plinyblogdotcom

[N.B. We have responsibly chosen to express the following sentiments, despite our candid admission of limited knowledge concerning the digital sciences.]

The nightmare depicted in this writing is the inarguable epitome of that previously discussed phenomenon (# M.85, “Midsummer’s Nightmare”). We have often expressed our profound concern with the ubiquitous mechanization of human activities; most especially the psychological loss attributable to the popular substitution of natural interactive conversation for hand-held devices. We have held that the latter choice detracts from the assuring confirmation of identifiable personal contact and the interactively developmental dynamics of a stable and referable self-image. Sadly, we have been witness to expansive, exponential efforts toward the “improvement” of definitional human behavior by the conception of dehumanizing mechanized or robotic substitutional devices. Such advancements are an objective tribute to the ingenuity and creativity of the human mind; yet, we are gravely concerned by the thoughtless trade-off between facile convenience and the existential maintenance of Man’s singular and irreplaceable humanity.

We have but a modest understanding of the evolving digital environment and its ultimate implications for problem-solving but persist in a basic and essential fear of its ultimate potential for the elimination of the definitional characteristics of humankind, viz., rational thought, emotional dynamics, innate personal nuance, empathy, and aesthetic creativity. We are especially wary of the newly announced digital facility, known as “Artificial Intelligence.”

In our view, the assigned name for such a digital phenomenon is, arguably, an example of the literary-described phenomenon critically described as “oxymoronic.” Intelligence,” as we perceive it, is the resultant product of the appropriate exercise of human experience-based reason; while, the term, “Artificial Intelligence,” by contrast, as we are best able to discern, refers to a non-spontaneous mechanical or robotized system, digitally engineered to respond to presenting commands, as digitally instructed in advance, by its inventive creators.

The distasteful effect of “A-I” has already evidenced itself in the instantaneous, mechanical replication of classic sculpture, and its perverse use in the deceitful replication of the voices of well-known personalities, in copyright and general artistic infringement, and other fraudulent enterprises. Its potential for usefulness, in our view, is irrefutably outweighed by the ever-existing human potential for immoral, and corrupt application. At this early date, A-I has been employed to replicate and misappropriate creative popular art and writing, leading to an extensive amount of legal claims of artistic piracy pending in the Courts, instances of political “bad tricks” and worse, felonious fraud and deceit.

Our concern includes its ominous potential for the deceitful cheapening of the value of human artistic expression, by its facile replication is no less than one of anthropological immensity. We have viewed on television, with the greatest of alarm, the quick and efficient, mechanically made, exact replication of Michelangelo’s David, as if the, otherwise incomparable, classic creation were an item of mundane pottery.

We find most disturbing is the potential for digitally directed, ultra-efficient, non-humanistic functions which the robotic non-human devices will predictably, be asked to perform in decisional matters of illusive justice and equivocal morality. Inflexible and consistent efficiency is not universally in sync with the situational vagaries of human emotional and moral rectitude. A mechanically predictable pristine judiciary, lacking the consideration of the human, empathic qualities of specific nuance and extenuating circumstances, is a frightening prospect for the innocent as well as the guilty.

We conceivably might, positively, expect certain useful A-I benefits in various empirical undertakings such as, in pure science, medicine, industrial production, chemistry, and geological inquiry, but, yet possess the experientially based fear that positive advances are soon turned to nefarious ingenuity. Unmanned heavy bombers (“drones”) [ can you imagine an apocalyptic world where mankind has been destroyed, but warfare between drones and other robotic weapons cranks on?], criminal enterprises such as counterfeit, fraudulent production of purportedly valid documents, profitable acts of extortion based upon false yet “evidenced-based” demonstrations of wrongdoing, espionage and political dirty tricks, general criminal activity and other conceivable immoral facility, are predictable, based upon Man’s empirically disappointing history.

We have great difficulty in compliantly, assigning the term, “improvements” or “advancements” to the vast cornucopia of  Man’s ingenious developments purposed to make human activities easier, but, simultaneously, detract from the substitution or replication of the existential qualities that make him singular: his refreshing nuance, his capacity for the appreciation and creation of aesthetic art, his passions and capacity for love and empathy, his introspective quality, his joys, and pathetic sorrows, his weaknesses and strengths, in short, the features that comprise his singular humanity.

The price of digital capability and improved human convenience, as recently reported in the case of smartphones and our younger population, is prohibitive.

-p.

