Category: Uncategorized

In slightly short of 700 published mini-essays (“Blogs”), refrained from comment on the hustle and bustle of that discrete aristocracy, known as “Show Business Celebrities.” In addition to the fact that the dissemination of the latest “skinny,” on one or the other, of that media ennobled class of entertainers and actors, is in reality, the product of their public relations person, we have continued to feel that there are a great many subjects, more conducive to useful consideration. The following writing nonetheless, deals with two members of that exalted class, essentially, because it is our view that something can usefully, be learned from the subject.

The popularized incident occurred recently, during the 88^th Oscar Awards Ceremony, between the actor and Oscar winner, Will Smith, and the comedian-Master of Ceremonies, Chris Rock. It seems that the predictably, irreverent, Chris Rock, poked fun at Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, regarding the subject of her hair (or lack of it, due to alopecia). Smith, in response, and in clear view of the many hundreds of attendees, and the television cameras, rose to his feet, walked to the stage, and angrily slapped Rock. It would appear that there have been reactive opinions, ranging from admiration to condemnation, concerning Smith’s unusual public reaction and differing views on the comedian’s choice of topic. It is our own considered opinion, that both Mr. Smith and Mr. Rock, displayed abominable behavior, before the huge audience and the television cameras, and that there are useful, perhaps, valuable, life lessons to be derived from a brief discussion of the startling incident.

Chris Rock appears to be an energetic, high voltage, comedian, often irreverent, but a talented and funny, stand-up comedian, whose sardonic humor often deals with sensitive subjects, like racial, gender and social inequality. Throughout his performance, he seems to maintain an irrepressible smile, which, effectively, adds a note of not so subtle, sarcasm, to his hilarious presentation, and a mode of acceptably and permissibly, referring to those uncomfortably discussed, injustices or inequities.

However, the comedian’s substantial success in spontaneous and unedited, diverting public comment on the injustices of society, or on members of society, albeit, their possible accuracy or truthfulness, gives him no privilege, to make critical observations that are hurtful or offensive to individuals. The successful audience response, by desired laughter, does not amount to a franchise to demean or insult the target of those observations. Maintaining individual respect for the sensitive feelings of others would seem to override Rock’s flush of success at inducing laughter. Chris Rock needs to sufficiently, hone in his sensitivities for, and awareness of, the feelings of others, regardless of their potential for invoking laughter. It would seem, eternally, to be forbidden territory to make sport of (in lieu of having empathy for) another person’s illness or incapacity.

As thoughtless and insensitive as Chris Rock’s thoughtlessness and lack of awareness of the impact of his biting humor on others, it is our opinion that Will Smith was the more serious offender. It is to be borne in mind that there were several hundreds of people in the theater, and many more watching the Oscar Awards on television. The event, regardless of its context, was not one, exclusively, between Mr. Rock and Mr. Smith at some private venue. There seem to be some viewers who see this entire, regrettable event, as a pre-arranged public show or performance; a view with which we do not agree.

Just as we see the flaw of insensitivity, in Chris Rock, who, it seems, has bartered all feelings of sympathy and respect for, the more desirable, element of laughter, we are of the opinion that Will Smith was, by far, the worst offender. Albeit, we grant Smith some questionable, credibility, as to his claim that he acted in defense of his loving wife, his violent action was, at best,” poor form” and at worst, “abominable.” We would choose to characterize his crude action by the second adjective.

Smith’s highly improper action was an obvious demonstration of his insular, shameless arrogance. It was, “his” wife, that was demeaned, and his inflated ego and need for immediate retribution were personally, irresistible. Let all of the attending show business personalities and the thousands of television viewers know, that, he, Will Smith, super-celebrity, was not going to be derivatively, insulted. His self-inflated ego, even further distended by this Oscar, would not permit him, properly to discuss the matter, privately, with Chris, after the conclusion of the Oscar ceremonies. His neurotic need to visibly and immediately, assert himself, is a testament to his unquenchable insecurity and the consequent, irresistible impulse to the demonstration of dramatic public assertiveness.

-p.

