Rerun!

 Me, in 2020:

     It pains me to have to write this.  It's probably going to cost me some readers.

     But it's an important principle, one at the very heart of our country's strength, and it appears to me that we're in danger of losing it:  The First Amendment.

     Freedom of thought; freedom of belief.  Freedom of expression.  Freedom of the press.  These are very basic things, things that are supposed to be set outside the government's grasp.  They apply not only to ideas we like, or to ideas that most people agree with -- they also apply to unpopular ideas.  Repugnant ideas.  Wrong ideas.  The most effective way to fight bad ideas is to counter them with better ideas, not by attempting to suppress them.

     In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court wrote, "There is no mysticism in the American concept of the state or of the nature or origin of its authority.  We set  up government by consent of the governed and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. [...]
     "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. [...] Freedom to differ is not limited to things  that do not matter much.  That would be a mere shadow of freedom.  The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."

     When I wrote about law enforcement apparently targeting journalists, in reports a Federal judge found so credible he granted a temporary restraining order, I received a few comments.  They were...heated.  Vitriolic.  The people who wrote them are free to hold such ideas, of course.  I'm not obliged to post them on my blog, but I will quote from them in order to address the significant concerns they raise.

     Let me be clear: to the extent that modern "cancel culture," largely a phenomenon originating in the Left, focuses on silencing unpopular opinions, it is a bad thing; and to the extent that that it turns government powers to that end, it is contrary to the Bill of Rights.  But the fact that one side of a conflict is bad does not necessarily mean the opposing side is good; they can both be bad, and to varying degrees.

     When a commenter writes, "I am so tired of watching Portland Antifa and their I'll [sic] get away with arson and battery etc that I want to see the mobs machine gunned into hamburger. I want to see Portlands [sic] gutters running with the blood of these idiots. If that includes a bunch of lefty so-called journalists, it's just collateral damage and no great loss," the course of action he endorses is completely contrary to American values.

     Individuals who commit arson and battery indeed ought to be arrested by police and charged with their crimes -- but the person standing next to them, waving a sign and jeering, is not equally culpable.  In any event "machine-gunning" is not how the government should or, Constitutionally, can respond -- and if they could, there would be nothing to keep a future, Left-leaning Administration from doing the very same to a rioting mob of Right-wing protestors.

     As for "lefty so-called journalists," there's nothing in the Bill of Rights that limits press freedom to one political leaning or another: John Stossel, Glenn Greenwald, Sean Hannity, Rachael Maddow and some nitwit with a blog are all protected from government interference, even when they're offering up nothing but opinion.  It is generally understood that the government is expected to not shoot them, especially when they have taken pains to make themselves identifiable as "press."

     Dreams of  "gutters running red with blood" are best left to authoritarians: fascists and communists, either of whom will kill you just as dead for saying the wrong thing.  That's not how it is supposed to work in the United States of America.  When you urge it, you are urging the overthrow of our system of government.

     Another commenter was irked at the press:
     "I duuno but I have not seen any evidence of a true independent reporter for some time."
     I'm not sure what this means, especially in a world of blogs, Twitter and YouTube videos open to anyone.  Most professional journalists do work for some entity, and they answer to some kind of an editor -- but they operate pretty independently: it's the only way you can cover a developing event.  And it is true that if we send reporters working for National Review and The Nation to cover the same event, they're going to deliver very different views of it -- not because they got their marching orders from above, but because they freely chose where they wanted to work, based in part on congruent outlooks.

     "Also the police know that if a protest is not broadcast in living color it can die out."
     That doesn't give the police the right to censor or deny coverage.  That would be the opposite of a free press.  Still, it seems nonsensical; I have seen everything from long-term "Occupy" camp-outs to Second Amendment rallies get lots of attendance despite receiving only cursory TV coverage.  It takes more than the chance to grace TV screens to get feet on the ground -- especially for more than one day.

