Murphy's Lore | March 29, 2021

Culture wars, the key word there being culture, appear to do more to separate that to unite. When a white male from a middle American suburb, working hard to provide the family the safest and most comfortable environment possible, is bombarded from the left with the notion that his state in life is built upon the slave ships that started landing in pre-america territory in 1619, and although such an assertion is embraced by many of his neighbors, a combination of resentment and rancor may easily infiltrate the debate, if indeed the subject is even debatable, a questionable proposition at best. On the other hand, when a black or brown male from the same suburb is confronted by the police his alarms automatically go off, sometimes justifiably, others not so. Nevertheless, keeping in mind that the authority of the police officer must be applied with the precision of a surgeon’s scalpel for any miscalculation can, and often does have a fatal effect, it is an intelligent conclusion to draw that the fellow may automatically draw upon some level of apprehension, and even intransigence, with a resultant escalation of circumstances following. In effect then, asking either exposed civilian to the table for ceasefire talks, although it is recognized in the latter case it is sometimes much more than a metaphor, is like offering a “God Bless You” to the sneezing atheist. There is no frame of reference. And maybe that is the point, that is, to divide and conquer, the well worn gambit of despots everywhere. What then are the ramifications for the children in these present day wars? First of all, it seems beyond reproach that all the young ones should be back in the classrooms. Although there have been, in some quarters, mostly the union halls of the teaching profession, enthusiastic arguments for the notion that classrooms would be super-spreaders of the invisible enemy COVID-19, most of the insistence has been almost completely invalidated, and for some time now. Safety measures, in place in charter and parochial schools since September, 2020, including parental self-screening and heightened custodial programs providing COVID resistant surroundings, have demonstrated children can safely gather, and learn. If not for the culture wars, in this instance science versus powerful intolerance of partisan players, willing educators in the public sector may have had a chance to sprinkle the ABCs across the school rooms of America, in real time, other than electronically. Unfortunately, vast numbers of children have been fleeced and swindled out of at least a full year of academic culture. Who will stand and take responsibility for that one? Nor does it stop there. Prior to the pandemic, and in the present environment, when the school bells finally ring for those youngsters left behind in all this, the teaching of the ABCs would, in many schoolrooms, be permeated with and by critical race theory, that school of thought which espouses that racism is ordinary, for white folks, and not aberrational. First presented in the ‘70s and early’ 80s through the writings of Derrick Bell of the University of Washington Law School, CRT embraces a conviction that the freedoms insured by the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) are not neutral, and God given to all, but rather were meant to propagate the designs of the white classes of the day. Now it goes without saying, and of course it is therefore about to be said, that a truly free society bequeaths its opportunities and freedoms to all, indeed “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...” So in the abstract, nothing could be clearer. It is in the practice however that the ideal has been, without a doubt, blurred and disregarded, and which is now subjected to that same aspect of human nature, one that seeks to obtain an ideal by driving a wedge between, in this case, our two champions of everyday living cited above; that particular characteristic of humanity that seeks to rank one above another. Following through then, it is one thing to, properly, teach children that hate speech has no place in the schoolyard. It is something else entirely however when they see a fanaticism against those that would, however misguidedly, spew his/her venom in the public square. If education is actually meant to balance the scales of right from wrong in all things intimate to human affinities, it must then allow for differences of opinions, an intention at least, clearly set forth by those white males so many years ago. It is the application that is inadequate, not the intention. Further, no one philosophy, however well-intentioned, could ever hope to encapsulate all there is to discern about humankind. The objective is to create a society of safe spaces for all, short of the lawless of course. Anything less is just more folly, counter to the design of the Constitution. And if anyone can spot folly, it’s a child.  Undoubtedly the culture wars will continue, and it may be that, in some sense, that is as it should be; to recognize a pluralism; to strengthen that diversity through appreciation and respect for our variegated society. The idea of course is that there will come a time when all will live together peacefully, and such an idea must be sown, watered and thus nurtured throughout the classrooms and playgrounds of academe. From the ivied halls of Harvard to the playrooms of pre-school, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” Socrates.

