Dormant luggage, sleepily restored
To re-wakened, “snap-happy” utility.
The fellow commuters in all life’s change,
Commissioned again, as was before.
Familiar relics of past adieus, and
Reliable witnesses to the past, will share
Future history and nascent dreams
What has been and soon will be.
But soothing every gyre of change
Are golden tidings of your past
Rich gifts for us and those to come,
A royal reverie of blessed reign.
-p.
We have become anxiously mindful of the inception of a pernicious and insidious disease, which had its debut apparently, in tandem with the early appearance, as candidate, of the new President-Elect. The diagnostic presenting symptoms appear to be the simultaneous appearance of supremely confident declarations and their abysmal lack of factual basis; further, we have it on reliable sources that the new disease has lost no time in already metastasizing into an advanced stage of “fake news.”
In the interest of avoiding further infection, and instead, with the goal of promoting a salutary atmosphere, we have a disclaimer to assert as to the substantive content of the present writing: [ The analysis and proffered explanation for the results of the recent election is based, in larger part, upon our informed and attentive perception of the relevant events, and in smaller part on recorded fact.] This will serve as assurance that we have no intention of being a participant in the etiology of this unfortunate and newly discovered disease.
It seems indisputable that the outcome of the subject election was truly surprising, if not actually shocking, to just about everyone. Indeed, the prevailing party, himself, consistent with his character and celebrated, ever mono-focused goal, “winning”, had been publicly engaged in the creative manufacture of excuses for his own anticipated loss, including bogus claims of “media influence” and even, “voter fraud.”
A prodigious amount of time and energy is being expended in speculative possible explanation for this highly unexpected outcome. We too, in this note, would venture to join the cacophony of voices constituting this chorus; subject to the above disclaimer. It will be observed that this comment, in part, is a redux and an expansion of our recent writing, “The Chosen.”
The subject election did not appear to be the familiar numerical contest between democrat and republican, or liberal versus conservative and may effectively be best described with the employment of a metaphor drawn from the discipline of physical geology.
In the realm of physical geology, there is a fundamental and elemental difference between a “rock,” a solid fragment, essentially consistent in content, and a “conglomerate,” a solid fragment consisting of a heterogeneous assortment of rocks and other materials. To exploit the metaphor, this election was not the more common competition between rocks (identified political partys or distinct ideological groups) but rather, between conglomerates (of heterogenous composition). It might be illuminating and useful to comment on the prevailing conglomerate.
We have noted, over the years, that there is a significant percentage of the population that traditionally does not vote, conceivably, because they maintain a feeling of alienation from the country’s mainstream and voting would seem to be a meaningless waste of effort. This category of American is composed largely of persons of low information and little education; unsophisticated citizens (at times referred to by us as “flat earth people”) who are the most vulnerable to a demagogue’s unspecified promises of happiness and relief from their inarticulate state of misery (See: “The Chosen”). In the recent election, such unfortunate people, who are most in need and deserving of government assistance, were mesmerized sufficiently to vote against it.
Another significant component of the winning conglomerate, were folks of every stripe who are, “single issue” people. The successful candidate was, tactically, “all things to all people” and this cohort, as usual, chose to voted based upon a perception that the prevailing candidate agreed with them on such subjects as, opposing gun control, health care, women’s right to choose, Israel, immigration, or climate science. These mono-focused people vote with “horse blinders” and irrationally ignore all other vital issues. Significantly, they and countless others ignored the all-important and very relevant issue of the candidate’s suitability for office.
A heterogenous bloc of voters, including many of the currently unemployed and the “working poor,” voted for the successful candidate because they felt that they had received little help from the “do nothing” government and the Congress. This was manifestly unjust since it is generally understood that Congress (by its public admission) tactically blocked most of President Obama’s initiatives .Additionally, a large percentage of these people, in concert with the identified people of low information, were somehow convinced, by the wily and skillful demagogue, to support a tax policy in which the rate of taxes, essential to the financing of the nation’s operations, would be lowered on the billionaire class, which has the money, and raised in the case of middle and lower economic classes, that don’t.
Support was also discerned from a (hopefully, small) cohort of white supremacists and others who traditionally espouse an exclusively all -white, Christian nation and who seemed to perceive, in the many bigoted statements of the successful candidate, a wink and a go ahead nod to their perverse cause.
