide,” or a decline in student achievement, immediately following the period of the traditional “summer break.”

 The American public would need to be made cognizant that the inconvenience and personal sacrifice of liberty, inherent in a mandatorily, prescribed supplemental education, like the subjects of taxes and military service, are existentially, necessary for the survival of the Nation and its democratic way of life.  Perhaps some incentives, like tax benefits or a modest remuneration might be devised to encourage acceptance of the felt, inconvenient, but, necessary, obligation.  As an additional matter, and, inarguably, one of cogent value, the participants will accrue a more meaningful and interesting life, resulting from the increased enhanced learning and enlightenment.

In a matter of such vital National significance, adult citizens, as well, should, responsibly, consider themselves amenable, as well, to supplement, their present level of education, where deemed needed. It was Thomas Jefferson, who famously, declared, that a democracy can succeed and endure, only if it has an educated and informed, citizenry. Citizens lacking in necessary education, will, empirically, benefit from a policy of supplemental education in the context of personal self-advancement and a richer life experience, while, simultaneously, (thematically) acting in accord with the vital interest in the preservation of our democracy and the avoidance of its degradation to the condition of autocracy. The mainstream, responsible citizen should, therefore, be open and, receptive to programs that further his education and add personal enrichment.

As necessary, incentives for adult citizen participation, such as tax benefits, theater and sports tickets, as well as those suggested above, might be made available for recalcitrant citizens. Organized special interest groups, might be found to be socially desirable in sync with a well-publicized media effort, reciting the benefits to our Nation, and directly, to the individual. Elective courses might be offered in Civics and Government, American and European History, Literature, language, and Science, or other discipline as publically, desired.

The goal and aspiration of the programs and policies proposed, would initially, affect the necessary educational enhancement and quality of life of the individual citizen, and, thereby, additionally, accomplish the critically, important, strengthening and ultimate preservation of our precious and unique democracy.

-p.  

It is frustrating to attempt to gauge the extent of the virtue of human empathy in a Nation, entirely populated by immigrants and their progeny, but, nevertheless, one in which the acceptability of new applicants for citizenship from outside the borders of the United States, eternally, continues to be a hotly contested issue.

One can contrast, the Obama administration’s humane extension of safe asylum to refugee families, in flight from danger, as well as the acceptance of those immigrants, essentially, seeking a better life, with the xenophobic and prohibitive inclination of the Trump Administration, which described, albeit, sight unseen, caravans of refugees as criminals and prostitutes, and promised his bigoted, un-American, followers the Medieval, tactic of a great walled, prohibitive, barrier across the southern border.

 Historically, this American Nation, (to repeat, that is  entirely, populated by immigrants and their descendants) had, for many years, totally banned the immigration of Chinese and other Asian immigrants. In 1939 the ship, “St. Louis,” carrying more than nine-hundred Jews, fleeing for their very lives from Nazi Germany, was, summarily, turned back, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to predictably be murdered, due to the then perceived American public sentiment concerning  Jews.

In the empathically, passionate words of the brilliant poet, Emma Lazarus (an advocate for Russian Jews, fleeing the Russian Czar) which are inscribed on our welcoming,  Statue of Liberty “…Give me your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free…Send them here, the tempest [tossed]  to me…”

Racism and xenophobia (and, in our view, ignorant, selfishness) on the part of many Americans underlay their opposition to a policy of liberality, for those, also wishing to avail themselves of the desirable freedom and opportunities enjoyed by Americans in the United States. Some opponents of liberal immigration, tactically, disguise their feelings of bigotry behind the faux assertion that liberal immigration would result in the loss of jobs. Yet, reportedly, employers state that the substantial shortage of workers is preventing them from filling millions of jobs, and, further, that such shortfall is a key factor in our inflation.

Immigrant detainees are held for months, even years, in detention centers while being processed. Human Rights Watch reports that such detainees are held in prisons and jails and are subjected to inhumane living conditions, including inadequate and poor nourishment, lack of adequate clothing and in an overcrowded, environment. Correction officers often lack the language skills necessary to meet the specific needs of the immigrant detainees. This contributes, as reported, to a range of health issues, including, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Notably, it has been reported to, empirically, impose collateral harm well beyond the detainees, themselves.

As previously undertaken, we would propose an empathic, less “penal” and more humanistic, way to manage the affairs of the migrant, during his prolonged waiting period, pending the finalization of the process of immigration. Immigrants, clearly, are not convicted criminals and should not be obliged to “serve time” in a penal lock-up, or its somber equivalent, pending their processing.