In the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies, the FBI stands out as an archetype of effective and most advanced techniques of crime detection and law enforcement. Or does it? Recent history hints at something less than the ideal, as partisan politics seems to have infiltrated the administration of its mandate. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the domestic intelligence and security service of the U.S., has jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 catagories of crimes, as such are codified by the U.S. Code, Title 18. Established in 1908 through some bureaucratic hokus pokus of the then present, and now ironically named, Attorney General Charles Bonaparte, and during the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, the Bureau it maintained an original force of 34 special agents. Today it employs some 35,000 folks, including Special Agents, intelligence analysts, other worker bees and of course, bosses. Its first official activities included surveillance of houses of prostitution in an effort to enforce the Mann Act, early legislation meant to root out human trafficking. So far, so good. Undergoing some lateral agency shifts and a few name changes over the next 20 odd years, it became the FBI known to the world, and certainly known to domestic law breakers. Under the tutelage of J. Edgar Hoover, who served as Director from 1935 until his death in 1972, covering 8 presidencies, the agency rose to be known as a premier law enforcement body, charged with the domestic security of the United States. Although credited with the rollout and growth of so-called Scientific Crime Detention, forensics in the vernacular, Hoover turned out to be be highly controversial during his later reign, and a reign it was, dogging the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr., Eleanor Roosevelt, Marcus Garvey, and future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who Hoover maintained at the time was the “most dangerous man in the Untie States.” So much for haracter appraisal skills, at least in these cases. Following Hoover’s dictatorship, Congress restricted future directorships to ten years, subject to presidential requests for approvals to extend a term, in an appropriate circumstance. As the agency grew it developed highly advanced methods of detecting and rooting out crime and criminals. Think for example, John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, Al Capone; more recent pirates such as Jordan Belfort, Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken; and turncoats Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames. In addition, the Bureau’s war time efforts were credited with the arrest of not a few domestic spies. Over the course of its history then the G-Men and Women, for the most part, exemplified a most professional and effective crime fighting machine. But the problem in today’s woke environment however is who gets to set the alarm clock, and for what time? As we fast forward to the present, although it can be argued that the action of Director James Comey in releasing a memo he wrote regarding a conversation with President Trump was in violation of certain agency regulations regarding the confidentiality of Bureau info, the Nation awaits the Durham Report on that one. Comey of course has aserted that the information was his own personal property and thus not subject to the rules. Yet Durham, in this regard, is charged with so much more, including the investigation of the investigation into the Russia Hoax, as it is seen by many to be, the activities of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his subordinates, the source(s) of the many leaks emanating from the agency in the recent past, and further, the actions taken against Michael Flynn, to the shenanigans in the Ukraine, and even perhaps, the Hunter Biden Affair. While time passes, it remains crucial that the unvarnished truth, free of political skewing of any sort, be disclosed to the American Public. Just this past week the FBI was once again criticized, this time by a Federal Judge of the secretive FISA Court, the Court where secrecy in the name of American security, a Hobson’s Choice there, operates behind closed doors. The Court, in a now de-classified ruling, found the FBI guilty of widespread violations in the course of its wiretapping and monitoring program meant to root out foreign terrorists. Consider here the combination of clandestine surveillance and a curtained and sound-proofed court, and then try to measure the degree of trust the American People must have in this important institution. Well, that trust has apparently been broken, again. Worse, in its ruling the Court found that warrantless monitoring activities were “More pervasive that was previously believed.” This is not to say that a program such as this is unneeded, but that its purveyors should not be stretching the authority given them to a length which is in clear violation of the Constitution; and apparently this they have done. Yesterday Carter Page, today your neighbor, tomorrow you.  The greatest caution is required. The acts of overzealous and biased cowboys and cowgirls, such as Peter Strock and Lisa Page for example, need to roped in, and prevented from recurring. Any acquiescence and blase acceptance of such rogue misuse of authority represents a solid building block in the House of Autocracy.

