Category: Uncategorized

In recent years, our perennial pleasure at the anticipated arrival of the warm spring season has been marred by the insidious, cold draft of a developing autocracy in America. Admittedly, we first took particular notice of the trend to such political pathology, with the arrival of Donald Trump on the political scene. It was his demagogic, populist, appeal, to the many reductionist, inadequately educated voters, that enabled his ascendency to the Oval Office.

During his one term in office, Trump exemplified many of the historical indicia of autocracy (with the enthusiastic approval of his numerous, cult-like supporters). These included the disparagement of truth, and the substitution of “alternate facts, significantly, including his “Big Lie,”( concerning his election loss to Joe Biden), followed by his incitement of a violent insurrection, his attack upon the institutional media, his disparagement of science, learning and education, his vocal opposition to immigration, his sub-rosa relationship with the Russian autocrat, Putin, his opposition to health and safety regulations, his demonstrated, racial prejudice and his notable, serial mendacity.

History reveals that a regular part of the tactical propaganda of autocrats is the policy of alteration of the accurately recorded, facts of history, in order to comport with their political worldview and justify their harsh rule. Consistent with the contemporary (worrisome) trend to autocracy, an aggressively, vocal group in our nation, inclusive of many of the somewhat, more literate, as well the typical Trump supporters, have actively sought the redaction of the period of the enslavement of black people, from the curriculum of American education. As is perversely common in fascistic or autocratic rule, they would reframe or abridge history, to suit their skewed, manufactured, version of reality.

History is man’s only record of his past; to modify or abridge that factual record is to, totally, destroy its credibility and value, as a reference guide to present understanding, enlightenment and choice of action or policy. To abridge or alter written history is to devalue it to the point of complete uselessness. The professed rationales for censorship of recorded history are entirely specious and indicative of tactical deceit. One rationale is to avoid embarrassment, or feelings of shame, on the part of young students. The other irrational justification is that it would create disharmony between the races. These asinine statements of purpose, or justifications, are revelatory of a colossal ignorance or naiveté, on one hand, or tactical, motivation on the other. Neither are empirically rational and thus, demonstrative of the absence of any principled justification for historical censorship.

The class of ”protected” young students would, in any event, be apprised of the many decades of black slavery in their various readings and by the highly publicized civil rights movement and public programs, appropriately seeking equality between the races. Newspaper and media reports regularly deal with the subject. Those who profess, that the non-deletion of this dark period of American history would create tension between the races, can be properly, be described as intentionally deceitful, or just plain stupid. It is true that such element of tension, between the races, does exist contemporaneously, in various degrees, which most citizens of goodwill, white and black, have been striving to lessen and ultimately, eliminate.

Furthermore, those who, foolishly, would argue that the study of American history, which is inclusive of its dark periods, would cause discomfort to the young students, will undoubtedly, themselves, suffer the exorbitant price of parental, loss of credibility, on the part of their subsequently, informed children.                                       

By instructive analogy, what would be the value of an accountant, or a business entity, which only records profits and not losses, a baseball team that only counts its own runs and deletes the score of the opposition, or a census taker who intentionally omits to include certain classes of citizens.  No justification, real or contrived, would value the results of such useless, tabulations. A Nation’s incomplete history is similarly, useless, (a) since the deleted portion may provide the desired information and, (b) since a subjectively, abridged account of history, empirically, lacks confident factual credibility so that it is not, ultimately, reliable.

The motivation of the right-wing proponents of the abridgment of our history, like the fascistic book burners, are fundamentally, interested in controlling the public’s thoughts and in the alteration of their empirical knowledge. Their desire is mind control, the certain route to autocracy. We have observed, in a prior writing, # 657 (“American Lemmings”) that such enterprise, ultimately, is a “double-edged sword.” Should such misguided American citizens be successful, in their anti-democratic, or pro-autocratic goal, they will suffer, as well as mainstream American citizens, an inevitable, loss of liberty.

We must remember that the educative and candid teaching of our unabridged and complete history (called “Critical Race Theory,” by those foolish and unwitting, lemming-like citizens, who oppose teaching the entirety of American history) does not seek additional grounds for criticism of our Nation, but only the complete, unaltered and accurate presentation of the entire record of our past. Universal knowledge of America’s “dark” periods, additionally, is mandatory, in order that they not be unwittingly repeated.

The irony of the “CRT” opponents is that their point of view, ultimately, is consistent in keeping with autocratic dogma, the application of which is, predictably, productive of limitless “dark periods.”

-p.
 

The United States, reportedly, is the industry leader in the advertising world. It is home to the largest and most complex advertising market of any nation. This mini-essay’s purpose is to question the propriety of American television advertisement, in the existential and multi-faceted area of medicine.

