Post # 398  SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY (Editorial)

One has only to consult the American newsreels, movies, Broadway shows and radio broadcasts of the 20th Century, to observe, an accurate, public demonstration of America, as a model of rectitude, and, effectively, a moral avatar, to the World. An exception, however, to its perceived virtue, was its unfortunate struggles in the area of civil rights, and recognition of full equality for its black citizens. The latter, as known, has been in the process of difficult, but steady, progress toward resolution, as have its other atavistic prejudices.

America was to the World, and itself, a public picture of an ideal National community, as cinematically portrayed and exemplified by, Shirley Temple, Judy Garland (Wizard of Oz), Gene Kelley, The Lone Ranger, Jimmy Stewart, Gary Cooper;  one of strong and determined men, manifestly dedicated to justice, and women a symbolizing virtuous, chaste femininity and principled and dedicated motherhood.

Our nation, in the 19th Century, despite its two World Wars and a sporadically, uncertain economy, nevertheless, dedicatedly, pursued a steady route of democratic advancement. Laws and regulations were promulgated seeking improved working conditions, pure drinking water, healthy foods and medicines, as well as improved housing for the poor. As expected, in any Democratic Republic, there has existed contested issues, regarding policy, National and International; but the unquestioned shared premise, that the differing parties, desired the good of the nation, meant a vibrant and secure nation. As a result of its dedication and hard work, America was the victor in the two World Wars, representing the historic victory of freedom over oppression. Since the time of its victory in the Second World War, America has been recognized as the symbol and champion of freedom and World justice.

Due to its intrinsic promise of equality of opportunity, the Nation  continued to prosper. Its policy of compassionate capitalism, has, morally improved the living conditions of working class families, and has resulted in labor peace, in addition to commercial success. Accordingly, America has always been a desirable safe harbor for oppressed immigrants, and the land of opportunity for many others, who have emigrated to share in, and become part of, an enterprising nation, itself,  composed of immigrants and their progeny.

Until barely three years ago, with the shocking, retrogressive and unfortunate ascendency of Donald J. Trump, to the Oval Office, our Nation, albeit, not quite perfect, had been regarded, by the other Nations of the World, as a symbol of admirable democracy and fair republican rule. However, the Nation’s standing, at present, and its contemporaneous perception by other countries, friends and foes, alike, is that of a Nation, without consistent principle, or policy, and a complete moral enigma.

The despicable, Mr. Trump, is a frightening and disheartening symbol and an accurate representative, of a previously undisclosed presence, in our country, of a great many individuals, who can only be described as its “underbelly.” Moreover, and terrifyingly, the great number of such dark creatures who had been  powerless, because they were diverse and anonymous, now have Mr. Trump and his sycophants, as a centrally identifiable and unifying leader. Trump claims that he is a “uniter” while his opponents, see him as a “divider. It is our view, that Trump has earned gold medals in both functions; a uniter, of our nation’s vermin, and a divider of the dedicated American citizen. Until the advent of Trump, the various members of the underbelly of our nation, were separate, sub rosa and powerless; since Trump has become their nucleus and symbolic leader, they are a congealed conglomerate of hateful and lethal, un-American racists; effectively, and incredibly, a Presidentially approved, armed and lethal cult of modern-day Nazi’s. Their acts of intentional, mass homicide, recently, are so frequent, that, reportedly, many newspapers have moved the accounts of such, horrendous events, from the first, to the third page. The reader may well ask, where have all of these gun- toting, sordid, degenerates, suddenly, come from?  The answer is, that they have been eternally ensconced within our communities; but until Trump, independent, unknown and virtually impotent.

We have, all these years, unknowingly, been sleeping with the enemy. This situation is in metaphor, akin, to taking a pleasant walk in the beautiful countryside, and casually turning over a flat rock. The beetles, worms, maggots and the filthy mold, we would observe, were always there; and best left under the rock.

Please vote responsibly.



In the immediately preceding post, (#396) we endeavored to demonstrate, that the purported citizen’s “right to own a gun” is neither granted, nor even mentioned, in the U.S. Constitution. This is so, despite the tactically, distorted misreading of the Second Amendment, by the cynical and irresponsible profit- making, gun lobby. Aside from occasional sports, hunting and target shooting, we were perplexed, until just now, concerning the motivation for the widely expressed desire for ownership of such death- dealing instruments. A knife, for example, can be used for cutting string or slicing cheese, for hobby crafts, such as whittling or model making, for sharpening pencils, cooking, for cutting vegetables and fruit, and so many other peaceful uses; a gun can only be used to kill.

