Category: Uncategorized

Book censorship, is a wrongful attempt to control human thought by the pernicious regulation of free speech and is no less than an arrogant abomination and an existential impediment to human enlightenment. The toxicity of this, chronic, undemocratic pathology, eternally, oppresses man’s universal aspirations toward advancement, mature perception and the ultimate goal of enlightenment.

As we are presently able to recall, approximately fifty years ago, most censorship challenges, focused primarily, on the subject of obscenity and sexuality. Controversies roiled over great works of literature, no less than,” Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” James Joyce’s “Ulysses,” “Sons and Lovers.” by D.H. Lawrence, and even, (possibly, for other reasons) Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn.”

In the 1990s, the Thomas Jefferson Center For Free Expression, publicly, declared, that the foundational guarantees of freedom of speech were in grave danger from certain parents and School Boards, that arrogating to themselves, the delusional and neurotically, self-serving, conceit, “the moral majority.” Their atavistic and reductive rationalization, with especial regard to children, appeared to be that (to their mind) the child is “not ready” for the subject matter, or the behavior depicted in the book. It is our view that their fundamental motivation is motivated by, an irrational, unachievable and neurotic desire to control thoughts, defensively perceived, as inimical to their own, personal, moral or religious mindset.

In the 1950s and ’60s, the clouds of censorship seemed to cast a dark, and dangerous, pall upon the community by the paranoid fantasy, of a pervasive and dedicated Communist fifth column, secretly, embedded and operating in America. This delusional false and completely erroneous schema, portrayed to a gullible and fearful, Nation by the delusional, paranoiac, human rights abuser, Senator Joseph McCarthy, led to a harmful era of book and movie censorship, the Rosenberg travesty, and the unjust destruction of many innocent and highly talented careers, notably, in Hollywood.

Apparently, the pernicious practice of censorship seems, contemporaneously, to aspire to a radical attempt to spread its invasive, un-American, tentacles into a myriad of contexts, some of which may be attributed to, the Nation’s political divisiveness, but as well as the “usual suspects,” religious or faux sense of personal morality. Thus, themes including sexual abuse (as well as sex, in general), racism, slavery, the Federal Government’s early treatment of First Americans, rational science (evolution, etc.) are among the chosen and reductive, targets for book (and movie) censorship.

The salient point, for consideration in this context, is that the restriction of the freedom of thought undermines the primary function of childhood and adult education, to learn mature wisdom and experience, to enable the individual, to think for himself. The policing of thought, through book censorship or otherwise, universally and eternally, endangers human tolerance, creativity, free expression and democracy, itself. It may, additionally, be relevantly, observed that books on the library shelf are available by free and unrestricted choice.

Finally, we would choose to avail ourselves of the irresistible opportunity, to express our view of the self-appointed, dedicated and smug thought constabulary (“thought police”). There are few flaws in character, equivalent in arrogance, hubris, audacity and just plain chutzpah, to that of the self-anointed, often, reductively ignorant, or ethnocentric persona, that arrogates to itself sufficient, objective discernment and authority, to evaluate or tailor, the thoughts of other people. It seems to us, that such bizarre, and delusional undertaken supervisory duty, is best exchanged for modest and circumspect tolerance, and a mature understanding of others.

–p.

It was ten minutes after noon and Adam had just sat down for lunch, at the white Formica lunch table, out back, provided for the employees of Spencer’s Supermarket, Inc. He was just in the process of unwrapping his purchased, tuna sandwich on rye, mayonnaise and tomato, when Georgie came in, through the back door, opening on to Main Street. Georgie slowly raised his right hand and softly said, “Hi Adam.” Adam continuing to unwrap his sandwich, replied, “Hi Georgie-boy.”

Let us, for a moment, just stop the action, in order to introduce the reader to the parties. Adam was approximately, nineteen years old and was previously unknown to the small town of Arcadia (Pop.2134) in Falmouth Massachusetts. No resident of the Town actually knew him, or his family, when Adam descended from the Short Line Bus, in May of last year. He had accepted, for a modest rent, the empty bedroom at the Morrison’s, recently vacated by their college-bound, son. He was a quiet young man and generally kept to himself, so no one actually knew much about him, or about his earlier period of life and family. He was a steady worker and went straight back to his rented room after work, usually, after regularly, stopping at the Athens Diner, in town for dinner. In appearance, he was chubby with a poor complexion and considered himself unattractive, which may explain his selective reclusiveness.