The Scottish poet, Robert Burns, famously wrote the following lines: “The best laid plans of mice and men oft gang agley (often go awry). The lesson of this caution is, once more confirmed, in this writing.

There are instances in life, we find, when retrospectively musing, that we suddenly come to realize that certain distinct events that we assumed to be independent and unrelated, are in fact, connected, and serve to furnish a new understanding of events. This factual phenomenon is to be distinguished from conspiracy theories, where the existence of relationships, or causes, is delusionary.

We had often wondered as to the motive behind the intense support of Donald Trump, as a candidate, by Putin (Russia), and the subsequent dynamics and purpose of the bizarrely close relationship between a President of the United States and the former KGB gangster and autocratic leader of Russia, our sworn enemy. It will surprise no one to observe that Putin is a wily perverse, tactician and that Trump is an ignorant and unprincipled egocentric.

 The illegal and unprovoked attack by Putin’s Russia, against Ukraine, and its strong opposition by Biden and the United States, and NATO, were events, which furnished sufficient enlightenment to satisfy our curiosity.

The United States and certain other nations have been furnishing billions of dollars in weapons, military supplies, and money to assist in the Ukraine defense. It has also imposed significant sanctions against Russia, its banks and its corrupt so Putin-supporting oligarchs. This existential assistance, in combination with the valor and skill of the Ukrainian defenders, has, to date, stalled Putin’s illegal adventure. Should Trump have been re-elected, one might assume that U.S. support for the Ukraine would have not so easily, been furnished. Fortunately, Putin’s tactical wooing of Donald Trump went awry (gang agley).

It is further instructive and enlightening to note that during the one bizarre term of Trump Presidency, America’s historically close and friendly relationship with NATO and several other allied countries was materially downgraded, (a desired, tactical goal of Putin) by the unjustified, offensive statements and actions of Trump. The sly little, rodent had successfully, manipulated the bulky orange-haired, orangutan, conceivably, with the profuse flattery the latter, so neurotically and eagerly sought.

While acknowledging the empirical wisdom of Robbie Burn’s famous admonition, we are concerned that, despite the history of Trump’s sundry acknowledged criminal acts, (many incontrovertible, having been witnessed on T.V., by the public), and on several occasions, his disloyalty to the Nation, to the extent of treason, Trump retains aspirations (and millions of right-wing, supporters) to again, run for the Office of the American Presidency.

-p.      

Russia’s autocratic, President for Life, Vladimir Putin, ostensibly, possessed of Napoleonic or Alexander the Great, style delusions, has committed fatal error, in his attempt to continue Russia’s facile aggrandizement of Crimea and The Donbass regions, into the Nation of Ukraine, itself. His apparent assumption was that it too, would easily fall, and within in the matter of a few days. His assumption turned out to be dead wrong.

In fact, large numbers of body bags of Russian soldiers, regularly continued to arrive, in addition to battlefield intelligence, reports on the ongoing destruction of Russian tanks, helicopters and other munitions. Putin began to realize that his ambitious desire to conquer and acquire the Nation of Ukraine, may have been too optimistically, envisioned. He discovered that the Ukrainian military is imbued with great patriotic sentiment, and possessed the capacity and motivation, to mount an effective defense and to launch aggressive, counterattacks against the invading Russian military.

Putin’s assumption, that Ukraine will easily and quickly fall, having proven erroneous, the frustrated and pathologically motivated, Putin directed that his aggressive war be criminally, redirected against non-military targets, residential apartment buildings, businesses and civilian automobiles, hospitals, maternity wards, schools and churches, and, worse still, civilians, regardless of age. Televised transmissions of the bloody results of Putin’s frustrated, and unhinged behavior, have caused us to be thoroughly nauseous, analogous to the appalling view of highway roadkill. It has been reported that upwards of 3,700,000 desperate refugees from the Ukraine, have fled Putin’s terror, and been given shelter by empathic neighboring countries, horrified by his war crimes.