Scientifically, and logically, the most vital phase in any physician’s treatment of patients is that of acquiring sufficient knowledge to enable appropriate consideration of their respective, nuanced conditions and their past medical history. In addition to the presenting cause, which brought the patient to the doctor, it is vitally important, for him to take into consideration, other past medical problems, organic and otherwise, the general condition of the patient, including, age, chronic illnesses, blood type, allergies and current medication. Prior to diagnosis and treatment, the doctor must familiarize himself with the patient’s particular nature and history, in order to be capable of correctly diagnosing and effectively (and safely) prescribing, appropriate medication.

Regularly transmitted, televised commercials, promoting the purchase and application of particular medicines, (in some cases, for serious physical and mental disease) are irresponsibly, broadcasted to general, unseen millions of viewers. Each such sales pitch tactically utilizes music, exciting props and stereotypically attractive men or women, and is transmitted to the target audience; the latter, as shown by sales data for the advertised product.

Pharmaceutical commercials universally, advise dramatic and rapid, full recovery from the use of their branded product. These would include, as advertised, such pathologies as, cardiac problems, hepatitis C, diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, eczema, acne, HIV, flu, shingles, ulcerative colitis, cancer, bipolar depression, schizophrenia and M.S., analogous to the 19^th Century, traveling grifters, hawking their celebrated, and purportedly (universally) effective, “snake oil.”

At times, there are general restrictive reservations at the end of the commercial, incomprehensively, rattled off with the speed of a Gatling gun or an auctioneer of farm equipment.  Another cynically worded “assurance,” is the impotent caution: “Do not use, if allergic to any of the ingredients.” We would presume that there are very few people, if any, among the many millions of television viewers, who are familiar with the ingredients in the chemical composition of the advertised, pharmaceutical compound. In our (angry) view, the preceding two reservations are clearly and irresponsibly, cynical and, perceptively, constitute an inadequately communicated, moral admission of corporate, guilty conscience. No attention whatsoever is extended, in their rosy predictions of outcomes, to individual nuance, to side effects of medication, to possible interaction with other medications, to allergy, to age differential, mental health or anecdotal health history.

Fiduciary responsibility needs to be imposed on Pharmaceutical companies (by Statute) in view of the potential existential outcomes in the wrongful, inappropriate, selection of medication, for patients with various medical problems. Medicine is not within the category of products to be responsibly, advertised for sale like sheets and pillowcases, clothes, smartphones and cologne. Tobacco advertisements, for example, have properly, been banned for public health reasons from such advertisement, and so should medicine. Qualified physicians, with specific knowledge of the individual patient’s medical nuance and history, are not replaceable by T.V. glitz and glamor.

-p. 

Our Nation’s, optimistic Founding Fathers had assumed that citizens of diverse opinions would amicably and constructively, debate the day’s contested issues and further, that the results of such debates, would be of use, in the proper conduct and maintenance of a representative democracy. As declared in prior essays, the reality proved to be disappointingly, otherwise. Citizens sharing identical opinions formed insular groups of people of like opinion, in reciprocally, acrimonious, relationships, with other such groups, of divergent views. These “cold wars” were and still are notably, strident, regarding the contested issues of abortion, right to bear arms and immigration.

Thus, regrettably, in our extant, divisive society, the retention of one’s principled candor, as well as his desired relationships, requires, at times, (with mandatory exceptions, below) the exercise, of an appropriate measure of circumspection in our societal inter-active communication. In similar fashion, our familial and social relationships, from time to time, call for such contextual diplomacy, in one’s statements and responsive communication. Stated simply, the intention is the continued maintenance of one’s honesty (consistent with his self-image) while not offending the speaker; with whom one may significantly disagree. We will furnish a few fictional fact patterns in illustration.

Example: A newly engaged couple attend a dinner, given by the parents of the future bride, principally, to meet the prospective son-in-law. The latter has always hated seafood. As it happens, the host has prepared shrimp marinara as the main dish, and during the meal, she asks him how he likes the dinner. A response, which is diplomatic, yet, nevertheless, true, might be: “Everything was beautifully done,” thus, truthfully complimenting her on the appearance of the meal, but avoiding the subject of taste.

Example: An ardent New York Yankee fan is having drinks, after working hours with a few of his fellow office employees. One of the groups makes the following assertion: The Boston Red Sox, are, by far the best team in the American League. To avoid contention, the Yankee fan might inoffensively, respond: “I saw the televised game, last Wednesday night, they are a great team.”

Example:  A married couple, walking together with the husband’s parents are participating in the Easter Parade, on Broadway, in New York City. The husband’s mother is sporting a particularly garish, wide-brimmed hat, with large, attached, artificial flowers, and asks her son whether he agrees, that her Easter Bonnet is chic. The circumspect son, examining the atrocity, might, candidly and inoffensively, respond, “It certainly is striking,” or, the hat is “outstanding.”

We would recommend such circumspect replies, aimed at the avoidance of the unpleasant necessity of candid, uncomfortable disapproval, to normally, acceptable parlance. The tactful practice should be strictly, limited to social discourse, that is free of offense, or that does not decry principled morality or constitutional rights, viz., equality, and free speech.  The recounting of racial, religious or ethnic slurs, or jokes, does not, and should not, merit the grace of circumspection, but should be publicly and energetically, rebuffed. Reprehensible statements are not deserving of a safe harbor. We would furnish a somewhat unusual, (albeit true), recollected illustration of an unusual hybrid of the two principles.