In this modest essay, we intend to specifically refer to the troublesome question, dealing with the underlying reason, for normally socialized American citizens, to elect to own a death-dealing weapon. After some considerable thought, we believe that we have arrived at an original, and valid, answer.  We should express the reservation, however, that this writing, and our proposed theory, are based, upon our own subjective perception and consequent deduction, rather than on any formal study or authoritative source.

Initially, we do not find it contemporaneously relevant, or useful, to consider the proposed, American period of the gun- toting, wild west, as an acceptable or satisfactory explanatory antecedent. So much time has elapsed, and such exponential technological and societal change has taken place over the last two centuries, as to, effectively, relegate the period of The Lone Ranger, or the movie characters portrayed by Clint Eastwood, to the historic past. Carrying a gun when our country was new and lawless, is distantly irrelevant.

We are told that, while the United States contains only 5% of the world population, it harbors 42% of the world’s privately owned guns. We have personally observed, that the belief in the undisturbed freedom of gun ownership, and non-intervention or regulation, by government, has become a subject of quasi- religious fervor, among gun owners. Convenient myths have been perpetuated by the gun lobby, particularly, the NRA, that Americans have the natural right to own guns; which right, they tactically, and falsely, claim, is inalienable, like the right to free speech and the ownership of private property. We have, previously, shown this to be false, and would like, in this writing, to examine the perceived need, by certain citizens, for a gun.

The emotionally articulated basis, is, eternally, the protection of the gun owner and his family. This neurotic perception of being under daily threat, may well evince, in some instances, a psychological dynamic, possibly ranging from basic neurotic insecurity, sense of power, or Freudian potency, through classic paranoia. The large sub-society of ardent gun owners, have created an insular interest group, which, mutually, shares a fear of “the other.” This, unfortunate state of affairs, is perpetuated by their insular, fraternal interaction, stoked by a bigoted President, and favored by the various white supremacy adherents. (There are, reportedly, 310, 000,000 privately owned guns in the United States.) Reportedly, the objective facts are, that guns are very rarely needed, or ever used for self- defense, but are responsible for many suicides, murder and home accidents. This is a very far cry from the asserted virtues of protection and safety.

Following the expenditure of some serious thought on the subject, we have developed our own, nuanced opinion, regarding the question of motivation, for gun ownership, posed by this writing, inclusive of the prevailing fear and threat “felt” by gun owners. It is our general perception, from the media, that many passionate gun advocates, are significantly inclusive of people who publicly espouse (or privately harbor), bigoted feelings, toward Americans with brown or black skin color. It would seem that it is the latter groups of people, that are feared, (albeit, such fear is unsupported by empirical fact). We have concluded, that the gun owner’s sense of danger is dynamically and clinically, a mental projection, a “transmutation,” and a product of his own prejudicial feelings. Ardent gun owners have manufactured their own unsupported context of threat and danger, by the dynamics of the transmutation of their irrational prejudice, and hatred, into the neurotic suggestion, that guns are existentially necessary to protect themselves (from their own neurotically imagined, self- manufactured, sense of threat.)



We can think of no more perversely false yet, popularly successful, item of propaganda than the bold assertion that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, grants to every American citizen, the personal right to own a gun. We are dismayed to observe that some of those who have vociferously stated their opposition to unregulated ownership of these death dealing instruments, appear to tacitly accede to the possibility that the Second Amendment is, conceivably, a statement of the right of the individual citizen to own guns; it is not.

It is our assumption, that many members of the gun lobby, are aware that the general assertion is untrue, but for self-serving reasons of political power and profit, cynically claim otherwise.   The fraudulent propaganda program of the NRA, has additionally and irresponsibly, been extended to a demonstration of faux outrage, at the mere suggestion of reasonable gun regulation.

We would discourage the ceding of any veracity, whatsoever, to the false propaganda, disseminated daily, by the gun lobby [whom, we charge with, effectively, being accessories in the many mass shootings of late]. Its false and irresponsible assertion of a purported right, of all American citizens, to own deadly weapons, is an intentionally deceitful misreading of the meaning, historical context and genuine intention of the Second Amendment. To reiterate, it is our belief, that such publicized, tactical misreading of the Second Amendment and the mendacity of the gun lobby, is an intentional (and sadly, successful) deception, strategically, practiced upon the public.