Added to Putin’s failure, to date, to subdue Ukraine, are the following consequences, hurtful to Putin and Russia, and helpful to those Nations, which oppose his autocratic policies and xenophobia:

• Rejection of Putin and Russia by many nations
• Cultivation of international empathy and military respect for Ukraine
• Willing and generous assistance, in the supply of money and military arms by Western and many European countries
• Opposition of many Russian citizens, as exemplified the by large St. Petersburg protest
• Loss of confidence in Putin by many Russians
• Severe sanctions imposed by the U.S, and other nations
• Cementing together joint relationships with other countries, previously marred by Trump policies and pronouncements
•  Conceivable discouragement of other autocratic countries from pursuing similar actions

Putin has effectively isolated, and cut himself (and Russia) off, from other countries, while salubriously, (and unintentionally) repairing the damage between NATO countries, and America, caused by the previous policies of the incapable and ignorant, Donald Trump. Such results are contrary to Putin’s (Russia’s) interest. In classical literary terms, Putin, “…has been hoisted on his own petard.”

However, a serious concern persists. As a psychopathic and neurotically ambitious leader, Putin, (like his friend, and fellow neurotic, Donald J. Trump) simply, “cannot accept losing.” We fear that Putin, a person capable of bombing and waging war against civilians (grandmothers and grandchildren) would in desperation, elect to employ some weapon of mass destruction, nuclear or chemical, to attempt to avoid being a “loser.” We have the instructive case of the losing candidate, Trump, and his minions, persist in their nefarious process of attempting to destroy our country’s democracy, and its democratic vote, to avoid accepting the certified tabulation demonstrating his loss to Biden.

We remain hopeful but much concerned.

-p.

 * Apologies for the title, to Tom Wolfe, author of the novel, “Bonfire of the Vanities.”

Regular followers of this blogspace are, doubtlessly, aware that it has eternally been our view, that whatever convenient benefits are concomitant to the widespread use of “smartphones,” the same are, outweighed, by its resulting, lack of recognizable personality, expression and spontaneous response. The substitution of the computer transmitted, ersatz messages, for personal conversation. (Face-to-face, telephone) has been a salient factor in the growing impersonality, and lack of joint enterprise.

In a separate, but related context, our recent essay, “The Masquerade,” while acknowledging the wisdom and prudence of wearing a mask during pandemic time, nevertheless, observed the unnatural and dystopic sight of crowds, masked and uniformly, lacking in social expression and communication.

Augmenting that dystopic and bizarre sight, one is witness to his fellow man, masked and, routinely, looking downward at his respective smartphone, the latter, unfortunately, his sole liaison with the world of “others.” Like identical toy soldiers, or synchronized ballet dancers, they move, together, or in separate directions, uniformly, gazing downward, at small flat objects (smartphones) held in the palm of the hand; rarely, looking upward (as would be appropriate, for the anthropologically evolved, Homo sapiens.)  All concentration is rooted on the cell phone, the source of route determination, of general and encyclopedic information, music, photographs, computation, photography, film and television, as well as the digitally received, computer style messages and texts. There is scarce impetus, at the present time, to look upward (the posture continuously maintained, since the species began to walk upright, in Paleolithic times). Additionally, evolution’s gift of an opposing thumb, enabling Early Man to make tools is contemporaneously, lauded for its specific utility in facile “texting” and general cell phone operation.

We would ask the reader, to picture the everyday, dystopic, scene of large hordes of individual Homo sapiens, masked, conceivably, lonely, uniformly, looking downward at their palms, to connect with humanity; despite the empirical reality, that many of its members are located at his elbow, similarly and autonomously, peering at small, lit, screens sitting on the palm of their hands. It is a bizarre scene, uniformly, silent, like choreographed swans, a flock of arctic penguins or a herd of grazing sheep.

Of still greater import than the bizarrely, chilling sight of uniform, manikin-like individuals, in mechanical synchrony, looking downward at their respective palms,( and its consequent, dehumanizing, absence of interactive communication), is the observation we have lost the franchise for free, introspective, personal thought, or private rumination. Tragically, we leave no room, time or opportunity, away from the mandatorily, close scrutiny of the lighted screen on our hand-held smartphones, for a pleasant journey in thought, for our aspirational daydreams. This personal loss is a costly debit against humanity’s aesthetic aspirations and its eternal hope for an improved society. Should this smartphone waltz is not re-choreographed, it may ultimately, result in a ritual dance of sentient, cognitive death.

