plinyblogdotcom

In contrast to the two branches of our tri-partite Democratic Republic, Executive and Legislative, members of which are elected by the people, the Justices of the third, Judicial branch, (the Supreme Court of The United States, “SCOTUS”) are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, (Art. 3 U.S. Constitution). Article 3 also gives Congress discretion to determine the shape and structure of the Federal Judiciary.
In the immediately preceding writing (# M. 70 “WELCOME TO CAMELOT”) we ventured to offer our conception of the etiology and empirical persistence of the foul, toxic pestilence currently infecting our body politic with the insidious and virulent virus of anti-democratic, fascist pathology. Clinically hazardous symptoms of its ubiquitous metastasis are palpably evident; yet most impactful of all, is its morbid impact upon the historically revered and existentially important, highest judicial branch of government, The U.S. Supreme Court.
As conjectured in the previous writing, the steep decline in fiduciary responsibility of our highest court may have had its advent in the legally consequential case of Bush v. Gore (2000). In that eventful case, SCOTUS inexplicably, chose to accept for deliberation a matter containing political issues; in violation of the constitution’s strictures regarding the “Separation of Powers.” This singular event seemed to encourage the opening of the floodgates to political and religious lobbies desiring to exert their monied influence upon receptive Justices. Such body blows to the ethnos of our vaunted democratic, resulted in a veritable dumpster of undemocratic decisions, best exemplified by catering to the religious lobby in the authoritarian reversal of long- established precedent in rendering illegal the right of abortion, resulting in a never-ending nightmare of tragic and dangerous outcomes. A comparative catering to a self-interested, political lobby, was demonstrated by the SCOTUS’ outrageous decision, removing restrictions on campaign contributions, thus distorting and minimizing the impact of the public vote.
The mainstream citizen’s shock and distain for the serious erosion of moral and judicial principle on the part of the Nation’s formerly venerated highest Court, was catalyzed and further exacerbated by alarming public revelations of morally revolting corruption on the part of certain Justices of the Supreme Court, viz., Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito.
Justice Thomas has been revealed to have shamelessly and illegally, accepted large quantities of cash and other expensive emoluments from an identified billionaire, interested in specific adjudications. Thomas is also married to a politically influential wife who is a Trumpian election denier and an influential supporter of MAGA’s authoritarian attack on American democracy.
Justice Alito, the avatar of unconstitutional homage to the religious lobby and newly disclosed supporter of the White Christian Nationalist Movement, was the trademark author of the opinion in the Dodd case, which overturned one half century of SCOTUS precedent in Roe v. Wade, decreeing the illegality of a woman’s private right to abortion. Such immoral and unprofessional catering to the religious lobby, in addition to having offended the historic theme and dynamics of the constitution in protecting citizen rights from incursion by government has, by its authoritarian ruling proximately led to an uncountable record of misery, tragedy and death.
It has lately been disclosed and irrefutably proven, by widely disseminated photographs taken by the National media, that Justice Samuel A. Alito is a proud and demonstrative supporter of White Christian Nationalism by his proud and audacious choice to fly flags, emblematic of his zealous support for that un-American and authoritarian (Nazi-like) movement; and by natural extension for Trump’s fascistic January sixth insurrection. Such advertised anti-democratic sentiment was underscored by such obnoxious flags being publicly flown on flagpoles on both of his properties.
Well-intentioned suggestions that these two morally tainted Justices be recused from participation in relevant cases, in our view, are not sufficient or prudently appropriate. It would seem to be existentially appropriate, ‘y in these exceptionally troubling and equivocal times that these morally tarnished, purported guardians of our Democratic Republic, be instructively and summarily impeached and removed from office by Congress and deprived of financial and other benefits of office.
-p.

More than two and one-quarter centuries ago, the Scottish poet, Robert Burns wrote: The best-laid schemes of mice and men gang aft aglay, oft go awry. And leave us naught but grief and pain.”

The idealistic Founders of the new Nation, to be later known as the United States of America (reverentially, “America”), embraced just such a “best-laid scheme,” eschewing the historically unjust and tyrannical history of Europe in their “radical” intention to create a Nation, “by and for, the People.” Their conception was to design a secular, free society with no privileged classes, despotic Monarch nor Established Church. They designed the architecture of an independent, tri-partite polity (Separation of Powers”), Executive, Legislative, (elected by the citizenry) and a Judicial Branch, to resolve the consequential legal issues of the day. Each of the branches was granted authority to curb any act of the other, deemed to exceed or diminish any of the mandates of the newly promulgated constitution. (“Checks and Balances”).

Notably, there were two declarations, amid the Founders’ expectations of success of the idealistically conceived polity. Asked, “What kind of Nation has been created? Benjamin Franklin’s famous reply was, “A Republic if you can keep it.” Reservations were similarly expressed by co-founder, Thomas Jefferson, who, presciently, declared that for a democracy to succeed, it must have an educated and informed public. Such remarks were in keeping with the dire observations of the poet, Robert Burns.

The American experiment, in its later employment of its dedicated population and ample resources, was victorious in its battles against the specter of totalitarian evil which reared its ugly head in the First and Second World Wars. It emerged as the World’s avatar and protector of democracy. The Nation, domestically was in the slow process of universal equality, albeit slowly. Since the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, our enterprising capitalistic society has reliably extended emphatic programs of assistance to the needy, promulgated regulations relevant to the quality of food, water, medicine, labor conditions and has implemented many needed policies of compassionate capitalism. The notable extent of significant political opposition was, in large part, essentially rooted in party affiliation; Democratic Party (labor-oriented, free trade, equitable tax system, subsidized housing, health insurance) and Republican (free trade, lower taxes, gun rights, deregulation of business and labor).

