Category: Uncategorized

We have chosen to title the present writing with a designation, normally applied to non-deciduous trees, like the pine or spruce, which, dependably, retain their full function, regardless of the season. Like the continuous or enduring function of the evergreen tree, we invariably, retain our most consequential memories, albeit, possibly, colored by subjective or personal considerations, developed, since the event. Yet, since man’s life on earth is finite, so even such evergreen memories, perforce, are transient.

At an advanced stage of life, we find ourselves, on occasion, inclined to, review the many past decades, and extract recollected observations, some, positive, others perhaps, less so. In order that the review and evaluation of past actions and events to be useful and fair, one is mandatorily, taxed with the objective responsibility of recalling, the full context and relevant personal perceptions, extant at the time of the recalled memory. Retrospective judgments made without reconstructing the relevant facts, personal and objective, would offer little valuable insight, and, likely be erroneous.

We have often referred to a life-long, very significant inner phenomenon, which we have blithely and unscientifically, termed, “one’s lifelong, ongoing, inner conversation with himself.” Upon attaining adulthood, this inner communication largely, is guided by, and reflective of, our perception of our inner self-image. The latter, is ultimately, derived from conclusions, conceived, from personal evaluation of our typical past responses to stimuli, exercise of judgment and considered actions. Thus, by illustration, questions of morality, properly, ought to be resolved on the principle of consistency, with our moral self-image; and not, alternatively, based on the expectation of external rewards and punishments. The development of a consistent, realistic, self-image is absolutely, essential and well-deserving of lifelong, evergreen status.

In the course of our personal reflections, the eternally, available and useful, resource, is the precious facility of the human mind and its reference library of memories. With regard to long-term memories (evergreen) one must be scrupulously, careful, to recall the actual empirical facts, unaffected by subsequent ruminative, thoughts or images conceivably, recollected from past dreams.

Ordinarily, in the immutable and temporal passage of time, it is the ultimately salient events, which are evergreen in nature and readily, recalled, i.e., important family details, marriage, birth and personality of children, and the like; as contrasted with one’s mundane and unremarkable experiences, as above stated, which fade into oblivion. As to the latter, an Ashkenazi Yiddish aphorism translates to “The days are long, but the years are short.” Nuanced and material events, happily memorable or regrettably, painful, have a far better chance to earn a place in the evergreen catalog of our recollection.

Depending on the person, the occurrence of time-related changes, such as a child’s graduation from college, the marriage, or the birth of grandchildren, represent objective, indicators of the passage of time, and reminders of our temporality, and may become a cause of concern. The latter phenomena, empirically, vary in-depth with the personality yet predictably, at various moments in our life, we find ourselves concerned with the issue of our ultimate mortality. This may affect each of us in a nuanced fashion. It has been our observed impression, that individuals whose perception seem to be that of a life being well spent, or who accrue a sense of personal fulfillment, are less troubled, respecting this subject, than those, whose lives are perceived as empty and without present meaning. Whatever the differences may be, it seems natural to recognize (but not to perseverate) on the objective fact of our mortality.

At some point in life, we may take note of the instances of mortality among relatives and acquaintances and evaluate the evergreen recollections of such changes or losses, with feelings of depression, fear, or even mortal panic. In the confrontation of such matters, it is relevant to recognize the temporality of our lives, and of those close to us, with some apprehension; the frequency and degree of which, empirically varies with the occasion and individual personality. The evergreen recollections at this point, morph into immutable time markers, never to be repeated or relived, and, accordingly, as ominous reminders of the steady and immutable passage of unrecoverable, personal, lifetime.

Nevertheless, it is indisputable, that the dilemma of one’s painful vulnerability to the loss of loved ones is far preferable to the absence of such relationships, just as the dread of mortality is far preferable to the curtailment of the franchise of life.

-p.

A harrowing, systemic, and metastatic, disease, “populism,” long ago intruded into our body politic, will, predictably and tragically, survive,  the persistent permutations of Covid.  This virulent pathology challenges the principles of Republican Democracy and supports the meme that the common man is possessed of virtues and wisdom, far in excess of that of government.