Adam, nevertheless, developed a close friend, in the person of George Mundane, (“Georgie”), fourteen years of age with a discernably, obvious case of “Down’s Syndrome.” Adam liked having Georgie as his sole, close and quiet companion and Georgie was delighted to have the acceptance, and warm friendship of Adam. The townspeople would regularly see the two friends walking together towards “Betty’s Sweet Shop,” or the Town Park, rapt in intimate conversation, whispering or loudly, laughing. Despite Georgie’s medically known, basic limitations in intelligence, and mobility, as well as and his the characteristically, nuanced appearance of Down’s syndrome, Adam developed a close friendship with his only known, township acquaintance. For his part, Georgie was very pleased to have another person who he could actually, call a “friend,” and with whom he could associate. The two dissimilar souls would look forward to their regular meetings and interaction and Adam slowly developed a measure of familial affection and sense of responsibility for his cherished and hapless friend.

On one occasion, there was a loud smoke alarm, which had, accidentally gone off, in the Athens Diner, due to the inadequate operation of the kitchen exhaust system. Georgie was observed by neighbors and patrons of the diner, rushing in a panic, lightly frothing, and blurting out sounds which, excitedly resembled, “Adam, Adam.” When, in relief, he finally, discovered Adam outside the diner and uninjured, he uncontrollably, cried in emotional, relief, and clumsily kissed a side of Adam’s work apron.

Almost two years had now passed. Adam was now a regular tenant in a small residential apartment building, fifteen minutes from his job at Spencer’s supermarket, where he was currently, employed, as the day manager of the fruit and vegetable department. Georgie had been, enrolled, by his parents in a special program, for the handicapped and challenged at, the local school. Adam, on many days off, would have lunch with Georgie, at the latter’s school lunchroom. A group of young diners, viewing the odd sight of Adam eating and socializing, with the handicapped, Georgie, at a distant table, would make unkind remarks and insulting sounds. On one occasion, when Adam had arrived late, and Georgie having waited alone, at their usual table, Adam was physically assaulted by, none other than the infamous,” Big Jimmy,” the loudest and biggest, of the jeering students. Fortunately, just then, Adam showed up, and, shouting angrily, soundly punched, the despicable assailant, in his right shoulder, convincing him to immediately, beat a quick retreat, back to his supportive cohort of miscreant, disability-bigoted, friends.

 Adam would thereafter, visit Georgie, at most available moments, keeping his eye on the ever-present king of the abusers, the pernicious Jimmy, to assure himself that Georgie would not be molested. Truthfully, Adam, being a “loner,” had ample spare time, when not working, to show up at Georgie’s lunchtime, and sit with his handicapped friend and glare, threateningly at Jimmy, whenever he saw him. Jimmy, himself, the stereotype of all hateful bullies, was, in truth, gutless and cowardly. Adam in his protective zeal for Georgie grew to dislike Jimmy, in the same intense degree that Georgie feared him.

On a pleasant, sunny Spring afternoon, at approximately 1:P.M. a young male, hooded stranger, suddenly appeared, with an automatic rifle, and horrifically, commenced shooting, rapidly and aimlessly, into the fearfully screaming, crowd of students, including Georgie then having lunch with Adam. Georgie’s usual, tormentors, by happenstance, on this occasion, were seated, only a few tables to the side of him and Adam, at the edge of the outdoor area, where students gathered, socially, or ate lunch. Several students had the misfortune to be fatally, shot, before Adam found himself, by mere chance, close enough, to, bravely, grab hold of the weapon, while Georgie, solidly smacked the shooter, on his head with his heavy porcelain plate. The shooter had been steadily proceeding in the direction of the two protagonists and had just reached Jimmy’s table, where he had to pause to quickly, reload. The police then came and apprehended the unconscious, crazed shooter, but not before Jimmy and his errant cronies, frighteningly, realized, that they were the shooter’s next, intended, targets and that their lives had undeniably, been saved by their disabled, fellow- student and his weird, older friend, the past, unhappy recipients, of their, now realized, shameful record of abuse.

After a brief period at the local hospital, following their mutual recovery, from mild cases of shock, Adam and Georgie were peaceably, approached, by Jimmy and his acolytes, with brief, grudging, expressions of thanks; such, gestures of gratitude, constituted the final interaction, with our two heroes.

-p.    