     "We saw that with the Vietnam war. Put all the losses up and cover up the wins and before long you have a vibratent [sic] anti war faction."
     This is a distortion of history -- of something that was on TV screens every night of my childhood and teens.  Opposition to the war in Vietnam started in 1965 with opposition to the draft, especially in the age group subject to it.  Protests grew after that, still focused on the draft, escalating to the mass turning-in of draft cards in October, 1967.  The Tet offensive in early 1968 resulted in the first press coverage implying the U. S. military in Vietnam was weak -- with causality lists to support that impression.  The truth was closer to a strong U. S. military, fighting a war under conditions and with aims that were so misaligned with reality as to make the war unwinnable: they'd been a given a mission that left them stuck throwing men into a meatgrinder.  Under such circumstances, a "vibrant antiwar faction" was inevitable.  You're blaming the media for what should be laid on Congress and the Presidents who were running that "police action."

     "But sure, let's make a protected class that wants to tear down civilization. That will end well."
     The men who wrote the Bill of Rights, and who got the Amendment passed in the U. S. Congress and the legislatures of the States, were convinced that by protecting freedom of belief, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of the press from government meddling and limitation, they were protecting the exchange of ideas fundamental to the United States of America.  I'm quite sure there are reporters, commentators and editors who would love to "tear down civilization," everything from radical Islamic fundamentalists to black-flag anarcho-communists to pipsqueak Nazis to some kinds of crazy I can't even conceive of.  Our best weapon to fight them is to address and counter their destructive nonsense with constructive sense, with better ideas -- ideas that include freedom of the press.

     You cannot improve a free society by making it less free.  That road only leads to one place, and it's not freedom.

     History is unmistakably clear about that.

Back to 2022: it's still true.  And I'm still opposed to authoritarianism in every form.  Trump-humping nitwits wallowing inside the hollowed-out elephant of the GOP are merely the latest nasty flavor of an always-bad dish.

Wading The Rubicon: Yesterday's Hearing

      The Rubicon wasn't much of a river in Roman times and none of the modern candidates -- the river renamed "Rubicon" in 1933 is still the most likely -- are any more imposing.  Along a lot of its length, you can wade across.

      However puny, it was the border between the provinces and the territory of Rome.  It was a line no army raised by a provincial governor could lawfully cross.  To do so was a direct threat to the Republic's government.

      The Trump Administration's defense against claims of attempted coup have generally been along the line of "What river?  There was no Rubicon, and if there was, it was just a little ditch and besides, the other side was engaged in skullduggery!"

      Said "skullduggery" was non-existent; then-President Trump's own Justice Department said so.  In the wake of yesterday's 1/6 Committee hearing, it appears Mr. Trump's Rubicon was real, he waded it knowingly, and he's had river mud on his shoes and water-soaked pant-legs even as he has maintained his innocence.

      He is no innocent.  His culpability was direct.  His intentions were to create even greater unrest than he managed and he was only barely restrained by some members of his staff.  I had taken him to be little more a petulant man-child magnified by fame and money, enraged by defeat, grasping futilely at straws; the enormity* of his ambition and the coordination of his efforts to illegally retain power is now becoming clear.

     Mr. Trump wanted to be Caesar.
_________________________
* e·nor·mi·ty  /iˈnôrmədē/
noun: enormity; plural noun: enormities
1.the great or extreme scale, seriousness, or extent of something perceived as bad or morally wrong.
   "a thorough search disclosed the full enormity of the crime"
2. a grave crime or sin.
    "the enormities of the regime"

The Ninth Amendment

      "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

      If our only rights are the ones specifically listed in the U. S. Constitution as amended, what's all this about, then?

      We ended up with a Bill of Rights because the Antifederalists argued that a number of rights needed to be explicitly protected from Federal meddling (including the delightfully-sweeping Ninth).  Federalist counter-arguments included this: "It [the Bill of Rights] was dangerous because any listing of rights could potentially be interpreted as exhaustive.  Rights omitted could be considered as not retained."

      Turns out the debate in those dusty old history books is still alive.

     (Also please note, the excessive and unusual arrangement of commas, is not confined to the Second Amendment.)

Blogging Continues To Decline

      At least, that's what my Statcounter report tells me, and I have no reason to doubt it.  Social media whomps the slow read and my unpopular opinions have only become more so.

      Still, my opinions remain mine.  In the beginning, it was just me and webcrawler robots.  If it gets to be that way again, I'm okay with it.