We have lost the valuable, momentary diversion, or respite, to daydream, the latter, an extra bonus included, among many others, in Evolution’s generous gift to Man of a superior brain. Society has bartered fantasy and imaginative creation, unwisely, for the time required for the rapt scrutiny, required by the use of the smartphone. The absence of the occasional diverting benefits of the momentary, private daydream or fantasy relegates the individual, exclusively to the hard, immutable facts of what may be a humdrum or disappointing reality. Daydreaming is an outlet for frustration, and, when used reasonably (and not as a substitute for reality) is a soothing, albeit ephemeral, but personally needed, oasis, in an unrelenting desert of disappointment or frustration; and significantly, an opportunity for relief, personal creativity and theoretical, problem-solving.

We are fearful that society’s irresponsible choice to converse by smartphone, in lieu of personal conversation, may be a foreboding, not only of the mortal end of (the reassurance of) natural inter-personal conversation but, as well, the salutary, thoughtful, and unexpressed stream of internal conversation (introspective thought) within ourselves.

-p.

There are occasions, when we, as mainstream American citizens, are tempted to hide our heads in shame, due to various perceived aberrant acts of our government. The number and perverse character of such explicitly, shameful and aberrant acts were materially, exacerbated, during the single and deplorable, four-year term of the Trump Presidency. Effectively, the cruel, un-American nature of the American immigration policy, under Donald Trump, can be evaluated by its stark comparison to the current context and treatment by several European Nations, of Ukrainian refugees, fleeing bombs and artillery shelling of the homicidal, Putin war.
We have witnessed numerous television broadcasts, of the unfolding, misadventure of Putin’s unjustified and unprovoked, attack against Ukraine, and are encouraged by the degree of success, to date, of the patriotic defenders. Putin, however, frustrated by  disappointing results from Russia’s assaults upon the Ukrainian military, pathologically, has ordered Russia’s artillery, rockets and bombs, to be directed against non-military, civilian targets, hospitals, maternity wards, schools, food storage depots, residential apartment buildings and civilians.

It is every bit as repulsive and horrifying, to see the  broken, bloody and dead bodies, including those of infants and grandmothers, as the nauseating view of roadkill (see, earlier essay, ”Viewing Roadkill”). The citizens of the assaulted Nation, understandably, are experiencing widespread, mortal panic and are fleeing the country. Scores of pictures of terrorized families, carrying what few possessions they can, and tightly gripping the small hands of their accompanying children, clearly evidence a universal fear of injury or death. The numbers of Ukrainian fugitives to date, reportedly, are in excess of 3.3 million.

Our strong feelings of condemnation and anger against Putin and Russia are, to a degree, somewhat assuaged by the warm welcome extended to the millions of Ukrainian refugees, fleeing the horror and danger of the war. Many European nations, including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Hungary, Slovakia, Scotland, England and Wales, have opened their doors, expressly inviting the refugees. We observed volunteers at one such facility in Poland, who, in addition to warmly welcoming the Ukrainian refugees, were distributing to them food, clothes and other necessaries.

During the four years of his administration, Trump, acting contrary to the history and established policies of the United States, courted his followers on the political right, by blocking immigration, and tactically defaming refugees, (fleeing from lives of danger and privation, in Mexico and Central America), as “criminals,” “rapists” and “human trash.” His hallmark campaign promise was to have an enormous wall erected at America’s southern border, to make it impossible for immigrants to enter the U.S. The “compassionate” Trump, additionally, saw fit to issue an order to arrest all “illegal” immigrants crossing the border, which tragically, resulted in the publicized, widespread separation of children from parents.

Trump’s racist pejoratives, defaming such people (who he never met), without factual basis, as” rapists,” “criminals”, and undesirables, was made more menacing by his false and creatively inciting warning that  “Caravans,” of such undesirables, were descending upon our Nation, to carry on their nefarious criminal conduct and as well, to steal legitimate jobs.