No contention presumably exists, relative to the universal understanding of the nocturnally occurring phenomenon, known as the “nightmare.” The ubiquitous understanding is that the noun connotes an unpleasant dream that evokes in the suddenly awakened sleeper, a strong emotional response of fear, anxiety, disgust or sadness. Such nighttime dynamics are understood to occur during a stage of deep sleep, clinically designated as “R.E.M.” (i.e. rapid eye movement) and, empirically, are anecdotal and commonplace occurrences. Our contextual phrase is also employed in adjectival, descriptive fashion, to describe a state of perceived threat occurring in daytime. It is the word, in such daytime context, that we thematically employ in this writing, to describe the “awakening” to a daytime-occurring, trauma.

The politically knowledgeable Founders of our Republican Democracy, ever mindful of the “nightmarish” history of “Old World” rule, by Monarch or Established Church, were motivated to avoid the centuries of injustices of autocratic rule. Their radical conception of a Nation, conceived to exemplify a Democratic Republic, “by and for the People,” was philosophically creative and benignly idealistic. They conceived of a polity with three separate branches, Executive, Legislative and Judicial, in lieu of one all-powerful Ruler, to exercise the respective obligations of government (“Separation of Powers”) imbuing each branch with the authority and duty, to limit the power of the other from the perceived excess of their constitutionally designated authority (“Checks and Balances”).

Notably, a foundational conceit of the Founders was, that in the new Nation, interested and informed citizens would, in responsible and collegial manner, debate the controversial issues of the day and that the debate results would dynamically influence government policy; thus, achieving their idealistically intended, aspiration of a “Rule, for and by the People.” Such wishful experiment did, however, have its doubters. Thomas Jefferson declared his concern by his prescient declaration, that for a democracy to succeed, it requires an educated and informed citizenry. Fellow Founder, Benjamin Franklin, in his famous response to an inquiry as to the nature of the government that the Founders had created, wisely responded, “A Republic, if we can keep it.”

In previous writings, we have noted the ultimate wisdom expressed by such cautionary remarks as we disappointedly observed a revelation of extant human character, contrary to the idealistic, anticipations of the paternal, 18^th Century wearers of white – powdered wigs, viz., our venerated “Founding Fathers.”

Before too long, the Nation awoke to a daylight “nightmarish” reality, antagonistic to the Founders’ conception of the working dynamics of representative government which would be guided in determinations by the outcome of informed citizen debate. The reality presented by said disturbing daytime nightmare demonstrated that diversity on political and social issues were not, as assumed, destined to be the subject of responsible civil debate, but instead, provided the nightmarish foundation for toxic, divisive conflict. Insular “group think” tribes arose in the Nation, which maintained an obdurate state of “Cold War” with other similarly- existing groups of divergent opinion.

Nor was such shocking realization the zenith of the toxic metastasis of the antagonistic nightmare. With the disastrous appearance of a demagogic, egocentric and amoral orange-haired night stalker, the existing nightmare attained the enhanced state of a recurring, 24- hour, quotidian duration, which, directly threatened the liberty and coveted lifestyle of the American citizenry, ironically, inclusive of his thoughtless and unaware, lemming-like, cultish supporters.

 In the presenting nightmare, no ugly blemish of revealed criminality, treason, serial mendacity nor immorality is deemed, by such numerous horde of ignorant, populist supporters, to constitute sufficient basis for his unacceptability to serve as America’s President. This persistent, daytime nightmare, which the concerned, mainstream American citizen is unable to “shake off,” is the very epitome of diurnal nightmarish trauma.

Nevertheless, the traditionally resourceful American citizenry can predictably improve the quality of both his sleep and his daytime comfort by their resolute exercise of the Nation’s historically storied character and by dynamically cancelling the presenting, diurnal nightmare by voting wisely in the coming Presidential election, next November.

-p.

 *Thanks to Will Shakespeare for the amended use of the name, “Midsummer Night’s Dream.”

The recent grotesque (televised) view of the signing of an atavistic Louisiana Bill, mandating the exhibition at schools of the Biblical “Ten Commandments,” was witnessed by an entourage of perversely smiling, victorious “believers;” who, doubtlessly, and reductively, persisted in an ignorance of their earthly, material existence in a constitutional democracy. Their “other-worldly” and un-American accomplishment, was emblematic of the species of evangelical reductionism and resultant bias, which wreaked centuries of misery in the “Old World;” that America’s wise and prescient Founders, dedicated themselves to avert. Any cursory review of our Nation’s constitution will reveal the notable absence of reference to a Deity. In contrary fact, the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment, clearly and specifically, prohibits Congress from enacting any law, aiding or prohibiting the exercise of religion. It may well require more than another half-century and the expenditure of prodigious time and effort, despite the plethora of specifically mandated judicial precedent, that such evangelical wearers of horse blinders, exemplified by those deluded, joyfully celebrating souls in Louisiana, to fully process.