The “profit motive” is also seen as an ingredient of the victorious support conglomerate. The oil and coal energy people and those of other industries, including their respective stockholders, who care less about the planet and the health of its inhabitants, than about eliminating (public interest) regulation, saw opportunities for profits in the new context of an unprincipled businessman- turned- President.
Our system of democracy is based upon the necessary premise that the well-informed, literate citizen will interact with others and then cast an informed ballot in accordance with an understanding of his, and the nation’s, best interest. In consideration of the present circumstances, our enlightened citizens may jointly need to demand of government a (mandatory) incentive system of remedial adult education and tutorial programs, where deemed needed, to radically redefine the conception of success and celebrity greatness to models which provide profound and valuable contributions to American society.
-p.
For a very great number of good citizens it was the “worst of days;” having been “blind-sided “with an event of tectonic resonance, or of that of a South Seas tsunami or a domestic Pearl Harbor. The unexpected triumph of reductive ignorance and reality show superficiality, devastatingly triumphing over any possibility of securing for the next four years, a capable and rational national governance.
We have previously commented on the causes and empirical effects of this unprecedented event, and, in the face of the possible risk of being judged presumptuous, have responsibly chosen to offer certain suggestions and principles in aid of the promotion of successful, healthy coping and the survival of the perplexed.
We have, perhaps too frequently, referred to the admonition of Thomas Jefferson, to the effect that to be successful, a democracy requires an informed and literate citizenry. By contrast, the results of the recent presidential election appear to evidence a poorly informed population with substantial challenges to its literacy; nevertheless, with the proper strategic behavior, an ardent American citizen can successfully endure and possibly even, mitigate. the extent of the event’s impact.
Patient and optimistic endurance have always been a positive feature of our American nation’s traditional hallmark; literature, the arts, and sciences will assuredly endure and will always continue to provide the fuel for the development of good citizens and successful community.
On a positive note, it is historical fact that over the generations we have been progressing (steadily but slowly) along a dedicated route to the further improvement of our society; in achieving the experienced reality of justice for all, in continued advancements in medicine and science as well as the appreciation of the humanities and the arts and the general enhancement of life. Our progress is demonstrable, our institutions intact and, for most of us, our commendable aspirations conspicuously undeterred.
Because of the current disgraceful and nihilistic degradation of factual accuracy, in favor of populist rhetoric, and the recent unhealthy and dangerous birth of a Frankenstein of “false news,” which seem to accompany this newly elected leader, we would respectfully suggest the following principles with the awareness that they will entail, but be worthy of, some reasonable additional effort:
-p.
It was very different this year. The traditional lowering of a large crystallized ball, on New York’s Times Square, to signify the arrival of the New Year, bearing new promises of hope and resolution, was seen by many troubled citizens, to issue bright beams of alarm. Instead of the shiny orb being slowly lowered to signify a new start and a refreshed resolve, they saw its “descent” as a symbol of an anticipated retrograde, if not, apocalyptic, year’s expectation, redolent with the bizarre irrationality of a combination of Orwell’s “1984,” Kafka’s “The Castle” and Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland.” The extent and nature of the fear was an advent of a modern day “dark ages.”
The intent of this writing is to observe the “Effects” relative to the “Causes” written of previously, most recently in “the Chosen.”
By simple comparison, when a retail business establishment posts a sign,” Under New Management,” reasonable people will defer their judgment pending empirical experience. By bright contrast, our new “General Store Manager-Elect” has already publicly revealed his unique persona and undisciplined character, with the nimble and adroit poise and studied reserve of the proverbial “bull in a china shop.” The public has been deluged with a myriad of his bizarre statements and his reductionist declarations of purpose, evoking substantial concern in a great many people, here and abroad.
It is distressing, and, frankly, embarrassing, to acknowledge that, contemporaneous with a great and ambitious international effort by several countries to raise the “phoenix” of the legendary repository of world knowledge, the Library of Alexandria, that our pharaoh-elect is very busy degrading knowledge and deprecating, what he and his sycophants term, the “intellectual elite.”