And My Opinion Is

      I guess I'm supposed to have some kind of hot take on the U. S. Supreme Court revisiting Roe v. Wade and reversing their original decision.

      I don't.  I still think the only people with meaningful opinions about the issue are mothers-to-be and their doctors, as advised by their beliefs, ethics and morals.  We live in a world incapable of leaving anything be, and so here we are again, with the highest court in the land in the middle of those very private decisions.

      If you don't like it it, the remedy is as close as your state and Federal legislatures.  If you think the Supreme Court should have swung all the way around to an outright ban, look to the same places.  If the matter at hand is not a fundamental right, as the Court has most recently opined, then it's a matter of law and the bodies that make law can address it.  The people busy protesting or cheering for the Court right now?  Wrong venue.  The people threatening Justices?  That's still wrong.  There is a path to getting what you want, but heckling (or worse) members of the Supreme Court isn't how you get there.

      That's as much of an opinion as I have.  In abstract, I evaluate Supreme Court decisions with a simple yardstick that a friend shared: Does the decision increase or decrease personal autonomy?  --Even that is slippery on this one, though, because there are questions of personhood at issue and they remain unresolved.

Let's Talk About Ordinary People

      A lot of what passes for general political talk these days, even analysis, focuses on larger-than life acts, on people surging in masses, blocking roads, breaking windows, clashing with police, getting pepper-sprayed or shot: people doing things that the majority of Americans do not do.

      Conversely, a lot of us vote.  A majority of Americans, in fact, voted in the elections of 2012, 2016 and 2020 and the percentage of voters went up each time.  An overwhelming majority of them have not rioted, are not rude or abusive to their fellow citizens, and are not intentionally racist.  But they are seriously divided over politics.

      Yes, people who think of themselves as fine and decent folk voted for someone we loathed.  They voted for candidates we thought were terrible choices for office -- even terrible people.

      One way to unpack that is with disdain: they're dupes.  They're "deplorables." They're would-be socialists or fascists.  It has the appeal of simplicity but it cannot possibly be accurate: most of our fellow citizens don't fit into those categories.  Even the ones who didn't vote the way we did.

      To get an accurate look requires nuance.  That's a scarce commodity these days and I take it wherever I can find it.  Apple News served up an article at Politico (of all places) that is surprisingly good.  It doesn't sneer. While the author's concerned about the people and issues the Democrats are overlooking, she's got useful things to say about why Mr. Trump won in 2016.

      It's worth reading -- and picture, if you will, the stereotypical Politico reader having to sit down across the table from, "folks with strong identities as workers, those hanging on to a version of the American dream that places the individual squarely in the driver’s seat."  Doesn't sound even a little deplorable, does it?

Y'Know....

      Ordinary citizens doing their jobs and minding their business should not have to fear the wrath of Presidents and political parties.  Supreme Court Justices, election workers and some guy down the block should not need to go live in hiding or get armed guards.

      This is the United States of America and everyone's got the right to protest, well, anything.  But nobody -- nobody, Left, Right, Center, oddball or coldly logical -- has the right to initiate mob or individual violence.

      John Adams, describing his objective in crafting the Massachusetts Constitution, said it was intended to establish, “a government of laws and not of men.”

      Such governments are clumsy, kludgey, awkward things; they move slowly and not always as we would prefer.  The justice they manage to mete out is never perfect, and even their best efforts to do minimum harm often fall short.  They suck -- and every other system of governance humanity has so far tried has been far worse.

      Stop trying to break it.  It's bent enough already; it continually goes too far one way or another and, by and by, gets shoved back towards the tolerable mean.  All of the alternatives are intolerable.

      If fewer of us had slept though our History and Government classes, more of us would already be aware of these basic facts.  I hope it's not too late.

So I Went To The Hair Salon

      It was a pleasant experience.  The guy who did my hair was friendly without being garrulous -- a rare gift in a profession filled with prattle and gossip -- and he trimmed away all the split ends and raveled messes, while gently chiding me (and offering advice) over the way the part for my bangs has crept back over years of trimming them myself.