Until recent decades, the Nation had in the main, been compliant with its vaunted motto, “E Pluribus Unum,” evincing a mutually foundational love and pride of country, respect for the social compact and moral compass, a basic unified sense of joint and mutual National kinship, steadily progressing free and tolerant National atmosphere, and when warranted, express humanistic inclinations. The mainstream citizen felt proud and thankful of his good fortune to be a citizen of that admirable country.

We are unable to conceive of the specific moment when the overall positive atmosphere of the Nation mutated. We presume that the nefarious revelations about Nixon concerning that President’s criminal behavior, the passionately divisive Viet Nam War, and, as later the unprecedented and errant political morphing of the Supreme Court, first observable in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, the subsequent revelations of corrupt and unprincipled catering to rich and powerful lobby groups, secular and religious, resulting in unwise decisions in the arenas of urgently needed gun control, in undemocratically removing limitations on political donations by self- interested corporation, bending to the religious lobby, as egregiously demonstrated by its unprecedented overturning of Roe v. Wade, failing to provide necessary protections for voting, and, shockingly, by its immoral and corrupt acceptance of gifts from wealthy donors,  interested in the particular determination of cases.

In addition, the development of insular groups of like thinkers (“group think”) on major disputed issues and like groups of diverse view locked in an antagonistic cold war, the isolated and non-communicative impact on society of the universal use of mechanical “smartphones,” in lieu of humanistic, social interaction, resulting in consequential feelings of lonely existence, the societal decline in significance of the family, the populist preference for ephemeral diversion and corresponding decline in reading and elective personal interests, the latter, capable of personal development and mature perception. It would appear that there are many cogent empirical causes, aside from the most dreaded one, the innate nature of mankind, which last possibility we, would optimistically prefer to reject.

In our plethora of past writings, we have consistently attributed the problem to a general decline in the desire for personal improvement by means of engagement in personally beneficial pursuits such as reading good literature and involvement in the arts and sciences, and independent interests; the latter pursuits resulting in the development of a confident self-image, capable of enlightened contemplation of the affairs of life as they present themselves. The alternative lifestyle, engagement in ultimately unsatisfying and meaningless activities is the eventual route to lives of shallowness and discontent.

 Unfortunately, there is an overabundance of American citizens who have, by their own choice, endured frustration and become disgruntled with their resultant, meaningless and pedestrian life.  Many such hapless individuals tend to defensively project the cause for such unhappiness on others, viz., spouses, racial or ethnic minorities, or on “life” itself, as responsible for their feelings of discontent.

It would be simplistic and reductionist to attribute the sole blame for the negative transmogrification of our former inspirationally democratic Nation to its extant divisive and critically vulnerable state to the demagogic and perverse influence of Donald J. Trump. Yet, notably, the repulsive inclination of Trump to appear to “display his middle finger” to social convention and to neurotically eschew the societally approved moral compass, is attractive to the underbelly populist and may be perceived as supportive of their grievances and disappointed life. In our view, the existence of millions of poorly educated and uninformed Trump supporters is more hazardous to democracy than the Orange egomaniac, himself.

The vital “first aid” to be initially applied to our Republic’s bleeding injury is the casting of sufficient votes to defeat the populist-criminal-would-be dictator. When that existential threat to Republican Democracy is defeated, we can consider possible routes for beneficial advancement and fulfillment, where needed, of our citizenry. We would propose an effective, albeit, realistically, gradual cure.

We are reliably informed that, regarding the designation of our species, “Homo sapiens,” that “Homo,” is the Latin word for Mankind and that the term, “sapiens,” translates to “wise” or “knowledgeable.”

From the advent of this blogspace, it has been our overriding dedication to mature perspective and enlightened reason by the individual’s election to enhance Man’s short existence by the salubrious addition of an interest, unrelated to his employment, familial and pragmatic concerns. We have consistently maintained that the individual beneficially engage himself, as possible, in some elective interest, unrelated to his familial and employment obligations such as reading good literature or the private and enriching pursuit of an outside interest as the route to individual self-worth and valuable personal identity. Such private activities, encourage invaluable introspective and objective thought and constitute the primer for developing maturity of perception and, hopefully, acquired wisdom. A limited diet of work, family, and sleep, while salubriously necessary, can be productive of mundane satisfaction but not, necessarily, the beneficial route to ultimate personal self-fulfillment. Our society evinces, in too many individuals, a dearth of healthy self-image and esteem, A life without personally nuanced interests, begets shallowness and lack of mature and experienced perspective; whose predictive etiology is a life spent wearing horse blinders.

Consistent with our universal promotion of growth stimulating outside interests, we would entreat American higher institutions of learning to salubriously promote individual personal advancement, separate from, and additional to, the pragmatic goal of preparation for future professional careers. [N.B., See: # M.67, “THE OPENED WINDOW”].

-p.  