It was in the late ’60s, we as young lawyers, attended a local Bar Association holiday cocktail party. We noticed a woman, energetically, and vociferously, arguing in favor of censorship; a practice, which we have eternally abhorred. The violation of freedom of speech, by means of the arrogance of individuals, who, arrogate to themselves the sacred duty and the singular ability to protect society from sin, has always rankled us.

The enthusiastic and personally vexing, speaker, apparently mistaking our resolved silence for tacit agreement, smilingly approached us and made an enthusiastic declaration about the responsible necessity to promote a moral society, and, accordingly, the positive impact of censorship. We repressed our strong feelings of anger and, tactically, avoiding the subject, politely said to her, “May we get you a drink or, perhaps, some food?” She, nevertheless, continued, unabated, to preach her ardent sermon on the benefits of censorship. Finally, we stated, politely, and circumspectly, “To be frank, Miss, we have never approved of censorship.” She unabashedly, responded: “Really? Then, pointedly, “Well, then, what do you think of sex, in the movies?” To which question, we, instructively, and sarcastically,* answered: “It probably could work, if the seats don’t fold up on you!”

-p.

* N.B. With maturity, sarcastic anger was beneficially, eliminated from our personal behavior.

 We have on occasion, overheard the negative judgmental declaration, that someone or something is not au courant, but remains stubbornly, or unfashionably, old-fashioned, or “retro.” Nonetheless, based upon our perception of the contemporary scene, we would maintain, that such judgmental epithet is not necessarily critical, or dismissive. While it is inarguable, that one is obliged to be “up to date” in certain areas, such as medicine, science, computer engineering and current events, it is our view (and the theme of this writing) that the formerly admirable criterion, of being universally, in sync with the times is now, in our view, questionable. The world and its human inhabitants have materially, changed, and not uniformly for the better. In support, we offer a few, comparative illustrations:

[Family retro]. It was not that long ago, that the designation of family or family member, signified certain features that identified the relationship as unique and distinguishable from other members of society, even the closest of friends. The family group evinced a singular, nuanced lexicon, the sharing of predictable opinions, and mutually agreed upon stereotypes (albeit, possibly, inaccurate). They usually had meals together (especially, dinner), went, en famille, to religious and many recreational events, especially vacations, and, generally, enjoyed an intimate, intra-family relationship, inclusive of a consistent pecking order; a parent, for better or worse, being the ultimate authority.

[Family now].  The traditionally intimate relation of family members has been recast, into an informal category of publically, recognizable group of individuals, each with his self-determined, independent agenda. Parental direction is, at times, even denigrated as, imperial, retro, and, at times, an interference with privacy. Often, children are not heard from, for days, with the possible exception of some sort of unsatisfactory and, enigmatic, computerized message. The institution of family, as an intimate unit, has, unquestionably declined, from its traditionally personal and societal fulfilling, status.

[Identity, communication, retro]. Before the advent, exponential development, and universal use, of the addictive and convenient “smartphone,” individuals communicated with each other, in person or by telephone, enjoying the social and psychological benefits of assurance of a familiar voice and personal recognition, unhampered emotional expression, timeliness and relevance of response, as well as the basic, assured ratification of one’s own nuanced, public personality.

[Communication now] The effect of the separation and isolation of the parties due to modern electronic communication, and the resultant absence of felt intimacy, in effect, makes mere acquaintances of friends, and, indeed, has discernable impact on all of our presently listed categories. The costly surrender of the benefits of personal communication, in exchange for little, digital-like symbols, projected on a small, hand-held, lighted screen, is an exorbitant price to pay for speed and convenience.

[Citizenship, respect for democracy and the rule of law, retro]. During the period of the Second World War, the population was united in its support of the Nation and proud to carry the assigned designation as American. It bought wartime bonds, practiced air raid drills and paid rapt attention to the radio reports of the progress of the war. Children collected scraps of iron and rubber for the war effort, during after-school hours, adults volunteered as “Air Raid Wardens,” and American society was united,  by the strong epoxy of patriotism. Listening to Presidential, “fireside chats,” regarding America’s military progress in the war was a routine weekly, practice. The end of the war saw America’s relieved and overjoyed population celebrating together, in neighborhood “block parties” and many other events.                                       

During this comparative period in our recent past, appropriate respect for the law, for academic achievement, for schoolteachers, elementary and college level, for the police, for elder members of society, the handicapped and for the government, was the mainstream, American, norm.