It is entirely conceivable that the “good folks” of the Cajun State were episodically emboldened by the recently unveiled immoral decline and corruption of SCOTUS by the shocking revelation of its unethical and irresponsible catering to the influential religious lobby in its recent determinations; the most impactful of which is the reversal of the significant precedent, established one-half century ago in Roe versus Wade. The referenced Cajun “faithful” may conceivably have been marching confidently with a recently acquired sense of principled support and encouragement, derived from the biased, Justice Alito’s brazenly revealed, symbolic, and grossly inappropriate, partisan flags.

Pragmatic social consideration would suggest that determined beliefs generally, should remain privately held, as an assurance of social concord with others of potentially differing points of view, en famille or publically. Such considerate and tactful sensitivity appears to have been universally banished from consideration by the determined, mono-focused evangelical religionist. The latter breed of individuals, it seems, seek to bask in some felt, self-generated impression of spiritual devotion and religious virtue, by intruding their nuanced views and shared religious beliefs on others, peaceably or by force. This neurotically undertaken obligation has provided the foundation for Man’s bulging cornucopia of historical cruelty; including pogroms and inquisitions, especially rife in the appropriately, branded, European “Dark Ages.” The phenomenon of religious belief, as wisely expressed by our Founding Fathers, is relegated to the determination of the citizen and not a matter of government.

In light of the universal understanding of the bright distinction between “fact” and “faith,” it boggles the mind to comprehend the eternal basis for the tragic results of the existential and insane need of one group, bearing its nuanced choice of faith, to convince others of a different mindset to share in their faith-based and non-factual beliefs. Untold tragedy and millions of gallons of human blood have been lost due to this neurotic need for the imposition of uniformity of irrational belief.

Humankind’s time is certainly far better and most productively spent on rational, enlightened, and useful aspirations to advance and improve the empirical quality of life, as opposed to a biased and tragic “group-think” cause, regarding uniform adherence to some identified, non-empirical ideation.

  –p.

To be clear, we would initially declare our wholehearted support for Man’s ubiquitous inclination for self-expression by his creation of art, of every genre. Such natural inclination evidences an inclination to the metaphysical contemplation of himself and his environment and is in redemptive contrast to his historically demonstrated inclination to violent and aggressive behavior. Art and music, by contrast, reveal the spiritually creative and contemplative side of Homo Sapiens, whatever may be the form of its aesthetic or analytic expression.

We, ourselves, have been engaged in the extracurricular art of writing poetry and prose for the purpose of expressive inclination of the perceptive nature of our persona and naturally accord great value to all of the diverse forms of aesthetic communication of thought and perception. It has added significant value to our life, in terms of enrichment and effective communication. Notwithstanding such declarations, we have often experienced feelings of incomprehension regarding certain singular styles of aesthetic expression, and have continued to be candidly and unashamedly, at a loss as to their intended message and acknowledged value.

As specific examples, candidly we seem to persist in our inability to understand the recognized accomplishment and monetary value of Rothko paintings, often consisting, simply, of adjacent swaths of color, or Andy Warhol’s artwork evincing multiple, slightly varied, faces of Marilyn Monroe, or simply, his depiction of a can of Campbell’s soup. The highly priced Dali paintings of limply bent alarm clocks with a distorted background, and the numerous, Jasper Johns’ varied images of the American Flag, may, indeed, be priceless to more knowledgeable collectors, but exist as bizarre conundrums to us. Still, they serve to represent the positive value of Man and his artistic creativity.

Our analogous proclivity and engagement in art appreciation, we trust, having been analogously imparted, we would now turn to the contextual subject of this essay, concerning the musical genre.

We have eternally relished the great pleasure of good music, at special times in concert halls and more frequently at home. The miraculous sound of great music has occupied a prominent venue in our enjoyment of life. The sound of music has been worshipped by us from the elegant and uniform tempos of the early “Baroque” period, through the dramatically expressed “Classical” Era, the less disciplined and emotionally more expressive, “Romantic” period, the more dramatic Modern Classical” and freer, less formally structured “Modern” genres. All of the historic stages of music represent the best of the human inclination to a creative, aesthetic, and peaceful nature. We have also enjoyed all musical genres from the engaging beat and mellifluous harmonies of Gospel Music, the exciting tempo and themes of jazz, big band and modern, rock and roll, choral (including sacred) music, folk, pop and show tunes, in short, every species of musical composition, but, nevertheless are troubled by one; the latter constituting the salient theme of this writing, “hip-hop” or “rap” music.