We have observed decades of the Nation’s ignorant and reductionist bigots and noted their eternal, abhorrent desire to extend the scope of their toxic venom whenever possible. They can deservedly claim the gold medal for the fine art of perpetuation of ignorant, reductionist tropes including such chestnuts as, “Jewish bankers are conspiring to control the world,” Jews are rich, and are supporters of communism, “homosexuality can be taught,” “Caravans of rapists and criminals are invading and poisoning the Nation, “ (credited to Donald J. Trump, a Court determined rapist with 91 felonies), medically necessary abortion is homicide,  guns promote effective communication and are protected by the freedom of speech as well as the Second Amendment, black skinned people are lazy and inferior, Asians are responsible for viral epidemics, the “coastal elites” control and influence government leftist policies, American racial history should not be taught in schools and Universities, 9/11 was a CIA false flag operation, the Holocaust is mere fiction, vaccination is undisclosed government control, compassionate government assistance as well as health supporting regulation are “socialism,”  rockets are sent down to earth from the upper atmosphere by Israel, the violent insurrectionists are patriots, global warming is false propaganda, the past election was “stolen” by Biden, books perceived by them as objectionable, should be banned, the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is false and heretical, men are superior to women, life-stealing, chattel slavery had beneficial effects on black people, that America was created as a “Christian white Nation,” and on it goes, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.            

The October 7 surprise and barbaric attack on Israel, and the thematically relevant response have provided another fertile opportunity for the perverse conglomeration of anti-Semitic bigots to further evince their systemic potential for hatred by means of their reductionist short circuitry.

As previously observed, following the cruel and barbaric attack on Israel by the terrorist Hamas, the aggressors, as planned, retreated with their kidnapped Israeli hostages, to tunnels, tactically constructed, for such purpose, under Gaza hospitals and places of public assembly. The pathological goal was to situationally oblige the predictable Israeli retribution to be visited upon the innocent Gaza population, their “human shields.”  Hamas, fully aware that it lacked the military capacity to defeat tiny, but militarily competent, Israel, would thereby be perniciously successful in destroying its existential international support.

Unfortunately, the pathological stratagem was successful, resulting in unjust, horrific and lethal punishment, as tactically constrained, to be practiced on the innocent Gaza inhabitants. The world’s moral outrage was exacerbated by the right-wing government of Bibi Netanyahu, whose humanistic inclinations seem far outweighed by his drive for retaliation against Hamas. We, in harmony with other Jews, have voiced our opposition to the visitation of death and substantial destruction upon innocent  Gazan Palestinians, by the Netanyahu government’s unlimited military action in its desire to destroy the offending terrorists.

The heartrendingly disturbing situation has provided the age-old conglomeration of bigoted reductionists, a fortuitous opportunity to exercise their practice of irrational bigotry in their historic hatred of the Jewish ethnos, a prominent victim of abuse, by means of their ignorant conflation (“short-circuiting”) of the actions of the current Israeli government to an increase in classic antisemitism. The ignorant and opportunistic identification of worldwide Jewry with the policies of the current Israeli right-wing militaristic leadership is empirically predictable in the bigoted mindset of reductionist anti-Semites . It is to be emphasized that, contrary to such convenient fantasies and tellingly ignorant reductionist conflation, American, English and European Jewry, are citizens of their respective, distinct countries and not of Israel. Notwithstanding the rational facts, “short circuitry” has eternally been a source of faux justification for hatred.

Yet, sadly and disturbingly, historical ignorance and our thematic, reductionist prejudice are responsible for the extant, unjust and misconceived outrage against Jews in general on campus and elsewhere, in the current statistical Olympian leap in the chronic pathology of anti-Semitism. This is a particularly unsettling in the context of American colleges, where age-related, provocateur encouraged, demonstrations have taken place. Even in the enlightened halls of higher education, anti-Semitic ideation seems, to be founded upon the short-circuiting or conflation, of Jewish and Israeli citizens and their respectively distinct National identities; to the perverse delight of hard-core anti-Semites.

-p.

Prior to our retirement, we were engaged in the private practice of law in New York, for a full period of fifty years. Our practice included complicated business litigation (viz., Civil Fraud, Unfair Competition, Breach of Contract, and Business Torts). Accordingly, we feel competent by our past education and practice experience to voice the (radical) views set forth in this writing.

Initially, we are of the view that the jury system as presently constituted is at best a vestigial entity, analogous to the human appendix and tonsils, and, similarly is salubriously excised from our judicial process. The “right to a jury,” or more fully expressed, the “right to a jury of your own peers,” is archaic and judicially anachronistic. The age of social or “privileged classes (i.e., “your peers) is a museum relic of the Medieval past. What is essentially meant is, “the right to a jury of your own equals.” That being said, it has been our (radical?) view that the jury procedure, purposed to ensure the fair assessment of the disputed facts in a case, criminal or civil, must be amended or eliminated, in the interest of justice.

Our felt opinion was catalyzed by our concerns relating to the pending criminal case against Donald Trump, still in process, in which, as we see it, the elements of the accused felony of fraudulent accounting processes to hide Trump’s promiscuity and thereby evade public criticism prior to an election, (“election fraud”), has (already) been sufficiently demonstrated. Testimonial and documented proof have been adduced beyond the criminal law’s mandated stricture requiring a showing of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Our serious concern is that the empaneled jury, may not, for any reason, legal or otherwise, return a unanimous verdict of guilty.

Under our scrupulously fair system, as known, no less than a unanimous jury must find an accused defendant, “Guilty.” Eschewing, the possibility that a juror may be “planted” or influenced by the accused, or his acolytes, we are of the view that the demonstrated “populism” of the extant American public, invokes an empirically based concern for a justly determined verdict. The latter conundrum, we fear, overshadows the critical elements of excessive expense and delay.