In the increasing atmosphere of populism, the mob has grown in confidence and power so that the politicians, fearing for their political position are often, caused to cow-tow to them. As an unfortunate consequence, there has been a decline in the status of education and the informed, democratic rule of law, and an increase in influence on the part of the ignorant, reductionist cohort.

According to the populist mob, society is ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, the “People” versus the corrupt “Elite;” and that governance should solely be an expression of the populist. They see society as binary, the mob against the elite, the former being the “good guys” and the latter being the “foes.” The “elite,” are subjectively, perceived by the mob, as society’s intellectuals, scientists, and experts who are, among other and various paranoid delusions, taxed with the imaginative and paranoid charge, that they exalt the interests of immigrants, above the native population.

The element of fear in populist demagoguery (like that of Donald Trump) inspires fanatic delusions of conspiracy, additionally, to the ignorance, hatred and desire for violence of the mob. Such fear and ignorance bring such people together in the interest of mutual support, who choose to enclose themselves in a room where there are, exclusively, voices of those who make them comfortable. The representation that such leaders represent the “common people,” is tactically false, when their actual tactical motivation is their exploitation. Truth and objective reality, in this context, are subservient to the designs of such leaders.

Donald Trump, who seems, alarmingly to have a unique gift for appealing to the populist mob, is apparently willing to operate in a manner, preciously close to fascism; as revealed by recent, undemocratic, and unprecedented events such as the insurrection.  Such exploitation of the ignorant mob, for false and underhanded purposes, is an efficacious destroyer of the voice and the will of the legitimate community and poses, an existential threat to Republican Democracy.

Neither our best medical nor pharmaceutical science, can reasonably, or relevantly, be expected to develop an effective vaccine, to protect our democracy from this lethal, non-viral pathology; we must stay actively informed, vote intelligently, and do all we can, to preserve the rigorous health of the Founders’ great experiment in American democracy.

-p.   

   * [Apologies, for the title, to Thomas Hardy, author of “Far From The Madding Crowd,”]

As of the date of this writing, no one, to our knowledge, has mistaken the bi-annually used expression,   “spring forward, fall back,” as, either, a choreographic direction, or a military defensive maneuver. Proposed, in France, in 1754 by Ben Franklin, it amounted to a bi-annual, one-hour time shift, to save cost, (specifically, he said, to lower the expense of candles). If modern society continued to employ candles for illumination, such bothersome practice, conceivably, might have some modicum of value. We would definitively, and initially, declare that this, traditional (but, non-uniform) practice has little if any, practical utility. Pragmatically speaking, this traditional routine consisting of a one-hour, shift, twice per year, is an annoying inconvenience, an utter waste of valuable time and money, and creates unnecessary opportunities for mistake or misunderstanding.

On the forthcoming dates of March 13, and November 6, respectively, society is expected to, perform the Daylight Savings dance, and, dutifully, set all of its personal timepieces, first, forward, and thereafter back, one hour. This includes all non-digitalized clocks, time-keeping radios and household appliances, wristwatches, pocket watches and women’s worn clock pendants; a bothersome task that can, indeed, consume the better part of the very hour saved, and is fraught with potential errors in schedule, some, conceivably, resulting in consequential misunderstanding.

Proponents of this traditional, useless, and time-consuming ritual, argue that more daylight reduces the need for expensive, possibly, air-polluting energy, promotes healthy outdoor activity by reducing sedentary behavior thereby, promoting good health, provides more light for safer driving, reduces crime and is beneficial for general retail and department store business. We are entirely unaware of any contemporaneous comments, regarding Franklin’s rationale on the crucial subject of candle economy.

Opponents of the established DST tradition, bizarrely argue that the practice of shifting one hour affects the health, is responsible for unnecessary expense (monetizing the time spent in clock changing and by correcting the time of confused business appointments). Lastly, it is seriously, maintained, that it is responsible for loss of sleep.