On a particular, recent occasion, it happened that our friends Brain and Heart, Neuro & Myo respectively, had taken up residence on that park bench, not officially reserved for them of course, but nonetheless their pew, upon which to resolve the ills of society, or at least to expound upon them from their singularly unique perspectives. Amidst multi-colored blossoms and the outbreak of warming breezes, the impending exchange held forth the promise of useful debate, debate unlike that taking place in the State Houses and the Nation’s Capitol, where actually hearing and listening to the observations of one’s political and philosophical challengers seems, at best a lost art, at worst, purposeful disregard in pursuit of one’s own agenda. Myo spoke first. She made mention of the most recent statements of intentions from President Biden’s speech to Congress this past week. She was particularly perplexed as to the statement that he claims to have “inherited a nation in crises.” From her point of view, save the pandemic, she opined that pre-COVID America seemed to be progressing on several fronts, although she allowed that there was much work to be done. Neuro interrupted her, a tendency he has tried over the years to control, but has been unable to completely overcome. He explained that while it did seem unfair to ascribe the programs and agenda of the previous administration to the present woes of all things American, it was more the purveyor of the curriculum that most distressed the populace, not all but enough to change the head coach, and many of the athletes, and thus the approach to the governing game. Myo would not be distracted however. She pointed out that the conversation itself has been co-opted, which she explained is a primary tactic of the oppressor and despot. In today’s climate, should one disagree with and offer alternative approaches to the various plans and programs of the majority, as slight as such it may itself be, the immediate response is an attempt to marginalize, to cancel out the thoughts and ideas of a different mindset. She offered a case in point. When Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) declared that “America is not a racist country”, within minutes he was designated “Uncle Tim” by the Twiterati. She wanted to comment on the term Twit-erati, but saved that for later so as not to divert from the point at hand. Although the Senator went on to describe instances of racism he has had to deal with in his own life, a colloquy he engaged in order to make the point, his disclosures would not overcome the fact that he takes issue with that wing of his opponent’s narrative, those who would criticize in an effort to silence. Neuro was tempted to tag Heart as a racist right then and there, but thought better of it and chose not to slide into today’s almost universal misuse of the term; uses that in most instances are meant to diminish another’s contrary thought; a use that actually turns the meaning and significance of the term in on itself. He ain’t considered a brain for nothing. But while Neuro did not necessarily disagree with Myo, he did point out that, in fairness, the President, on a few occasions, seemed to be extending a hand to both sides, and appeared, at least ostensibly, to be attempting to craft an atmosphere of open debate and co-operative efforts on behalf of the American people. On the issues of immigration and the Second Amendment for instance, he expressed a willingness to work with the other side in an attempt to find the ways to resolve two most troublesome matters infecting the land of the free and home of the brave; for quite some time. Neuro after all knows that words are important, but that it is actions that count. He surmised that for as long as a speaker’s enterprise fails to reflect proffered eagerness to “unity”, the franchise remains disappointing and hollow. Brain also knew that rhetoric is just that, and remaining only as such invites a blast of uncompromising gridlock. Of course, heart innately knows all this, and was a bit encouraged by the possibilities that statesmen and women might actually see fit to put aside sectarian and fractional conduct to engage in behavior which would foster co-operation on these, and many other pressing issues. She is however, in one sense, a realist, in spite of what the romantics may say about her, and is well aware that the blue and red have intrinsically different paths to the ballot box. She remained hopeful however that the good of all the people will take centerstage, that the would be Unifier-In-Chief actually means what he says, and that all the peoples’ representatives do all the peoples’ work. Anything less then, like the use of the term racist, turns the entire pronouncement on itself, and will be seen for what it is, an attempt to “Do as we want, not as I say.”  During this chat, a small group of children, playing nearby this patio of reflection housing Brain & Heart’s Sofa of Good Sense, was spotted by our cognoscenti. Neuro pointed out how innocent children are, untroubled by the work and responsibilities of the adults around them. Myo instantly agreed but added that unless those adults resolve to respect our differences, differences in thought, differences in philosophies, and even, how simple to do, differences in skin color for instance, the adult world of the children presently inhabiting American playgrounds will be vastly changed, for better or for worse, depending on one’s frame of reference. Heart was also quick to point out that the freedoms of childhood should mature into the freedoms of America, which freedoms must be preserved and made to flourish, under any political scheme.