 In our view, there exists no event in our contemporary Nation, nor perforce, in its history, comparable to the subject of the present January 6 hearings. An unthinkable attempt to overthrow our government, by thousands of angry, violent and tactically, misled citizens, initiated and supported by a former President of the United States, (pathologically) denying the reality of his re-election loss, is nothing short of a major theatrical presentation, of a bizarre, tragic-comedy.

The totally, entranced audience, for the presentation of this buffo, televised, national “theater,” is the American public, itself, which, having, fortuitously, witnessed (by T.V.), much of the relevant criminality, in its actual commission, is now in attendance, upon whether our former, miscreant Chief Executive, his co-conspirators and the financers of the treasonous insurrection, as well as its violent, participants will, as appropriate, be brought to justice.

The use as witnesses, factual as well as expert, is in superabundance, include, politicians, professionals, law enforcement personnel, clerical, military, psychological, and technical witnesses. The evidentiary documents, many, in the nature of emails, twitter and other communication facilities, are, numerically, beyond empirical calculation. Numerous witnesses, ranging from select members of the cabinet and other influential politicians to the local constabulary, have already given testimony, or are awaiting doing so, before the special legislative, bi-partisan panel.  

The enormity of the criminality, which consisted of a (vicious) frontal attack upon the efficacy of the American vote, posed an obvious and existential threat to the continued existence of our republican democracy. The proceedings are indisputably, justified and responsibly, appropriate. The theme of this writing, usefully, (once more) based on a Lewis Carroll creation, relates to our observation, that the subject proceedings, albeit responsible and necessary, appear, from any clear, standpoint of, normality, to analogously, evince a marked, “Through the Looking Glass,”  procedural, eccentricity.   

Readers with any familiarity, professionally, or otherwise, with the regular procedure of American criminal trials, may also agree with us that there is a distinct, discernable and bizarre, Lewis Carroll, unreality, evinced in the nuanced and highly unusual, arranged order of the subject proceedings.

Every criminal trial, from the inception, of American criminal jurisprudence, to date, has proceeded, on the legally, mandated presumption, that the accused is completely innocent, and that it is the specific burden of the prosecution,( federal, state or other tribunals) to prove him, otherwise, viz., guilty, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” American jurisprudential philosophy has eternally, prided itself in its exaltation of the protection of the innocent, responsibly, above the conviction of the guilty.

Accordingly, the prosecution, predictably, and will have thoroughly, investigated all of the relevant facts, to determine the propriety of its official filing of criminal charges, against the accused. Should criminal charges be warranted by the facts, the accused will be remanded to trial, respecting which, the accused may demand a jury, arbitrarily, drawn from the public; before which, the prosecution is taxed with the aforesaid, heavy burden of proof. It is only if twelve jurors, (representing the public) unanimously, agree, that the asserted charges have been proven, “beyond” such “reasonable doubt,” that the guilt of the accused thereby, determined; otherwise, he is entitled by law, to be, acquitted.  

The uniquely, bizarre procedural, phenomenon, of the January 6th hearings, is demonstrated, by the fact that the relevant criminal events, which provide the necessary basis for the prosecution, have already been proven to the public (jury), having viewed them, in real-time, on television; contrasted with the normal trial, where the prosecution has the factual burden of proof, to the jury. The “Looking Glass,” analogy is prompted, by the apparent, reversal of normal procedure, i.e., the unusual effort, by the government (prosecution) to justify, itself,( as opposed to a jury), that a judgment of criminality, is factually, and justly, warranted, following, and despite, the public’s, undeniable, visual proof of the crimes, “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Only the “Mad Hatter,” from Carroll’s, “Alice in Wonderland,” could have acceptably, comprehend the condign rarity, of such procedurally, skewed and reversed, mirror- image of normality.

-p.  

* Once again, thanks to Lewis Carroll for the title and its underlying conceit.      

It was a misty, cool morning, in the neighborhood of the “The James Joyce” pub, located in County Kildare, just west of Dublin. The usually, busy, establishment, at the moment, is virtually empty, and no sounds are heard, save the muted, but, somewhat, energetic, debate between two old familiars. One of whom was the stout, aproned, white-haired, barkeep, Mr. Jameson T. (“Jim”) Havanother, the other, his close friend, of fifty years, who happens to be, no less than, the famous Gaelic poet, F. Patrick, “Dipsy,” Doodle, (“Dipsy”).

