plinyblogdotcom

Albert Einstein’s iconic and erudite, “Law of Relativity,” is universally acknowledged as a genius-inspired, breakthrough physical theory, analytically expressed in mathematical language. Our thematic use of the altered name, by astronomic contrast, is our mundane expression of a serious critique of the practice of subjective perception of individuals and the nature of the resultant expectation and evaluative judgment, based thereon. In our view, the attribution of facilely perceived persona as a predictable factor in the subjective expectation of behavior is foundationally and disturbingly ignorant, and potentially causative of injustice and injury.

In the reader’s everyday life, he may possess feelings of expectation, based upon his established perception of others as, for example, trustworthy, truthful, skilled, adventurous, or generally lazy; and base his expectations and subsequent evaluation of their behavior upon such perception.  Such assumptions, based on past, recollected perceptions of inclination may well not result in their confirmation. Reliance upon such pre-established expectations may be misleading and lead to disappointment and costly error.

The errant practice of purely subjective, empirically unsupported judgmental standards, founded in such arbitrary and subjective conceptions of others, too often, results in the maintenance of unfair, inconsistent judgmental criteria, based on such prior perceptions and consequent expectations. In the interest of societal fairness as well as individual justice, moral, legal, and uniform standards regarding behavioral acts appropriately, should be universally defined and not subject to individualized, relative criteria. The expectations concerning the character and behavior of John Gotti, metaphysically, should be identical to those of Fred Rogers. Yet, should John Gotti publicly filch an apple from a fruit stand, the petty theft would not invite much noticeable attention. In contextual contrast, the identical indiscretion by “Mr. Rogers” would unquestionably summon an impact of astronomical proportion.

We are greatly disturbed, but not unduly surprised, to see such contextually unjust dynamics in blatant operation in the Presidential contention between Joseph Biden and Donald J. Trump. It should not be necessary to recount Trump’s overfull cornucopia of felonious behavior; one perhaps less deadly, but conceivably, more numerous than Mr. Gotti.  Trump’s serial mendacity, lack of moral compass, disrespect for the U.S. Constitution, and the established rule of law, egocentric lack of empathy, traitorous liaisons with autocratic leaders of the Nation’s enemies, incitement a9nd support of an insurrection,  numerous indictments and jury determinations of guilt, shameful and illegal bribes to keep secret his regular commerce with “call girls,” the list of “horribles” is virtually endless; accordingly, the expectations of virtuous acts and acceptable performance are geologically low. His daily “gaffs” errors, convoluted thinking and sporatically faulty memory seem so numerous and regular as to have caused  no surprise.. One cannot omit mention that his twice impeached, shameful four-year term as President produced no benefit, but only harm and international embarrassment to the Nation. There would appear to be no gaff in memory, misstatement, or indiscretion that would excite notable shock.

However, it seems that the ubiquitous invocation of our recited, “Flaw of Relativity,” viz., the unfair, reductive establishment of nuanced, prior expectation and consequent nuanced, subjective determination of capability, has persuaded some citizens, that poor performance, on one televised occasion, despite the unwavering  standard of performance applicable to the established reputation for capability, of Joseph Biden, is evidence of his aged incapability. Biden’s problem, as starkly compared to Trump, is the flawed, unwavering expectation of his absolute and  perfect  demonstration of proven capability making his evaluation, unjustly, more demanding than his despicable, incapable, and autocratic opponent.

In addition to being inequitable and misleadingly erroneous, the “Flawed Theory of Relativity,” would by its irrational dynamics, invariably, and erroneously, result in subjective determinations of success and approval to reputed morons and abysmal failure to the less-than-perfect-reputedly intelligent individual.

-p.

---

 

Of the two inarguably most notable American Holidays, July 4^th, “Independence Day,” is the more iconic, the other being the traditional celebration of “Thanksgiving. The latter is ubiquitously recognized and celebrated in a symbolic, cultural-historical context, the former, in addition to being, by contrast, empirically based, is notably meaningful, as a definitional expression of the systemic American desire for liberty and freedom of expression.  