The United States Supreme Court, or SCOTUS for the acronymically inclined, was given birth by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, and embodied by the Judiciary Act of 1789. At that time Congress set up a federal judicial system made of trial courts throughout the country to handle the myriad federal issues not appropriate to state jurisdiction, supported by intermediate appellate courts, and at the apex of the third branch of our government, the granddaddy of them all. The Senior’s primary function is to pass on the constitutionality of executive and legislative acts, thus actually placing itself in the position, based upon present day politics, of possibly having to decide issues related to its own composition. Although the makeup of SCOTUS is controlled by Congress, in the present climate one can easily envision constitutional challenges to the current manuverings of one side of the asile, or at least a portion thereof. A bit of history. At the outset the Court consisted of six justices, whose positions were considered so important, the moniker of judge was thought not to be descriptive enough. The number of justices changed six times, with a high of ten in 1863, then settling on nine in 1869, where it has been ever since. The Court has had a total of 17 chief justices and a 103 associate justices. For its first 180 years justices were almost always white male Protestants of Anglo or Northwestern European descent. Louis Brandeis was the first Jewish justice, appointed in 1916, Thurgood Marshall the first African-American, appointed in 1967, Sandra Day O’Connor the first female, robbed up in 1981, and Antonin Scalia, the first Italian-American, joined the Supremes in 1986. At present the Court is comprised of 1 African-American male, 3 white females, one of Hispanic decent, and 5 white males, approaching at least a demographically legitimate makeup. America awaits its first gay justice, probably the next ceiling to shatter. Now of course political leanings are another thing entirely, but in the best of all worlds, politics are said, with at least a wink, not to enter the Supreme Court Building. SCOTUS is the final arbiter of Congressional Acts, and when it comes to approving the acts of Congress, that is no small task. Thankfully the Court need not, nor would it comment on all the political bluster radiating from The Capitol and which daily assaults one’s senses, as if any human being not a member of such a high-minded assemblage of rapscallions could with any degree of decisiveness comment on such folly. Think for instance what a Chief Justice might have to say about Maxine Waters (D-CA), or the various and always colorful remarks of the previous Commander-in-Chief. Such activities needs be left to the reprobates who would comment on such comments, in like say a weekly rambling on all things current. The work of the Court is serious stuff, with important and usually permanent, always historical, effects; as in abortion, gay marriage or civil rights, for example. At present there is a move afoot to increase the number of justices. Such a pursuit was last undertaken by FDR, one of America’s early progressive leaders. There were others, his cousin Teddy and Howard Taft come to mind. In any event, in order to insure the success of the New Deal, parts of which had been ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS of the day, 32, labelled as the first “court packer” attempted to raise the number of justices to 15. Congress however would have nothing of it and the plan died on the vine. Present day Congress however is a different animal. As the Dems have recently risen to a razor thin majority it is the intent of many to craft a High Court in their image, and thus the attempt to add 4 associates justices; the thinking of course being the majority would push through candidates aligned with the items on their legislative agenda. Think the Second Amendment, immigration, health care and climate change, to name a few. Political Science it ain’t, or maybe that’s just what it is. And then too, there is the Speaker who, avowedly anyway, did not stand behind the House action while proclaiming she wants to wait for the Biden Commission to report on the issue. In other words, to give respect to the move, create a commission. Political machinations so thinly veiled, and by the way when in power Republicans have demonstrated the ability to get their way as well, only expose the spoof played upon the people, some of whom are in accord, others oppossed. Because of the meager majority however, many believe the subterfuge is unlikely to succeed, on this go around.  At the end of the day though, Spring has sprung is these United States, with any advantage COVID may be on the run, and great numbers of folks have been “stimulated”, which in itself, by some standards, is political pandering, the quid for the unvoiced but expected quo, and a quid which by any economic standard cannot result in a benefit to children and grandchildren. But, the political contrivances notwithstanding, life goes on, for some positively, for others, not so much. The business of Congress then must be to strive for less partianship. While it is of course true that “elections have results”, post- election actions designed only to apply epoxy to shore up future results, will lead to a most fractured, as though it could get worst, society. A society which ceases to be “of the people, for the people”, with a government bent to its autocratic ways, ia comportment which benefits no one.