Anyone who takes the modest time required, to cursorily, review the American history at the time of the addition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, will be made especially aware, of the falsity of the gun lobby’s “snake-oil,” widely disseminated, version of the truthful history and the Amendment’s content and purpose. We choose, in our recitation of the accurate history and purpose, of said Amendment, to refer to the explanation of the learned, Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens:

“The Second Amendment was adopted out of the specific concern, that a standing National Army might pose a threat to the security of the separate States” and so, permitted the maintenance by each State, of an “armed Militia” (the “People,”) to be independent and separate from the Federal Army.

Any tactically strained morphing of the essence and accurate intention of the Second Amendment, into an outlandish declaration of the right of all citizens to own weapons is, demonstrably and empirically, false. The subject of the individual citizen, was entirely irrelevant to the Amendment. In truth, there is a total absence of any constitutional language, whatsoever, (fairly and rationally read), to the effect that “citizens” have any right to possess armaments.

It would not be useful, here, to attempt to enumerate the plethora of horrific mass shootings, in parks, schools, churches, synagogues, parking lots and other bloody venues, at which innocent people were gunned down (a great many, being young children), by deranged people, intoxicated with the existential properties of guns. These murderous incidents have been so frequent, that one well known media personality has remarked: “such reports have gone from the front page of newspapers, to the third.”

As stated, we find it especially frustrating, that, the truth that there is no constitutional right to own weapons, by virtue of the Second Amendment, is, conceivably, understood by all contending sides of the controversy, as any literate person can easily discover. Yet, the gun lobby’s propaganda, is so successful, that many anti-gun citizens seem to tolerate the intentional misreading and misapprehension of the Amendment and, by necessity, are relegated to offer other (usually meritorious) objections to the general ownership of such death-dealing instruments.  One such cogent argument is the absence of any necessity, in any event, for a civilian to own automatic weapons which are truly, instruments of mass destruction and overkill. It would be absurd for people who would seek to rationalize their improper ownership of such wholesale death dealing weapons, as self-protection. The possession of such weapons can only be the delight of a paranoid fantasy, in the excited nocturnal, dreams of a psychopath.

The gun lobby, and its sycophants, not unlike the big industrial polluters of the atmosphere, who unmistakably, and psychopathically, appear to value short term profits, above human life.

In our empirical experience, it is the law abiding citizen who is truly in need of protection, from the imminent danger of gun owners, who (have been induced to) believe that they are constitutionally entitled to, and required to own, death dealing weapons, for their personal protection.


Post # 395  PERENNIAL BUGBEARS (Redux)

Those who are regular readers of this blogpost, may be familiar with our personal fascination with words; especially, those that are seldom used in modernity, and are legitimate antiques of past forensic expression. Many are colorful, nostalgic and, when relevant, irresistible; especially when they have the attributes to be forensically expressive. One such valuable antique is the word, “bugbear” which some lexicographers would attribute, as meaning “a source of obsessive fear and loathing.” This note is another attempted swipe at the purported epithet of the word “socialism,” often used by ignorant, or, tactical politicians and citizens, as a veritable “bugbear” in an attempt to denigrate certain Democratic aspirants for the Presidential candidacy.

“Socialism,” simply is a politico-economic theory, which favors the belief in governmental ownership of all of the Nation’s industry and commerce. It is believed by many to be an offshoot of Communism, or Marxism, which goes further and eliminates the need for government. We would, confidently defy, any, tactically cynical or ignorant, user of the term, to identify any Democratic candidate who believes in governmental ownership and control of all industry and commerce as a better alternative to capitalism, the private ownership of industry and business by citizen entrepreneurs.

It is an empirical fact that all responsible, moral and empathic government programs, to aid the needy, assist the disabled, furnish retirement benefits, afford unemployment and disability relief, furnish health services, conduct an efficient mail system, protect the health of citizens regarding clean water, food and safe medicine, provide disaster relief, civil safety, and innumerable other such salubrious programs, are all Congressionally approved, governmental programs. The intended conceit, and political terminology, for the foregoing is, “compassionate capitalism.” The extension of relief programs by the American Government, is evidence of the empathically moral side of Capitalism, and a major reason why it continues to flourish and have adherents. Society, in the absence such assistance and services, would be a reprise of the cruel exercise of the laissez-faire (natural law) philosophical policies of early English industrial revolution of free enterprise (Adam Smith) leading to human squalor and tragedy, existing in Victorian London’s East Side, as brilliantly and shockingly revealed in the novels of Charles Dickens.