The stereotypical, July Fourth holiday is celebrated amid the company of family, neighbors, and friends engrossed in a mutually convivial backyard experience, attending to the smoking barbeque, drinking beer gossiping, and enjoying an interactive social experience. In most cases, little time is devoted to thoughts of Colonial America or the contextual events of the holiday, the War of Independence against the tyrannical rule of an English Monarch. The Nation’s inherently secure character and political dynamics are ordinarily not productive of any relevant impetus to discuss the academic subject of our National polity nor empirical infringement of citizens’ legally (constitutionally) assured liberty.

By major and disconcerting contrast, this July Fourth Holiday is convened amid an evident and disturbing atmosphere bespeaking the precarious state of our assumed, traditional rights and liberties as citizens of the American Nation. The recent rise to power of an autocratic, opponent of American democracy and way of life has, together with his numerous hordes of populist pro-fascist cultish followers, launched a frighteningly successful attack upon our Democratic Republic, it, constitution, Rule of Law, and basic imperatives of the societal moral compass; the copious enumeration of which, inclusive of election denial and armed violent insurrection, detailed in past writings are ominously, well known. Also, well-known is Trump’s public declaration to be a dictator and wreak punitive revenge on his political opponents. On this Independence Day, it has unexpectedly become relevant to comprehend the danger to the freedoms and way of life won from the encumbering chains of autocracy by the holiday’s celebrated colonials. 

Freedom-loving American citizens need to challengingly match the bullying dynamics of the MAGA reactionaries, by better expressing the existential need of the Democratic Republic for concentrated and aggressive support. Our frustrated observation has eternally been that the mainstream, freedom-loving citizen has, notably been far less overt and publicly demonstrative in his support of democracy than  Trump’s outspoken conglomeration of underbelly populists and special interest beneficiaries. Our celebrated American way of life cannot endure if we condone or tolerate the loud and assertive Nazi-style threat of Trump and his loyal snake pit of historically offensive and toxic followers.

Even the least observant of American citizens is obliged to take note of Biden’s four years of admittedly superior performance (as chief executive in the pandemic end, in its subsequent economic recovery, record employment, inflation reduction, infrastructure development, tax relief to life-long tuition debtors, support of women’s, gender, and civil rights, and objective dedication to the American system of law (N.B. Hunter Biden prosecution), support of the attacked Ukraine, and many other commendable accomplishments, not to mention his decent and empathetic persona) as compared with the dismal, immoral and embarrassing prior Presidential term of Donald Trump.  We are no less than astounded at the inappropriate, and foolishly suicidal, self-immolating activity of the (apparently, naïve, hapless) Democratic Party in its engagement in its present public, intra-party, controversy as to the mental capability of Biden to continue to serve as America’s top executive; based upon a relatively inconsequential lousy performance on the overly discussed Presidential debate. (see: # 87 “Televised Sports”).

In an election in which the continued existence of the democratic Nation and the American way of life is mortally threatened by a proven perverse candidate whose neurotic egocentrism has been evilly demonstrated and specifically enunciated in his avowed declaration of intention to be a Dictator, how can any rational campaign concentrate on the (empirically disproven) possibility of its candidate’s capabilities. We are certain that the giggling underbelly supporters of the dangerously incompetent Trump are truly loving it.

We are disappointed, amazed, and undeniably, not loving it.

-p.   

From a purely theoretical standpoint, the Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential (read: “Trump’s”) immunity confirms the empirical observation that our Nation affirmatively entirely qualifies for designation as a “free market economy.” Perceiving the transactional nature of such a decision, from a political and constitutional context, it appears, irrefutably, revelatory of the High Court’s cataclysmic sell-out and shameless betrayal of the very foundational theme of our Democratic Republic, as conceived by our Founders and subsequently implicit in our Nation’s systemic history.