The Second Amendment, although in the opinion of some political persuasions to the contrary, affords and protects the citizenry’s right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has said as much when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Now at present there is an attack on the institiution itself by those who cannot otherwise get their own way, and jockey to get their own way for the future, while the gettin’ is good; but that is for another day, soon. The right to gunslinging is not at issue in this, unless of course you are a gunslinger, and that being the case, rules do not apply in any event. The debate is whether a free society should arm itself. Notwithstanding the myriad problems and tragic deaths brought about by the maurauders, desperados and fugitives from peace and security, movements prohibiting firearms to Dick and Jane are, at their core, attempts to control, a pursuit of domination over all those who would otherwise enjoy the rights to safety and security for oneself, family and ranch. This however is not to say there are no problems associated with guns, as we are all too often reminded that there are. The American right to keep and bear arms precedes the U.S. Constitution. During the rebellion against English Rule the colonists cited the 1689 English Bill of Rights, in part enacted to counter the disarming of Protestants by the Roman Catholic King James II, as precedent for free people to defend themselves. And why is it that religion always seems to be at the heart of so much irreligious behavior? Here too, this will be for another day. In any event the Second Amendment came into existence for a good reason, to prevent government, monarchical or otherwise, from establishing an irreversible stronghold on a populace. Fast forward from the days of the Red Coats and ponder whether we should allow Congress to be the only band of renegades with the right to lock and load. Didn’t think so. But just as with all else, and even more so here because of devestatingly evil conduct, constantly, and almost daily evidenced, there are negatives, in this case intolerable, unacceptable life ending negatives. It is not however for lack of authoritative pronouncement that the evil continues, for who but a fanatic would embrace, worse yet participate in such iniquity? In the most recent iteration on the subject, the Supremes ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the right to keep and carry arms is not, as those who would collect all the guns say, “contingent on service in a militia”. But the Court did, and rightfully of course, recognize the states’ rights to restrictions, including keeping the hardware out of the clutches of felons and the mentally ill, or the carrying of arms in sensitive locations, like schools, churchs and the workplace, to name a few, and further, authorizing suitable schemes to control the sale of the equipage. It bears mentioning that a majority of the Congress at the time supported the right to bear arms. All well and good. Now try and get what we expect, andseemingly can only hope to see, reasonable minds agreeing on a blueprint that incorporates these and other highly judicious safeguards. And that seems to be the problem here. In the words of one most peaceful soul, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle” than to find enough reasonable minds dwelling in the legislative halls of America. But political mindsets are one thing, going to school or work in the morning and not returning is another. As a people, America must insist, and this goes for the hardened pistol packers all the way to the most ardent gun control somebodys, that legislatures, and particularly Congress, resolve this shameful situation and proceed to codify and enact a system that both controls those who would lose all control, while protecting those who’s aim it is to protect. The failure of Congress to have effectively dealt with this is not because of Trump, or Bush or Clinton or any other First Chair really, present day company included. It is because of a present congressional unwillingness to stand up and face the hard choices, underwritten by an angst of protecting one’s own position and paycheck, which in turn is empowered by an insufficently aroused electorate. Recent comments by the Biden Administration, although worthwhile, are, as in all past administrations, piecemeal. A full and complete national scheme is required and necessary. So-called “red flag” laws, i.e. temporarily banning certain individuals identified as dangerous, usually for reasons of mental instability, from possessing firearms until a court can rule, efforts to prevent “ghost guns”, weapons made at home with high tech equipment, and longer and universal waiting periods for all gun purchases, are all good steps, but they do not speak to a national resolve to solve. Nor is the dilema impossible of solution, but so long as both sides of the issue refuse to compromise meaningfully, America will continue to bathe itself in the blood of innocents, from Sandy Hook, Connecticut to Orange, California, with stops along the way in atlanta, Georgia, Orlando, Florida, Las Vegas, Nevada and Boulder, Colorado. In other words, from sea to bloody sea. At this writing, there have been 147 mass shootings in the U.S. so far this year. As a nation, the U.S. has the 28th highest rate of deaths from gun violence in the world; hardly an example of freeworld leadership. The “fers” need to recognize a balance between the right of humans to protect themselves from things that unlawfully threaten safety and security, and the unfettered possession of arsenals of destruction. The “agins” need to understand that rejecting the justifiable in furtherance of a policy which rubs against an obvious freedom, only succeeds in nothing less than the constant death and destruction wrought by this gridlock. Where are the Congressional leaders with enough wisdom to craft measures effective to end the carnage? When will they arise and take control? What amount of slaughter will it take?

