plinyblogdotcom

The date, March 14, 2018, is worthy of being included among the many significant events in American history, and for good reason. On that date, hundreds of thousands of American high- school students, on their own collective initiative and volition, walked out, for the day, from more than 2000 schools, to jointly protest Congress’ inaction on gun control. The most recent tragedy (one of numerous others) which occurred last Valentine’s Day, saw seventeen innocent souls mercilessly executed by a deranged owner of a military type assault weapon. During the day’s nationwide demonstrations, seventeen minutes of silence were dedicated in tribute and memorial to the gunned-down victims.

The age-old stereotypical complaint by parents that their children were lazy and irresponsible, when, for example, it appeared that yesterday’s socks were still not put in the laundry hamper, has now become essentially meaningless.  The young people have taking up the cudgel, by reason of  adult ineffectiveness and inaction in the (deadly) cause of gun control (with especial reference to Congress).  Adult hapless inaction was the cause of this shameful role reversal, obliging the students themselves, to mount the proverbial barricades, in the interest of their own personal safety. This abrogation of responsibility on the part of adults has been no less than embarrassingly shameful. As a consequence, school has become, not the intended safe sanctuary for learning, but, rather, a veritable shooting gallery for the demented, enabled by the NRA and a do- nothing Congress. It is painful to observe that the targets in those shooting galleries, the school children, have been relegated to their own devices for their existential survival.  Student representatives from urban venues, such as downtown Chicago, had especially relevant reason to participate in the demonstrations in a cause which unfortunately affects their daily lives.

For the possible edification of reductionist gun enthusiasts, we would like to make two brief observations, regarding the relevant constitutional provisions.

The right of peaceful assembly and petition to the government for grievances, is expressly and clearly included in the First Amendment to The U.S. Constitution. Those whose love of their dangerous armament, would motivate them to criticize the student demonstrations as improper, need to consult the relevant Amendment.

Some relevant history and enlightenment is relevant, concerning the distortions and quasi-religious zeal regarding the Second Amendment. Historically, the Second Amendment was only intended to prevent the Federal Government from dissolving the several existing State independent militias and merge them with Federal forces. It therefore protected the State Militias’ independent existence, including the right of the people [in the militia] to bear arms. The purported franchise to every citizen to own weapons (“bear arms”) is a convenient distortion of the reductionist, and the self-serving and highly profitable screed of the NRA. The problem with such ignorance, real and feigned, is that innocent people seem to be getting killed.

So, BRAVO, well done, young Americans!!

-p.

Floated in on foamy tide,
Or wafted here by ocean breezes
Life comes to our coastline
Keen to take sure root and abide.

No farmer can create new life,
He can but husband well the soil,
And nurture roots and emerging stems,
So that nascent life will wax and thrive.

The soil’s the arbiter of new life,
It’s not man’s place to decide,
The valid judge, only Mother Earth,
As to which shall sprout and then abide.

Her dad’s printed T-shirt said “Peru”,
And feeding his five- year old, her
Jet black hair and shining eyes, they then
Rubbed noses, softly, when all through.

-p.

Ever since the mind- boggling ascendency of the Orange Magnificence et al., to America’s Oval Office, we have been desirous, but hesitant, to publish a post such as this one, for fear of appearing to be arrogantly pedantic. However, a felt need of late has overridden such diffidence, and so we now will bravely set forth below what in fairness, may be seen by some followers as academically obvious.

There have been a great many inadequately informed, highly impressionable citizens, who have used the words, “socialist” and “communist” interchangeably. Many have utilized them as critical adjectives with which to saddle aspiring candidates, thus establishing their purported ineligibility to hold office. As will be observed, below, these are the least appropriate voters to assert such a notion.

The terms, “communist” and “socialist” are academic constructs, considered by political scientists as alternatives to the system of capitalism. While inarguably inappropriate for our nation, these terms are intrinsically substantive and are not indications of depravity or moral sacrilege.

COMMUNISM: A political-economic concept in which, there is no private ownership of property, the same being, instead, owned by the collective society; the latter is run by the people (proletariat), the government itself, having withered away by the logical operation of an institutionally accepted dialectic. In this classless society, one is compensated in accordance with his demonstrated need.