The pre-trial procedure, known as the “voir dire,” in which contesting counsel has the opportunity to question prospective jurors in an attempt to filter out unfit prospective jurors, albeit historically and legally appropriate, in our view is jejune and presumptuous; there are no legal “X-rays” to detect privately undisclosed bias or interest. The assumption that strategically worded questions will, with any certitude, uncover the true intentions of an impartial jury candidate, is a tribute to arrogant narcissism.

Most worrisome to us is the observed state of ignorance and thoughtless impediments to justice, evinced by the disappointing, populist character of many of today’s American citizens. Our caliper is based upon the millions of MAGA cultists who consistently support Trump’s, criminality, his philosophy of “alternate truth” and who subscribe to bizarre conspiracy ideation. The conclusions to be reached by such prospective jurors, to be kind, may not exactly square with rational expectation or, more to the relevant point, with the goal of objective and appropriate justice.

Empirical logic would dictate the cogent necessity that should the jury system be continued, it needs to evolve to a more predictably responsible and reliable entity. Summoning random citizens for jury service, in principle, is, democratically laudatory; however, for the reasons annunciated above, jurisprudentially hazardous. American law needs to procedurally revisit and repeal or replace the “Sixth Amendment” of the Constitution. Perhaps a new configuration of the “jury” can be construed, for example, one populated by law students (for school credit), or trained civil servants, retiree schoolteachers, etc. The present gamble on America’s John Q, Public is, as shown by his recently evinced character, rather precarious.

We wait, apprehensively, for the outcome of the current jury trial of the miscreant former President.

-p.

 The theme of our present writing may be contextually articulated by an anecdotal recounting of a true and instructive, personal event. For many years, it was our habit to start Monday, Wednesday and Friday with a morning swim at the 92^nd Street Y. We would change our clothes in the large locker room prior to a cursory shower, followed by our swim. Customarily, during the routine activity of changing into our swimsuit or, thereafter, getting dressed in our street clothes, we would engage in a bit of casual banter with others similarly engaged. One notably singular locker room interaction has remained enduringly memorable.

One of the locker room regulars was speaking to a friend whose gym locker was next to ours, regarding the friend’s, as described, “disappointing” and “boring” vacation. “There was absolutely nothing to do,” he complained. We were completely flummoxed when he disclosed that he was making reference to his trip to the City of Prague in the Czechoslovak Republic. We, in fact, had the good fortune to have visited that destination on two occasions and, to the contrary, found it to be spellbinding and memorable.

Prague, the Capital city of the Czech Republic and the center of historic Bavaria, is nicknamed the “City of 100 Spires,” possessing many colorful baroque buildings, tall, eerily gothic Churches, the Ancient Astronomical Clock which evinces an hourly show, the quick-flowing Charles River with its span of Medieval Bridge adorned with medieval sculptures, is the birthplace of Mozart and still rife with daily musical presentations, is the major venue of the Bohemian and Protestant Reformation, the center of the “Thirty Year’s War,” the location of the oldest synagogue in Europe, the venue of the legendary “Golem,” a known venue for collectible Bavarian glass, artesian puppetry, and exotic underground restaurants, all situated in an exotic medieval gothic setting and atmosphere. We could continue the recounting of Prague’s captivating features, however, our thematic subject is directed to the value of Man’s lifelong enrichment by contemplative experience and not that Middle Ages City, as such.

The complaining locker room speaker, as later perplexingly revealed, was identified as a practicing, licensed dentist, thereby, attesting to his graduation from college and professional school. His disturbing, birdbrained and shallow complaint was exacerbated by such information; however, in later thought, the phenomenon was somewhat resolved; the substance of which resolution is offered as the leitmotif of this writing.

We have often written of a truly essential ingredient to the attainment of a meaningful life, which, for lack of a better term, we have referred to as “the lifelong inner conversation with oneself,” i.e. the inner, contemplative observation and thought-provoking stimulus evoked by presenting situational experience. It has been our observation that the possession of a contemplative persona and its resultant acquisition of empirically based determinations founded in experienced reality are existentially necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of life. The absence of an inclination for the dynamics of inner, thoughtful observation is a substantial disability. Such costly disability, it would seem, is not, as we formally assumed, relegated to the under-educated and poorly informed. As seen in the above-cited locker room incident, education may not be the universal panacea.

We have also declared that the development and maturation of a stable, nuanced and referable persona, (self-image) appears to be the dynamic product of meaningful interpersonal interaction. The thematic inclination to independent contemplation is sadly, not universal. Many individuals seem to have “closed the window” and remain systemically limited to the role of a mere spectator viewing the external scenario as merely anecdotal or episodic phenomena.

Perception without the beneficial and enduring accumulation of contemplative perspective, constituting our declared foundation for the exercise of rational judgment, when called upon, is an empirical deficiency. Such lack of internal resources may be normally expected in young and inexperienced children but remains a costly disability in the mature individual; who, lacking capacity for a satisfying and fulfilling, contemplative life experience, lives a superficial, barren, reflexive existence. Observed phenomena would seem to possess enduring significance, only to the extent that they are imprinted on developing, evaluative consciousness. One’s capacity and inclination to open his inner contemplative window to experiential events adds to his accumulating understanding and leads the way to ultimate wisdom.

Inarguably, formal education exists as the most effective route to integrated understanding and insight. The cited locker room experience, however, demonstrates that it is possible to undergo the process of formal education, yet lack the invaluable aptitude for inner growth from experiential enlightenment and its resulting potential for the achievement of wisdom.

-p.