From our point of view, the DST controversy, both pro and con, is thrice unique. The issue, as well as the ardent, contending arguments, in our view, are unredeemably, petty and, as a practical matter, of minimal consequence. Pragmatically, it concerns the evaluation of the potential effects( mandatory in some jurisdictions)of a time shift of only one hour (60 minutes). We deem it totally absurd, and inconceivable, to  attribute to it, as respectively claimed, either, good or bad consequential results, such as  purported, cardiac arrest, depression, changes in criminal activity, benefits to commercial enterprise, increased driving safety, major sleep deprivation or, significant savings of electricity, encouragement of outdoor active lifestyle,  reduction in crime statistics; all of which has been strenously asserted, are proximate consequences, of the practice of moving the clock’s hour hand, one numerical digit.

We feel obliged to declare that the entire exercise is a petty, useless, nuisance and an empirical invitation to error and misunderstanding. Aside from Ben Franklin’s, 18^th Century well-grounded argument, concerning  economy in the use of candles, we are unable to see any merit, whatsoever, in the bothersome practice, nor, by the way, in the entire controversy.  

-p.

 

Our sense of propriety and fairness enjoins us to, initially, disclose to the reader the basis and intended meaning of the concededly, bizarre title of this writing.

Readers of Greek Classical literature may recall the legendary tale of “Oedipus and the Sphinx.” In accordance with the myth, Oedipus came upon the town of Thebes, where he encountered the Great Sphinx, standing guard at its gates. Anyone wishing to enter Thebes was obliged to answer a riddle. If he could solve the formidable riddle, (which no one, yet had been able to do) the Sphinx would let him enter. If not, the Sphinx would devour him.  
The riddle went as follows: “What goes on four feet in the morning, two feet at noon and three feet in the evening?” The arcane answer is, Man, viz., as a baby he crawls on four feet, as an adult, walks on two feet, as an elder, uses a cane (i.e., three feet). Oedipus, as expected, had the solution.

We are, unquestionably, included in the elder category, and thus, as “Man,” in the myth, we walk on “three feet”, perhaps, even monstrously. The varied subjects to be discussed here and in the future, (we are planning other, similar, posts), for what they are worth, will all be “perorations,” or our personal, conclusory observations, based upon personal, long-term, idiomatic experience. We offer the first three perorations for the readers’ possible interest and critical appraisal.

• Old age is not a disease.

The popular, stereotypic pictures of the idealized, individual, man, woman and child, are tactically, and seductively, portrayed by the advertising industry, to enhance the marketing of goods; and such standard of idealized images are, in one form or another, eternally and scrupulously, reiterated. The super-attractive human images portrayed for such purpose are critically and ideally, selected and configured, for the mass media, posing alongside, or in utilization, of the goods, advertised for sale. Supplementing this idealized, commercial convention, are media images of the relatively rare, famous athletes, super-fit as well as especially, proficient in their particular sport.

The ordinary or commonplace individual, as an empirical matter, scarcely resembles these tactically demonstrated, avatars of youthful high fashion; not to mention the elderly, or senior citizens, whose bodies evince many years of progressive aging; whose abdomen may not be attractively firm, and whose gait is, observably, less than athletic. Those who would normalize those unnatural, projected images, selectively portrayed in television ads, or seen at the televised, sports arena, might be easily tempted to perceive that the senior citizen, by grim comparison, is, sadly, in decline, generally incapacitated, useless and of minimal worth.

Of course, it is unhappily the case, that aging is, in fact, naturally and inevitably, associated with observable decline in prowess and physical fitness. However, assuming reasonably good health, and a thoughtful perspective, old age can be a time of fulfillment and mature understanding; the latter, often painfully and destructively, needed, but missing, at younger ages. The resolution of life-long dilemmas, the review and appropriate rational hierarchy of aspirations, the calm acceptance of life’s basic truths, are all matters acquired, empirically, at the time of one’s maturity.  The physical prowess, inevitably, lost, due to aging, is acceptably compensated for, by a sense of internal satisfaction, derived from a mature audit and thoughtful understanding, of one’s past.

• Appropriate response to stimuli.

Stress is an automatic, physical, mental and emotional response to a chilling event. It is, as known, acceptably, a normal part of man’s life. Managing stress can help lead to a more balanced, healthier life. Analogous to the words of the famous song in the Comic Opera, “The Mikado,” My object is sublime, I shall succeed in time, to make the punishment fit the crime…” one should strive to make the extent of his emotional response, appropriate in degree, as is warranted by the objective nature of the stimulus.