He has devalued the opinions of the world’s greatest scientists and climatologists, degraded scholarship and learning, castigated the “intellectual elite”, and has put every citizen of our country at great risk, by reason of his ignorance and abysmal lack of “fahrschtandt” (in- depth understanding) of domestic and international matters. This, again, in stark contrast with the international world’s current passion for the restoration of the ancient Alexandrian Library, the proud symbol of man’s intellectual prowess and accomplishments.
It is remarkable that our president-elect has developed the perverse talent to convince and virtually mesmerize, the low-information, “flat earth people” to a willingness to ingest the belief that all of their troubles are caused by the acts of an “intellectual elite” (when in reality, brilliant individuals have been responsible for civilizations’ advancement and the ongoing enhancement of human existence) and that he, alone, has the formula for a better life and a great America. It must be conceded to him that he has such sufficient demagogic capability as can persuade such people, who often are among those of our population, most in need of government assistance and services, to vote against it (remember the Weimar Republic) and, further, to support a tax policy which undertakes to lower taxes on the billionaire class (which has in fact, virtually, all the money) and to raise the taxes on the working poor (who don’t). If it were not so evilly perverse, it might in some quarters, be denominated as true “chutzpah,” but it more aptly merits the term, fascistic fantasy. The contrast between good (light) and evil (dark), here, is no less than Zoroastrian.
For us, conceivably, the most devastating development, accompanying this perverse President-Elect is the demagogic exaltation of importance of the declaratory statement above the ethical stricture of mandatory factual basis. This practice, especially effective among the low information population, is no less than an act of criminal fraud, particularly (perhaps, predictably) emanating from this “reality show” Barnam. This reprehensible disease, in addition to its unhealthy introduction by our newly elected chief, has fully metastasized to the level of the new phenomenon of “false news” (where is Lewis Carroll, when you need him?).
No ship of State can be successfully navigated without a capable captain, with requisite nautical experience, a good crew, maps, depth charts and above all, a dependable compass. Foreign heads of states which are friendly to the United States have been understandably confused and worried; those whose interests are opposed to ours have already begun strategizing and maneuvering to advantage themselves (i.e., comrade Putin).
Impulsively, prior to his taking office, and during a period remaining of President Obama’s term as President, this “sorcerer’s apprentice” has disastrously made informal telephone calls to heads of State (ex, Taiwan), completely oblivious of their perceived symbolic significance, and in total ignorance of relevant protocol, applicable treaties, and decades of diplomatic and tactical precedent.
Predictably, and pathetically, his low information, “flat earth” constituency will soon, disastrously, discover the price to be exacted for a Pied Piper whose attractive music enchanted them sufficiently to vote against their own vital interests and basic needs.
To misquote Charles Darwin, the civilized world will be faced for some time with a new publication, this one entitled. “Origin of The Specious.”
-p. * with due apology, for the above title, to Mr. Wm. Faulkner, renowned author of “A Light in August.”
Considering the incalculable number of our personal interactions, it is predictable that differences and disputed issues will at times, arise. Interestingly, an insight to emotional maturity and character may be acquired by observing one’s response to the uncomfortable presence of controversy.
Inarguably, compromise is the preferred vehicle for the peaceable (and face-saving) resolution of disputed matters. In this interactive conception, functionally known as the process of “give and take,” the negotiating participants have agreed in advance to abide by the ultimate resolution known as the compromise.
Occasionally, certain issues may arise which appear to be of demonstrably greater importance to party A, as compared with B , when a concession by B would be generous and appropriate. Such acts of concession, under like circumstances, are especially appropriate and beneficial regarding disputed issues between spouses, members of the family and close friends. It is not necessary to suggest that it would be petty and inconsistent to maintain a “score card” of previous voluntary concessions.
Regarding the general context and setting of the procedure, two unrelated matters are implicitly clear: (a) that one of the parties may not be in an equal position of strength as the other, and (b) that the ultimate resolution will necessarily result in all participants getting less than originally demanded.
For purposes of simplicity, we will assume that all parties resolve to participate in the process in good faith and exercise sufficient respect towards the other. Both should actively cooperate, mutually bearing in mind that compromise is preferable to any alternative.
In certain (thankfully, rare) instances, one is confronted with the type of dystopic participant whose penchant is for the (non-productive) “zero sum game.” This exemplar of neurotic trend will insist upon having everything “my way”; any minor concession, represents to him a major face-losing catastrophe. Such species of primitive personality is predictably destined to an insular and joyless life experience; no reasonably healthy person would be willing or able to tolerate a relationship with him which would predictably be typified by the metabolism of a steady diet of dictatorial edicts.