While appalled at the distasteful and immoral revelations brought to light in the current Stormy Daniels-Donald Trump criminal prosecution, we would, as a “sidebar,” metaphysically question society’s eternal designation of sexual misconduct as the most venal of the diverse cornucopia of reprehensible behavior.   

In this context, it has been irrefutably demonstrated that the former President is guilty of the flagrant commission of an overabundance of immoral and illegal indiscretions. Many of the latter, objectively measured by their empirically, proximate harm are, inarguably, far more serious than an anti-societal act of adultery performed with a porn star. Such significantly impactful instances of his behavior include treason, inciting insurrection, criminal negligence during the pandemic, intentional theft of top secret government documents, historically egregious unconstitutional behavior in the nature of voter interference and gross and substantial violation of the emolument clause. To add icing to his oversized criminal cake, Trump has publically declared his intention, if elected, to be a dictator.

A moral conundrum, in our view, consists in the bizarre historical societal predilection in Western Civilization, to evaluate errant sexual behavior, albeit immoral, as the singularly paramount deplorable sin, or ultimate act of wrongdoing, as evident in the cited case, despite Trump’s plethora of more impactful, criminal transgressions. In reference to the criminal elements of the Stormy Daniels case, the “hush money” payments are alleged to have been made to silence the public disclosure of Trump’s immoral sexual congress with a “porn star,” just before an election.

Our thematic conundrum is illustrated by the thematic absence of “hush money” attempts to hide from voters any other of the many and various improper and felonious behavior of Trump’s 91 criminal indictments, and his treasonous and corrupt behavior, numerous enough to fill several dumpsters.

We would cite for its illustrative relevance, Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic novel, “The Scarlet Letter” (1860). In the novel, the female protagonist, Hester Prynne, is punished for an unmarried act of sex,  shunned by her Puritan Society and forced to shamefully wear the letter “A” (for adultery) for the rest of her life. She is otherwise portrayed as a moral and charitable woman, [In our nuanced view, Hawthorne was describing a purportedly religious society who, in their moral hubris, violated the Biblical admonitions for forgiveness and repentance]. Notwithstanding such observation, the relevant fact is that unsanctioned sexual behavior has eternally been portrayed as Man’s ultimate unforgivable sin, bar none.

Despite the many and various staggeringly impactful transgressions of Donald Trump, it appears to have been Trump’s circumspect fear of adverse publicity, singularly relating to his “Stormy Daniels” transgression, for which the legally proven criminal and arcane mode of payoff for silence was deemed necessary. As empirically demonstrated, in the contextual hierarchy of society, his errant act of sexual misconduct was again, populistically perceived as meriting singular attention, to the exclusion of his many other ubiquitous acts of effectively greater venality and harm.

 Can it be that society is sufficiently shallow in character and principle, as to selectively ignore reprehensible acts of inhumane cruelty and pathological degradation and direct the beams of its populist searchlight on the more primitively religious and exotic subject of errant sexual behavior? Is the “North” in our sociological moral compass fixed in the magnetic direction of bedroom keyholes?  

Adulterous sex, inarguably, constitutes a significant impediment to our societal order and, conceivably, a material breach of the Social Compact. One would assume, however, that a rational and utilitarian hierarchical classification of human wrongdoing would be construed, respectively, in accordance with criteria relating to the nature and quantity of its consequent, human impact. Our tentative conclusion is that sexual misconduct is more primitively and emotionally unsettling to Man, whose accepted civility requires the diligent restraint and attenuation of his own personal desires.

-p.

Evangelical Christianity, as generally known is an influential proselytizing movement, whose avowed purpose is to affirmatively promote the moral teachings and faith as prescribed in the New Testament. Such self-appointed “mission” encompasses the active promotion of New Testament Biblical dogma, particularly, its proclaimed direction to Mankind to conduct his life in an unassailably moral and faith-based manner. The context of this writing relates to our attempt to comprehend their bizarre and unfailing support of the sociopathic person of Donald Trump.

In our view, the salient revelation of empirical falsity of such avowed missionary dedication appears to be nowhere as demonstrably false and deceitful as in the movement’s eternal support for the miscreant, Donald J. Trump; whose blatant immorality and multiple acts of felonious criminality (“sins”) are daily confirmed by the national media.

Perhaps the most illuminating of Trump’s vast morass of immoral and egregious charges (inclusive of  91 felony indictments and errant behavior ranging from tax fraud, bribery, adultery, judicially determined rape, defamation and tax fraud, to, acts of definitional treason and sedition, including the incitement of an insurrection), is the “hush money,” Trump-Stormy Daniels, Criminal Court prosecution, now on trial. The case involves Trump’s adulterous congress with a porn star, at the time when his third wife, Melania had recently given birth to their son, Baron. Trump’s “sinful” behavior, later exacerbated by his criminally fraudulent scheme to hide it from potential public notoriety by means of a false pay-off scheme, designating the same as “legal fees”; to avoid the revelation, before an imminent election, of his lewd and lascivious lifestyle. Said deceitful and lurid episode if potentially supplemented by a broadcast taped event, containing Trump’s outrageous boasts of singular sexual prowess and celebrity privilege regarding women, predictably, would have ended his role as a Presidential nominee.

The reported testimony in the Stormy Daniels criminal fraud trial, to date, unveils the neurotic extent of Donald Trump’s narcissistic sense of personal sexual prowess; her surprise confrontation with his unexpected appearance in “sexy” silk pajamas, and enticing behavior, consisting of his false intimations to “Stormy” of the opportunity to appear on the Trump- hosted television program, “The Apprentice,” and the adulterous sex act, itself. Also clearly proven was the subsequent, felonious scheme to disguise the $130,000 payoff to Stormy for her silence.