It is common to experience personalities, who will inappropriately, and unhealthily, react with their most intense level of stress, to any presenting disappointment or negative event. Like, Mikado’s aspiration that the degree of punishment be appropriate to the seriousness of the crime, the rational individual should strive to make his level of emotional response to any stimulus, in accordance with the relative gravity of the event. A broken manicured fingernail is not equivalent to learning of a friend’s dire diagnosis; losing a favorite fountain pen is not as consequential as the death of a beloved pet. This admonition is not only protective of life and health but is determinatively, appropriate and rational.

• Success and Happiness

Our experienced conception and empirical understanding of the context of the word, “happiness,” can accurately, but perhaps, not adequately, be appropriately summarized, in four words, “it is strictly internal.” The mature and truly empirical measure of “happiness,” is not quantitative nor properly analogized to a scoreboard in a sports match; revealing the winner as the player who has earned the most points by the end of the competition.  Man’s evaluations, most especially, his ultimate, impactful inner life determinations, are not quantitative, but qualitative.

Prior to retirement, we were engaged in the private practice of a profession in New York City and met many hundreds of people. Our clientele was in large part, highly educated people, of every lifestyle and personality. We learned that provided one’s financial situation was reasonably acceptable, happiness and the feeling of success did not turn on material acquisition, but on other criteria. We encountered many people with great wealth and assets, who were disappointed in life, and those in similar circumstances who felt flushed with success and felt successful. We also met a great many individuals of more modest financial circumstances, who evinced success and happiness.

Over the decades of our professional practice, we were, empirically, able to confirm our understanding that success and resultant happiness, do not depend upon the extent of personal accumulation of assets (boats, real estate, money) but rather, upon the ultimate recognition and inner sense, of a life well spent, and a balanced and realistic, personal sense of self-fulfillment.

-p.

  We have often deliberated, on the subject of the likely origin and fundamental dynamics, of the age-old, iniquitous practice of race prejudice and bias, in general. To be candid, we disclaim any special knowledge or formal study in this area. However, subject to possible critique by those more academically qualified in this discipline, we would humbly, express our resultant understanding of this difficult and sensitive subject, and would modestly, venture to suggest a possible (long term) resolution of the age-old travesty.   

Let us assume, solely for the sake of academic examination, that the entire extant species of Homo sapiens, were somehow, rendered identical, in every conceivable characteristic, age, gender, and sexual persuasion, color, height, hair color, vocal tone, etc. We might then pose to the reader, the question as to whether he thought that personal bias, or racism under such circumstances, would be possible. It would be readily understandable if the response were in the negative.

However, those less optimistic, inalterably, believing in some innate and compulsive tendency, of Man to be selective in an eternal and natural perception of hierarchy, might pose some of the following possibilities: there is an innate inclination in man, to establish a “pecking order” and some manufactured rationalization would be created, to adjudge the necessary perceived differences; the human persona has the need for intimacy, and would create necessarily perceived, personal distinctions; the feeling of insecurity, responsive to complete uniformity, would tend to motivate the individual to subjectively, perceive nuance within the group; the emotional need or desire to bond with another person would, creatively, provide some criterion for his discreet selection, or a purported, natural drive for dominance, would find artificial criteria, for the determination of an imposed submission.

As the followers of this blogspace know, we are unwavering subscribers to the empirical school of epistemology, and of its renowned philosopher, John Locke. Locke declared that man is born with a clean slate (“tabula rasa”) and that (all) knowledge is acquired or learned, by man’s personal life experience. This proposition would lead to the ineluctable conclusion (the proposed theme of this writing), that racial and other biases are not the product of some innate inclination, or natural tendency attributable to the Homo sapiens, but, are instead, learned by means of human empirical experience. Such learning, like other experientially acquired knowledge, is, as a matter of course passed on to future generations. Our basic conclusion, if valid, is perforce, excellent news. What is learned, viz., racial prejudice and other biases, presumably, with appropriate method, can be altered, or unlearned?