As we are able to comprehend, “rap” music consists of a dominant, recurring beat pattern, as constant background for a rapid, slangy, sometimes angry and assertive, loosely rhyming, street banter intoned by the vocalist. As observed, the ideas and themes often expressed, include assertive narratives, boasts, political and social expression, and ideological personal principles.

While we acknowledge that the contextual genre is a recognized category within the ubiquitous categories of music, analogous to the phenomenon of the varied, referenced, forms of painted art of which we cannot find aesthetic comprehension, we are similarly unable to discern an aesthetic popular and a credible basis for its highly rewarded nature. There is in rap, the total absence of melody, harmony, or noticeable instrumental proficiency; only a repetitive tattoo accompanying strident and rapid, assertive declarations. Our lifetime experience with music, classic, folk, or pop, has eternally featured a less, highly prominent beat, and melody, musically thematic content, harmonies and their aesthetic variations. In rap, there seems to be only the steady, unvarying beat and a series of assertive, at times, loosely rhyming, aggressive emotional assertions.

It would be appreciated by us and conceivably, to others, if the aesthetic musical character of “rap music,” were revealed to us, and other like recipients of such enlightenment.

-p.

There have been times in our lives when the confirmations of our prognostication gives but little pleasure. One such instance presently exists regarding our often-expressed fear of societal damage proximately brought about by the facile use of “smartphones,” as a universal substitute for personal interactive conversation (in person or by telephone). Last evening, on the news media, we saw and heard America’s learned and elegant Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, relate the ubiquitous harm, especially to the young, caused by the exclusive use of such devices. He cited the alarming growth among America’s children in the advent and incidence of mental problems, specifically, depression and anxiety.

Since the advent of “plinyblog.com,” we have often expressed the felt insalubriousness in the decline of natural and societal, interpersonal communication. We have been consistently fearful lest the alternate, facile transmission of electronic messages, to another’s small lighted screen, often at a future and non-contextual time, would be an inadequate emotional substitute for spontaneous interaction; lacking the latter’s nuanced voice recognition, authenticity and spontaneity of relevant response. As confirmed by the Nation’s Surgeon General, we were sadly prescient.

However, Dr. Murthy seemed, strangely, to confine his observations to the subject of the “content” of social media and its verifiably unhealthy impact upon our young citizens; whose universally, idiosyncratic mode of contemplating reality and outlet for interactive expression appears to be limited to the cold and impersonal language and depiction of factual reality as manually transmitted to their hand-held smartphone. Unrealistic aspirations for such advertised physical appearances and capabilities, as electronically portrayed, he correctly observed, is a reliable source for the observable plethora of disappointed and depressive incidents.

It has been our (non-professional) view, however, that the etiology of the inarguably, increased depressive and anxiety syndrome has, indeed, a far more profound and deeper metaphysical basis than the stated unhealthy outcomes brought about by computer program “content.”

It is our understanding that fundamental, person-to-person, interactive communication is an existential need for Man living in society. It has the merit of the preservation of the necessary dynamics of society and, as well, the basis of the identity, public and internal (self-image) of its members. It has eternally been our presumption that the individual derives his self-image, or felt personal identity, in great part, from the derivative perception of an interactive and empirically based reaction to himself, by the other members of his community.

To the extent that the personal awareness of a utilitarian, identified and referable self (self-image) remains undeveloped, the individual is emotionally, rootless and rudderless in a singularly insecurely perceptive confinement and veritable oasis from others. He is out of societal sync and insecure. The unwise choice of impersonal electronic signals to the detriment of personal contact and verbal exchange is undoubtedly responsible for the resultant feelings of isolation and lonely despair.

While we are in indisputable accord with the Surgeon General’s attribution of the alarming exponential increase in cases of depression and anxiety (especially among the youth) by virtue of the employment of the subject, cold and inexpressive devices, in lieu of salubrious personal conversation, we are of the considered view that the causation goes far beyond his attribution of the irresponsibility of content, to this basic, metaphysical dysfunction of the societal Homo Sapiens.  

 –p.

*Merci, for the use of the above title, to the sociological novelist David Riesman.

Our nightmare occurs, perforce at night,
Long prior to the arrival of Morpheus
A disturbing sound like unravelling wool
Dynamically triggered by the thought-free turn
Of an inviting pillow to its cooler side.
The martial tattoo of tandem boots
Trampling on our assured humanity
Then, paralyzed by hapless fear
We sadly note the synchronized sounds
Of freedom’s well knitted sleeve, trodden down,
By the march of errant humanity.