As a general matter, Donald J. Trump has long been shown to be a serial abuser of women. The record confirms that Trump has practiced a life-long career of sexual assault, including, non-consensual groping and kissing of women. Notably, Trump has been judicially adjudicated a “rapist” and a serial defamer in the much publicized, E. Jean Carroll case. In the realm of business, Trump enjoys a known, despicable reputation for “stiffing” his contractors, tax evasion and a well-deserved reputation as a real estate grifter.

It is thematically instructive that Trump’s tawdry lifetime of “sin,” including his overflowing cornucopia of criminal acts, many of which are the subject of criminal indictment, supplemented by his record as a serial feminine abuser and rapist, markedly, have not diminished his consistent support by the Evangelical movement, the latter, publically represented as the proselytizing and judgmental “holier than thou,” “keep the faith,” horde of apparent religious pretenders..

An instructively analogous phenomenon, viz., the purported, “Right to Life,” advocates’ publically espoused pretentions, similarly, do not, at minimum, approach empirical reality. Contrary to the language of their tactically selected name, they will dedicatedly and shamelessly commit murder, destroy adult lives, and institute harassing criminal prosecutions, in their purported cause to protect “life”; but whose rank hypocrisy is irrefutably revealed by their consistently cruel opposition to government assistance to the needy child following birth. The patent hypocrisy of their avowed mission espousing “right to life,” is demonstrated by its bizarre applicability, solely, to the fetus, itself, until the event of birth. Their irrational hypocrisy and deceitful pretense is further demonstrated by their record of support for capital punishment, uniform opposition to gun regulation and opposition to both abortion and contraception. By analogy to the purported Evangelical Deity-inspired, moral mission, which chooses to afford its tactical support for the brazenly immoral Donald Trump, the “Right to Life” movement deceitfully, asserts its firm dedication to protect “human life,” albeit, strictly limited to the existence and duration of the fetus. It is observably evident that their respective motivations are far from that publicly advertised.

Political power and influence would empirically appear to be the authentic motivation of Evangelical Christianity as well as the deceitfully named, “Right to Life” adherents. Rather than admirable promotion of morality and respect for human life, they, unconscionably, mask their nefarious lust for political power and noxious influence in appealing, but false and deceptive cloaks of moral rectitude.

We have often declared the existential importance for any normally socialized, contemplative citizen, to exercise his moral judgment, founded upon his own consistent, empirically based self-image, rather than to, facilely and perilously, accept that of any arrogant and possibly self-interested third-party sources, religious or secular.

-p.  

We may not be singular in our experienced-based opinion that human character and persona may be demonstrated and evaluated by the way one treats his pet animals.  A dog or cat owner who lovingly cares for his coveted little friend is predictably, a caring and empathic person. Contrariwise, a pet owner who evinces cruelty or negligence to his dependent animal charge, is to be wisely avoided. Based upon decades of observation, we would hazard the presumption that our declaration is universal.

Our view of contemporary American society whose traditional aspiration is democratically fair, empathic, and reliably observant of the moral compass, has nonetheless, morphed into a contrasting, coarser, self-interested and populist influenced entity. We have observed a declining interest in personal development, aspiration for self- fulfillment and mature understanding of the inner self, and a prevalent interest in electronic convenience, demonstrated financial success, and ephemeral personal diversion. In our often expressed view, this disappointing condition is attributable to the exponential increase in digital communication in lieu of personally salubrious human interaction in person or by telephone, the notable decline in personal agency formally derived from an inner sense of capability, voluntarily sacrificed in favor of mundane and facile computer utilization, the decline in the recognition of the assurance of familiar personal nuance and interactively confirmed self-image resulting in the decline in critical self-evaluation and self-affirming maintenance of humanistic mind-set.

Notwithstanding the above declaration, certain foundational principles have survived such insensitive coarsening and objectivizing of society since, the existential institution of society, itself, would be undermined and ultimately, disappear. Perhaps one of the most fundamental, surviving principles is that of the intrinsic value of life itself; a close second, in our view, is a rare, but empirically, surviving modicum of situational humanism.

The advent of former President, Donald J. Trump together with his cult of retrograde MAGA followers has observably exacerbated a formerly gradual societal decline in metaphysical societal values such as basic moral compass, transactional assumptions of objective truth and empathic humanistic policies. His one term in office had demonstrated a singularly rare criminal and malodorous inclination, never before so rewarded with unlimited and universal power. The mainstream American citizen is accordingly terrified by the prospect of another term of autocratic and corrupt Presidency of that nominee, notwithstanding which fear, it appears that a number of his retrograde followers are in avid competition to share his future ticket as Vice-Presidential candidate.

One such presumed aspirant, notably occupying the (thematic) role of protagonist in this writing, is Congresswoman Kristi Noem, of South Dakota. In our view, Noem (i.e., “No empathy?”) has irrefutably demonstrated that she has attained the zenith of malevolent suitability as a running mate for Trump.

It would not seem especially revelatory to relate the specific political views of our protagonist, other than to declare that she has used her Congressional seat to vote fully in accord with the Trump –MAGA program; inclusive of the perverse policies of anti-immigration, protectionism, denialism, and their entire anti-democratic menu of atavistic civil rights and anti-regulation policies. The absence of such contextual necessity resides in the fact of her recently expressed, heartless pride in having revealingly and boasted of having committed certain notably horrendous acts of telling sadism and thereafter choosing to recount such shameful incidents in a published book she authored.