We would earnestly and empathically, propose the furnishing (building?) of basic, but utilitarian, living spaces for the immigrant, and, as relevant, his family, pending the completion and determination of his application for entrance to the United States.

Individual residences in the form of apartment buildings or, perhaps, cottages, might be constructed, by the Federal or State government, conceivably, with assistance by instructed immigrants, consisting of modest, but healthy and acceptably comfortable, living spaces with the usual amenities. These temporary, but livable, residential areas could also beneficially, accommodate, government offices for processing, clinics, schoolrooms (English language, American folkways and traditions, etc.) living and children’s play centers. If successful these venues might be used for other purposes, viz. trade schools, library, and infirmaries.

Our prosperous Nation has a surfeit of available living space for immigrant families who wish to follow in the footsteps of its forebears, to whom we all owe our American heritage and life. A similar opportunity, in fairness and human morality, ought to be available to other human beings; moreover, who do not, reasonably, deserve to be treated as undesirable miscreants.

-p.

We are obliged to agree with the media commentators, that the current situation relative to the various criminal indictments against Donald J. Trump, in his capacity as past President of the United States, is historically, unique and unprecedented. However, we would observe that the prosecutorial situation is yet more unique; in fact, singularly, unique, in the entire historic universe of criminal trials. After a relatively brief note on the Rules of Evidence, applicable to the conduct of trials, more specifically, those, importantly, relative to the introduction of testimony and the admission of evidence, we will elucidate our, apparently, extreme declaration.

The vast, referential and ultimate guide to the issues of legal admissibility of evidence and testimony, is embraced within a body of adjective law called, “The (Federal or State, as applicable) Rules of Evidence.” The purpose of these mandatory laws is that of ensuring a fair and objectively, accurate trial; one not tainted with subjective assumptions, hearsay, or prejudicial testimony or inapplicable, but prejudicial, proffers of evidence. The legal discipline of “Evidence Law,” is all-encompassing, determinative, and by virtue of its plethora of general but, mandatory, strictures is often the subject of forensic debate. An attorney in a civil or criminal case, responsibly, needs to materially, consider the issue of the availability, admissibility and determinative weight of the potentially intended evidence in each specific case.

The numerous “Hearsay Rules,” “Expert or Opinion Evidence,” “The Dead Man’s Statute,” “Admissions, Against Interest,” ”Legal Standing,” “Documentary Proofs and the Best Evidence Rule,” “Law of the Case, and Precedential Determination,” Official Documents and Authenticity,” “Interested Witness Rules,” “Expert Testimony,” “Direct, Cross and Expert Testimony,” “ Testimony or Proffers of Evidence,” “Official Notice, Documentary and Judicial Notice,” and others, legislated and applied are purposed to ensure a fair trial and avoid prejudice to the accused or the litigating parties. Their application is material and, to such extent, often can be subjects of contention at trial. The contested issues involved in a Judge’s denial, or admission, of testimonial or physical evidence, often is the subject of appeal. The latter observation is notably, applicable in criminal cases, such as where guilt has been determined largely dependent upon the admission of a particular item of evidence or on certain material testimony.

In an earlier portion of this essay, we declared that the pending indictments and trials, regarding Donald J. Trump are unique; to the degree, we asserted, more singular than the unprecedented, historical experience of the criminal indictment of a past President. We have conceded the (inarguable) fact that no past President of the United States has been the subject of a criminal indictment and trial, however, we would observe that, remarkably, Trump’s crimes have been witnessed on public television and have thus been, incontrovertibly, proven to a jury of the American television public. The Statutes, designed to protect the possible innocence of the accused, relative to Trump’s several indictments, have incontrovertibly, been rendered, considerably, irrelevant and factually, unnecessary.

We would refer to the pending criminal charges (cases) against Trump: the purloining, and deceitful withholding of secret government documents, the illegal direction to the Secretary of State of Georgia, to alter the official voting results, the conception, incitement and support of an insurrection against the American Government and interference with the American election. What is singular (and we maintain most unique) is the bizarre fact that every one of his indicted offenses, as charged, indeed, have been witnessed by the vast, American, television public.

The grave Federal charges regarding documentary espionage, have all been attested to and witnessed, by Trump’s multiple admissions by his televised (preposterous) defensive assertion, that a President has the right, to take away government (CIA and Defense Department) secret documents, his publicized refusal to return them, and by the televised photos of the many cartons of the highly sensitive documents stored by him at accessible places at his public hotel resort at Mar-a- Largo, viz., bathroom, cloakroom, etc.