Hon. Joseph R. Biden  The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, From time to time busy folks need to stop and reassess goals; to take a timeout from the daily grind and evaluate where they are and whether that place actually reflects one’s stated intentions. It appears at this point that the declaration that “unity is the path forward” was either a pretense, or only directed at those in accord with the stratagem. While it is recognized that as President you get to select the playlist, it is clear that not all partygoers dance to the chosen tunes. It is also clear now that your words of January 20, 2021 were not much more than cliches, boilerplate “assurances” that the new administration would strive to present an affair that all patrons could and would participate in. All indications divulge a neglect to unify, whatever that was intended to mean, and to whomever it was directed. The policies from day one bespeak an enterprise, unlike your formerly middle of the road self, more resolute in the ascendency of the progressive politic, in what has now become an unveiled bid to secure dominance for years to come. And swept up in all this, you are permitting lefties more dominant than Whitey Ford or Tom Glavine to do all the pitching, while you hang out in the dugout seemingly, but not really, calling the shots. Nor is this surveillance of the first hundred days intended as a strictly partisan lecture. But a case in point. Your recent rhapsody regarding Georgia’s newly enacted voting law as “pernicious”, “un-American” and “utterly racist”, in the first instance is hardly any of those things as it actually provides greater access to the most fundamental freedom of a free society. It is clear that your comments were not based in reality and merely reverberate backroom idealogues. The Election Integrity Act of 2021, the key word being integrity, actually expands voting in most counties of the Peach State. Although it requires an ID for absentee voters, this requirement, for in person voters, is nothing new, and not unlike say showing an ID at the will-call window. Now in Georgia, if a voter does not have a driver’s license or other form of identification, the legislation requires the county clerks to provide a free ID card. In the alternative, absentee voters can include the last four digits of their social security number along with the ballot and their vote will be counted; hardly a “pernicious” “un-American” or “utterly racist” scheme. But framing it as such seems to be the point. The intent of such a description goes hand in hand with the current goings on at the Southern Border. Those undocumented among us would clearly not be able to satisfy such a hassle free prerequisite, and therefore would be excluded from the voting process. It seems a hard stretch at best to call even this “utterly racist”, unless of course your position is in disregard of all things constitutional, and focuses on a pernicious, there’s that word again, system of electing only those who would control all aspects of a free society, to their own advantage only. And the reality is that suggesting wannabe voters among minority populations are not capable of participating in a program so simple to navigate, which is what is being declared, is the real racism here. Back to the statute. The number of lock boxes and locations for use by absentee voters are reduced, but again same can hardly be said to be restrictive, and certainly not “systemic racial terrorism.” Your words? Or perhaps merely spoken by you. Other changes such as food and drink distribution to voters while waiting on line to vote, adjustments to deal with the long lines, a reconstituted election board and faster result reporting requirements are among provisions to actually provide more uniformity and fairness to the process. So in essence, instead of uniting, it seems the intent of the criticism was to fan the flames of division, a classic gambit of an emerging authoritarian game plan. In this instance, and others, you have fallen into that political cauldron heated by hyperbole and bombast, an oratory meant to stir deep enmity, and certainly not to unite; in essence the very same thing complained of with respect to your predecessor. All this is not to say there are no problems between the races. There are. But can we stop using the term “racist” for anything the cancellers, wokies and now “your” administration, disagree with? One is hard-pressed to identify present day programs of governmental and private assistance which as a guiding factor do not include anti-discriminatory policies based on race, creed, gender and an ever widening category of protected classes, as it hould be in America. Wherever one stands on the issues however, bantering about a discourse which proclaims distortions for political gain is anathema to a professed aim of unity, unless of course the unification is directed only at party officials in power at any specific time. Although such a manner of communication may be indigenous to the political arena, we can and must do better, both blue and red.

Declarations of unity aside, it appears as though the present tenant in the White House will say one thing and do another, unlike the previous tenant who left no guesswork with respect to what he said he would do. Knowing for sure that past behavior does not justify present conduct in all instances, it would nevertheless appear that taking up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue seems to bestow a certain protective shroud allowing for all sorts of now you see it, now you don’t. The degree to which this is upsetting is measured by whether or not your guy is doing the talking. The problem however runs deeper. Beneath the pomp and circumstance of offical speak by a President and his staff lie the Fourth and Fifth Estates, those actual and would be purveyors of “news”, sometimes reported accurately, more often not. Whether you line up with CNN or FOX News for example, not recognizing the slant applied to daily events leads only to acquiesence, a