In “Memoirs,” the publically distributed book, authored by our thematic miscreant, she unemotionally (proudly?) writes of killing her young puppy, because she was impatient with his disappointing progress in learning to be a partridge hunting dog and further, on the same day, shooting a family-owned goat because he “smelled.” Such acts of cruelty, alone, are descriptively definitional and, like a metastasizing cancer, were toxically exacerbated by her diagnosable recounting of the same in her book.

If her intention in such public proclamation of her atrociously cruel acts of animal murder was tactically intended for the approval of the fascistic ears of Donald Trump, she might, conceivably, be successful (with the caveat that Donald Trump is not known to be a reader). Was she possibly attempting to advise the Orange Monomaniac, that “she” would have had the perverse audacity and loyalty to have hung Vice-President Pence?

In any event, Ms. Noam demonstrated that she, acceptably, possesses a similar pathological inclination to that of the modern-day, Presidential Adolph Eichmann-like, Stephen Miller, Presidential Advisor to the former President Trump and the author and facilitator of the inhuman practice of separating babies and young children of immigrants from their parents, “in order to discourage immigration.” It may be the case that, as empirically demonstrated, psychopathology is a resume “must” for any potentially possible member of a Trump Cabinet.

It would seem rationally appropriate to eliminate any possible vestigial thought of attribution of “human” status to any person capable of killing puppies (and goats), and to analogically according to them full Neo- Nazi status to their boasts about it.

*[Title derived from the CBS series starring Angela Lansbury]
-p.

Legal scholars, jurists, attorneys and avid Court watchers, as well as the general public, are in a state of excited anticipation, awaiting the forthcoming decision by the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) in the appeal from the lower Appellate Court decision in AARP v. The Cosmetic Public Relations Council, concerning the existentially determinative legal issue: “Do frogs have eyebrows?”

The parties are as follows: Appellant, “American Amphibian Rights Society” (“AARP”), represented by the Atlanta law firm of Swampscum, Daly and Knightly, I.P. Daly Esq., of counsel, Respondent, “Council of Marshland Evangelical Bible Belters,” by the Baton Ridge firm of Payne and Suffring, Redding Blemish Esq. of counsel. The legal positions having been thoroughly briefed, legal precedent and the relevant didactic literature consulted, the nationally impactful matter is declared ready for argument. Due to the intense, widespread public interest in the matter, the presence of television cameras has been granted judicial approval.

(Non-Fictional) Background–

[Since its inception, it has been universally mandatory to obtain the approval of SCOTUS to accept a case for review, which approval required a prospective appellant to successfully obtain by “Writ of Certiorari,” an Order directing the lower Court to send up the case for review.  Until the unprecedented decision in “Bush v. Gore, in the year 2000, the granting of the Writ was strictly dependent upon a successful demonstration that the matter at bar lacks any conceivable, direct or subtle, political impact or significance. Such “Black Letter Law” was historically created to preserve the integrity of the constitutionally enshrined, “Separation of Powers”, viz., “Executive,” “Legislative” and “Judicial.”

Following Bush v. Gore, the Nation’s veneration of the many decades of historically admirable performance and indeed, of SCOTUS, itself sadly evinced an observably slow, but clearly discernable, decline in demonstrated fiduciary responsibility to the Nation, and in resultant citizen respect. The latter was brought about by its continued errant acceptance and adjudication of “political” cases and (as observed in previous blogs) it has, shockingly revealed itself at times to be receptive to influence from religious and big business interests.

Of the SCOTUS decisions, most notably, inconsistent with the foundational principles of our National Democracy, we would select two; arguably, the most egregious and damaging to our democratic foundation: Citizen’s United (2010) and Dobbs v. Jackson (2022). In such disquieting cases, the corrupting influence, respectively, of big business and the religious lobby on the four conservative SCOTUS Justices (of the nine) tactically appointed to the Court by right-wing interests, has determinatively impaired the nature of our unique Democratic Republic.

In the Citizen’s United case, SCOTUS opened the floodgates to the billions of dollars that have since poured into our elections enabling those with great wealth to enjoy a vastly greater influence on our political system than the average American citizen. The shameless sophomoric justification for its monstrous exacerbation of an already extant problem is an observable blemish on the foundational principle of citizen equality regarding the voting franchise. The Court, unashamedly cited, as a bizarre rationale, that corporations, legally are “people,” and the right of people to contribute to an election is legally unlimited.  Every law school freshman and most entrepreneurs know, that the legal “personage” afforded to corporations is legally understood (since its creation in the English Statute of Elizabeth) to be fictional, utilized to grant third-party limited liability to a vulnerable (human) entrepreneur (N.B. the old English Law imprisoned debtors) and universally understood not to be a living and breathing person. SCOTUS’ puerile legal analogy makes evident a desperate need for a rationale for its politically influenced and corrupt decision.