While participating in the process of dispute resolution, the parties should ever be cognizant of the human dynamics involved, such as the nuanced personality and discernable reactions of the other party and act in accordance with the principled criteria of their avowed self- image.
The route to the compromise of differences may be somewhat comparable to driving a car in a substantial fog. The object which is difficult of discernment in the fog of contention is the private, perhaps emotional, “cost of compromise” on the part of the other participant; this invisible element must always be considered and respected.
TWO ADDENDA:
Analogy is a useful and interesting tool to covey an idea; for example, an atom has been compared to the solar system, the nucleus representing the sun and the electrons, the orbiting planets; the heart can be illustratively analogized to a pump.
We would use a musical analogy here, the “rondo,” a form used typically in the music of the classical period, in which a theme, played at the outset of a work, returns several times after periods of intervening music, called “episodes.” Our recurring theme here, is the predictable shift, in stages, of emotional dependence and the resulting interactions between parent and child.
We have previously written about dependence in general and life’s reliable dependent relationships. In this writing, we would focus on familial emotional dependencies and interaction.
From birth through early childhood, the child is largely, if not solely, dependent upon the parent for life’s necessities and, as well, for emotional nurturing. Dutiful parents, in addition to the mandatory basics of child husbandry, render love, assurances of safety and guidance regarding the outside world, school and later, the community.
The parent naturally derives great personal pleasure and a significant measure of self- esteem from this role, most especially from such dependent and loving interaction with the child. However, this stage is universally only of temporary duration.
As the child reaches adolescence, his contemporaries and friends begin to take on ever increasing importance and reactive influence, and there is a corresponding decline in reliance upon parental services, especially guidance; this phenomenon is especially operative at the stage when the son or daughter leaves home for college.
The principal theme of our rondo is now accentuated. As the healthy and properly reared child becomes increasingly more independent and less dependent upon the parent, many parents, nevertheless, at least for some uncomfortable and unrewarding period, continue to maintain their outworn expectations founded upon the early familial history.
The “why don’t you call- I do call” telephone conversation, is a classic travesty; it evokes nothing but possible guilt and mutual anger, erases the possibility of any real conversation and may, in fact, lead to less telephone contact in the future and a strained relationship. Parents with anachronistic expectations will tend to, unproductively, necessitate the child’s maintenance of self-protective distance.
Every parent, simply as an adult member of society (independent of child rearing) owes it to himself, at least, to find some interest or activity which has the potential of his enrichment and life-enhancement; whether it be a craft, fine literature, the arts, botany, or some other elective pursuit. In addition to his enhancement and pleasure, such pursuits prevent one from leading a mono-focused and limited life experience. In such event, an enhancement of interaction with family members by telephone or otherwise, becomes predictable.
We all need to be familiar with this recurrent (rondo) melody and make it a permanent part of our life-time musical education. -p.
It was in the early hours of a weekday morning, on the upper east side of Manhattan, close to a crosstown street. At that corner, there is a large electronics store and there appeared, despite the early hour and frigid weather, exacerbated by an icy wind, a rather substantial line of people (a few with strollers with little children) waiting in a line that stretched back around the block. Upon inquiry, I was advised that a new “game player” was going on sale that morning and that these people were waiting for the store to open. Fortunately, for me my bus arrived shortly thereafter and we made our escape from the cold, but with a feeling of real consternation.
A great deal of energy, creative thought and money are presently being expended, in the search for some rational explanation for the unprecedented and highly unpredictable result of the recent Presidential election. Among the proposed culprits is an untimely letter from the U.S Attorney General, comrade Putin, the Russian hacking, and the personality of the losing candidate; the fact (and this is laughable) that she did not visit Ohio and Wisconsin often enough (the latter reason is typical of the limited circumspection of our political pundits). Everyone is nonplussed by the result, even the winning candidate, who had been, in apparent expectation of losing, busily engaged in the creation of a false scenario, as is his customary inclination, this time of a “rigged election.”