blind acceptance that whatever is feed to you is healthy and pure. If truth be told, very few news outlets tell it like it is on all issues, and at all times. Therein lies the danger. A free press needs to be diligent in its search for the truth. It cannot pay homage or in anyway conduct itself as though it is other than unbiased, free of all attachments to this or that, excepting the truth of course. It must leave a consumer with an unvarnished recap, without slant or favor, and should not be in service to anything save the real skinny. Neither is the truth so difficult to uncover, nor should journalists exploit it in a biased or partial manner. To report as though one is writing an OP/ED, unless of course one is, is to cheat the reader/viewer/listener and even malign the reporter’s sense of integrity, though such a concern seems, more and more, to be willingly sacrificed upon the altar of nepotism, and this is so whether the broker of such prejudice cares to admit it or not. And that is where the twains will never meet, for it is all too clear that the scions of news gathering, from whichever side of the aisle they observe and report, have been co-opted, a situation they themselves have caused. A basic, fundamental principle of proper journalism is to get the facts straight, an effort one can hardly abide while acting as a wingman for one political persuasion or another. If one’s objective is to further a particular goal, other than dispassionate and truthful revelation, the result is necessarily contaminated, poisoned with the inclination to inform with bias, instead of impartiality. A journalist’s stock in trade is their independence, freedom from special interest, political, corporate, societal or otherwise. If you prefer to hear/read/see only that with which you agree, there is plenty of media to go around, but in the end, when the government and the cultural elites come to collect and control all aspects of a free society, the lack of an independent reporting source, if we in fact descend to that level, will be at the heart of that moment. The media should stop acting like cheerleaders and get back to broadcasting the play by play as it appears. When we are feed more than the actual facts, and tinted by an agenda, the game clock no longer matters, as the result is pre-ordained. Now it is certainly true that most stories have at least two sides, nevertheless it is the obligation of the storyteller to present all sides, objectively and accurately. The sad fact however is that just as two eyewitnesses to the same event may report differently, so too, reporters can and do report the same business with a contrast sometimes so stark we are sometimes left with wonderment as to what actually transpired. Read any article on the same topic as reported in the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune for example and then spend some time reconciling the differences. One sees two teams of cheerleaders rooting for, and impelling you to root for, a particular team. This is not the dissemination of news for its own sake, but accounting calculated to make some point or other, be it red, blue or purple. Another basic tenet of reporting the news is to do no harm. Leaving aside the Twitterati of the Fifth Estate, and other unsocial media, the intent of which most often is to besmirch and cancel, some working journalists need to recognize the power of the press, while others clearly do and take advantage of that power. And as in all else, power corrupts. You know the rest. Lastly, why are the retractions, if and when they appear, relegated to the lower right hand column mixed among the legal notices? Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point. Is it because accountability is held in such low esteem these days when it comes to proclaiming the ‘truth” of one side or another? Fake News, a term ironically popularized by Delaware’s Favorite Son’s immediate predecessor is all around, emanating from all quarters. and without respite. We ignore it, or accomodate it, at our own peril. Valuable and ethical reporting is a bedrock of a democracy. Anything else leads to tyranny.  “All I want is the truth. Just give me the truth.” John Lennon.

As it happened last week, on a warm and sunny day somewhere between heaven and earth the brain and the heart, the oldest and closest of friends, found themselves on a park bench with time on their hands. Now you can tell they are good friends because every now and then they argue as though the other had lost all common sense. Nevertheless the two could never disagree with any degree of vehemence so as to cause a breakup of the relationship, for these two not only appreciate the worth of each other, but indeed one cannot live without the other, and of course this is perfectly clear to each of them. Sometimes. So on this bright, sun-filled day, with rays of golden sunshine beaming through a canopy of oak leaves, the tranquility of the moment supplied the stage for the vignette that was about to occur. Heart asked his fellow bench warmer Brain, not that either one of them are second stringers, of its impresssions surrounding the recent commotion having to do with a one Dr. Seuss. Brain, whose friends all called him Neuro, quickly pointed out that subject of the moment was not a doctor at all but rather an Ad Man, not in the mold of Dan Draper, but rather, and formerly known to the world as Theodore Seuss Geisel, a print artisan who composed charming and engaging sales pitches aimed at adults and on behalf of for instance former corporate giant Standard Oil and Schaffer Beer. Being a brain, Neuro of course knew all this. He also informed the heart, aka Myo, who on any given day can invoke love, courage, compassion and any number of other characteristics, all positive and welcoming, and depending uppn the attention she gains from her host, that many of the characters now being cancelled first appeared in support of petro and beer, essentials in any age. But it was precisely this fact that confused Myo. If the early characters