It requires little argument to declare that defined principles, existentially definitive of our uniquely conceived and democratically dedicated Nation, have notably related to citizen equality; as opposed to the unjust history of European class status. The latter, visibly, was zealously avoided by the intent expressed in the provisions of the First Ten and the Fourteenth Amendments, subsequently confirmed by consistent, judicial precedent.

The conception of a tri-partite governmental architecture, to respectively share governmental power, viz., Executive (President), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (SCOTUS), denominated, as the “Separation of Powers,” each with the right to restrain the excessive practice of power of the other, is a matter of constitutional history, and, in a similar fashion not require argumentative support. The wisely-conceived experiment, with certain later, historical mishaps, arguably due to the innate infirmities of the universal human psyche, proved to be pragmatically useful, albeit, somewhat, still aspiring to the goal of principled improvement.

We recall a contextually instructive episode from Ernest Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises,” in which one character asks another, “How did you go bankrupt?’ The response: “At first, gradually, then, suddenly.” It would seem pragmatically impossible to cite the innumerable instances in which the Hemingway quote, (seemingly mundane, but on contemplation, one of empirical universality. On an unrelated subject, we hope it will not prove applicable to the already roiling indicia of a global warming catastrophe. However, we are sadly inclined to confirm the dynamic applicability of the quoted statement to the disastrous and disheartening downward transmogrification of the previously venerated, Supreme Court of the United States.

Until SCOTUS’s anomalous acceptance and disposition of the case of Bush v. Gore, in the year 2000, the High Court was universally perceived as a learned institution, especially exemplified by its fiduciary responsibility to ensure consistent precedential justice. As prescribed in the Constitution and the American rule of law. To comply with the constitutionally mandated, status of the “Separation of Powers,” it was a necessary prerequisite that SCOTUS’s acceptance of a case was dependent upon a showing by the aspiring applicant (by “Writ of Certiorari”) of the total absence of any political issue or legal effect of any SCOTUS’s disposition As an empirical matter, the Rule’s proscription of political content, together with the assignment of life terms of the constituent Justices, contributed to the existentially relevant, need to insulate the Court from outside influence and insure fiduciary responsibility to the Nation and its historic Rule of Law.

In the main, with anecdotal exceptions, such as the 19^th Century, Dred Scott case, (J. Taney,) the High Court demonstrated a history of deserved veneration, dedicatedly serving its constitutionally responsible role of National judicial oversight. The recall of names of such Justices as Holmes, Brandeis, Douglas, Cardozo, and Brennan summons feelings of respect and gratitude for their admirable and persuasive efforts to preserve constitutional compliance and universal justice.

All this changed. as per the cited Hemingway quote, “gradually,” by the sudden and contemptuous morphing of its dispositive legal responsibility to one of acceptance of matters of legal import. From such an irresponsible point, cases such as “Citizens Union” were accepted and adjudicated, demonstrating an unheard-of bias and the shameful promotion of “special interests.” The Citizens Taxpayers Union case, (2009) exemplifies a painful example. In said catastrophic case, the extant toxicity of “Money” in politics was shamefully exacerbated by an atypically reasoned, sophomoric, but democratically devastating, decision that since corporations are “people,” their freedom to donate money to political elections is constitutionally unlimited. The all-too-evident desire on the part of, the previously scholarly and objective Court, to satisfy the political interests of the self-interested large corporations was shamefully evident in its unabashed, fun-house, gross distortion of the commercially limited, fictional application of the utilized word, “person” as contractually afforded to the legal entity of the corporation. This fictional status has existed since the period of “Elizabeth the First” period, strategically created by the English Parliament to limit the personal liability of the relevant human entrepreneur. The protective conceit was and still is (as undeniably known by every law school freshman and businessperson) an accepted but merely utilitarian, legal fiction, employed to limit the commercial liability of the human entrepreneur, (notably, in a past society in which debtors were subject to imprisonment). The tactically atrophied extension of the breathing and feeling human persona to the modern commercial status of a “corporate “person” deserving of citizen entitlement to the constitutional, “Bill of Rights” is a transparent, tactically employed, and transparently arrogant obscenity.