It may be observed that there never has been a regime that qualifies as communistic, despite some pretentions to the name. The USSR, for example, has always evinced the ownership of private property, a central (repressive) government, inheritance of property, capitalistic enterprise, special privilege and a prodigious number of social classes [ studies have shown a greater number of managerial classes in the USSR, than the number of social classes anywhere]. The dogmatic theory [as is the case with other countries, and other theories] has been utilized, essentially, as a tool of repression, having little to do with Messrs. Marx and Engels.

SOCIALISM: A political and economic system of social organization, in which the government (“The State”) rather than withering away [ as under communism] owns and controls all basic industry and means of production. Compensation, under socialism, is based on the contribution of the individual [in contrast to the communist theory where it is based upon his need].

It should be specifically emphasized, for the enlightenment of misinformed people who use the two terms interchangeably, that Socialists and Communists see each other as bitter (competing) enemies.

There appear to be several nations with general socialistic attributes, such as, Canada, Germany, Finland and Sweden, however, it seems to us that these countries are not socialistic in every aspect of their economy. As far as Mainland (“Red”) China is concerned, we have great difficulty in principle as to its designation, despite that nation’s official assertion of Communism, because it has, in addition to an autocratic, totalitarian government, many capitalistic as well as socialistic manifestations.

In an early blogpost, “American Socialism,” we observed that some unschooled citizens choose to use the word, “Socialist,” as a disqualifying epithet for candidates, even though it is, in this country, an expression of compassionate capitalism; a moral and responsibly empathic undertaking, to render assistance to the needy, and, incidentally, operates to preserve capitalism by making it livable. The cold, heartless, 18^th Century, entrepreneurial- capitalistic theory of Adam Smith, abandoned mankind to the cruel, unsympathetic vicissitudes of natural law.

We have stated in an earlier post that many of the voters who are most in need of compassionate capitalism, were so mesmerized by the detestable Orange Snake Oil Salesman, that demagogic purveyor of grandiose, but non-specific, promises of heaven on earth, that they were induced to vote against their own vital interest, government assistance [ presumably, as “socialism.”] They bit the hand that fed them, as their own hound dog would have discouraged, had they been wise enough to have listened to their hound dog instead of Donald J. Trump.

-p.

The differential between America’s traditionally sung pretensions to fundamental morality and empathy, and the empirical reality, disappointingly, is no less than infinite. Americans, basking in the afterglow of the success of the founders’ novel experiment in republican democracy some few centuries ago, regularly entertain warm and self-serving assurances of the new nation’s perceived contrast with autocratic, repressive governments, regularly viewed by them on the mass media.

We learn from that media that our autocratic chief executive has expressed an intention to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act (DACA). This humanistic and empathic act passed approximately five years ago, assisted upwards of 700,000 persons brought to the U.S. as young children and babies by their parents who were unregistered immigrants. The Act provides that such children would be granted deferment and reconsideration, in lieu of immediate deportation [ to unfamiliar and perhaps, dangerous countries] relative to their assigned ethnic origin. These people, in truth, are the recipients of legal work permits, pay taxes, serve in the military, and most significantly, know no other home than this country. The demise of DACA would mean the heartless dislodgement and separation of countless resident families. Those who agree with the President, yet regularly attend houses of worship, with any confident assumption of moral rectitude, need to objectively audit their chosen criteria for the determination of personal virtue.

In an earlier era, another despicable autocrat, President Andrew Jackson, oversaw the “Indian Removal Act” (1830), whereby peaceable Native Americans were forcibly evicted from their homes and farms located in the Southeastern United States and unjustly removed to remote, less desirable, territories out west [ considered by the perverse U.S. Administration, “more suitable to Indians.”] This extremely shameful period of American History, effectively portrayed in the historical novel, “Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee,” tragically destroyed a great many Native American lives, and immorally despoiled their religious and property rights. This cannot, ironically enough, be reasonably categorized as “xenophobic nativism”, since in this instance, the Indians were, inarguably, the natives, and the U.S. Army under the command of the tyrannical Andrew Jackson, were the immigrants.