There is not a hint of ownership in America’s governmental programs, and the suggestion of “socialism” is tactical, false and pernicious propaganda.

It is an undisputable, and publically evident fact, that all those who use the word “socialist” as a tactical bugbear, “dog whistle” epithet, or who aspire to be aficionados of that political-economic theory, are all nonetheless, willing and grateful participants in, and recipients of, benefits of, many all of the foregoing programs. The recently promised extension of such assistance, to the area of college tuition or health insurance, for the further economic relief of many of our citizens, are suitable to, and well within, the tenets of compassionate capitalism.

Candidates who (perhaps, naively) self- identify as Democratic-Socialists, thereby proclaiming their moral intention, to further ease the plight of our society’s lower economic class, and to champion a fairer distribution of wealth, are, admirably, seeking a more just and equitable Nation, and certainly not one, that is opposed to the Free Enterprise System. [The cynical manipulation of the poorly educated, flat- earth, people is, discernably again, in full swing.]



One is, on occasion, asked a naïve, or reductive question, such that, following his polite and patient response, leads him thereafter and unexpectedly, into more profound thought on the general subject. The derisible question, here, was, “Why don’t the different colors, in nature, clash?” This question, posed by an adult citizen is, strange, childish, and, upon contemplation, astoundingly, naïve. Man has developed in the ambiance of his natural surroundings, and has accommodated to its natural appearance and normative propriety. His sense of color is a phenomenon, based, as Edmund Burke would say, solely upon his “learned experience”. The colors that are presented in nature, do not clash, because we have, eternally associated them together, and not by some exercise of (arbitrary) design. Certain other colors may “clash” when used together, because they do not conform to our personally learned, or societally influenced, experience.

This highly unusual and naïve question, shortly thereafter, led us to a subject that interested us, viz., the existence of a need for color, in speech, to communicate information, feeling, thoughts and important messages, as an alternative to words. The simplest, and most widely recognized illustration, is seen in the common use of red and green traffic lights.

“The perception of color”, we are told, “derives from the stimulation of “cone cells” in the human eye by radiation within the visible spectrum.” We are not neuroscientists, and are more interested in the use of color, however generated, as a necessary communicative supplement, to the American-English lexicon.

We have developed in our day-to-day language, (excluding its metaphoric employment in poetics) the needed use of color, as an expression of descriptive or emotional nature. “It says it in black and white” (clearly), or he is playing a “blue” (sad) song. He was, “red hot” (very angry). She was, “green” (definitively) with envy; more recently, it is a “blue” (democratic) or “red” (republican) or purple (mixed) State. ”Green,” has also become  synonymous with, environmental responsibility, and on occasion, liberal politics.

Shall we continue, “white wash” (wrongfully excused),” green at the gills (Sickly) “yellow” (cowardly) “bronzed” (heavily suntanned), greenhorn (foreigner), situation “red” (emergency), “code blue” (hospital emergency), “in the red” (insolvent business), “in the black” (solvent), a “gray area” (undefined). Not to mention the many “colorful” expressions, such as, “white as a ghost,” she is a “colorful character” (exotic persona), he is the sports announcer who provides the “color” during the match, or, the designation, a “red light” district, which means the tenderloin.

We could continue, ad infinitum, and ad nauseam, to furnish additional illustrations of our use of words, borrowed from the interactive generation of our cones and rods with our retina, in the attempt to satisfactorily fulfill the need for satisfactory expression. The foregoing paragraphs were intended to show the extent of use of our strange word partnership with our natural sense of sight, as needed, to fortify a substantial weakness in our sense of speech. To be more precise, for the the failure of the Anglo-American lexicon, to avail a speaker, or writer, with a competent inventory of expressive adjectives and nouns, so that he can, with a feeling of relief, conclude that he has expressed his emotions or, feelings, fully and precisely.  The language of American English is quite suitable for expressing the language of bills and invoices, but shamefully, inadequate, in the case of words related to feelings and emotions. The Romance languages, apparently, are not thus handicapped. Even the modestly spoken, Yiddish, with which we have some passing familiarity, does not suffer from this handicap.