Our precious sleeve of human liberty
Man’s nuanced ecological niche on Earth
Will remain comfortably and justly knit
As long as we stay wakeful and vigilant
Lest Tyrant and tyranny prevail.
-p.
Leonard N. Shapiro 6/17/24 (Kingston, N.Y.)

The World has witnessed the abhorrent, barbarous attack on Israel by Hamas, the kidnapping of its citizens, and the tactically planned retreat to tunnels constructed under Palestinian Hospitals. It is cognizant that the same was thus planned so that by empirical necessity, the predictable retribution could only be exacted against its intended “shield” of innocent Gazans; thereby incurring the enmity of Israel by its supporting nations. Nonetheless, we have expressed our empathic opposition to the extent of the disproportionate suffering, thus wreaked upon innocent Gazan civilians by the retaliatory action of the right-wing, Netanyahu government.

We have previously observed the significant number of loudly protesting students at our Nation’s Universities, responsive to America’s financial support of the Israeli retaliation and desire to articulate certain relevant and contextual facts.

We fully support the constitutional right of citizens to peacefully protest, yet, we have often observed in university student demonstrations, a measure of elemental sophomoric and reductive motivation, innately catalyzed by a quixotic, youthful, and myopic impatience for resolution. To be especially abhorred, contextually, is the possible element of prejudicial expression; in this case, anti-Semitism. Admittedly, there are meritorious reasons to protest the present contextual events on a humanistic and empathic basis, but little merit in reductive, sophomoric, and, most especially, prejudicial motivation. The following facts may be deemed worthy of useful and temperate consideration.

Hamas is universally known to be a political and military Islamic movement, governing, by strict authoritarian force, parts of the Gaza Strip since 2007. It has long dedicated itself to the elimination of the State of Israel and thereby rule “from Sea to Sea.” Its extensive history of suicide and rocket attacks against Israel has caused it to be officially categorized by several Nations as a “terroristic organization.” We have shockingly observed some misguided students holding hand-held signage, declaring blatant support for Hamas, identified as the alleged, “wronged party;” notwithstanding its unjustified act of aggression and cruel and barbaric acts against the State of Israel. The same is an obvious empirical distortion of objectively verified reality. Hamas is to be especially, detested for its pathologically inhuman tactics in causing innocent Palestinians, to serve as human “Shields,” absorbing the predictable retaliation.

The international incident has provided a measure of tactical fodder (in addition to bigots of innately systemic ideation), for inadequately uninformed anti-Semites to publicly criticize and attack Jewish Americans. The media has reported on the covert phenomenon of motivated “agitators” catalyzing hatred among the ranks of enthusiastic student protestors. This sad phenomenon demonstrates the very zenith of reductive prejudice; American Jews, like their Italian, French and Irish neighbors are American citizens, and likewise, not citizens of Italy, France and Ireland. Generally, they are supportive of the State of Israel and yet a great many oppose the Netanyahu government’s overreaction. 

We have disturbingly noted that public outrage and student demonstrations are discernably selective. By illustration, where was the public outcry or loud university student demonstrations at the egregious events of the Dresden carpet bombing during the Second World War (with the exception of the Kurt Vonnegut novel, “Breakfast of Champions”)? In this context, we do not recall any such responses perforce, to our Nation’s horrendous acts of nightmarish nuclear cremations of the heavily populated Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Truman Administration

The constitutional right to peacefully petition is democratically appropriate and useful when exercised in the right context and with requisite understanding.

-p.    