It is relevant and necessary, in this context, to set forth the presumed circumstances and source of such presumed learning. As stated, above, we have no special training in cultural anthropology, but would, bravely venture, a possible (probable?) scenario, underlying the proposed early learning experience, leading to Man’s basic, development of prejudicial thought and consequent discriminatory action.  

Our deliberations have resulted in the (hopefully, valid) conclusion, that this most serious, life and death, determinative problem, is but a disastrous old anachronism. It is our confident assumption that Early Man would experience defensive terror and repulsion, upon encountering another animal or living thing, unfamiliar or “different.” It would naturally, be perceived as a threat to his life; a life, which was otherwise, short and precarious, filled with danger, actual and perceived, and ultimate mortal threat. Unfamiliarity or exotic nuance could well spell big trouble.

We would propose, that this protective fear, of anything or anyone “different,” was, foundationally, a natural, prehistoric caution, or fear, and that this primeval discrimination, or mortal fear of physical difference, was the contemporary, anachronistic, cause of human discrimination, or differentiated treatment. Upon the assumption that our thoughts have validity, this instance would by far, be the most atavistic, and repulsive, of all anachronisms; but if learned, perhaps, could be fixed, or, unlearned.

We would earnestly, hope that some technique, psychological or educational, be soon devised, for its eternally long, disgraceful and belated, termination.

-p    

        

The evolving context of American citizenship, as seen through the eyes of a thoughtful, elder American, can puzzle and elude his discernment and best comprehension. It has so morphed in his lifetime, that, at times, he has the sense of being a stranger, or, perhaps, an “immigrant” in his own native country.

(N.B. It is felt that we have commented sufficiently, on our views concerning the dehumanizing impact of electronic social interaction and automation. Additionally, in a recent essay, “Remembering Radio,” we made certain observations on the changing role, status and relationship of the family. We felt that it might be thought-provoking and useful, to express some personal thoughts and observations on our observed major changes in the general perception of American citizenship.)

It was not that many decades ago, that the words to “America the Beautiful,” were not merely the words of a patriotic song, but a description of the communally maintained image of the American citizen. The salute to the flag, performed at school and public events was observably, recited with feelings of national pride and meaningful enthusiasm. World War-2 saw a solidly unified Nation, assisting its country’s war effort in every way possible. Citizens, concerned about America’s progress in the war, bought war bonds and stayed closely tuned to the latest relevant radio news reports. Children, after school, collected scrap iron, rubber and other designated, discarded items for the war effort. America’s subsequent victory over the Axis Powers was a memorable event, universally and jubilantly, celebrated by all American citizens.

The decades rolled on, some more tranquil than others. The special nexus between Nation and citizen, fortunately, seemed to overcome the profound fractures in the body politic, during the Nixon and Viet Nam War eras. Political differences between fellow citizens, over the many years, were distinct, but socially tolerated. The “Left,” most often identifying with multiculturalism, relativism, environmentalism, governmental regulation and welfare; the “Right,” with Christianity, tradition, “family values,” and social conservatism.

Our best recollection is that, in the not-too-distant past, it was commonplace to hear American citizens observe, that while American politicians were polarized, its citizens were not. This, significantly, and regrettably, was prior to the advent of the two impactful and citizen-polarizing issues, concerning, woman’s right to an abortion and the government regulation of firearms. As we are able to recall, it was at, or about, such time that the general American population, rather than constructively engaging in amicable debate on the contested issues, opted to form insular groups of identical opinion, which groups were in conflict with other like groups of diverse opinion. Their mutual affiliation as fellow American citizens appeared to take second place in fealty, to their groupthink stances on these issues. Political candidates appeared to be nominated and popularly elected, based upon their respective positions on these determinative issues, rather than on the traditionally, rational question of who would be a better President for the good of the Nation.

The Trump election in 2016 and the inability of the American society to come together, even when confronted with a deadly virus, conclusively ended any of our long-standing delusion of a commonality of American citizenship. Social trends pushed America apart and split along partisan, racial and ethnic lines. It appeared that political disparities were now reinforced by the various levels of ethnic, racial and religious conflict. To complicate matters, Trump’s belligerent assaults on the fundamental and existential concept of the “truth,” was instrumental in disagreement between citizens not only regarding the disparate issues but, of factual truth itself.