[Citizenship, respect for democracy and the rule of law, now] The modern period, especially following the toxic, virulent pathologies of Trump and Covid, evinces a markedly, comprehensive change in the general nature and outlook of the American citizen. The elevation to the Oval Office of an incapable, ignorant and immoral individual, whose words and nefarious deeds, exacerbated a prior developing, national divisiveness, and promoted action, which was anti-democratic. Refusing to accept defeat on an election for a second term, Trump instigated an unprecedented insurrection, to stop the formerly peaceful, democratic transfer of the Presidency to the winner, Joseph Biden involving many hundreds of rioters. An even worse consideration, as an existential threat to democracy, is Trump’s large support in the previous election and their continuing loyalty, thereafter, by the undereducated, underbelly of our Nation. The would-be autocrat, Trump, is an undeniable, existential threat to our democracy.

 There is, unfortunately, a multitude of such citizens, who oppose the valuable, definitional, democratic institution of the popular vote, and lemming-like, unwittingly, act against their own, ultimate democratic rights.  Frighteningly, many State Legislatures have ominously, and perniciously, passed Statutes, purposed to limiting the votes of members of communities of color, due to their previously, heavy votes for Biden. In the desire for candid empirical analysis, we have previously stated, that a plethora of dumb people is an existential hazard to representative democracy.  It is among such people that conspiracy ideational theories thrive, and “truth” ignored.

[Respect for knowledge and factual truth, retro]: America, eternally priding itself on its enlightenment and accomplishments, has traditionally, exalted intellectual prowess and human advancement to a high plane. The citation of exceptional Americans, Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Thomas Alva Edison, Stephen Hawking, and Jonas Salk, is to select but a modest sample of our Nation’s brilliant scientific minds. In literature, educated citizens have traditionally extolled the abundance of great authors, including, Herman Melville, William Faulkner, John Steinbeck, Toni Morrison and Ernest Hemmingway. There was then, a shared respect for eclectic knowledge, liberal arts and the humanities, which subjects tend to enhance man’s perspective, as to himself and the world. Serious plays, poetry, essays and other literary creations of aesthetic and informational value, were, beneficially, popular and served to enhance the citizen’s quality of life, and maturity of perception.

[Respect for knowledge and factual truth, now]: It would be an aesthetic falsehood and a stretch of reality, to liken the contemporary period, to that of the described, recent past. In the mundane lives of a vast number of uneducated and ill-informed members of our national population, aspiration to the goals of enlightenment and wisdom, is either, limited or completely, non-existent. The existence of empirically truthful facts, in fact, truth itself, among that population, is not, ultimately and appropriately, decisive, when compared to subjective, self-interested, fantasy. The governmental patent for societal depravity, deservedly, should be granted to Donald J. Trump, who is universally credited, among a plethora of other harmful traits, for his serial mendacity, his disparagement of “truth,” and the new tactical institution of delusional, “alternate” facts.

Education, research, art, the humanities and literary achievement are no longer matters of exalted public interest, due to the influence of Trump, and especially, his ardent supporters, the hordes of undereducated and uninformed citizens. Moreover, in many quarters, conspiratorial ideations gain easy victories over empirical facts. Sad to say, the traditional, mainstream, American citizen, has reason to fear the possible advent of autocracy, as the possible successor to our democratic republic.

The foregoing selected illustrations of representative features of the recent past, and the indicated, factual, comparison with their contemporary context casts considerable doubt on the negative, or derogatory, context, of accusations of “retro” or “old fashioned.”

-p.

We have noted that debate on the subject of proper human diet, when it comes to the subject of eating meat, tends to get acrimonious. The arguments, empirically, tend to reside in various contexts, evolutionary, biological and simply ethical. We would like to consider both sides of the issue, as we see them, in an objective, analytic fashion, prior to offering our position, on the sensitive subject.

Arguments for the propriety of eating meat:

• The natural structure of man’s teeth is demonstrably, omnivorous. There are teeth specialized for eating meat as well as plants.
• Our bodies produce chemicals designated for, and specialized, in the breakdown and absorption of meat
• Plants do not provide certain nutrients contained in meat; the latter provides 83% of our protein
• The farming of vegetarian foodstuffs is responsible for 70% of harmful pesticides and fertilizers and, further, requires deforestation to provide sufficient farmland
• Meat-eating is a significant part of our culture

Arguments in favor of vegetarianism:

• Killing animals for food is cruel, atavistic and immoral
• Necessary protein can be obtained from eating many other foods such as tofu, beans and nuts
• Eating meat is among the causes of colorectal and other cancers
• Slaughtering animals for food brutalizes man and diminishes the unique sanctity of life

 This issue is the sole instance in which candor obliges us to admit to a measure of hypocrisy. Despite our eternally consistent opposition to hunting, guns, animal cruelty and abuse, we do confess to eating meat as well as fish, salad and vegetables. However, we have found it, emotionally, and morally, necessary to, for example, consider the quarter of chicken on our dinner plate, alongside the rice and vegetable as ”dinner,” rather than a bird murdered, to satisfy our appetite. Despite our eternal disapproval of duplicity, at times when we eat meat of any kind, we confess to its personally emotional and acceptable identification, as “dinner” or “food.” Absent the utilization of such convenient and accommodating fiction, it would be impossible for us to enjoy any meal containing meat.