Shortly after the outbreak of World War II the iconic, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, caused hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese Americans to be incarcerated in remote, uncomfortable barbed wire prison compounds, responsive to a popular paranoiac fear that Japanese people would, ethnically, be disloyal to America. Reportedly, two-thirds of such incarcerated people were American citizens, many of whom served in the U.S. military, combating our German and Japanese adversaries.

One wonders how long, after the arrival of an immigrant to the United States, and following his settling in, he commences the process of delusional patriotic amnesia, unmindful of the fact that he himself, (like all our forebears) was an immigrant, appropriately looking for a better life in America.

We ought not, in our self-serving, smarmy pretensions that bigotry is traditionally un-American, forget the huge amphitheater of its historically shameful behavior; regarding which over- crowded amphitheater, there is limited availability, for “standing room only.”

-p.

Great credit need be given to our erudite and philosophical founders, who, in their bold conception, eliminated privileged birth, [ as in European history], were the architects of a novel federal confederation, limited by appropriate checks and balances, yet preserving States and Citizens rights; most especially, championing a one man, one vote system. But they get two, but not three cheers, for their formulations. If there is any benefit at all from the frustrating Trump Presidency, it is the long overdue lesson we should have learned during the Nixon disaster; that our constitutional method of selecting a chief executive, who then serves a mandatory period of four years, has proven to be democratically flawed, even dangerous.

The well-worn aphorism that repetition of the same act, with an expectation of a different result, qualifies as a recognized presentment of insanity, seems appropriate. In an earlier blogpost, we referred to Emerson’s statement that “foolish” consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

If there is any derivative benefit, at all, from the current Trump fiasco, it is the long overdue realization that our system of Presidential selection, locking in the selected executive (whoever he may turn out to be), for the mandatory term of four years, is dangerous and notably undemocratic.

We would  respectfully suggest the alternative of a parliamentary system, most importantly, maintaining our traditional two- party system of government. The voters would select the victorious party (in keeping with their perceived philosophies), which would select the Chief Executive. Should the latter turn out to be a Nixon or a Trump, a vote of confidence could then be authorized, wherein the nation could express its democratic will. This would perpetuate, indeed, improve, on the founder’s plan for a representative democracy.

We would vehemently discourage a multi-party (proportional) system, which has proven to tip the scale of power in favor of small minority parties, needed to complete a required quota for legal governance.

-p.

Ever since the warm bare feet of homo sapiens first padded across the surface of terra firma, he has been impressed with the necessity for speed, specifically, regarding his personal safety and success in bringing home the family dinner. This concern was eons later, replaced by the pressing need of the modern commuter to submissively arrive on time at his place of employment.

Travel between points of embarkation and arrival, has always been measured in time (rate x time =distance). Travel by horseback, and subsequently, horse drawn carriages, was strategized and considered in terms of distance, difficulty and estimated time of travel. The phenomenon of roadside inns developed as a practical accommodation for travelers whose travel lasted overnight. Later, mechanical devices replaced the horse, and with their rapid development, made travel more accessible and, of course, faster. With the epochal rise in industrial development, the secular aphorism of employers, “time equals money,” speed became a universal mantra, not only in industrial production but also, in agriculture and remarkably, animal husbandry.

The dimensions of our vast planet effectively grew smaller, as a practical matter, by the constantly improving phenomenon of swift air travel, facilitating business and cultural exchange. Indeed, the increase in the speed of military aircraft made the seemingly impassible “breaking of the sound barrier,” a useless relic of the past, like the once formidable, and now historical, “four-minute mile.” Speed in commuting, production, upward mobility, communication, in computation and aggregation of data, of large box store marketing and a vast prevalence of fast food emporia have become regular features of an increasingly impatient societal mainstream.