Our Hemingway-style gradual erosion of the informed citizen’s appropriate respect for the High Court was catalyzed by the politically self-serving appointment of MAGA-compliant Justices due to the bizarre political ascendency of the autocratic and immoral, Donald Trump. Since such democratic catastrophe, the upright American citizen has seen the sudden (Hemingway described) decline in both legal and moral principles of the six Conservatively appointed  (of the nine) SCOTUS Justices.  The acceptance of magnificent gifts by one Justice, who is married to a fervent supporter of Trump’s insurrection, the public, flag-flying demonstration of MAGA, and the insurrection by another, transparently, compliant to the interests of the anti-democratic, religious lobby are informative examples of the steep extent of the suddenly evident, moral and legally responsible institution.

The appropriate icing was applied to the uneatable bitter judicial cake, baked by the High Court’s recent decision to the effect that Trump, the multifarious committer of uncountable acts of societal and criminal felonies, (91 indictments, 34 jury-determined guilty verdicts, election denier, and producer of insurrection, is immune from liability on all official (?) acts as former President.

As I once more gaze at my prodigious bookshelf and espy, Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises.” I am caused to wonder, will the Democratic Republic endure and the Sun again rise on its much-vaunted democracy and its fiduciary guardian, the Supreme Court.?

-p.

Salvatore (“Sal”) Hepatica, confirmed bachelor and recently retired, half-owner of a pharmacy in Elmhurst, Queens, returned to his small, neatly furnished apartment following his unvarying practice of taking his Saturday afternoon lunch, consisting of dark coffee and tuna melt sandwich with a half-sour pickle, at the local diner, “The Athenian Star.” Sal, as usual, placed his daily newspaper on the left arm of his large, exceedingly comfortable, easy chair, unzipped his light jacket, and then sat down, in a rare introspective and focused mood. Normally, he would have then unfolded and read his daily newspaper; yet, his present ruminations seemed to dominate his usual interest in its perusal, and thus, thoughtfully engaged, he slowly released his grip on his held newspaper, causing it to fall to his lap.

Such unusual, but profound, preoccupation, was prompted by a sudden, introspective guilty, pang by the realization of his ingratitude, for the beneficial acceptance of the universe of efficient services, delivered to him from the available overfull cornucopia of digitally robotic services, responsive to the receipt of his mere request. He inwardly declared that Mankind should, be appropriately, thankful to modern science and industry for such ubiquitous and effortless utility.

He proudly, and gratefully acknowledged that, with the sole, electively taken, exception of his regular three-block trek to the Athenian Star diner on early Saturday afternoons for his regular lunch, consisting of dark coffee, tuna melt sandwich with half-sour pickle, his life was fully subscribed and experienced from the simple, but satisfactory, universe of his comfortable reclining easy chair.

His necessary outreach was efficiently implemented by using his “smartphone.” This small, metallic device, habitually stowed in his handkerchief pocket, together with his clean tissues, was the effective gateway to the eclectic world. It was an easy chair venue for the effortless source of universal information, entertainment, music and videos, interactive conversation, photography, as a photo album, an avenue for the reading of literature and periodicals, for research, news and weather reports, directional services, historical and current facts, recipes and cooking instruction, health information, spectating sports, playing games, effecting purchases of goods and medicines, the procuring of services of every nature, travel, nature photography, national and worldwide weather information,  advice on contemporary styles,  economic reports and data, environmental hazards and any topic of interest or inquiry in every discipline.