---

It would uniformly seem to be the case, that slogans which purport to articulate grandiose and idealized purposes, empirically reveal themselves, before too long, to be tactically false and deceitful. The admirably worded movement name, “Right to Life,” defies its avowed moral existence by religiously protecting the human fetus while, inconsistently manifesting its steadfast opposition to governmental assistance to the needy child, following birth. Analogously perverse is the deceptively altruistic and motivational Trump movement calling itself, “Make America Great Again;” which attacks the constitution, the democratic definitional franchise to vote, as well as the latter’s tabulated accuracy, and the basics of the dynamic architecture of the Nation’s constitutional government, the societal rule of law and Man’s existential moral compass.
Commencing with the publicly advertised emergence into the political scene of the former President, Donald J. Trump, the Nation has experienced an inarguably worrisome decline of traditional American values, inclusive of democracy’s definitional vote, and the objective integrity of elections. It has, among other evils, led to an unconstitutional surrender to the influence of the religious lobby, inducing SCOTUS to determine the tragic criminalization of a woman’s private right of abortion. Unfortunately, the referenced political rise of the egocentrically, orange-haired dyed, author and proponent of the compellingly idealistic, but tactical and shamefully false, slogan has, together with the support of a substantial cult of ignorant populists, given rise to the bizarre, nightmarish menace of an unspeakable transmogrification of our uniquely liberal Democratic Republic, to that of a fascistic autocracy in the manner of Russia, China and Hungary. In previous writings, we have made considerable reference to the multifarious instances of Trump’s miscreant actions as former President, resulting in the citizens’ decline in personal liberty and increase in disrespect for the rule of law. Liberty loving American citizens have expressed their fear that were Trump elected to another term of the Presidency, the Nation will have, thereby, endangered our Democratic Republic, and rendered plausibly possible an autocratic polity as expressly declared by Donald J. Trump.
We would, respectfully, express our views as to the need for certain existentially vital alterations of our Nation’s current policies and practices intended on the prevention of a tragic transmogrification of our laudable Democratic Republic to a despotic State, as promised by Donald J. Trump. The following (five) highlighted proposals, of which the reader may be cognizant, have been expressed in earlier writings.

[1] Vetting of candidates for President and Vice President:
In our view, it appears to be no less than bizarre that applicants for mundane employment, such as office clerks and shoe salesmen are obliged to seek approval at a mandatory initial interview by a representative of the prospective employer, yet prospective candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the most powerful and consequential Nation on the planet, escape this pragmatic pre-requisite. Such a grotesque head of State, like the inimitable, Donald J. Trump, could thereby be identified and filtered out, for the good of our Democratic Republic and its citizens. We are confident that a modern Nation, capable of soil studies on planet Mars, is fully capable of construing a way to designate an appropriately qualified and impartial panel, taxed with this existentially important, prophylactic duty.
[2] Elimination of the Electoral College:
Notably inconsistent with the publicly avowed and definitional democratic right of citizens to vote, the President and Vice-President are, instead, selected by an official board, known as the “Electoral College.” The latter is comprised of members respectfully allocated to each State. It is notable that the American people, contrary to their National slogan of “one man, one vote,” do not choose the President and Vice President; instead, the Electoral College selects the President and his V.P. by the vote of the right combination of States, albeit without necessarily a majority of the popular vote. History indicates that in the years, 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016, Presidents were selected by the Electoral College, contrary to the results of the popular vote. This procedure is inarguably, antithetical to the foundational democratic concept of popular election and warrants elimination.

[3] Presidential Pardons:
In a Nation that prides itself on the principle of legal equality, the atavistic, Monarchial privilege of arbitrary Presidential pardon, should be eliminated and swept into the dust bin of history. If deemed necessary, Congress might legislate an alternative procedure, nevertheless, based upon a fair hearing and a requisite showing of objective, pre- established criteria, justifying such forgiveness. Such a change would tend to increase citizen faith in the universally applicable equality of the Rule of Law.

[4] Immigration:
It may be pragmatically possible to eliminate the roiling populist “Immigration Problem” in a way, mutually beneficial to the Nation and to the plentitude of immigrants, fleeing danger and in personal need, seeking entrance to the United States.
We would begin with a widespread attempt to eliminate xenophobic bigotry often based upon the misguided perception, catalyzed by MAGA propaganda, that “recent immigrants” are undesirables. Instead, we should rationally and empathically see them, as were our forebears, seeking a safer and healthier family existence. It would appear to be selfish and morally ungrateful for those of a Nation, inarguably inhabited by the descendants of immigrants, to withhold from others the life-saving opportunity granted to our forebears. Humanism and empathy ought not morally evaporate at the Nation’s southern border. In fact, as stated, our view is that the subject “problem”, is capable of being solved in a creative manner; to the mutual benefit of the immigrant and the American Nation.
Those of us who have experienced a cross-country flight will visually recollect that there exist thousands of square miles of arid, unproductive territory, notably, in the Southwestern United States. Initially, prospective immigrants might be temporarily housed, while being processed, in constructed, livable quarters, just South of the border. Of those who are admitted, many may voluntarily consent to an arrangement whereby they are granted a parcel of land in one of the western unused, arid venues, to be employed at government salaries, in building residential areas, with developed sources of water as well as future places of commerce. Such a program would be analogous to the 1948 reclamation of the Sinai Desert by the fugitive European immigrants to the State of Israel; now itself, a major player in the commercial flower business. Their residential towns, which would supersede the necessary temporary residences, pending their completion and occupation, might be built with the assistance of non-immigrants, if necessary. The result would, mutually, benefit the immigrated families (home and monetary income) as well as the Nation (restoration of the formerly valueless wasteland to a positive increase in value and gross national product, taxes, military service and otherwise.) This inventive and pragmatic conception would effectively and usefully, convert a heart- braking and acrimoniously divisive problem, to an appropriate and universally winning solution.