We would bravely venture to say that even spoken vocabulary has its own nuanced meter and speed of enunciation. Slowly articulated words like, transportation, fudge, reciprocal and apprehensive, can be compared with other words, more quickly uttered, such as ice, happy, church, slim and cool. It may be debatable as to whether the differences in speed of utterance are founded in differences in syllabification or conceptual meaning, but differences in word speed do, in fact exist. For example, our word of the moment, “exponential,” seems to be ejected rather quickly, despite its multiple syllabification.

The word, “exponential” has apparently been expanded and significantly increased in present usage. It is defined, by apparent consensus, as “a matter which itself is ever increasing.” Of all the words in the American-English lexicon, we find this word rationally troubling. Its utility is comparable to  frustrating attempts to manually pick up liquid mercury. Conceptually, how can the speed of a subject which, by agreed definition, is itself constantly and eternally speeding up, be useful or meaningful for any particular expression? To accept the concept, would necessarily rate it as being conceptually faster that the speed of light, since physicists consider the latter a constant (as opposed to an ongoing, ever- increasing speed). It is a word which, we feel, should be limited in use.

The word does have an admitted utility, when used to demonstrate or compare present day developments with their antecedents, to highlight obvious and remarkable developments, ex., in areas such as science, medicine, transportation, communication, fashion and technology. While we find it useful in this regard, contrariwise, we see its utility, as applied to futuristic references, non-specific and useless, except, perhaps, somewhere within the occult genre of science fiction literature. A subject which constantly increases in speed, as we speak, is by such defined nature, incapable of holding still for any degree of rational evaluation or meaningful literary understanding.

-p.

Serious students of literature and poetry would be familiar with the category of 17^th Century poetry, termed (by Samuel Johnson),” The Metaphysical School of Poetry.” This highly intellectual style is best known for its expanded use of metaphor to relate people to inanimate subjects. The best known Metaphysical Poet would appear to be John Donne, famously known for his verse, “No Man Is an Island.” It is this 17^th Century poet and his composition that provides the theme for this writing.

In words to such effect, Donne poetically sermonized that no one person exists(independently) like an isolated island but is part of an entire continent, such that if even a small bit of turf were eroded from the continent, mankind would similarly be diminished. The clear message is that all men are so interrelated that the death of one is a true loss to all. Accordingly, the final line discourages inquiry as to the identity of any deceased, for whom the (death) bell tolls, instructing that it tolls for all mankind. Novelist , Ernest Hemmingway used Donne’s words, “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” for the title of his novel, centered in the Spanish Civil War, in which so many idealistic Americans lost their lives in that failed cause, fought for freedom and democracy.

Donne’s idealistic (religious) sermon, if heeded, would have seismically changed the course of history over ensuing centuries, which experienced no end of warfare of national, international, and most especially religious motivation, costing vast numbers of deaths and great human suffering. Mankind, to this date, has yet not responded to the poet’s plea for a common recognition among all human beings of universal identity and equally valuable worth.

We cannot attempt to fully recount the number and variety of sincere, but failed, efforts expended to achieve world peace and a common identity among people; two world organizations, attempts at a common language (Esperanto), treaties, cultural exchanges, international agreements and accords of every kind. Representatives of diverse ethnic groups, nationality, religious zealots, xenophobic demagogues or cynical profit seekers have variously appeared in every era, like a perennial poison ivy, to rally a challenge to peace and brotherhood. We have eternally been prevented from enjoying that idealistic concept of the one continent sung, by John Donne. What history has done, is inarguably, not Donne.

We are obliged to be repetitious in returning to a constant plinyblog theme, v iz., for as long as young children continue to be taught, explicitly as well as subtly, lessons in “we” and “they” (instead of lessons in “us”) John Donne does not stand a metaphysical chance in hell.

-p.

 

It would appear ungrateful, scandalous, perhaps, secular sacrilege, to characterize the founding fathers of this nation, as philosophically naïve or unduly optimistic. They creditably, put the tyrannical and tired history of Central Europe behind them in fashioning a new nation in which privileged birth was eliminated, a central confederation of States, restrained by checks and balances was created, removed Church from State (and God from government), protected the minority against the “tyranny of the majority” (majority rule), gifted citizens with a protective “Bill of Rights” and in general, functioned as superbly gifted architects and designers of a new and admirable nation.