The charges, as indicted, concerning Trump’s initiation, incitement and encouragement of the violent insurrection against the Nation, were all witnessed and heard on public television, in all of its nefarious stages, as was the violent and bloody Bastille-like attack on Washington itself.

The shameless, criminal words of Trump’s deceitful telephone request, made to the Georgia Secretary of State, to alter the vote results, were viewed and heard on National television as were many other of his like undemocratic and fraudulent felonies.

The Federal and State Rules of Evidence, regarding criminal charges, were legislated, among other appropriate reasons, to avoid the erroneous and unjust conviction of the innocent, for crimes they, in fact, did not commit. Under the specific circumstances, relevant to Donald J. Trump as an accused criminal defendant, we are, somewhat, curious concerning their essential relevance and applicability.

*Our thanks, to Ms. Agatha Christie for the essay title.

-p.

The forsythia is predictably, the first to flower and shed petals, then come the daffodils and tulips, next to steal the limelight (actually, sunlight) are our large, long stem, dark red peonies; now, add a light breeze, an adjure sky, mild sun, and the observer would be, empirically warranted, in his declaration of the advent of summer, in Kingston, New York…. At least, up to now.

Notably, the forsythia, daffodils and tulips, even the dramatic long-stem peonies, have unerringly and faithfully, fully discharged their perennial, fiduciary responsibilities. But this year, Summer has provided a number of surprise features, giving evidence to singular and unusual foreboding.

Most visually, dramatic and candidly, frightening, was the dystopic occurrence of an early, summer, sky bizarrely, orange-colored, like a Disney animation, and accommodating an acrid, smoky smell like a distant fire. The public was apprised that the sickening, orange-colored pollution was caused by several unprecedentedly, immense forest fires, up North, in Canada, also burning in our Nation’s northwest, diagnostically, attributable to Global Warming. There was an accompanying, unnatural odor and, widespread particulate distribution, airborne and on the ground. The bizarre, orange color, as advised, was, caused by the occurrence of an enormous, Canadian conflagration; but, somewhere in the most atavistic and primitive portion of our brain, symbolically, the vision of another, unrelated, but existential, danger was intuited.

The bizarre and dystopic, coloration of the sky and consequent pollution, summoned up alarming thoughts of the persona of the orange-gray, outrageous hairdo of Donald J. Trump, America’s twice-impeached, past President, whose, dystopic, single term of office, and continuing errant, behavior has markedly despoiled and polluted our Nation’s democratic dedication and traditional promise.

This orange (pollution color) haired, twice impeached, neurotically, egoistic, Chief of State, has personally, and as unmistakably, demonstrated on the media,  proven his incompetence, lack of moral compass, serial mendacity and by his demonstrated disloyalty to the American Nation, demonstrated his lack of respect for the unique, democratic way of life as insured by our Constitution.

This hazmat-colored, former President of the United States has by his own egotistical admission and by public demonstration, shamelessly committed criminal, acts ranging from treason against the United States and inciting a violent insurrection against the Nation to his fraudulent conspiracies to, sub-rosa, bribe prostitutes with which he has conducted brisk commerce. Historically unprecedented indictments for multiple crimes have been issued by prosecutors, Federal and State, against this errant former President of the United States; for the felonies of sedition and treasonous behavior, inciting and promoting an insurrection against the American government, multiple counts of election interference, tax and financial fraud, perjury, and most remarkably, espionage.

The initial prosecution to soon commence is that of espionage, amounting to, among other things, the intentional purloining and withholding of top secret (CIA and Defense Department) government documents and reports, and, refusal to comply with official demands for their return. The secret documents, illegally packed in boxes and removed to Trump’s Florida public resort to be carelessly and dangerously, stashed in hotel locations such as the bathroom and other publically accessible areas, in the popularly attended hotel.  This prosecution, in which Trump has thus been arraigned, concerns crimes that endanger U.S. security and the lives of the secret agents procured for the dangerous obtaining of such vitally, secret information. Such highly sensitive, previously, well- guarded, secrets, it is feared, may have been shared with others hostile to our Nation, such as Russia, which has been proven helpful in getting Trump elected, and with whose autocratic leader, Putin, Trump has had an ongoing and publicized “bromance.” Said acts of Presidential espionage is presently, the subject of a 31 Count, 43 page, criminal, indictment.   His other Federal and State indictments will, of necessity, await their respective turns.

The ominous, orange sky in short order, has abated, doubtlessly, in contrast to our National shame.

.