were fit for commerce, what happened over the years to cast at least some of them into the social waste bin, admittedly a pitching enterprise not attractive to all, but certainly one which seems, in the current climate, to be taking more comers, all be they sent there by the self-appointed, those who would elevate a certain one-mindedness to an art form. Nor was Myo willing to relegate the good Doctor to the scrap heap. Being in tune with all things charitable she was quick to point out that regardless of present day inclinations in some quarters to undo the past, some of the highly educated and successful ones among us extol Mr. G., as did President Obama in ’15 when he advised, “pretty much all the stuff you need to know is in Dr. Seuss. It’s like the Star Belly Sneetches...We’re all the same, so why would we treat somebody differently just because they don’t have a star on their belly?” So Myo inquired, if one as brainy as 44 can sing the praises of this purveyor of Kiddy Lit wisdom, why can’t we all appreciate the intelligence of the messages Ad Man was selling? And Neuro, with an urgency that could not be denied, countered that we should not allow our children to be exposed to any manner of thinking that is less than all-inclusive, or to engage in social commerce, and this is Neuro at his singular best that day, that even for only a paragraph or two, as measured by the Thought Police, can ever appear to consider one of us better than another, or exclude from the conversation the Sneetch without a star. When reminded by Heart that that is specifically the message, Brain hesitated, but then recovered to explain that the message had been contaminated by other text, and therefore amends must be made. To whom he did not say. To Myo this hullabaloo seemed as an exercise designed to a bigger purpose, one that clearly would intend to tell you what is permissible in a communal society, and what is not, with a present day emphasis on the not. Heart of course cannot identify with this type of forced thought as she always prefers to feel her own way to the truth.  Alas, the two remain companions and will no doubt work out their differences on the subject. In the meantime, confronted with the same issue, if your mother asked where you stand, what would you do?

The human genome is a complete set of instructions we each carry around with us. As opposed however to say, instructions on how to set up the new boob tube, these instructions contain a bonus, DNA, the molecule containing information an organism needs to develop, live and reproduce. Although we need do nothing in order for it to work, its doings are not so simple as sitting on the sofa with the remote. The first working draft of the human genome was published 20 years ago, on February 15, 2001. What have we learned since then? Well, aside from Dolly the Sheep and the Clone Commanders of Star Wars fame, there exists a number of benefits to human counterparts inhabiting the universe. But first we should consider, this particular wing of scientific knowledge which may be fraught with dangers in the wrong hands, and without the proper controls. While “genomics” partnered with supercomputers can help to identify the origins of many diseases, and is presently searching deeply into all forms of cancer, and working to manipulate the Alzheimer’s gene toward a cure, there are those modern day Dr. Frankensteins who would like nothing better than to create their own version of a new and improved human, which on the one hand may seem worthy of the time and expense, but on the other, trying to fool Mother Nature never seems to turn out all that well. So called CRISPR gene editing, the power to alter DNA, has its benefits. Aside from creating a flock of Clark Kents and his Supergirl cousin Karen Starr, it can create new, healthier foods, could eradicate genetic errors that cause disease and could possibly eliminate their causes alltogether. Also, theoretically it could resurrect the wolly mamouth, or at least a hybrid of the hoary and hairy beast, for what reason no one has been able to explain, and also rid the world of mosquitos, an end seemingly worthy in itself. But, it also has that goulish quality of know-how associated with the unnatural, the stuff of Netflix producers. In the United States, the CDC, those lovable folks who flash us the latest in COVID news, operates an Office of Genomics and Disease Prevention. The National Institutes of Health partner with them to monitor privacy matters in testing and research, while the FDA has issued regultory schemes concerning most genomic testing. Overall however, Congress has yet to enact legislation regulating the boundaries of the science itself, most likely because Congress seems not to be able to get out of its own way. In this instance however, perhaps that is a good thing, as before you know it we would be regarding the science and its applications through another meaty layer of bureaucracy, and not unlike like Monty Pyton’s Ministry of Silly Walks, the purposes would be lost in the procedures. For the moment the scientists are self-regulating, with the general exceptions of privacy and non-discrimination strictures.  But what if CRISPER could shake out certain traits and prevent newborns from catching the annoyance gene? Perhaps that could eliminate the Sunday driver in the fast lane, on Wednesday, the sports fan who spouts every statistic, whether right or wrong, during the game, the New Green Deal advocate who flies around in private jets, or the friend who criticizes another, only to fall victim to the same irresponsible behavior that was projected that another. But, not all but most kidding aside, the science has the promise of a healthier race of humans, but also the possibility of great harm in the wrong hands. Just as the dot.com explosion was an awakening to a new potential, good and bad, as we see every day, the science of the genome offers great hope for the future, and a not so distant future, providing of course that we do not muck up the highway in the meantime.