The unprecedented violent insurrection, which took place at the Capitol Building, at the express invitation of the defeated Donald Trump, severely altered our long-standing faith and understanding, concerning the implicit identification, and instinctive loyalty of, the American citizen to his Nation. Yet something more was yet to come which, bizarrely and unfortunately, caused us to feel confused and possibly, retrograde about our traditional and steadfast understanding of the innate, universal connection between the American citizen, and his country.  

It was no surprise, that when the perverse Russian Autocrat Putin, illegally, and unjustifiably, chose to declare war against Russia’s sovereign neighbor, Ukraine, that the United States, N.A.T.O. and the entire Western and European World, would be outraged and responsibly, to the extent possible, support Ukraine. Imagine our confusion and dismay when Donald Trump, the prior President of the United States, publically lauded Putin’s violent rape of a neighboring democracy, by, together with certain other perverse Trump acolytes, describing him as “smart.”

We, it seems, need to re-examine our long-standing perception of the context and status of the term, “American Citizen,” as well as our prior conception of its predictable and functional loyalty. Have we missed something, along the way?

-p.

Let us be absolutely, candid. Russia, as we know it, has historically existed as an uncomfortably self-conscious adolescent, attempting to shield from Western Civilization, its empirical status, as eternally backward and anachronistic. In the selfsame era, when London was busily spinning fabrics on its mechanically driven looms, during the so-called “Industrial Revolution,” Russia was still back in the age of medieval serfdom. It is our view, that an eternal self-conscious jealousy of its Western neighbors has always been Russia’s motivating neurosis, including its present bloody martial behavior.

Any American or European visitor to the gilded and overly ornate, art palaces of Saint Petersburg would note the tasteless, obscene crowding, of priceless old masters paintings on every available inch of wall space and the artless vanity of priceless fine art sculptures occupying every available area of floor space. The spectacle is obviously, intended to impress the visitor with Russia’s ultimate superiority (in number) over the famous Western art collections (no doubt, directly aimed at France). However, Czar Peter the Great, by the garish demonstration of such a huge, and therefore disturbing, tsunami of fine art paintings, accomplishes just the opposite impression. The visitor cannot help but observe the adolescent and artless attempt, not to display the excellence of the fine paintings, but, instead, to outdo Europe, in volume, (if not in taste), the latter, a clear admission of defensive insecurity.

It is our view that Putin, wrongfully and typically, has anachronistically, attempted, by his regrettable and bloody attack against the Nation of Ukraine, (not to downplay its consequential tragedy), once more, is reprising the unique historically Russian neurosis, of anachronistic fantasy. It has been almost a century, since some major Nation, for reasons of pure territorial aggrandizement, has set out to attack another sovereign Nation. There are very few who would lend a scintilla of credibility to Putin’s purported goal, of eliminating Nazis (was not that the allied goal back in the 1940s?)

We can, contextually recall, the widely distributed, photo of Putin, the balding, shirtless, autocrat on horseback. His own projected, fantasized and self- idolized, perception of a movie hero of the American Wild West, is belied, by his noticeably, less than movie star stance of a Clint Eastwood in the saddle, not to mention the distinctly, non-heroic, bared torso. Such is an additional Russian extension of the obvious St. Petersburg neurosis, only, in this instance, the goal is Hollywood, instead of the Louvre or the posh Paris salons.

One is encouraged by the support of all of the countries surrounding Ukraine, and others, financially, by the delivery to Ukraine of military weapons, and, as well, by the assertion of financial sanctions against Russia and its mob of reprehensible oligarchs. Reportedly, even traditionally neutral Switzerland has participated in sanctions against Putin’s irresponsible and costly exercise of adolescent egotism.

From a purely logical or historic point of view, Putin’s adolescent behavior might have the potential to appear sardonically humorous, were it not for its tragic price in human suffering, blood and treasure.

-p.