Our contemplative, peacefully seated, protagonist reverentially, and lovingly, embraced his valued smartphone, effusively celebrating the lack of necessity to expend fruitless effort involved in seeking out other individuals, going to libraries, museums, lectures, foreign travel, sports arenas, and concert venues, movie theaters, sight-seeing excursions, stores for purchase of such items as clothes, food, or other articles, personal meetings, or group interaction, travel,  patronizing restaurants, art galleries, natural parks, lakes and other tourist attractions, zoos, sports arenas, nor, pragmatically, any felt need to expend unnecessary money, effort, and energy to engage in any such commonplace practices.

However, bizarre as it may seem, on various occasions, usually occurring after nightfall, Sal, inwardly comprehended the existential underlying basis for his recurring primal need to observe his mandatory ritual of Saturday, tuna melt lunch, at the nearby and, notably relevant, publically attended, diner.

-p.

Since the realization that we had qualified as a member in good standing in the category of elderly citizens, our previously regular diurnal schedule appears to have undergone some alteration. Since such time, we have observed a regular schedule of 9 P.M. bedtime and an arousal at 4:30 A.M. Last evening at 9 P.M. we routinely complied with our usual bedtime, notwithstanding an overfull day of media speculative commentary on the subject of the Presidential debate to take place at such time. The underlying reason, for such a shame-free determination, comprises the salient theme of this short essay.

Over the many generous decades of our life, we have noted that in our essentially populist, American society, judgments, and decisions have appeared to often have been made, on superficial impressions or, popularly shared criteria; the same, which may not be founded upon empirical or logical reason. We have been disappointed and discouraged to note the absence of valid criteria for many significant action choices. The latter observation provides the personally determined impetus to regularly base our judgments and choices upon perceived valid, empirical, and logical criteria.

Our unabashed decision to accede to our regularly scheduled desire for sleep was thoughtfully and empirically made, despite the effusive media broadcasting of its purported, “crucial” and “historical” significance of imminent sophomoric entertainment implicit in the gladiator-like, Presidential debates. Our seemingly nuanced decision was based upon the pragmatic consideration that we were sleepy and, as well, mindful of the lack of need for further replication of the popular sophomoric taste and lack of maturity, all too prevalent in our population; as we will elucidate.

We could conceive of the rational utility of a debate between two lesser-known Presidential candidates on the cogent subject of their publicly unknown proposed policies and intended action if elected. In the present fact pattern, by unavoidable contrast, we are presented with a choice of two candidates whose character and capability have been fully and publically demonstrated in their respective four-year terms.

Donald Trump, who has shown that he espouses no National policy, has ignorantly mismanaged the pandemic directly causing hundreds of thousands of preventable mortalities, demonstrated his serial mendacity and inveterate, rejection of empirical truth, expressed his contempt for the established media, has committed a plethora of criminal acts, evidenced by no less than 91 indictments, of which he has, in one set of charges, already been adjudged guilty by a jury,  of 34 criminal charges, has declared  his  intention to set aside the provisions of the Constitution, has treasonously befriended America’s enemies, purloined National top secret documents, produced a violent insurrection the latter, founded in his unprecedented and anti-democratic election denial, caused the elimination of a woman’s right to abortion, imposed draconian policies regarding immigration, opposed salutary health and welfare regulations, has judicially been declared a tax fraud and election interferer, is an adulterer and a person addicted to brisk commerce with call girls, an adjudicated defamer, and other revelatory offenses, including major violations of the “Emolument Clause” and being shown to be a general grafter and snake oil salesman. To top the charts, Trump has opposed NATO and has earnestly declared that he will be a Putinesque dictator.

Biden, by comparison, during his present four-year term has accomplished the following: an end to the pandemic and the lowering of its augmented inflation, achieving record-exceeding creation of jobs and a decrease in unemployment, effecting the beneficial expansion of the Nation’s needed infrastructure, the strengthening of NATO, the support of Ukraine and Israel, support of civil rights and the reduction of encumbering lifetime tuition debt, has supported labor unions and the health and welfare of families, inclusive of salutary citizen health regulations, has promoted the enforcement of the civil rights of minorities and gender discriminated citizens and needed policies of health coverage.