It is eternally frustrating to us that the “experts” are fluent solely in the customary pundit jargon and, based upon their consistent, predictable inclinations, do not realize that the fundamental and operative reason is essentially to be found in that early cold morning queue awaiting access to a new game player.
Since the available concepts in the media’s tool box are limited by a priori predilection and outworn assumptions, it usually relies on tangible items such as the letter, Putin and other, easily digestible phenomena. We need yet again, to refer to the sage credo of President Thomas Jefferson (which we have cited in many of our earlier writings) to the effect that, for a democracy to be successful what is essentially required is a “ literate” and “well informed” citizenry.
The long, dedicated crowd of people, referred to, predictably would not have braved the early morning cold and discomfort, to wait in line at any of our fine museums, lecture halls or theaters. If this is the “coastal intelligencia,” referred to by these savvy professional commentators, one wonders what they wait on long uncomfortable lines for in Biloxi or Texarkana.
No rational cohort of “informed and “literate” citizens would have, in the exercise of even a modicum of reason and concern for country, have chosen this candidate, who has publicly demonstrated himself to be incapable of the office of President and, as well, an arrogant, impulsive and ignorant person. Apparently, It was his “bull in the china shop” persona that appealed to the game players, and the reality show, low information voters; the vital question and concern is, essentially, how they got so numerous.
-p.
There is not one comparable word in the American-English lexicon that has been so unjustly maligned or has suffered such undeserved degradation as the word “dependence.”
It has commonly been used by self-anointed, unqualified social critics, to ascribe to others, a certain category of undesirable personal characteristics such as insecurity, lack of confidence or immaturity. There are, of course, occasions where such negative observations may be warranted, however in general, we see the word “dependence” as embodying a healthy and even, vital, societal phenomenon and write this note in aid of the rehabilitation of this rather undervalued word and concept.
Because there is such a widespread use of the subject noun and its concept, we would, for practical reasons, and with the aim of avoiding a charge of encyclopedic intent, omit a great many of its applications. Thus, we exclude discussion of certain references relating to abuse of controlled substances and alcohol, co-dependent relationships, as well as financial and legal dependence, scientific dependence (cause and effect) and religious dependence. We also exclude universal dependence upon the occurrence of natural phenomena (such as daylight, seasons, ocean tides, and weather phenomena).
Certain objects of dependency are identifiable by mere mention. In this virtually unlimited category, we list for illustration, hospitals and health providers, the postal and banking systems, the media, transportation and other infrastructure services, public utilities, the military, the police, fire and sanitation departments, State, and Federal agencies such as the FDA, SEC, ICC, and countless others.
We are, inarguably, dependent upon our bodily functions, the clock, the uniform system of weights and measures, the telephone system, the monetary system, traffic regulations, our recollected preferences for food and drink, our cultural work constructs such as weekends, vacations, holidays, coffee breaks and societally approved traditions relating to engagement and marriage.
Among the myriad categories of (healthy) dependency we are, as in earlier writings, most interested in the subject of one’s interactions with others in society and, in accordance to the present subject, the dependent expectations of ourselves and others in our respective societal roles.
In the absence of reliable dependencies, we would predictably lead lives that are insular, lonely and without redeeming value. Dependence, often maligned and denigrated is a noun that makes possible vital societal interaction and the satisfaction of reliable expectation in human relationships of every sort, mundane or romantic.
Family and community roles and functional responsibilities are recognizably identified and expectations based upon such determinations are depended upon by the community. Individually, our self-image, developed from our personal aspirations, as edited by experience and community perceptions (see earlier writings) is also privately and dependently audited by ourselves for acceptable consistency.
So that we can, dependably, know each other, I will agree to be me, if you will undertake to be you.
-p.
Our categorical position condemning the hunting and killing of woodland animals, has been amply expressed in an earlier writing, “Sanguine Sports.” However, it is the unlimited number of posts, featuring a man with a weapon proudly supporting the limp body of a dead deer, killed by him, and the denigrating of critics (of such acts) by sham arguments, that has motivated this addendum (redux). These human predators who, usually dressed in military khaki, insensitively, and shamefully, tramp about the woods with predatory intention and weapons at the ready, hoping to be lucky enough to encounter a suitable victim. They justify their flagrant behavior and seek to disarm their critics by accusing such critics of hypocrisy because they too” eat meat”. We will get to this inapposite justification and charge, but for now we will pause just long enough to say a mandatory “duh”.