 If one were to look very carefully at a fully detailed World Map (a magnifying glass would be of much utilitarian assistance) and concentrate on the Northwestern- most area of Russian Siberia, you may just be able to discern a tiny isthmus, protruding in the general direction of the Arctic Circle. This small Russian-owned bit of land is the independent province of SCHMOR-KATZISTAN, a land exemplified by ice and permafrost snow. The capital (and only City) is the municipality of SCHMOR-KATZ, run by an autocratic President, MISTISLAV J. KUTYURNOSOFF, a/k/a (when not in earshot),” Goo-Goo Eyes Slava.”  The reason for the totally forbidden, and often used, nickname was the one and one- half inch thick eye lenses, worn by the always-stern Slavic Monarch; who by the way is also hard of hearing. The latter two weaknesses, not unlike the inherited blood disease, genetically suffered by the European Russian Czarist family, is believed to be, royally inherited. To true S-K patriots, therefore, both the need for, and the wearing, of such thick eyeglasses is a confirming sign of divine selection and assured august nobility.

The Nation of S-K, geographically and, by virtue of its extreme topography is, as a practical matter, divided into two distinct and separate national geographic regions. One of which is populated by 20,000 people who are ruled with an iron hand from the stated municipality, and who work, exclusively, at whatever small patches of soil  (the general condition of the land is perm a-frost or glacial)  to produce the only organic product that could be sustained in the Nation, big red sugar beets. The other one- half of the area of the Nation is a vast, empty, dark area, mostly, covered in ice and inhabited solely by hundreds of small penguins.

 The Nation is strictly insular and strictly self-sustaining, with one sole exception, set forth below, and conducts no trade or commerce with any other Nation or foreign province. It solely survives on a limited and repetitive diet, confined to, and consisting of, its home grown, sugar beets.  It may be noted that much culinary talent has been demonstrated in the creative and tasty preparations of sugar beet stew, beet cutlets, beet salad, beet soup, fried or boiled beets, stuffed (with chopped  beets) beets and many more, especially creative items on the official National Menu.

The one exception to the strict isolationist trade policy was the required importation from Mother Russia, of insulin, empirically made necessary, by reason of the regular and exclusive, dietary ingestion of sugar (sugar beets). Thousands of injective needles, filled with the needed insulin, are delivered by parachute, weekly, by European Russian transport planes. The prudent President, mindful of the criminal inclinations of Mother Russia, most specifically, its sociopathic oligarchs, would responsibly have the contents of the insulin needles checked for bogus ingredients, like cheap vodka, or borscht, for the protection of his people, He had especially engaged for this purpose, the services of the eminent scientist and chemist, Professor Oxana Kutyurnosoff.

Militarily, the frozen, sugar beet-growing Nation has four aging WW2 tanks, 1 propeller-driven bomber and 68 hunting rifles. All of said military equipment has been in unused storage, for many decades. Luckily, for its citizens, no Nation, historically, has ever chosen to invade or seek to acquire SCHMOR-KATZISTAN.

One day, an unexpected visitor arrived at SCHMOR-KATZ. It was, most discernably, a relative of the President, as one was able to tell by the one-inch thick monocle worn in his left eye. The relative, an outcast from a similarly configured, small Russian Nation, further to the South, extolled, for some days, the virtues of his recently departed country, regarding the variety of arable land and the rich produce grown. After some days of inspiring conversation, the two royal relatives discussed the possible invasion and acquisition of the richly endowed, Southern Nation. Eventually, examining maps, both of the Southern Nation, as well as that of SCHMOR-KATZISTAN, they put their highly magnified eyes together to construct an attack program, consisting of an initial bombardment, followed, by a land attack by the enlisted citizens of S-K, and the acquisition of the Southern Nation. The initial step of bombardment was essential since the Nation to be attacked, has a small standing army.

After some searching, an aged and very hesitant, S-K citizen came forward, who admitted he once flew an airplane but insisted that he might have forgotten how, and, further, insisted that he knew absolutely nothing about navigation.  The two thick-goggled conspiring relatives enlisted the unhappy former pilot, and, after a great deal of sputtering, the old aircraft took off. The two conspirators made ready their few bombs, and with their rapt, especially magnified, attention on the maps, awaited the proper moment. When they mutually determined that they were right above the target, they jacked opened the Bombay doors and rolled their five bombs out. Soon, they could hear the sounds of the explosions and, flushed with supposed success, happily directed the old former pilot to return to home base. Their planned intention was now, to rally their troops, for land invasion. However, shortly after their return, a ragged, smoky old beet farmer advised them that they had (erroneously) bombed the other part of S-K and had needlessly, killed and injured hundreds of innocent, small penguins.