This tactical fiction, viz., Caravans, (of undesirables) as denominated by Trump and right-wing supporters, for the unfortunate asylum seekers, fleeing danger, criminal gangs and economic privation, was, shamefully, successful. DACA was suspended and immigrants, seeking refuge from Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Mexico, who survived the grueling, bare-footed, trek, over the hot, arid Sonora Desert, were cruelly, turned back, or unjustly, imprisoned.

Trump and his loyal right-wing supporters, in the maintenance of their selfish, bigoted and uncharitable policy, chose to ignore many salient facts and historical, National tenets, on the subject of immigration (especially refugee immigration). Considering the overriding, empirical and contextual fact, that America as a Nation is composed 100%, of former immigrants and their progeny, we are easily disposed to detest and critically, question their notion of (selfish) inequality or limited entitlement, on the part of others.

Moreover, one can remind such bigots that the United States has relevant Statutes, providing for and permitting, immigration, most especially, refugees. We should also remind them that, in New York harbor, the world famous, Statue of Liberty is the undeniable, and eternal, American invitation to the beleaguered or troubled immigrant, to come to our country in search of a better life.

If Trump’s right-wing, sycophants, should elect to heed current events, they well might hang their reductionist-bigoted heads in red-faced, shame, viewing the humanitarian, charitable and welcome message to (currently) 3.3 million Ukrainian refugees, by the generous, participant countries, in stark, moral contrast to their seemingly, intractable, selfish and bigoted, xenophobia.

-p.    

In any elemental comparison of Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, it can emphatically and accurately be stated that by far, the least significant difference, is the mutual spelling of the first names. The differences in character, persona, appearance, moral personhood, grace, empathy, candor, and just plain decency, are, demonstrably, light years apart. It is eternally to be remembered, that Putin, autocrat and self-appointed, President for life, of Russia, without provocation, caused his Nation to declare all-out war against the Nation of Ukraine, of which Zelensky is the democratically, elected President. The contrasting features of the two Vladamirs are, empirically, so numerous and stark, that we felt that it would be useful to summarize the salient differences, by means of the following, comparative, format:

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

Putin: “Sly Fox” demeanor, half-closed eyes, unsmiling, mirthless, cold, threatening visage of a predatory reptile, merciless, faux arrogance

Zelensky: Warm, approachable, affable, friendly eye contact, neatly trimmed beard, sense of humor.

PERSONA

Putin: Autocratic megalomaniac, delusional, psychopathic, corrupt, power hungry, narcissistic, lacking empathy or humane sensitivity, mirthless, cruel and viciously competitive, power hungry.

Zelensky: Responsible National leader, public benefit and family oriented, communicative, social, empathic, easily approachable, healthy sense of humor, courageous, highly intelligent, patriotic.

POLITICS

Putin: Autocratic, merciless ruler, corrupt, insanely ambitious, fascistic perpetrator of the Big Lie, dishonest, arrogant, totalitarian, merciless killer and jailor of dissidents, repression of newspapers and general media, xenophobic, bigoted, Messiah complex.

Zelinsky: Democratically elected, believer in human rights, dedicated to family and Nation, advocate for democracy and personal rights, humane policies, responsibility to citizenry and family, ethically and empathically oriented, patriotic, non-bigoted (Jewish), well informed and highly educated.

The extreme and obvious differences between the two Vladimirs is interestingly and coincidentally, demonstrative, of the stark contrast between Republican Democracy and Autocracy or Totalitarianism. In democracy, we have the aspirations of rule by and for the people, as well as Statutory, provisions for universal equality. While these democratic aspirations, in America, in many instances and to various degrees, are still a “work in progress,” nevertheless, these definitional aspirations are determinative of the signature moral aspirations of the American Nation.
In Putin’s autocracy, we see arbitrary rule, corruption, and denigration of human rights, extreme repression and absence of human liberty. Should Putin (Russia) be successful in his unwarranted and illegal adventure into the Ukraine, these repressive and fascistic phenomena as exist in his Russia would be mandatorily, visited upon that defeated nation.