      The new 'do looked okay yesterday, more tousled than I prefer but more of the moment.  The next test is this morning.  Here's hoping my usual approach is adequate.

"Break A Leg?" "Split Hairs?"

      How do you wish someone luck with their first professional hairstyling in over a decade?  However it is, I'll need it, having gathered up my nerve and made an appointment.

      Between social anxiety, concerns over my looks and having infamously fine, dry and drifty hair that collapses under the weight of most hair products, I haven't had my hair done in years.  Well,  I'm old now, so I might as well not have super-scary hair.

      Unless, you know, I panic and don't go. 

Monday Thought: Junk Food For Your Brain

      I can't have corn chips in the house.  I will crunch my way through a whole bag without noticing.  Cool Ranch Doritos?  They may last two days.  Three if my willpower's good.

      Some people are like that with conspiracy theories, chomping them down without noticing the craziness and contradictions.

      Why?  I don't know.  This guy has some ideas, but he'll leave you wondering.

"There Is Nothing Wrong With Your Rolls-Royce"

      So, the tech arrived, checked out our air-conditioning, and--

      And announced there was nothing wrong with it.  How cold had we set the thermostat?  75 degrees, really.  Well, you can't expect to be any more than 20 degrees cooler than the outside air in a house this old and so thinly insulated.  And a new filter?  He took a look at it--

      Whoops.  1500?  You really shouldn't use anything above 750.  The higher ratings do more harm by restricting air than they do good in catching dust.  And restricted airflow--

      I knew what that does: it makes it more likely the coil will freeze up.  We'd hit the exact wrong circumstances, record heat and a too-tight filter.  There's plenty of working fluid, the compressor coils outside are clean and the system is working -- if I will only keep out of its way.

      Bonus, we have to buy cheaper filters.

Back To The Main Campus

      Just for the one day, I'm back at the Main Campus with my fellow workers -- and just as well, since the most recent installment of Air-Conditioning Madness at the North Campus has completely blocked a fire-rated door and made access to a critical piece of equipment quite awkward.

      The air-conditioning at Roseholme Cottage is still marginal, too.  It's been flirting with freeze-up for the past two days, maintaining a surprisingly comfortable 79° F.  That, I hope is fixable when the tech arrives today.  The symptoms indicate low coolant, not a clogged heat-exchanger outside, but it could be a number of things.  We replaced the whole system a few years ago and it may still be under warranty.

      No warranty at all for the North Campus.  Primary cooling since the mid-1990s has been a half-dozen 20-ton split units, the indoor parts stuck side by side above a dropped ceiling.  Most are so close it's nearly impossible to get a look inside without disconnecting them and lowering them.   Two were abandoned in place several years ago, a cost-saving move justified because they were not routinely needed.  But losing them meant there was no backup if any of the cooling failed.  As replacement parts became difficult to get, the system ran with zero margin.  Hot days could mean running on the ragged edge of disaster.  A big rental unit has helped out since last summer, but this year's heat has been too much for the system, and so we've had to add another rental.  That hasn't been easy or simple.

      You might wonder if the Great Big Corporation I work for would consider this a major problem.  Those giant industrial-sized rental air-conditioners aren't cheap!  The answer is, the big bosses are worried.  They think it's urgent.   By early last Fall, we had money set aside for a major project to replace the entire system with clean, modern technology, installed in a place were we wouldn't be paying an agility surcharge every time it needed repair.  We got estimates for a quick installation, ordered the stuff and--

      Well, the international supply chains were a mess.  System components were built in a half-dozen countries, using components from a half-dozen more.  Ports were backed up.  But the contractor promised all the hardware would be ready to go in February.

      As February approached, arrival slipped to April.  A few large items showed up in early May -- but one had been dropped and unfixably bent.  The other might have met up with a forklift in a bad way, or maybe it was dropped, too.  Replacements were slated for June.  Well, they were; that deadline's come and gone and now September is a possibility. 

      It's specialized stuff.  There aren't a lot of choices, and it turns out most of them use the same components from the same manufacturers.  In the meantime, everyone's paycheck hangs from a thread and two huge rented cooling units, operating in a improvised installation with a number of single points of failure.  Tick-tock.