We have consistently aspired to avoid hypocrisy, aside from the above singular instance, regarding which we, humbly, confess (mea culpa).

-p.

We will candidly confess, that until we heard the irritating, cacophonous, Germanic, sounding, “Trump,” we had optimistically, and perhaps, naively, assumed that American democracy was a permanently installed, planetary fixture. Our firm belief was that, (albeit with some defects, presently in the slow, but steady, process of repair) the Founders’ radical experiment in the Republic had permanently succeeded.

Nevertheless, since the noun, “Democracy,” signifies, rule by the people, it tautologically follows, that the nature and quality of the rule, are dependent upon the nature and quality of the people. The wise admonition of Thomas Jefferson, often quoted by us, declared that for a democracy to succeed, it requires an educated and informed citizenry.  

Simultaneously, with the shocking elevation, of that ignorant, incapable, and systemically immoral, former game show host, and real estate grifter, Donald J. Trump, to the American Presidency, we came to appreciate, with fear and trepidation, the Nation’s vast number of uninformed and unenlightened citizens; and to empirically, observe, that the unhealthy existence of such a vast number of dumb citizens, is ultimately, and predictably, hazardous to the life of our Republican Democracy.

Pursuant to Trump’s directions, (during and following) his single and singular, four-year term of office they, as loyal members of his newly conglomerated cult, reliably, have been, and still are, enthusiastic participants, in the contemporaneous threat to our Republican Democracy. It is pathetically true that they remain completely unaware that such threats, ultimately, have relevance to, and impact on themselves, as well as the mainstream, more enlightened, citizens of the Nation.

Trump, a would-be autocrat, refused to accept his clear defeat, (after his singular, four-year, nightmarish term) and like an autocratic leader, created the “Big Lie,” viz., falsely and tactically, declaring that he was the legitimate winner. This was despite several official audits declaring the fairness of the election and approval of the accuracy of its computation. The vast hordes of Trump cult followers, pursuant to the express invitation by Trump, mounted the infamous 1/6/21 violent insurrection at the Capitol Building, to, stop the declaration by the Electoral College that Trump had lost, and declare, (the autocratic “Big Lie”) the election, fraudulent, and install Trump as winner. The unprecedented revolt failed, but not before until the commission, by the dedicated domestic terrorists, of homicide and grievous injuries and the causation of substantial property damage. The worst damage, however, was to the integrity of the vote, i.e., to definitional democracy itself.

The vast number of witless insurgents, apparently, were, and remain, incapable of understanding that any threat to democracy, incited by the narcissistic want-to-be autocrat, Donald Trump, or themselves, constitutes an effective threat, as well, to themselves. The attack on the democratic vote was, an attack, as well, on their own right to vote, and an invitation to autocracy. The latter, if successful, would significantly, curtail their own personal liberty, freedom and quality of life as American citizens, as well as other Americans. Their insurrection, and other anti-democratic efforts, effectively, are as contrary to their own interests, as it is, unjustly, contrary to the rights of all American citizens. Like lemmings, the unwittingly, loyal Trump acolytes, do not comprehend the danger to their way of life, and liberty, in their suicidal opposition to equality and civil rights and unwitting, self-defeating support of autocracy.  

The harsh facts of the continuing, Covid epidemic, demonstrate the impact of their ignorant opposition to medical science and scientific advancement, by the demonstration of far greater numbers of infection and deaths, among those, thoughtlessly, and loyally, supporting Trump’s claim that the danger of the viral infection was minimal.

The support of right-wing efforts to eliminate government regulations (viz., health, air and drinking water quality,  labor, food, transportation safety) are similarly, contrary to their own personal interest in remaining safe and healthy, by the limitation of unhealthy pollution, and other hazards caused, in aid of profit-seeking, sociopathic industry.

In a Nation, populated, 100% by immigrants and their descendants, only thoughtless, persons with lack of perspective could possibly align themselves with xenophobic opposition to refugee immigration.

An instructive comparison may be derived, between the actions of this underbelly of America, and the courageous Ukrainian defenders of their homeland and its tradition of democracy, against the illegal, and unwarranted attack by the autocratic, Putin and Russia. The leadership of the Ukraine and its citizenry are deserving of kudos for their valiant defense of their National integrity and its democratic way of life. Whatever the result of the wrongful incursion and the admirable defense, at the time of this writing, the big, powerful Russia has been halted in its military tracks, by the dedicated defenders of the Ukraine and Ukrainian democracy. We are hoping that this wrongful war will end soon and victoriously, for the defenders.

The unwarranted, siege of Ukraine by, Putin’s Russia is a textbook example of an “external” attack by an autocracy on a democracy. Ukraine’s patriotic defenders have proven themselves admirable, in their defensive protection of their homeland and its democracy.

The insidious, “internal” attack on democracy, by America’s unwitting, thoughtless and disgruntled citizens, might indeed, be more difficult to repel. There are individual rights that are capable of perversion, to serve wrongful end, and liberties, capable of being manipulated for reasons, harmful to the continued existence of democracy.