An especially impactful illustration of SCOTUS’s transmogrification to the state of irresponsibly catering to religious influence, (as distinguished from the inappropriately,” political,” Taxpayer United case) is Dodd v. Jackson (2022). In irrefutable contradiction to the explicit provisions of the Constitution’s “Establishment Clause” mandating that the government make no law affecting religious belief, SCOTUS irresponsibly surrendered to the influence of the Christian Evangelical lobby, by overruling the fifty-year SCOTUS affirmation of the rights of women to have an abortion. In addition to the extinguishment of citizen’s natural rights (the historically expressed theme, articulated by the Constitution, by contrast, being the protection of citizen rights from incursion by the government) the direct consequence of such removal of the half-century of reliance on its precedential approval of the personal right to abortion has resulted in media reported, daily instances of mortal danger, human tragedy and great personal suffering.]—

[Oral Argument]

Case at bar: May, 2024 term, # 1787: Amphibian Rights v. Evangelical Marshland Council:

[Precis of Appellant, Amphibian Rights, Oral Argument]: (I.P. Daly, Esq.):  Pond frogs have a protruding, temporal ridge, essential to ingestion since they singularly flex their eye muscles to assist swallowing. The skin-covered ridge anatomically located above this existentially functioning apparatus is bony and relatively small but existentially important in eye protection from excess water and foreign matter. With regard to such prominent location and existential importance, its adornment by the female of the frog species signals health and attractiveness, deemed material to mating and population of the species. The universal recognition of the personal right of expression, inclusive of eyeliners and enhanced eyebrows by female frogs lends significant impetus to their existential existence as a species as well as the cosmetic recognition of their essential individuality. The right, in essence, constitutes a legally protected expression of free speech and individual self-assertion.

[Precis of Appellee’s, Marsh Evangelical, Oral Argument]: (Redding Blemish, Esq.):” Intentionally disfiguring any product of the Deity’s six-day creation by wanton cosmetic alteration is not only blasphemous and recklessly disrespectful but part of the ongoing atheistic plot to caricature creation. Any heretic amphibian, notably including frogs, wantonly practicing such improper, lewd and lascivious practice should be dealt with in accordance with the appropriate criminal law applicable to the jurisdiction in which the heinously criminal offense was committed.”  

                                                             (Split) RULING OF THE COURT [4- 3]

MAJORITY DECISION [4 Conservative Justices]: The flagrant act of cosmetically altering nature, by female frogs, enhancing their “eyebrows,” is morally analogous in irresponsibility to the anti-societal practice of installing graphic obscenity on public walls, by sinful human beings and is deemed empirically disruptive of the orderly course of society, whether on a ghetto wall or country pond; it should, in the vital interest of the maintenance of an orderly moral society, in ponds and metropolis be criminalized.

DISSENT (3 Liberal Justices]:  Judicial Interference, universally, with the private rights of expression and personal attempts at self-fulfillment, of pond frogs or any existing fauna, legally constitutes an unjustified and unwarranted interference with free speech, as well as an abysmal violation of the “Establishment Clause.”

-p.

Often, one’s initial evaluation, upon meeting someone for the first time (“first impression”)  is judgmentally and erroneously, founded upon one’s stereotypical evaluation of external features, such as verbal tone, extent of eye contact, and facial expression with reference to past experience with others. Such customary reflexive and experientially reductive appraisals based upon recalled subjective criteria and vulnerable memory, in our view, would not seem to be creditably useful.

Painted portraits cannot be considered as faithful to any reliable standard of objective description since they vary with the temporal conception and portrayal of traits of the human persona. The mysterious, subtle smile of Michelangelo’s “Mona Lisa” may intend to portray a sentiment, indeed, not common to the modern woman. Oscar Wilde’s (sole) novel, “The Face of Dorian Grey,” evokes a gothic personal portrait of the protagonist which bizarrely alters to reveal his true, disguised, character. Victorian novelists, such as Dickens and Trollope, articulate, in substantial detail, the facial and other external physical features of their created characters to convey their intended persona and designated place in the fictional composition. Such authors’ style of stereotypical character description, while brilliantly recounted is, inarguably, dated.

We would thoughtfully suggest a radically conceived, perhaps revolutionary, alternative protocol which we have empirically determined to be more rational, perceptive and factually adept. Rather than relying on a subjective and factually unsupported impression hazarded on an impulsive personal reaction to observable features (such as eye contact, tone, posture, personal expression, dress and posture, perhaps presence and style of mustache or beard and other temporal features), we would recommend the exercise of one’s concentrated essay at an accurate “first impression” of a newly met individual by the observation his chosen vocabulary.

As bizarre as our novel proposition may, at first, appear to be, we would, nevertheless, emphatically caution the reader to be alert to, and wary of, any newly introduced individual who noticeably omits to employ such words as, empathy, sympathy, beneficial, societal, appropriate, aesthetic, sensitive, considerate, equitable, principled, racial, moral, equitable, considerate, deferential, aesthetic, appropriate, and other positive and principled choices from the Nation’s lexicon.

It is empirically inarguable that utilized words are the spoken, overt replication of inner thought and, accordingly, comprise a more rationally indicative revelation of innate persona than a subjective judgment construed from traditionally perceived physical stereotypic appearance. Dishonest and reprehensible individuals have little empirical or personal use for beneficial and positive choices from the Nation’s lexicon in the course of their innate avoidance of its traditionally acceptable standards of rectitude.

It is, of course, wise and prudently necessary to compare the specific observations attained by way of our recommended mode of “first impression,” with later actual, empirical experience regarding the contextual person; however, in general matters of “first” or “early impression,” it is rationally appropriate and eminently fair to fashion one’s early estimation of character based upon appropriate rational criteria.

In sum, we suggest that the early evaluative process of a newly introduced individual encompasses a sensitive attention to the prescient nature of his chosen vocabulary rather than a biased and subjective judgment based upon experienced or stereotypical external standards.

-p.