This morning, strangely, there seemed to be a dearth of controversial subjects, suitable for their mutually enjoyable debate, so the creative, Dipsy, conceived, as the day’s issue, the questionable value of traditional Irish aphorisms; being keenly, aware, by long experience, that his old friend and interlocutor, was an avid practitioner of that “useless” art. The following is a record of the colloquy:

Dipsy: You know, Jim, I read the other day that, a German philosopher, named, Karl Marx said, “Drink is the curse of the working class.” You and I well know, he said challengingly, (clinking Guinness-filled beer glasses ) that he got it backwards. In truth, work is the curse of the drinking class.

Jimmy: Agreed, old friend, but Marx, indisputably, was German, what do Germans know of non-productive, good times?

Dipsy: The old Irish sayings do not make sense, either, he said, testily. The traditional Irish blessing to a traveler: “May the wind always be at your back, and the road come up to meet you,” sounds like the speaker is hoping that the other person gets, knocked down to the road, by a strong wind.

Jim: Agreed. How do you feel about the confusing Irish expression,” Ask me no questions, and I’ll tell you no lies,” which can, confusingly, be understood in several ways, (1) if you ask any question, I will, predictably, prevaricate, (2) You never have trusted any of my responses, irrespective of their inarguable, accuracy, (3) We are better not discussing the subject, (4) Our usual conversations are mutually, meaningless, and (5) the interlocutor is a known as an irrepressible, prevaricator and, (6) It is far better if we stay silent.

Dipsy: I always shuddered at the eerie, Gaelic expression,” Ireland is a little piece of heaven. Does it mean that the speaker is declaring all of us already dead and gone?

Jim: What about, “Top of the morning? “The morning ain’t like a beer bottle with a top and bottom.

Dipsy: Try convincing my wife, of this old Irish chestnut, “The older the fiddle, the sweeter the tune.”

Jim: “Aye, me too. How about that inane chestnut on the benefit of companionship. “Two people shorten the road.” I would rather walk alone than possibly, suffer the company of a bore or a bigmouth.

Dipsy: I have to go. This was such a fine discussion, that, ”only a stepmother could find blame.”

Jim:  While gathering up the parties’ two used, beer glasses, aggressively said,” That’s another lame expression.”

Dipsy:  Upon departing from the pub, Dipsy chanced to see another white-haired, local friend, and stated, “Hi Mike, top of the morning to ya!”   

-p.

It requires no esoteric debate nor arduous, deliberation, to enable the accurate conclusion, that a governmental entity, properly styled as a “Democracy,” by political definition, describes a polity, responsive to the wishes (votes) of the determined majority of its citizens. It was notably, prescient for our pragmatic Founders, to, wisely seek to avoid potential injustice to the minority, by the “tyranny of the majority,” by, famously, adding the First Ten Amendments, (the “Bill of Rights”) to the U.S. Constitution; the latter Articles limit governmental interference with citizen rights, deemed fundamental, within the majority ruled, Republic. The Supreme Court was assigned, as its signal responsibility, the ultimate protection of the basic rights of citizens from errant government incursion, by its authority to conduct determinative and legally binding, “Judicial Review.” The legally, mandated, non-partisan, protector of citizen liberties has sadly declined to a shameful, politically, inspired partisan, of the right-wing, religious conservative interests. Accordingly, in the two earlier essays, we have expressed our chagrin and relevant concern, for the existential continuance of our republican democracy, and our nightmarish, fear, of a National, slow, cataclysmic, decline to disastrous autocracy.

The slow development of such disastrous change, was significantly, exacerbated, by the unprincipled, political tactics of the right-wing, in delaying, and then, preventing the appointment of a Democratic Presidential designee, to the Supreme Court, and, immorally and unfairly pushing through the subsequent appointment, of no less than three, inarguably partisan, conservative Justices by the consensus,’ worst Presidential administration, in  American history).

The sad and unexpected decline of the once, highly revered SCOTUS, to the pedestrian level, of an execrable partisan entity, as described, in the two, immediately preceding essays, has bizarrely resulted in a bizarre, Lewis Carroll-like “Mad Hatter’s Tea Party” relative to the rational understanding and dynamics of a “Democracy.” As stated, the latter, political designation relates, to the rule by the majority of citizens, as expressed by their greater numerical votes. Such morphing by SCOTUS’ from a fair and politically impartial entity, to its recently demonstrated, partisan influenced, political club, is worthy of analogous comparison with the Lewis Carroll creation of the confused “Mad Hatter.” We are confronted with a democratic republic, an anomalous freak of political creation, in which, politically, notwithstanding, its persona as a professed democracy, is effectively governed by the minority, by virtue of the partisan influenced SCOTUS. We have created an anomalous “golem,” a Nation, historically, characterized by the enlightened, description, of “Rule by the Majority,” which, in reality, at present, is one, bizarrely, characterized, by “rule  by the Minority.”