It is a matter of profound injustice, that the mainstream citizen, appreciative, of his identification as an American, with its plentiful cornucopia of rights and protections, is made to feel threatened, by this large population of inadequately educated, poorly informed (or misinformed) fellow Americans, who lack sufficient perception, to discern the underlying motivation behind the tactical memes of anti-democratic demagogues, and the “alt” facts, of errant politicians.

 Like a misguided and franticly possessed herd of lemmings, they unwittingly, rush to their own, personal disaster, in their suicidal, thoughtless opposition to democracy.

-p.

For those rare people who are unfamiliar with the small round beetle, the “ladybug,” we would offer the following description. Ladybugs are yellow-orange, rather small beetles, with black spots on their folded wings. Liked by farmers and gardening enthusiasts, they prey on very small, (but harmful to vegetation) insects such as aphids, mites and certain other agricultural pests. We like them, however, because they are cute, colorful, small and especially, good company, when in the garden.  Since they are the first insects to show up, in spring, we are at present, anxiously, and impatiently, awaiting some discernable sign of their perennial appearance. In truth, it is better that we not worry; they will come out from the rotten tree trunks, from under rocks or houses, on their own schedule. Candidly speaking, they may have already made their first appearance, which we failed to observe.

It may be useful and enlightening, to recount the unusual short history of our close, interpersonal relationship with the little, cute beetle; which adoring relationship seems somewhat, bizarre and inconsistent, with our general distaste for insects.

Two years ago, while strolling along the edge of the woodland, in close proximity to our country house, in Kingston, New York, we felt a strange itch at the bridge of our nose. Fortuitously, we chose to gently, reach up to determine the cause; it was “Lexie,” the cute orange-spotted ladybug. Of course, we did not know yet, that it was she, until weeks later, when we came to know each other better, and assign familiar names. The little critter was distinguishable by her orange (instead of normal, black) legs and most uniquely, by her ability to distinguish us from all the environmental flora and fauna and to settle on the identical spot on our nose. In truth, we advised her of our name and named her, “Lexie”, which we considered appropriate for such a cute little critter.

Unfortunately, ladybugs do not speak, but, universally, where there exists true amity, the parties will construe some feasible method of interpersonal, or person and bug, process of mutual interaction. On early Monday morning, of the first week following our first encounter, Lexie, having already eaten her fill of aphids and plant lice from the surface of the nearby plantings, noticed our presence, just outside our front door, and quickly flew over, landing, as previously, on the bridge of our nose. We reached up, very carefully, gently, to hold her, in our hand, for examination, whereupon, we were able to discern the uniquely, identifying, orange legs, which confirmed her identity. Consistently, thereafter, whenever we were out of doors, within ten minutes or so, our tiny black-dotted orange-red new friend would settle on her usual landing pad, and we would together, amble peacefully, together in the woods.

The reader may naturally wonder at the facility and dynamics of our possible mode of communication. The explanation is as follows: People familiar with ladybugs know, that if one of the species lands on one’s hand, and he points his finger upward some innate ladybug tropism will cause the little beetle to climb, upward, toward the tip of that finger. When strolling with Lexie, who, obviously, does not speak, we would customarily, hold her in our palm, fingers uplifted, to facilitate any desired ladybug expression; affirmative responses would be expressed by her in executing the climb up my middle finger, in the same style as if she were then, succumbing to the ladybug tropism. Lexie also utilized the identical technique to call attention to something of interest in the surrounding environment. Both parties, despite the realistic and mature acceptance of the limitations on their social relationship and unrequited desire for more intimate and expressive communication, evidently, developed a mutual fondness for the other.

After approximately twenty minutes of fruitless search for Lexie among the various flower patches, just as we started to go back indoors to avoid the indicated start of rain, we had a somewhat familiar sensation, similar to a small drop of rain, which seemed to land, softly, on the bridge of our nose….

-p.           

As evidenced by our past writings, we have always denigrated the ersatz “wisdom” of aphorisms. They are predictably, erroneous, errant in their ultimate and universal application, and substitute warmed over, outmoded faux wisdom, for reason and objective empirical experience. A few are harmless, some even, to a degree, sensible nevertheless, all are, by their nature, misleading, since they prescribe fixed, or specific behavior on a universal basis regardless of nuance. An example of the latter is the prudent aphorism, “A penny saved, is a penny earned.” While it is wise to conserve one’s assets, strict adherence to this instruction, may, conceivably, cause one to fail to make a wise investment or to buy a family residence. Another seemingly harmless one is, “A stitch in time saves nine.” It is wise to act seasonably, but in a given circumstance, patient waiting might turn out to be preferable.

Aphoristic recommendations are analogous to frozen, pre-packaged, T.V. dinners, sometimes eatable, more often, not. They ill-advisedly, substitute the use of Man’s reason, for lazy, populist, Hallmark-style doggerel and can be significantly harmful.