 By contrast, should Ukraine triumph over Putin’s illegal incursion, it salubriously would remain a democracy.

 The marked differences in outcomes are directly analogous to the manifest differences between the two Vladimirs.   

-p.

* Apologies to Mr. Charles Dickens, for the title ( “A Tale of Two Cities”).

As has been authoritatively written, human thought (thinking) is the mental process in which memory forms psychological associations and models of the world. Thinking is managing information, such as concepts, problem solving and decision-making.

Before we proceed to our theme, viz., objective, or clear thought, we feel constrained to once more, refer to the 18^th Century, English philosopher, John Locke. Locke declared that Man is born with a clean slate (which he termed, “tabula rasa”) and that he acquires (all of) his knowledge by his life experience (“empiricism”). This enlightened philosophy, to which, we fully, subscribe, leaves no room for irrational thought or inherited or transmitted beliefs. Thus, one’s life involves an ongoing process of learning and is factual and anecdotal (presumably, including human emotion).

After much initial frustrating and disappointing attempts at some cogent analysis, we have fundamentally, concluded, that much of our Nation’s (and democracy’s) problems have, as their foundation, a too-ready believability, or instinctive gullibility, of a vast segment of the American society. In addition to this human weakness, there are many other individuals, who are inclined to support a particular mode of thought, because it happens to be, in accord with their religious beliefs. This latter inclination, by illustration, may explain the ardent passion of those, of the Christian right to, eternally, oppose a woman’s right to abortion. Many beliefs are irrationally, maintained, not because they have merit, but because they “seem right.” For this reason, individuals find it unseemly, or improper, to deign to question, the existence of a Deity.

It is a matter of public record that many citizens, most especially, members of the extreme right, have declared and circulated (perhaps, even believed) an entire plethora of bizarre conspiratorial ideations, which may, properly and clinically, be ascribed to schizophrenia or paranoia. These delusions are taken as valid by those whose political persuasion induced them, as fellow party members, to loyally subscribe to a (their) groupthink. An important caveat is that to make rational decisions, one must have sufficient confidence in himself and in his ability to accurately, see the world.

We would be overjoyed to observe the decline of ignorant, irrational thought in society; however, such subjective (irrational) mode of thought seems, unhappily, to be flourishing. The popular admonition, “Do not believe propaganda,” is of no practical utility, unless one has the ability to distinguish empirical fact from the tactical falsity.

We need to efficiently, promote a universal respect for science, for legitimate, newspaper media, for academia and scholarship, for the maintenance of our democratic government, with its Constitutional checks and balances, and, most significantly, the existential importance and positive utility of rational thought, to achieve human progress in understanding, health, interpersonal relations, and, to enhance the quality of human life.

It is certainly conceivable, that we may be able to, include, as a vital part of our educational system, the useful and important subject of the fundamental and existential necessity for rational thought.

-p.   

Automobile drivers and their passengers, regularly traveling the public highways, predictably, have experienced the repulsive sight of animals, (or what is left of them) run over by automobiles (“roadkill”). The sight is hideous, but, somehow, seems to urgently, compel a quick but most unrewarding view. We have experienced an analogous abhorrence in seeing, on television, Putin’s pathologic and homicidal actions against Ukraine, particularly, the Ukrainian civilians.

The autocratic and corrupt, lifetime “President” of Russia, Vladimir Putin, a former KGB gangster, in full testament to his apparent, Napoleon complex, experienced little difficulty in annexing Crimea and the Donbas areas of the Ukraine, (2014), and so, was encouraged to continue and expand his illegal and immoral war by, absent provocation, invading the Nation of the Ukraine. His false rationale, communicated to the Russian public, was stereotypic of the autocratic, “Big Lie,” a classic tactic, also employed by his friend, Donald J. Trump, regarding his election loss to Joseph Biden.