Statistically verified public polling shows that, by far, the greatest number, of American citizens, support suitable regulations, concerning gun ownership, more action respecting global warming and legislative regulation of the environment, more emphasis on clean air and water, and alternative (natural) sources of power, legal contraception and safe and professionally performed abortion, strict separation of Church and State, eliminating all book censorship,  societal acceptance of homosexual life and self-sex marriage, the elimination of the (medieval, death penalty, the compassionate reform of our draconian immigration policy, programs of assistance to the needy, reform of our criminal justice system, and eliminating legislative, interference, with the universal voting franchise, which latter right, is the sine qua non, of any democracy.

Nevertheless, despite the demonstrated and express will of the majority of questioned citizens, in favor of such, societally, positive legislation and policies, the current, perniciously, partisan SCOTUS, has been inclined to give ear to minority, partisan-inspired, right-wing policy. As a consequence of the recent, tactically, successful, conservative right-wing effort, to insert, a controlling number of conservatively, inclined, and potentially, partisan-influenced Justices, to the Supreme Court, American democracy, has been debased, and perhaps, completely, emasculated, by the present, effective, rule by the minority.

Nevertheless, this lethal, political pathology can be entirely cured, and prevented from, chronic re-infection, by the fully engaged and dedicated vote of the Nation’s mainstream of freedom-loving, citizens. We must elect political representatives who are sincere, dedicated to the time-honored, standards of equity, and citizen democracy, as distinguished from those, who, irresponsibly, would exalt personal self-interest and unprincipled, aspiration for career advancement over traditional American, democratic values.

-p.     

It was some decades ago, that we read the chilling, 1973, Sinclair Lewis novel, “It Can’t Happen Here.” The author’s prescient admonition was as explicit as it was disturbingly, conceivable. In its essence, the novel describes the rise of dictatorship in America, led by a stereotypical, Adolph Hitler.

Our recollection of Lewis’ implicit warning, was evoked, by the plethora of recent telling events, in our American society, the likes of which, have historically, posed existential threats to democracy and led to neo-fascistic autocracy. These disturbing events are exemplified, by Trump’s” Big Lie,” in undermining of the credibility of democratic elections, the recent, widespread, denigration of truthful facts, when deemed convenient or dogmatically necessary, legislative attacks on voters’ rights, particularly, those of our black and brown communities, official deprecation of homosexuality, in all of its facets, the reprise of populist antisemitism, the growth of populist discontent, the paranoiac need to carry deadly weapons, perverse censorship, banning and burning of books, denigration of learning and enlightenment, the xenophobic opposition to refugee immigration, perpetuation of the death penalty, control over personal liberties, notably, encompassing, the women’s natural right of abortion, the downplaying of modern science, when in contradiction to dogma, and, terrifyingly, the active encouragement of violence and insurrection.

We had previously, been reliably assured, that the Justices, comprising SCOTUS, the highest Court in the Nation, constituted a needed guardrail against tyranny. Such vitally, important protective status had been based upon their professional dedication, and practiced juridical wisdom, as guides to pass upon, and interpret, issues, consistent with the language and spirit of our Constitution and Statutory law, thereby, affirmatively, protecting our democratic form of government against tyranny as a reliable, firm and protective guardrail.

Tragically, it appears, that such traditionally, foundational principles, or “guardrail”, underpinning our political and sociological confidence, may, sadly, no longer exist. For the past quarter-century, the High Court seems to have been infected with the chronically, debilitating virus of political partisanship, in bright contrast to its former, (Statutorily mandated) immunity from that pathology.        

 Recently, the highest Court in the Nation (SCOTUS), now vested, with three conservative, Justices, appointed by the popularly conceded, worst President, in U.S. history, has, inappropriately, chosen to revisit its previously settled determination, recognizing and assuring women of the legality of the natural liberty of American women, to elect abortion. Said natural right, expressly, confirmed, by upwards of one-half century of consistent legal precedent, was cruelly erased, to the delight, and in accordance with, the pernicious and atavistic, un- American agenda of the bigoted, “White Christian America.” It would now appear that the right to exercise said liberty has, judicially, been determined, to be reserved to the States; which, presumably, have the requisite capability to determine recondite issues of birth control, but, apparently, not those concerning guns.