Most normally socialized and acculturated people condemn killing. It is expected therefore that there would be numerous “comments” on face book, evincing shock at, and disapproval of, these bloodthirsty practices. These critics are usually met with such arrogant and macho responses as “hug a tree” or “sing kumbaya”, or are even “accused” of the heinous act of voting for Hillary.
But the singularly” brilliant” and commonly used counter to such expressions of shock and criticism, is the irrational charge of hypocrisy on the part of the critic, since the critic eats meat, (which irrelevant defense seems to fully satisfy the khaki killer), respecting which we have previously awarded the well- deserved, and highly prized, response, “duh.”
Evolution has brought man to the stage of development where, in contrast to many feral animals, lower on Darwin’s ladder of ascension, he is no longer classified as a “predatory mammal.” Accordingly, he instinctively views killing as atavistic and wrong; it is for this reason that many military personnel previously involved in actual combat, return home with PTSD.
What will it take to convince these reductive, macho forest warriors that there is little or no moral equivalency between eating a dinner containing meat, and the actual killing of an innocent beast. Is one required to be a vegetarian to have the proper standing to condemn such cruel and heartless murder of forest animals? The normal, innate disinclination and disapproval of such atavistic cruelty is not at all compromised by the civilized act of by buying meat at the supermarket for consumption; it is the blood-thirsty lust for (and act of) killing that we condemn.
-p.
og # 116 KHAKI INTRUDERS (redux)
Our categorical position condemning the hunting and killing of woodland animals, has been amply expressed in an earlier writing, “Sanguine Sports.” However, it is the unlimited number of posts, featuring a man with a weapon proudly supporting the limp body of a dead deer, killed by him, and the denigrating of critics (of such acts) by sham arguments, that has motivated this addendum (redux). These human predators who, usually dressed in military khaki, insensitively, and shamefully, tramp about the woods with predatory intention and weapons at the ready, hoping to be lucky enough to encounter a suitable victim. They justify their flagrant behavior and seek to disarm their critics by accusing such critics of hypocrisy because they too” eat meat”. We will get to this inapposite justification and charge, but for now we will pause just long enough to say a mandatory “duh”.
Most normally socialized and acculturated people condemn killing. It is expected therefore that there would be numerous “comments” on face book, evincing shock at, and disapproval of, these bloodthirsty practices. These critics are usually met with such arrogant and macho responses as “hug a tree” or “sing kumbaya”, or are even “accused” of the heinous act of voting for Hillary.
But the singularly” brilliant” and commonly used counter to such expressions of shock and criticism, is the irrational charge of hypocrisy on the part of the critic, since the critic eats meat, (which irrelevant defense seems to fully satisfy the khaki killer), respecting which we have previously awarded the well- deserved, and highly prized, response, “duh.”
Evolution has brought man to the stage of development where, in contrast to many feral animals, lower on Darwin’s ladder of ascension, he is no longer classified as a “predatory mammal.” Accordingly, he instinctively views killing as atavistic and wrong; it is for this reason that many military personnel previously involved in actual combat, return home with PTSD.
What will it take to convince these reductive, macho forest warriors that there is little or no moral equivalency between eating a dinner containing meat, and the actual killing of an innocent beast. Is one required to be a vegetarian to have the proper standing to condemn such cruel and heartless murder of forest animals? The normal, innate disinclination and disapproval of such atavistic cruelty is not at all compromised by the civilized act of by buying meat at the supermarket for consumption; it is the blood-thirsty lust for (and act of) killing that we condemn.
-p.
Klitter, Klatter, Rap, Rap!
Did you just hear? Did just you see?
A new baby was just born
He has small toes, he has small hands
And a round red face that wants to suck
Let’s hear him cry, do see him stir
Do wrap him fast to keep him warm.
Klitter, Klatter, Rap, Rap!
Were you just there? Did you just see?
His eyes are blue and looking out
What does he see? What does he hear?
So small, so weak, so warm indeed
But he does seem to look about.
Klitter, Klatter, Rap, Rap!
He squirmed and seemed to smile at you
Will he be grow big? Will he be wise?
We will just have to ride the train
Its forward push, its constant speed
We’ll pay the fare, and we shall see.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 