 In our view, the most misleading and dangerous, of such traditionally roasted chestnuts is, “The ends justify the means.” The latter determinative, non-judicial statement evinces a lapse of judgment and a suspension of moral compass; and may well be the worst, but without any doubt, the most dangerous of all aphoristic, bogus wisdom.

This “hazmat” recommendation is inarguably, ignorant and reductionist in its a priori, or presumed, assumption, of the existence of universally, desired ends. It requires little argument to assert that not everyone shares identical aspirations or beliefs. Like all inane aphorisms, it thoughtlessly assumes the universal acceptability of the actor’s intended results and excludes personal or situational nuance.

The fact that “the means,” to any degree, need “justification” is an undeniable admission of their wrongful or improper character. There is no presidential pardon for improper means under any circumstances, let alone, by the assertion of subjectively acceptable (and possibly disputed) ends. Putin’s end to restore the U.S.S.R is not approved of, by Ukrainians who, (understandably) also oppose the means. The positive need to study and cure syphilis did not at all, render acceptable, the inhuman means employed, in the infamous, “Tuskegee Experiment.” The desire to limit street crime does not legitimize violation of the citizen’s right of privacy, by invasive policies such as “stop, and frisk.”

From our readings of history, we cannot find a violent revolution (ex. France, Russia) that resulted in a pacific or acceptable outcome. If the means were bloody, the ends will likewise, not be free of violence and death. The only “revolutions,” which have benefited humankind, are the peaceful advancements, by Man’s empirical advances in knowledge. The urgent need of the human species to cure polio was met by the revolutionary development of an effective inoculation. The means, scientific study, and the universally desired ends, each, were their own justification.

To, permissibly accept a miscreant’s plea that he (subjectively) intended a “justifiable” result, is to foolishly, arm the criminal with the franchise to perform anti-social or immoral acts, with the confident assurance of an acceptable defense. In the religious context, the medieval torture and burning of “heathens” or “non-believers,” would thus, be excusable, by the claimed, positive ends (at the time), of turning people to God, so that they will be “saved,” and, ultimately, go to heaven, instead of the alternative venue.

We would issue a challenge to any reader, to locate any “means” consisting of a violence, [N.B. the American Revolution was an international “War,” as distinguished from a revolution] in which violent means, did not precede violent ends. We would go further and assertively, declare that the means, themselves, effectively, and ultimately, are reflective of the ends. Anti-democratic means, consisting of autocratic action and policies, ineluctably, lead to autocracy.

-p.

As a preamble to this mini-essay, we would offer the following, objective explanation of the dynamics of the Earth’s four seasons: A season is a division of the year, featuring changes in weather, ecology, and the amount of sunlight. They are the result of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and marked by changes in the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface, causing animals to hibernate and migrate, and plants to become dormant. In the Northern Hemisphere, spring began on May 20 and will end, on June 21, 2022.  

 Our readings indicate that ancient peoples were very attentive to seasons and to the Sun’s journey across the sky because their livelihood depended upon planting and harvesting at the right time.  Worshipped as a Deity, the Sun was commonly, envisioned as traveling across the sky in a boat, or chariot, depending on the specific culture. Many of the significant agricultural dates, became pagan holidays, the dates of several of which, generally, coincide with our modern holidays. It is our understanding, that the ancient experience of regular seasonal changes is the foundational background of modern man’s religious beliefs and holidays.

Worshippers of the Sun God noted the perceived “death” of the Earth. Each year, the trees would lose their leaves, plants grow dormant, and many animals and birds, disappear from the scene (“Death”). It was, not less than, a miraculous occurrence that all of the evergreen trees, (Christmas trees) did not “die” (remained green). Nevertheless, predictably, in a matter of a few months, the Earth would be restored to life, (resurrection) the little animals seen, a verdant planet (bunny rabbits, eggs, etc.). The origin of the Christian theme of “death and resurrection,” we would propose, is empirically, traceable, to this perennial (seasonal) phenomenon.

Many Hebrew holiday observances are directly in sync with planting and harvesting time, viz., “Sukkot,” (harvest time),” Tu Bsvat,” (trees), “Lag B’Omer (re: planting times). For those people, interested in religious belief, its origin, and analogous modern observances, there is a useful treasure- trove of (empirical) knowledge readily available.

We do not denigrate religious beliefs or ethnic folkways. The same has given meaning and significance to multiple generations of believers. Historically, the Black Church has been the existential backbone of support and hope to its adherents, and their many centuries of inhuman injustice, and to European Jews, during pogroms and the holocaust. For many, it is a soothing balm to man’s universal acknowledgment of his mortality. Cultural and ethnic beliefs can be a positive supplement and support, most especially, in times of stress.

Religious belief, however, is justifiably, criticized, when, it attempts to impose its own dogma on others, when it denies empirical facts and thus impedes human advancement or human rights, such as anti-vax prejudice, anti-abortion, anti-divorce, anti-gay, and fascistic book burning. It is especially harmful when it seeks to substitute religious dogma for empirical science and proven objective knowledge Even worse, from a historically, humanistic perspective, it has been the underlying cause for a plethora of history’s bloody, shameful wars.