Putin, on his own, initiative and, reportedly, absent consultation with any Russian Branch of Government, autocratically, declared war against Ukraine, employing the full complement of the Russian Armed forces, infantry, artillery, tanks, air force and navy. Reportedly, his expectation was that, when confronted with such overwhelming force, Ukraine would surrender in a few days. However, the stalwart Ukrainian people, led by their admirable, forty-four-year-old President, Volodymyr Zelensky, mounted a fierce, dedicated and imposing defense. The conscripted and uninspired, invading Russian soldiers, unlike the patriotic Ukrainians, have been bogged down, held off by the ardent and dedicated defenders of their homeland.

The United States, as appropriate assistance to this wrongfully besieged, democratic Nation, has given billions of dollars in military arms, including anti-tank missile launchers, and other weapons and equipment to Ukraine. Several other Nations furnished like support. The defense mounted by the Ukrainians has been stiff, efficient and effective, apparently causing much angst to the egotistical and ambitious Putin. Weeks had passed and Putin’s expectation of a quick victory was entirely frustrated.

As a disgraceful and pathological response to his disappointed, military expectations and the relative incompetence of his armed forces, Putin resorted to a brutal, inhumane and illegal attack upon civilian targets, and the civilian population (as distinguished from military targets). Hospitals, filled with patients and staff, were cruelly and unjustifiably, destroyed by bombs and artillery shelling. The, inarguably, homicidal and psychopathic bombing of a Maternity Hospital, occupied, as expected, by its hospitalized mothers, infants, staff, and other human beings, was horrifyingly viewed, on international television. Occupied residential apartment houses, food storage depots and other civilian targets, as also shown, were bombed and shelled, mercilessly. Families and Individual citizens were murderously, gunned down, including those, who were deceitfully, lured to their fate by being falsely and pathologically, assured a “safe corridor” for their escape. The International Legal authorities have seriously discussing the applicability of charges of “War Crimes,” against Putin; regarding which we strongly agree.

 We were witness, on television, to a Ukrainian doctor unwrapping a soiled blanket, containing the remains of a twenty-two month baby. These numerous deaths are not in any sense, “casualties of war.” This is nothing short of intentional and pathological (human) roadkill; as markedly distinguished from the purely accidental and regretted, killing (of wild animals) on the public highway, by automobiles.

Notwithstanding the admirable, valor and patriotic zeal of the Ukrainian soldiers and armed civilians, televised pictures of the Nation, evince bombed out buildings, residential and business, destroyed infrastructure and automobiles, from the unrestrained bombing by the Russian air force. Zelensky and others of his government, have been desperately requesting the creation of a “No Fly Zone,” or, as they have termed it, “that the skies be closed.” Who can blame them, being vulnerable, and defenseless against the Russian homicidal bombers, responsive to Putin’s lust for empire?

 To date, our Federal Government has been of assistance with the furnishing of military weapons, and other vital support, but has emphatically declined to establish a “No Fly Zone” the rationalization for the latter, declination, is the avoidance of U.S. entry into a “Third World War.” As we understand it, the enforcement, by the American Air Force of such a prohibition, would insert America directly into the war. Presumably, it is felt that the supplying of arms and other substantial support to Ukraine does not result in our Nation’s direct participation. We would humbly disagree with this calculation or distinction, which, no doubt, is happily, approved by Comrade Putin.

We are far from being authorities on matters of warfare, but find it difficult, to accept the proposition that supplying one side of a conflict with billions of dollars in munitions and other forms of support, is not equivalent to the dreaded concept of “participation.”

Putin is undoubtedly on a march of conquest; first, Crimea and Chechnya, then the Donbas. If he succeeds in the theft of Ukraine, he, predictably, will not stop his Napoleonic march to his next desired acquisition. He must be stopped, at once or his ambitions will indeed, ultimately result in a Third World War. Air support is sorely needed, and its assistance could ultimately, prevent such dreaded, World War. Nevertheless, the existential need for air cover might be satisfied, by the supply of fighter planes by the U.S., Poland or some other source, such airplanes to be operated by Ukrainian pilots.

The United States and the free World cannot, for political and moral reasons, sit back, as mere spectators, and watch the psychopathic Putin assault the Ukrainian people, to satisfy his neurotic, lust for power, and as mere grist for the large-scale manufacture of human roadkill.

-p.    