Such unusual admission and reconsidered determination, of the matter, testing the long-established, right of abortion, no doubt, occurred, as responsive to the continuous demands of right-wing- religiously partisan, interests, which, motivational basis, transformed the subject issue, originally, founded upon the substantive issues of civil liberty and privacy, to a contemporary, political issue.

In recent years, it appears that SCOTUS has, contrary, to its, established and well-founded history of procedural constraint, regarding political or partisan matters has apparently deemed such matters, selectively, acceptable. This, “off the rails” policy of arbitrary, acceptance, of partisan issues, in our view, is a most dramatic, harmful and irresponsible, change of direction. We are obliged to presume that the bizarre, choice to accept and rule (again) on the established, precedential, abortion issue, was in tacit compliance with the Nation’s partisan, religious interests. This unfortunate decline in legal and juridical principle in addition, and most significantly, an unauthorized transgression of the Constitutional “Establishment Clause,” prohibiting governmental involvement in religious matters.

 [N.B. As an irresistible, additional comment, admittedly, somewhat unrelated to the present theme, the tactical mantra of such, professed, religious believers, in “Life,” is empirically, refuted, by their opposition to needed assistance to the protected fetus, after the moment of its birth, by their unwavering opposition to gun regulation, their support of  capital punishment, and strident opposition to lifesaving, fugitive immigration. In fact, the only Biblical admonitions, (remaining unchanged) for the period of 2000 years, since the apocryphal birth of Jesus, relate to religious observance and power. In this respect, the, often high-jacked and ubiquitously, quoted, Bible  is referenced, as the authoritative source, despite the fact that, to our knowledge, the Bible does not contain any admonition against abortion but, does contain many  recommendations concerning empathy and peaceful relations.] 

Additionally, SCOTUS has demonstrated its current infirmity, by its erroneous, unsympathetic and irresponsible, treatment of the gun control issue. It “politically” acceded to the conservative right-wing, in its ruling that the Second Amendment grants all American citizens the right to own weapons. It takes but ten minutes of cursory reading of American Constitutional History, to correctly understand, that the “People’s right to bear arms,” (muskets) referred solely to the State Militias, and was part of a compromise, between the “Federalists” and The States Rights People; the latter, finally, agreeing to a Central government, provided that the separate States, (“The People”) had the right, within the Federal System, to be created, to raise a Militia.

Such errant analysis regarding, gun ownership, in face of the countless acts of mass homicide, often committed by distraught or mentally unfit citizens employing advanced, rapid-fire military armaments, is an additional, demonstration that SCOTUS has, irrefutably, gone off the rails, with this seal of approval,  now, apparently, awarded to the errant, populist- influenced and irresponsible, mob.

Even further, and as well, outside the responsible and compassionate guardrails, SCOTUS has just ruled, to the delight of the profiteering- sociopathic, inclinations of the industrial lobby, that that the EPA is significantly, limited in its authority to delimit, unhealthy and planet endangering, greenhouse gases, by enforcing prudent and safe, natural, (“alternate”) sources of power (i.e., wind, solar, hydroelectrical).

Weighing the many precipitous degrees of empirical vulnerability, existentially, inherent in the vital matter, of the survival of our democratic republic, the recent removal of the Nation’s, designated, and relied upon, guardrail, may prove to be the most worrisome and ultimately, the most devastating.

-p.

The Supreme Court of the United States, (“SCOTUS”) created, and functionally exists, as the Nation’s highest legal authority, and is taxed with the awesome responsibility, to settle and establish, the Nation’s contested legal issues, by its authoritative and binding decisions (“Judicial Review”). Accordingly, it is of functional and existential importance, that it be entirely free of partisan or ideological influence.

Notwithstanding, such consequential responsibility, it sadly appears, that after fifty years of settled and precedential law, (as enunciated in Roe v. Wade) the legal issue of the personal right of women to obtain an abortion, has been unnecessarily, revisited and callously, overturned.  We have selectively employed the adverb, “callously,” since, despite one- a half-century of determined and assured legality, the right had become universally, accepted, and empirically, relied upon.