Take for example, the ubiquitous word, “love,” in English. One may be very hungry and say: “I’d love to have a slice of pizza,” or be wearing very uncomfortable shoes and say, “I’d love to take my shoes off, or being tired, I’d love to go to sleep now,” or to a grandchild, “I love you.” Even in the modest, retro and seldom used, language of Yiddish (as we are confident is true of many other languages) there is an appropriate word, or form of the word, “love,” for each relevant and applicable use; for a lover, for a spouse, for the uses mentioned. The American vocabulary is unforgivably impoverished, in its inventory of “feeling” words. Perhaps this is due to the fact that we inherited the language of the traditionally, phlegmatic English, and not the Portuguese or the Italian cultures.

In any event, it clearly evidences an unmistakable admission, of the paucity of our Nation’s language, when one is necessarily obliged, to supplement his desire for satisfactory, personal communication, with words, more appropriately representing electronic-light impulses occurring at the retina.




Blogpost # 393   VOX POP a/k/a “PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES”

In an earlier essay, we expressed our concern and criticism regarding today’s unusually large number of Democratic candidates for Presidential nomination. The contestants, all from an identical party, institutionally, share most points of view in common, with the unfortunate result that irrelevant, populist standards may become the sole remaining determinants of one’s choice. Knowledge, gravitas, experience, transparent candor, are among the significantly proper and relevant qualities; certainly not, irrelevant qualities such as perceived charm, eloquence, apparent confidence, aggressiveness and other ostensibly, populist, “winning” characteristics. The previous election proved to be an effective primer, on the profound error of any selection, based on populist and superficial standards. We have declared in a past essay, that an overlarge number of proposed candidates, all from the same party, factually eliminates the occasion for debate on the relevant issues, leaving only cosmetic differences, (voice, appearance, sense of humor and celebrity) as the remaining, irrelevant, and improper, bases for choice. The candidate’s “performance” has been, disappointingly, the prime subject of discussion in the media; not the candidate’s perceived gravitas and potential fitness for the Office. It is of crucial importance, that the consequential, historical significance, of choosing a Presidential candidate, from one of the (only) two national political parties, ought not be seen as a replication of a Miss America contest.

The celebrated, intensely awaited event, is universally known as, the “Presidential Debates.” We are troubled by that misleading reference. A “debate” involves a formal and contested discussion (arguments) on (one) a particular, previously selected topic, in which each of two opposing sides puts forward opposing viewpoints. The upcoming “second debate,” like the first, will not be a “debate” in any respect. It is, instead a species of classic vox- populi, an expression of citizen, (man-in-the street) repetition, of well- known party memes, articulated in the respective style of the performer-candidate’s nuanced persona; responsive to various timely issues, (debates have only one issue) presented by attractive, celebrity, interrogators. One might assume that some television producer (or gifted intern) could assign a more applicable name, to this television tour de force.

As a related addendum to the above critique, we feel obliged to comment on the stated aspiration, daily communicated by the Democratic Party, that the most imperative criterion, is the selection of “a candidate that can defeat Donald Trump.” In view of Trump’s public performance, demonstrating his profound incapability, as well as his plethora of improprieties, professional and social, to such extent that, the historically, rare and extreme procedure, of Presidential Impeachment (for “high crimes and misdemeanors”) is under serious consideration, such insecure and limited aspiration, demonstrates a disrespect for the intelligence of the American voter.

An aspirant to the Democratic nomination, should, suitably, discuss the factors that, traditionally, have been his party’s hallmark themes which have made it successful, such as, healthcare, tax reform, fair wages and working conditions, employment, government safety and health regulations, official food and drug standards, civil liberties, women’s rights, as well as climate change and a reasonable and compassionate policy concerning immigration.

It has been almost three years, and we have, definitively, had more than our fill, of (tawdry) political entertainment.



Post # 392 REFRESHING 1954

A predicate consideration to the theme of this essay, would be (our consistent declaration) that the most valuable, natural resource of a nation, is its people. Neither plentiful natural sources of fuel or minerals, great manufacturing capability, self-sustaining agriculture nor the presence of adequate water resources, is of comparable importance.  We have written on this specific point, utilizing 20th Century Germany, as our historic illustration. Germany, a small to medium- size country, during the early period of that Century, came close to actually, conquering the entire world. This was not because of its geopolitical location, or its natural resources, but rather, due to the nature and quality of its population. The German people at the time, (and at present) were educated, capable and easily mobilized. This historically painful observation of the salient criteria affording existential strength and durability to a Nation State, would appear to have universal and eternal application.