Religious belief, to be appropriate, should remain private, and personal, and not part of governmental policy or shared societal expectations. History, however, eternally, demonstrates that religious evangelism and policies of religious attempts at persuasion (to the extreme of warfare, pogroms, and inquisitions) are chronic. Religious belief, purportedly, dedicated to peace and justice, has, too often, been the root cause of human warfare and great suffering, especially, when the operative cause is a competition between religious beliefs (example: the European Thirty Years War).

Accordingly, we would now suggest a humanistic,” fifth season,” not a reflection of seasonal changes, responsive to the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface, but rather, a year-long, perennial, observance by an enlightened humanity, peacefully and respectably, keeping its proclamation of nuanced religious beliefs, or lack thereof, to itself, or if desired, to fellow believers.

-p.

Serious and disturbing events, of late, domestic and international, have responsibly, called for somber comments, as contained in many of our recent writings. Distressing essays on Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Ukraine, Global Warming, the pernicious Right-Wing voter suppression of votes of communities of color, and the miscreant deeds of anti-democratic, White Christian Nationalists, to name some representative subjects, make one, virtually, apprehensive of the development of some kind of “Blogger PTSD” pathology. Accordingly, on this occasion, we have, therapeutically, elected to write on a more salubrious, but, nevertheless, societally significant, subject, viz., peanut butter. In terms of full ethical disclosure, we will confess to being just shy of addicted, to this singular item, and have for decades, been its secular evangelists.

Peanut butter is universally, known as a nourishing food spread made from dry roasted peanuts (and some other ingredients, included for taste). It contains omega 6, a fatty acid that lowers bad cholesterol (LDL) and increases protective cholesterol (HSL), and, additionally, is loaded with healthy ingredients, including Vitamin E and Iron.   While, by tradition, a predictable ingredient in school box lunches, recent, medical recognition of serious peanut allergies, such as anaphylaxis, has significantly curtailed such use.

It is commonly believed that the brilliant and creative, American agronomist, George Washington Carver, was the inventor of peanut butter. However, archeological records indicate that a peanut paste of sorts was developed by the ancient Aztecs and Incas. Moreover, official federal patents, for its development, reportedly, recite title ownership in Marcellus Elson, John Henry Kellogg and Joseph Lamont, but not to Carver. Carver, however, did develop many peanut products but not peanut butter.

The definition, contents, provenance and properties of peanut butter having been briefly, but, (it is submitted), adequately, discussed, we might now, permissibly, turn to its salient feature, its taste and recommended application. Initially, we would, energetically, resist the narrow view, that it is, merely, a fun, (albeit, nutritious), treat for children. Those who maintain that limited view are not seasoned peanut butter enthusiasts. We see peanut butter as a gastronomic treat for the initiated palate.

First, a caution and a reservation. The observations and comments, included in this writing are not applicable nor relevant to the “ersatz” “peanut butter flavor,” advertised and sold, relating to yogurt, stuffed pretzels, ice cream, birthday cakes and chocolate filled candies, such as “peanut butter cups.” We identify these advertised “peanut butter” flavors, as “ersatz,” because, by explanatory analogy, their purported, peanut butter taste is as aesthetically identifiable, as peanut butter, as “lime” flavor lollypops are, to the actual taste of lime. To the authentic peanut butter aficionado, the latter designations approach the deceitful offense of false advertising.

Authentic peanut butter comes in jars, “crunchy” (our choice) or “smooth.” It is satisfying to eat alone, yet most people prefer to eat it in sandwiches, with jam or jelly (viz., a common choice of the younger set.)  After much scientific experiment, we have developed an advanced and more aesthetically pleasing version of this popular choice. We took objective note of the existence of another common sandwich, cream cheese and jelly (also, a favorite of the younger set) and explored the possibility of adding cream cheese to the peanut butter and jelly, or jam. The last time we conducted a serious culinary survey, we learned that this updated version, viz., peanut butter and jelly, or jam, and cream cheese, constituted, no less than, a major culinary triumph (not limited to the younger set).

Regarding the choice of sandwich bread, the older, experienced, gourmands, generally, prefer whole wheat, raisin or dark bread, while the younger set seems, conservatively, to remain loyal to white bread. Nevertheless, we remain ever hopeful that, with the passage of years and further development of maturity, the younger set will evolve to a better choice for the sandwich.  

The avid peanut butter fan, by empirical experience, has learned that its plenteous gifts are not limited to its ingestion in sandwiches. He is also delightfully, rewar ed by the application of peanut butter, to hot oatmeal, to many fresh fruits, especially bananas, pears and apples; some hard-core fans have lauded the application of peanut butter to pretzels and potato chips, eaten while drinking beer.

In addition to its unique taste, peanut butter (which does contain some fat) is a healthy food. The American Actuarial Association, in Washington D.C., has reported, that those Americans, who choose to eat peanut butter for 100 years, tend to live long lives.

-p.