We had previously, revered, and greatly respected, this august and impartial arbitrator of the Nation’s contested laws, for the consistent justice and wisdom of its decisions; that is, until the inarguably, political case  (in 2000), of Bush v. Gore. As will be shown, said case was unprecedently and unconstitutionally, accepted and determined by the High Court. Our consequent disappointment was reinforced by its later acceptance, and determination of the inarguably, political matter, the Citizens’ Union case; and now, further, muddied, by the Court’s political acceptance and determination of an abhorrent, and unusual, revisit to the settled abortion rights controversy. We will elucidate, further, in the following paragraph, but not before, observing, that the formerly revered, history of SCOTUS, had been one in which civil rights were protected, not taken away

SCOTUS is, as understood, one of three independent parts of our constitutionally, created, tripartite government, i.e., the “Judicial,” the other two, being the “Executive” (Office of the President) and the “Legislative” (Congress). The Constitutional provision mandating the “Separation of Powers,”  since the inception of SCOTUS, constitutionally, mandates a special proceeding, termed the “Writ of Mandamus,” as prerequisite to the admission of a case, to successfully, demonstrate, that no “political issue,” was conceivably, impacted, directly, or indirectly, by the relevant case.

It is, distressingly disappointing, that the Gore v. Bush, election dispute and the Citizen’s Taxpayer cases, were, indisputably, “political cases and, accordingly, their acceptance and determination were inconsistent with the SCOTUS precedent. Any sophomoric observation of the 1995 Citizen’s Taxpayer case, would inarguably, lead to the (obvious) conclusion that its admission and subsequent determination, were inadmissibly, political and partisan, favoring wealthy donors to political campaigns.

The High Court’s partiality was evident, by its sophomoric and erroneous rationalization, doubtlessly deemed necessary for its partisan determination. In essence, SCOTUS held that corporations were “persons,” and therefore had the protected, Constitutional right (freedom of speech) to contribute any (unlimited) amount of money to political campaigns. It is shocking and regrettable, to observe that such reasoning appears to be abjectly, cynical; every law school freshman knows, that the corporate “person,” is merely a legally created and recognized, contractual fiction (to limit liability) and has no rights of personhood or humanity, whatsoever. Surely, SCOTUS must be apprised of this concept as well, as law school freshmen and most businesspersons; they should be ashamed of themselves for the inarguably, improper and partisan, granting of copious financial benefit for big business and its attendant damaging inequity to American, voting democracy.

If any doubt, conceivably, were possible, as to the marked decline in principle, and the improper, partisan nature, of the (majority) of SCOTUS, (three of whose justices, were appointed by Donald J. Trump, the undisputed, Olympic gold medal winner, of the title, “Worst President in American History”), every scintilla of such doubt should be dispelled, by the recent action of  SCOTUS; in its, all too apparent, religiously, partisan, and improper, erasure of the compassionate, fifty-year-old precedent, assuring the personal liberty of American women, to the exercise of their natural right, to terminate their own pregnancy.

-p.          

 The conventional understanding of the designation,” Political Party,” is that of an organization of members, generally sharing similar ideologies, that exists primarily to support candidates in elections. In democratic countries, competition has historically existed between liberal and conservative parties.

American electoral politics has essentially, been dominated by two major parties; the Democrats,    philosophically, constituting the center-left, and the Republicans, the center-right. Since the middle of the 20^th Century, more specifically, the Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson, the Democratic members of Congress, took up the progressive cudgels of the cause of civil rights and remained dominant, in the Northern States. Congressional Democrats who had traditionally, been proponents of segregation (the “Dixiecrats”) withdrew, to become members of the Republican Party, which party has had its traditional home base in the Southern states.

Historically, the philosophical differences between the two political parties have been on such major issues as, taxes, the proper role of government, entitlements, gun control, abortion, immigration, health care, and environmental policy. In general, the Democratic Party has consistently, emphasized equality and social responsibility, while the Republican Party, has championed business, economic liberalism and opposition to governmental regulation.

There had always been a measure of polarization between citizens, on issues encompassing religious versus secular matters, national versus globalist policies, traditionalism versus modernism, and rural versus metropolitan. It would appear, however, that of late, political and social cleavages have become so deep as to override commonalities and have become divisibly, entrenched and self-perpetuating. In most cases, it appears, divisiveness and rancor have become the byproducts of divergent views on issues, themselves rather than party identification.