If in principle, an educated and easily mobilized citizenry, is the key to a successful and self-sustaining nation-state, the necessary corollary to that principle, is that an adequate educational system must be consistently maintained and enjoyed  by its people. The latter admonition is of existential significance; inarguably more so, than the development of new and more efficient, armaments.

From the time of its inception, this Nation has been exclusively populated by people, who were born elsewhere, and their succeeding progeny. The great and enduring success, of the Founder’s 19th Century experimental Democratic Republic, is large part, due to the policy, represented by its national motto, “E Pluribus Unum,” from many (peoples, nations, and races) one, indivisible Nation. We have written, elsewhere, that the draconian immigration policy, of the current Presidential administration, turns a blind eye, to our historically profitable and empathic, policy, regarding, “want to be” American immigrants.  However, this writing relates to universal citizen education, and not to immigration.

Following the end of the shameful period of America’s enslavement of black people, a long and arduous journey was undertaken, by the government and its citizens, seeking to rectify that past evil.  (Judge Taney of SCOTUS, in the Dred Scott case, had once ruled, that a black person was, merely, “agricultural equipment”). To seek to rectify the many decades of proclaimed systemic evil of inequality, previously practiced by its white population against black America, virtually every aspect and venue of American life, required adjustment and reconfiguration. The most profound change, of course, was the long overdue recognition of the equality, dignity and worth of all citizens, regardless of color. As a practical, and necessary, concomitant to such newly recognized, legal and social status of black people, innumerable changes were required, regarding public as well as private life, which included, elimination of segregation from, water fountains, bathroom facilities, lunch counters, restaurants, busses, trains, employment, residency and military service. Significantly, all Americans have been recognized as sharing the franchise, to cast an equal vote, and, thereby, be a full participant in our Democracy. [Const. Amendment XV, (1870)]

A crucial predicate to restoring equal rights in the Nation, was that of equal education for all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity. Schools, like water fountains and residency, had traditionally been segregated, so that white and black students attended separate facilities. This state of affairs had been determined to be acceptable and legal, by (SCOTUS), provided the educational facilities were, “Separate but Equal”. Objective studies, however, revealed that the facilities, as well as the general quality of education, in black schools, were, demonstrably, below the level of white schools. Finally, in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark decision, Brown v. Board of Education, in an empirically determined ruling, held that “Separate is not equal,” and that all school segregation is unconstitutional.

During the many decades since the Brown case, there have been alleged instances of arguable segregation in the schools, whether apparent, or claimed existing, by indirect effect. The issue has, at times, been the subject of considerable legal contention. The bright lines drawn by the Brown decision, proved to be somewhat more difficult in their application, than in their clear intention and meritorious purpose.

A complicating factor in any effort to avoid segregated schools, can have its origin, in various contexts; often in demonstrated economic disparity. Statistics reveal far higher earnings and accumulated wealth among the white, as compared to black citizens. We do not care to hazard a sociological analysis of the causative factors (such as, starting late, viz., only after rescue from the servile condition of slavery, suffering decades of societal repression, educationally, or otherwise), however, there seems to be no demonstrable argument, disproving the existence of such general economic disparity. District school taxes, a vital source of revenue for suburban schools, are levied in the same manner as real estate taxes, viz., calculated upon the valuation (assessed, or market) of the real estate, in the respective community. As a consequence, it does not take a great leap of faith to deduce, that in the white and, generally, more affluent areas, containing more expensive houses, more revenue is paid into school taxes than in the less affluent areas. This, as a practical matter, results in better school facilities, teacher salaries and  materials, in  more affluent school districts, as compared to areas which are poorer, and, as reported, generally inhabited by minorities. We are tempted to presume, that this problem is a frequently occurring one, andto  conclude, that such prevalent economic inequality results in a predictable, but unintended existence of unequal education, as outlawed by SCOTUS in the Brown case. In such instances, apparently, economics, and not racial prejudice, is responsible for the resultant, illegal segregation of education.

Experience seems to show that solutions to economic issues, are more easily and satisfactorily attained, than age-old issues of prevailing, acculturate bigotry. In the absence of a more cogent solution, we would suggest a program of properly calculated and monitored, supplemental payments (perhaps by the Federal Government) to economically challenged school districts, to effect a general equalization of the quality of their education, with the more fortunate ones.

The above policy would refresh and update the legal and moral intent, as well as the continuance of the principle of the 1954 Brown case, and additionally, (in keeping with our initial observations) aid in the maintenance of a high level of strength, durability and quality, of the American Nation.