[5] SCOTUS REFORM:
Recent unexpected revelations concerning certain identified Justices sitting on the historically revered Supreme Court of The United States (“SCOTUS”), makes exigently necessary a reappraisal of the criteria for the appointment, performance and (lifetime) term of its constituent Justices. This constitutionally established Judicial Third Branch of our polity’s constitutional architecture, was established as the ultimate overseer of the Nation’s constitutional promise of equal and impartial justice. The High Court by its historic succession of exemplary jurists, had previously earned the respect and confidence of the Nation noting its responsibly wise and impartial decisions on many major determinative issues by the fiduciary determinations of such venerated Justices as, Holmes, Brandeis, Brennan and Cardozo.
As observed in a previous essay, [M. 71, “Bright Sunlight on Dirty Linen,”] commencing in the year 2000 with the historically, perverse and unprecedented, SCOTUS decision to accept cases of a political nature (Bush v. Gore), in precedential conflict with the constitutionally prescribed, “Separation of Powers,” the High Court has suffered an observable decline in historical and ethical responsibility, ultimately resulting in an inappropriate, partisan appointment of many Justices, receptive to the interest and influence of big business and religious interests..
Justice Samuel Alito, the author and major proponent of the Supreme Court decision, overturning its half-century affirmance of the natural right of women to seek abortion, has publicly revealed himself as catering to the interest of the evangelical religious lobby, resulting in the suffering and tragedy in the lives of countless American citizens. Moreover, Samuel Alito has been shown himself to be assertively proud of his previously concealed support of the White, Christian Nationalist movement by brazenly flying the signature flags of the 1/6 insurrectionists on his two properties. This undeniable assertion of personal support for such anti-democratic causes is flagerantly analogous to a referee at a well-attended soccer game, wearing the signature shirt of one of the contesting teams.
Another such egregious example of moral lapse in fiduciary and ethical responsibility of SCOTUS, is the recent revelation that Justice Clarence Thomas has been the shamelessly immoral recipient of millions of dollars of financial gifts from an identified billionaire who has a major interest in matters coming before SCOTUS. To put “icing” on the reprehensible “cake,” Thomas is married to, and reportedly influenced by, a right-wing politically influential spouse, supportive of the January 6, 1923 insurrection.

We can do better and proudly resume the singing of the praises of a proud and exemplary Nation.
-p.

                     

We, like many mainstream American citizens, share a feeling of mystery concerning the underlying basis for the apparently, large populist following of a repugnant personality such as the former President, Donald J. Trump. In past writing, we. for lack of a more cogent explanation, have suggested that his appeal was based upon the confluence of two factors, the populist eternal grievance and discontent, arguably, due to a less than satisfying life (the causes of which are projected to government, and others) and second, feelings of personally needed redemption, subjectively derived from a reductive perception of his miscreant statements and actions signifying that he was, in their behalf, “showing the middle finger” to the objectionable establishment.

While, to an extent, such conception may warrant a respectable degree of empirical validity, we are of the view that an alternate societal explanation may deserve a greater degree of verisimilitude. Viz., the desire for the personal security derived from a communally designated and accepted niche (“branding”), in the “group think,” of their social milieu.

It seems inconceivable to presume that such a substantial portion of the American population would, rationally and pragmatically, choose to be in his corner. It is reasonably predictable that, if  asked, few if any of Trump’s plethora of sycophants would, candidly express  personal approval of his serial acts of  adultery with porn stars and prostitutes, his serial mendacity, his treasonous friendship with autocratic leaders of countries known to be enemies of America, tactical opposition to “truth,” his opposition to governmental assistance to the needy, his denigration of military service, specifically, his designation of wartime, captured, wounded and killed American servicemen as “losers” or “suckers,” his large tax cuts and self-interested acts of favoritism towards the rich, his opposition to labor unions and to health and safety regulations regarding labor, food, water and medicine, his illegal and unprincipled use of the Presidential office to deceitfully garner unconstitutional profit, his opposition to free trade economic policies, the latter subjects, resulting in increased employment  and cheaper prices; all of which are matters of vital interest to the classic populist; as well as the demonstrated inventory of ubiquitous unprofessional and criminal acts to the extreme extent of treason against the United States.