Its ever this time of year
My senses seem to feel
“Neath the soil’s white quilt
Bulbs and perennials, and
Small woodland critters-
All curled up, warm- breathing
Winter- sleeping with the tulips.

When its wake-up time
There’ll be no need of summons,
Only the slow melting quilt,
And warming topsoil and air
My joyful senses will then see-
The bulbs’ green intelligence, and
Furry things that cavort and squeak.

-p

Leonard N. Shapiro 3/15/22

Our scene is set at the side entrance of Thomas Jefferson High School, Pennsylvania Avenue, Brooklyn, in November of 1952. It looks like it is going to start raining. We are standing at the side steps with the intention of entering school; there was no rush because we were 20 minutes early. Along comes a  schoolmate of note, Selwin Arbesfeld, attired in the stereotypical manner of a Brownsville, Brooklyn savant, corduroy pants and flannel shirt, oversized belt, and, mandatorily, a sharpened pencil with a worn eraser, assertively, resting behind his right ear. We knew there was going to be trouble; especially, since he had his sidekick, with him, “Little Geenzie” Edelman. We attempted to avoid confrontation by suggesting we go inside before it starts raining. Selwin, in his customary, brusque manner, ignored our suggestion since he had something important to assert.

“Do you remember last week when you said that you are a pro at solving riddles?” he said. We, grudgingly, and fearfully, had to admit the truth of the latter statement, anticipating a premeditated and deliberate challenge, from Selwin (especially, since he had that sharpened, yellow, Eberhart-Faber pencil, with a worn eraser, behind his ear and, tellingly, had brought Little Geenzie, no doubt, as an official witness.). To be truthful we previously did furnish the answers to two easy riddles, proposed by Selwin, and were therefore foolishly encouraged, to make the referenced boast.

We were anxiously, about to suggest going inside the school to avoid the threat of rain, when Selwin, challengingly and arrogantly stated, while smiling shrewdly and knowingly, at Geenzie: ” I have a riddle, that even you, (mockingly) the “big expert”, cannot solve.” In the interest of hiding our fear and stalling, in the hope and expectation that we would be rescued by the promising rain, we stated, in manly fashion, “You will have to make it worth my effort and time”. Selwin, confidently responded, “If you can solve it, I will give you a Chunky Bar. Hoping that we could discourage the challenge, we responded assertively, with a bold counteroffer: “Two Chunky Bars.” Selwin miraculously accepted, supremely confident of success.

It may be enlightening, at this point, to reveal the nature and value of the prizes offered. Chunky Bars were two-inch chocolate square candies, containing raisins and nuts, attractively wrapped in silver foil with red printed letters. Unlike the mundane chocolate bar, the bite of a Chunky was deep and well-rewarded by the blended taste of the chocolate and the scrumptious filling. In our estimation, it was the Mercedes or Maserati of chocolate candies, each candy costing a full twenty-five cents.  Selwin’s challenged response, agreeing to the counteroffer, was, at the time, rather high stakes. We might well observe that the young residents of Brownsville, Brooklyn, were entirely unfamiliar with the nature and value of the trove of gold bars, stored by the Federal Government, at Fort Knox, but were certainly familiar with the valuable status of the Chunky Bar.  Little Geenzie trembled in awe and excitement, at the contemplation of the contest, and especially, the munificence of the agreed winning prize.

All right, Selwin confidently and joyfully announced, this is the riddle: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Little Geenzie confidently smiled at the presumed impossibility of any solution.

We had been studying evolution, that week in class, so we immediately responded, “The egg.”

Selwin and Little Geenzie chuckled, and both, exuberantly, demanded to know the origin of the egg.

“It was laid by the bird, or animal, that, in evolution, was the immediate predecessor of the chicken; the egg, in question, would hatch into the first chicken,” we correctly responded.

I soon discovered that Chunky Bars, (2) taste even better, eaten in the rain.

-p.

** The classic conundrum was actually, solved by the author, in his second year of High School, for which he continues to privately take credit, but wonders why the expression, “Chicken and Egg Problem” is still used in the parlance to describe seemingly unanswerable questions.

-p