Most significant, in our estimation, Biden satisfies the criteria for human decency and constant recognition of the societal moral compass; bright distinctions from the demonstrated amoral and egocentric Donald Trump, and, itself, the salient motivation for his choice as American President.

No game-show-type, populist contest has any potential degree of utility as a demonstration of empirical preference comparable to the Nation’s own objective experience. We see no acceptable reason to match up, for public evaluation, the decent persona of the mild-mannered humanistic Joseph Biden with the turret-syndromic uncontrolled aggressive style of uncontrolled falsehoods, natural to Trump and, doubtlessly, enjoyably entertained by his populist cult. We have declared in previous writings that in this nuanced election, the endurance of our Democratic Republic reveals the rare existential importance of voting against one of the candidates, as opposed to the usual criterion of voting for the perceived best

The media reports of the (irrelevant) entertainment–disappointing public performance of Biden are, to us, empirically unimportant but a confirmation of our wise decision to crawl under the covers at 9 P.M.

-p.

The Surgeon General of the United States, recently declared that the permissive ownership of guns is includable among the major causes of mortality in the Nation and remains the leading cause of death of American young. The official declaration, effectively, catalyzed the need for this reprise on the subject.

We include ourselves among the major number of mainstream American citizens in ardent opposition to Donald Trump’s tactical practice of unabashed rejection of empirically verified facts (“truth”), in favor of “alternate facts,” or “alternative reality,” when it tends to serve one’s interest. In this context, we will reprise our position on the citizen’s purported constitutional franchise to “bear arms.” For those who remain steadfastly, factually, and reality-oriented, it merely requires a cursory inquiry into our early history to ascertain the factual answer; in contrast to the selectively construed selective, “alternative reality,” purportedly supporting such nonexistent right. The relevant history is eternally open to peruse by all, whose judgmental inclination mandates the acceptance of factual reality.

Such a revisit to the time of the establishment of our Republic reveals the existence of contention between the “Federalists,” who favored an executive central government, and the “States Righters,” who, by contrast, sought a Confederation of independent State Sovereignties. A “Sovereign,” entity, at such time, was universally, understood to constitute an independent authoritative entity, among other features, possessing the right to raise a standing army. The dispute was ultimately resolved by a mutually accepted resolution in which both parties agreed to the establishment of an executive central government, albeit, reserving the respective right of the individual States, (referred to as, “The “People”) to raise independent standing “militias” [the latter], granted the right to “bear arms.”

The eternally prevailing, well-worn, foundational meme to the effect that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, grants to “the People” the right to bear arms, reflects the franchise of all individual American citizens to be independent gunslingers, is verifiably (historically) false, but tactically and conveniently satisfies the conceptual criteria for self-serving, “alternative reality.”  Uncountable events of mortal tragedy and human agony have been the proximate result of the convenient, widespread populist acceptance of this toxic fiction. In accordance with this purported meme, the neurotic need to arm oneself with an instrument capable of the maiming or death of another is included in the citizen’s free and unalienable exercise of personal liberty.

It is an incontrovertible fact, even among the most ardent practitioners of “alternate reality,” that the utility of a gun is solely limited to the potential infliction upon another of grievous injury or death. This may, as an illustration, be contrasted with the ubiquitous utility, of owning a small pocket knife, useful in activities such as opening packages, cutting fruit, and whittling. The gun’s utility, by pathological contrast, is irrefutably, limited to its singular tragic potential for grievous harm and homicide.

We have been entirely and eternally, discombobulated, with the arcane question as to why any normally socialized human being would require such an instrument of human destruction.  Nevertheless, it appears that contention over the purported franchise to own such a device, apparently fueled by some animalistic desire to obtain such virile instruments, finds itself, inarguably included among the Nation’s most popular (populist?) areas of strident contention;  possibly suggesting the presence of an unstudied, atavistic flaw in Humankind’s generally perceived, beneficial evolution.
-p.

[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.