There exists no conceivable possibility of a confluence of political or economic theory since, as shown, neither Trump nor his cultish followers have, empirically demonstrated the slightest degree of interest or motivation by political or economic theory and any doctrinaire mind-set. Trump’s own reductive persona is guided by no stimulus other than his neurotic egocentricity; his MAGA adherents are motivated by personally perceived grievance and mutual alliance.

Our contextual presumption is that his large coordinated following is due to empirically derived, or inherited adherence to nuanced social expectations, i.e., “branding.”

Regarding those individuals who lack the contemplative inclination or capacity to have developed a stable and referable self-image (in our view, accumulatively derived from inter-personal interaction), the assigned,  or established, personal identity of the brand-identified MAGA cult populist appears to  express itself in the coordinate, acceptable “group-think,” choices;  personal identity and acceptance is existentially dependent upon conformity with the group’s joint endorsement of Donald J. Trump.

During our childhood in the Borough of Brooklyn, New York, it was no less than the commission of mortal sin to be branded a Yankee (Bronx) fan, rather than a booster of the Brooklyn Dodgers. We are identifiably known (‘branded”) by our personal choices. Is one, predictably, a drinker of coffee or tea? “Coke” or “Pepsi?” Do you favor savory or sweet menu choices? Vanilla or Chocolate? baseball or football, or both? Do you favor government authority or unrestricted liberty? Your publicly expressed position on issues of immigration, police, global warming, gun control, racial relations, formal education, the death penalty, women’s rights, environmental concerns, sports, labor unions, agricultural parity, military superiority, charity, arts and education, vaccination church and state, voting equity, racial and religious equality, work ethic, economic disparities, gender issues, marijuana use are singularly identified by your publicly assigned and accepted branding, whether or not consistent with your differentiated personal view. In such context, there is perceived to be, too much at personal stake to campaign or vote in accordance with a held, divergent opinion. The less taxing (and less principled), easiest and pragmatic route is to express your support to the candidate consistent with the group’s perception of your compliant brand.

Supporting a person for political office, founded upon one’s neurotic need for group social acceptance, rather than the candidate’s individual attributes, is a sad reflection of one’s equivocal self-image and, as well, an unhealthy exercise of existential irresponsibility respecting our precious and uniquely free, yet vulnerable, Democratic Republic.

-p.

For purposes of clarity and economy of expression, we would begin this writing with a small, but relevant glossary of terms:
“Shiva” is a Hebrew word, meaning “seven,” and referring to seven days of formalized mourning by the members and close friends of the deceased. “Desecration” is depriving something of its sacred character or the disrespectful, contemptuous or destructive treatment of something considered sacred or holy. “Memorial Day,” is a yearly National holiday, honoring Americans who have lost their lives in military service to the Nation. Many American citizens additionally mark the somber, commemorative occasion as the official calendar advent of Summer.
This year’s Memorial Day was observed on Monday, May 27, 2024. It is instructive to note that the justly reviled ex-President, Donald J. Trump, was not included among its sober celebrants. In addition to his officially determined guilt and publicly acknowledged, perpetrator of multifarious crimes against the nation and his empirically demonstrated absence of moral compass, he desecrated the patriotic memorial by publicly declaring, in many instances, that killed, maimed, or captured prisoners of war are simply and dispassionately, “losers;” One such Trump maligned and desecrated “loser” was the late Arizona Senator John McCain, a valiant air force bomber pilot, captured and imprisoned in a Hanoi military prison where he underwent painful torture and famously refused an “out of order” release. “McCain was a loser,” declared the then, plainly execrable former orange-dyed, egocentric in chief; whose pathologically syndromic charge of “rigged,” deceitfully avoided military service by an apparent confluence of influential intercession and the assertion of a petty claim to a “bone spur” in his heel.
Millions of Americans who. having lost fathers, brothers, and sons in our Nation’s efforts to protect our Democratic Republic from the dreaded scourge of tyranny, have been haplessly privy to the shameless and determinate proclamations of that draft-dodging, egoistic, former President,( and caterer to our autocratic enemy leaders) that, if elected, he will be a “dictator;” mindless of the many Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect and preserve our democratic way of life. Memorial Day, one would assume, based upon Trump’s public declaration of his sentiments, is a day in wasted, “celebration of losers.”
This contextually chosen and highlighted facet of one of the multi-faceted features of Trump’s non-empathic, ego-oriented lust for Nazi-style power, should be sufficient in itself, to reject the orange pathological, egomaniac from holding office; notwithstanding the substantially recited plentitude of additional, shamelessly immoral and substantive grounds for objection, recited in our previous writings.
-p.