Such implacable differences are not necessarily ideological, but, fundamentally, appear to be based upon social and national differences. It is frightening and intellectually disturbing, to observe that such perpetually, deep cleavages in belief, appear to afford less importance to truth, and decisive weight given to the message (“group think”) of their “tribe.” The predictable and necessary result is the development of societal rancor and divisiveness, making difficult or impossible, tolerance, compromise and even social interaction. This unhealthy pathology, has tragically, metastasized, to a great number of our society and, as well, to our legislative and judicial branches of government.

Notably more discernable, since the disastrous one-term as President, of Donald J. Trump, is the pathological phenomenon that factual truth has lost relevance, comparable, to the immutable ideology of one’s committed group. What has, empirically, developed is a veritable holy war between the truth and personal, or party, interests. This societal and political competition was the essential catalyst for the January 6, revolutionary violence. 

It is existentially, necessary that mainstream America be cognizant of this ongoing, perilous, decline and atavistic, metamorphosis, by voting and acting, in accordance with the well-founded expectations of its founders and thereby, causing the reinstatement of our traditional, systemic values and, thereby, reprise our former standing, as the global avatar of fairness and enlightenment.                                          

p.

. 

Do you attend upon that familiar din
Of loudly resonant radio talk
The vexatious telephone buzz
The impetuous elevator ding

Often times, you will also hear
An ear- piercing siren scream,
The flock clamor of sparrow chirps
The deep- throated pigeon gurgles

Also notably, to be heard,
The sibilant hiss of bus air brakes
The children’s’ excited shouts at play
The distant, deep bark of dogs.

It’s akin to sighting thru glass panes
And viewing the sites, just like,
Peering from the smooth, inside edge
Of a white curtained window’s wooden sill.

-p. [Leonard N. Shapiro 6/20/22]

The nature and status of an enslaved black human being,  was clearly and perversely, illustrated by the 1875  decision  of the Supreme Court of the United States, [Judge Taney] to the effect that a black slave was a “chattel” (agricultural property) and therefore, could legally be forced to be returned to his “owner.” Slavery (permitted by the “Good Book,”) continued from the founding of our Nation, in 1776 to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of January 1865. The great State of Texas, fraudulently, withheld news of such Proclamation until the date of June 19 of that year; hence, the thankful observance of the present federal holiday, “Juneteenth.” Our readings inform us that, even through the subsequent period, known as the “Reconstruction,” the economic and social dynamics of black slavery continued, through the practice of sharecropping and segregation.

We can conceive of no heinous crime, more unspeakably evil and abhorrent, than the piracy of a man’s entire franchise of life, by another, for the purpose of lifetime chattel slavery, encompassing in addition, the cruel and heartrending separation of families, for the facilitation of commercial sale.

It may be the view of some Americans that, in view of their personal non-participation in such inhuman cruelty, (viz., we, ourselves are first generation Americans of religiously, prosecuted European Immigrants), that we have little moral obligation or rational responsibility, for America’s dark period of approximately, three hundred years of historical slavery. However, such exculpatory views are, at best, naïve and self-servingly and neurotically, defensive, and at worst, racially motivated.

 Our Nation committed the historical offense, and we have knowledge, even today, of the immoral continuance of Jim Crow policies.  White Americans, fortunately, are exempt from the racially biased, exclusionary policies, imposed upon black Americans, police abuse, limits on choice of residence, and society; imposed by bigoted citizens. We are not subject to unjust, racial (negative) stereotyping, socially and professionally.  The foregoing exemptions have been designated, “white privilege,” for which all right-thinking white citizens, albeit personally, blameless, should entertain, and civically accept a measure of moral responsibility. Specifically, it is our view that white citizens should undertake a more active role in the mutual achievement of the American promise of universal equality.

Lastly, and perhaps of paramount importance, is the reduction (ideally, the elimination) of bigotry, itself. It has been our painful and frustrated observation, that, although Statutory and Judicial proscriptions against bigotry, are existentially necessary in the articulation of societally, recognized and authoritative positions, they have been somewhat less than desirably, effective. A reading of many of our earlier essays will reveal our view that the ultimate solution resides, effectively, within the family. Early childhood teachings and intra- family communication, must eliminate characterizations of “we” and “they,” and emphasize the “us” in appropriate, recognition and acceptance of the normality of natural differences in man’s appearance and culture.

As American citizens, we congratulate our fellow citizens of color, on this significant holiday, and sincerely pledge our full support to the mutual goal of universal equality, and sincere friendship.

-p.