In addition to popular elections, the founders anticipated constructive debates between literate and informed citizens of differing views, to inform a rational and responsive administration of the new nation; as a result, the country would be administered in accordance with the revealed will of its people.

Our Founders, warmly adrift in their idealistic dreams, especially their philosophy of “one man, one vote,” could not possibly have foreseen the sociological-political impediments looming like great, ominous cloud-warnings transmitted from the future, portending great danger to their wisely conceived and well-intentioned expectations.

Mention, nevertheless, must be made of the tragic American Civil War which not only divided citizens, but resulted in a geographic and social division of the nation and only slowly, thereafter, a painful reunification.

After the mutual, existential necessity of joint survival during a great depression and two world wars, internal conflict reared its insidious head to fracture the American nation in ways never anticipated by the founders. Discreet, highly charged, issues arose dividing the nation, and giving birth to insular groups sharing a common view on issues, in social conflict and divorcement from other similarly insular groups of disparate view. The utilitarian, anticipated practice of constructive debate envisioned by the founders became non-existent due to the consequent demise of civic amity.

Such sharply divisive, issues include, immigration, abortion rights, gun control, gay marriage, climate change, government assistance to the needy and economic justice. Many citizen’s adamant stands on these issues, appear to be greater than their love of country, and most certainly their love of countrymen of divergent views. The proper administration of our nation has been hampered far too long by  ignorant champions of selected, limited and reductionist dogma; whose tactics drown out and obscure the legitimate will of mainstream, responsible citizens, properly dedicated to the general good of the nation. The irresponsible one-issue voter, in ignoring the balance of his candidate’s platform, other than the specific issue, is especially responsible for the regular distortion of the manifested will of the voters.

We require an admittedly, unprecedented, unusual and emergency procedure, akin to medical emergency measures undertaken when the success of orthodox life-saving efforts appears doubtful. Our proposal would require for its legitimate use in every case, a showing of current necessity for the preservation of the democratic republic, and approved as such, by a judicially appointed committee composed of both parties, reasonably in advance of the time for candidate nominations.

In such (necessary) cases, the “hot button,” emotional, knee-jerk issues, such as abortion, gun control, immigration policy and gay marriage, would be reserved and relegated to an official government questionnaire, answerable by all willing qualified voters, and thereafter submitted to the legislative branch of government for its consideration. The candidates, themselves at election time would be given a common questionnaire on their platform [ excluding the” hot button” issues, listed in the bi-partisan questionnaire.] Strange? We might perhaps learn the positions of the candidates and the results of elections would, at long last, be meaningful as democratically representative.

Still shocked? Please consider the following possible scenario.  In a time of great international conflict, a candidate, elected solely based upon his position on abortion by reductionist single- issue voters, rather than upon relevant criterea of mature judgment and gravitas, might prove to be a great danger to the nation.

Our representative democracy has been for too long in serious peril; we urgently need bold and creative solutions.

-p.

May we, at long last, be permitted to say, “We have had enough.” We are fully ready, willing and able to incur any predictable accusations of presumption, arrogance and contrarianism, but it is far too long that we have (painfully) withheld our needed observations on the subject of contemporary “poetry.”

We feel morally and aesthetically obliged, in the vital interest of literature and the fine arts, to remark upon an unreasonable and unscholarly tolerance and of what (even the self-proclaimed literati), tolerate as “poetry.” We, schooled in the traditions of Wordsworth, Tennyson, Coleridge and Auden, feel dutifully obliged to rail against the non-imaginative and lazy examples of what is often publicly accepted as contemporary poetry. Poetic art no longer appears to be the traditional fine distillation of aesthetic thought and image, but more often, amounts to a nihilistic display of pseudo-intellectual gibberish.

It appears necessary to state, that poetry is neither composed of half-masticated words nor arbitrarily amputated sentences and is not the unique shaping of partially expressed images; it certainly is not the impressive selection of remote and archaic vocabulary, whose evident purpose is to feign non-existent erudition, or faux poetic sensibility. Such ersatz verses with their bold pretense to serve as poetry unfortunately, seem now to appear everywhere, even, sad to say, in our “literary” magazines.