 Pliny moral: Imperial conquest is never easy and always wrong.

-p.

The dutiful, sentient wrapper,
Enclosing the needful self-that’s
Peering out for felicitous information.
Thoughts of recent happy days,
While seeking that special windowsill
That opens wide to the sunny breeze.
-p.
[L.N. Shapiro, NYC 2/22]

We offer this essay on the subject of the radio, not knowing how many of our readers are of such an age as can recall the same, and, particularly, the contextual era of which this simple electronic device was a paramount part. Contemporaneous electric and computer marvels [including “echo technology”] have so overshadowed the simple device that it has been essentially, forgotten or ignored.

Any fair and useful homage to the radio could not be meaningfully and accurately rendered, without some basic discussion of the relevant context of the extant American society, most particularly, the American family.  It can fairly be said, that the subsequent exponential development and availability of more complex and utilitarian electronic devices, has so thoroughly metamorphosed society, as to make the contextual era of the family radio, (circa. 1940s to 1950s) unfamiliar ancient history.

Radios were customarily purchased from businesses, dealing in electrical appliances, except for those, which were installed in living or dining room, decorative furniture. In some homes and apartments, such item of showy furniture, containing the radio was located in a prominent place in the living room or family room, usually facing a sofa or armchair, but always, located where it was accessible by the family or any one of its members.

Radios came in all sizes, styles and shapes, dependent upon the intended destination in the home. Most were small and, perhaps, placed atop an “icebox,” (forerunner of the refrigerator) or an article of household furniture. The insides of these devices were relatively, bulky, containing tubes of various sizes, wires, and a mix of sundry electrical parts. (N.B.). This was prior to the advent of the portable radio, the latter device existing in an entirely, disparate contextual setting than is relevant to this writing.

Families in those days, usually, spent more time together and listening to the radio, was often done, by the assembled family; the latter ensemble, a veritable rarity, in contemporaneous times. Aside from the daily newspaper, or viewed on occasion, in the cinema, on “Movietone News,” the radio was the primary source of news information. The family listened, most intently, to the news during the worrisome years of the Second World War. One heard President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s, “Fireside Chats,” Churchill’s “Blood, Sweat and Tears” speech, and listened, for the latest news and commentary from the likes of, Walter Cronkite, H.B. Kaltenborn, Edward R. Morrow, Eric Severeid, David Brinkley, Howard K. Smith and many others, some, still familiar. We can poignantly remember that the youngest member of the family began to cry when he heard the report that Herr Adolph Hitler had threatened to launch German V-2 Rockets against New York.

As children, we looked forward to Sunday afternoons, when our favorite action programs were broadcast, such as, “The House of Mystery,” “Nick Carter, Detective,” “The F.B.I. In Peace and War,” and “The Shadow” (“The Shadow Knows”). The assembled family was mutually, entertained by regular Sunday evening comedy programs like those of, Fred Allen, Jack Benny and Red Skelton. Today, entertainment is ordinarily, sought outside the home and evaluated on a purely personal, basis.

The blitzkrieg advent, and exponential development and use of computers, most especially, handheld “smart” phones, marked the tragic end of radios and the radio era.  With it, died the warm characteristics of family sentimentality and togetherness, personal sharing, of intimate feelings, and the comfort and assurance of personal recognition and intimately expressed conversation. Conversation became unitary, and solo, as opposed to shared or socially expressed, and was, now, faceless and exclusively, on a one-to-one basis. Rather than expressed in predictably expected, chosen words, they were transmitted, as cold and uniform, computer-like data, reflected on small, lighted, handheld screens, each distant from the place of the other party to the conversation.

Copious computer developments, inarguably, made work and life far more efficient and faster, but at the exorbitant cost of intimate friendship, humanity and individuality, as existed in the radio era.

-p.