So, what is the authentic character of (proper) poetry, and when do you experience it?

Poetry is the magical aesthetic shorthand, the chord music of great thought or portrayed vision. It, like good music, is fashioned to evoke intended sensations and emotion by the diligent selection of suitable words, set in a tactical and artistic form to a suitable tempo. The poet, unlike the novelist, is merely afforded a protracted canvas on which to fully portray his artistic expression.

We, in our admitted aesthetic orthodoxy, subscribe to the classic recipe for poetry penned by the poet, Samuel Taylor Coleridge; who observed that poetry is the product of (both) “economy of speech” and “word imagery.” Functionally, poetic metaphor is the vehicle with which this is successfully accomplished. For example, if we wished to poetically portray our uniquely beautiful and gifted granddaughter, in the Coleridge metaphoric tradition, we might choose to describe her as a “red rosebud on a clump of white snow”.  Apt choice of metaphor, particularly in combination with its attendant visual imagery, can be fully savored in the true poetic tradition.

To slowly and enjoyably sip the sweet nectar of this classic art, a writer is mandated with poetic vision, sensitive selection of words, and sufficient familiarity with the contextual impact of tempo, syllabification and length of line. It takes the music of a Walt Whitman, and the images of a Robert Frost, to successfully distill this very fine brandy. Absolutely nothing less will do.

 

-p.

In an early blogpost, “VOILA, LA SOUPE” we chose to happily recount and extol the veritable cornucopia of true blessings, attributable to human aging. This was done, with full awareness, that by contrast, the stereotypic image universally portrayed by the media, renders homage only to a deified, and  pretended universality of youth; portrayed in its most surreal form of artificially beauty, and  photo-shopped in the interest of a penchant for advertising the sale of the very latest fashions.

The early blogpost observed the temporal obsolescence of earlier causes of anxiety and stress, school grades, dating, marriage and family, rearing children, finances, success and upward mobility. Many retainded  the opportunity to pursue personal subjects of especial interest which conceivably developed, when time permitted, in these early stages of life. Those who pursued such paths of self-improvement and internal enhancement would now have the unfettered opportunity to further their interests and truly achieve a life of pleasure, fulfillment and (internal) happiness.

While we affirm the eternal truth and value of the foregoing, we did, feel somewhat remis in our earlier, tactical avoidance of any reference to the “Old Chevy” stage of life. The motive was to eschew any reference to it which would easily have been devalued and discounted in the glow of the tsunami of public adulation of youth and young bodies, joyfully celebrating the use of consumer products, offered for public sale; transmitted, Pied Piper style, though every media outlet. Let us again state that this purported view of human civilization, together with its allure of everlasting youth and (superficial) entertainment are false criteria for human success and a shameful act of ingratitude for the generous gift, by evolution, of our advanced brain. The “Old Chevy” stage of human life was not at all forgotten, in the early post, but rather postponed by a felt sense of practical necessity.

The purchase of a new auto, requires no especial repairs or maintenance except regular upkeep, gas, oil and the like. As is the case with the human body, for which it is the selected metaphor, the new model which ran beautifully and efficiently will, before long, require adjustments, repairs and multiple required visits to the service station; as the monetary value of the same declines, with its accumulating age and declining physical appearance, major adjustments and repair may become existentially necessary.

But by the most fortuitous strike of Charlie Darwin’s biology clock, we evolved into sentient beings, with potential for inner growth and development, with intellectual and spiritual capabilities for potential self-improvement, societal development and social understanding. Those that had wisely chosen to follow the path of self-growth and life enhancement reserved much to live for and look forward to, in old age.  Physical prowess and youthful appearance, understandably take a remote second place when, for example, qualitatively compared with a uniquely valuable and capable life such as the treasured, Stephen Hawkins. Others of us, far less distinguished citizens, will certainly derive great benefit in our older years from our life-enhancing activities. Others may wastefully morph into car wrecks, Old Chevys, studying decay.

-p.