We used to get it.
Update
5 months ago
Saturday, June 14, 2025
Friday, June 13, 2025
A Member Of Congress Steps Up -- And Gets Stepped On
Arguably, he was grandstanding: U. S. Senator Alex Padilla showed up at a press conference in LA held by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and started to ask a question, giving his name and title in the process. Three men shoved him out into the hall, where he was handcuffed by men wearing vests marked "FBI," briefly detained and then released, having not been formally arrested or charged.
But here's the thing: Members of Congress are allowed to be just this kind of meddlesome. It's in their job description.
Officially, Cabinet Secretaries and Senators are just about co-equal; for diplomatic purposes (who gets their hand shaken ahead of whom or gives way in the desert line at a State dinner), the Cabinet (at 12th) is one notch ahead of Senators (at 13) and they both get to elbow aside state Governors and House members. But in the checks and balances kind of way, Senators and Representatives are supposed to get kid-gloves treatment, especially when acting in the interest of those they represent; the military rank them above 4-star officers and Secretary Noem, were she just a bit more slick, would have countered with an impatient, "Yes, Senator?" Then let him speak, and made a non-committal or cutting remark before returning to her prepared statement.
She didn't. By chance or design, a ranking member of the Executive branch caused a ranking member of the Legislative branch to be silenced, shoved aside, and restrained. He was made to kneel before being proned out and cuffed. It's holographic; you can take the part for the whole, and understand this to be the Trump administration's entire approach to federal governance: autocratic and high-handed, believing its authority to be unquestionable.
This is not the way our government was supposed to function.
But here's the thing: Members of Congress are allowed to be just this kind of meddlesome. It's in their job description.
Officially, Cabinet Secretaries and Senators are just about co-equal; for diplomatic purposes (who gets their hand shaken ahead of whom or gives way in the desert line at a State dinner), the Cabinet (at 12th) is one notch ahead of Senators (at 13) and they both get to elbow aside state Governors and House members. But in the checks and balances kind of way, Senators and Representatives are supposed to get kid-gloves treatment, especially when acting in the interest of those they represent; the military rank them above 4-star officers and Secretary Noem, were she just a bit more slick, would have countered with an impatient, "Yes, Senator?" Then let him speak, and made a non-committal or cutting remark before returning to her prepared statement.
She didn't. By chance or design, a ranking member of the Executive branch caused a ranking member of the Legislative branch to be silenced, shoved aside, and restrained. He was made to kneel before being proned out and cuffed. It's holographic; you can take the part for the whole, and understand this to be the Trump administration's entire approach to federal governance: autocratic and high-handed, believing its authority to be unquestionable.
This is not the way our government was supposed to function.
Thursday, June 12, 2025
Congress Keeps Stepping Back
The Framers of the U. S. Constitution thought Congress would be where the action was; that the numerous Representatives and august Senators would serve as a check on one another and, protective of their power and mindful of their responsibilities to their constituents, as a check on the Executive Branch and careful gatekeepers of the federal judiciary.
Congress has never done an outstanding job of living up to this expectation, but historically, they've done about as well as we might expect of ordinary men (and a few women). Through my lifetime, they've increasingly taken up the habit of handing power over to the Executive whenever they found the exercise of it inconvenient, had a majority of the same party as the President or wanted to dodge the blame if things didn't work out.
The most recent piece of authoritarian backsliding comes from the House, at the hands of South Carolina's Nancy Mace and Brandon Gill of Texas. Mace and Gill* want to give the Attorney General the power to deem any city "lawless" if it meets any of a vaguely-defined set of criteria, and to rinse away† federal funding to any not-so-fresh city so labelled for up to 180 days.
You probably know what feedback is -- that howl that sometimes arises in a PA system when the microphone is taken in front of the speakers, growing louder and sharper until someone relocates or turns off the mike. That's positive feedback. Negative feedback works the other way, damping down distortion; in electronics, it's how we stabilize amplifiers and limit their gain. Too much can be a problem; it's got to be set just right. When legislators try social engineering via laws, that's a kind of feedback. It's got to be just enough to accomplish the goal -- and it had better not be positive feedback, or it will only make the the problem worse.
The news release for the bill specifically mentions Los Angeles, where four square blocks of downtown have seen both peaceful protest and violence over the last few days, where 4,000 federalized California Guard members have been sent in -- without, so far, pay or provisions -- to protect federal buildings and some employees and where some 700 U. S. Marines have been dispatched to do something -- DoD hasn't been forthcoming about their exact mission.
I wondered just what federal funding Los Angles might be receiving now, and for what purpose? Was it, perhaps, paying a plushy addendum to the Mayor's salary? Supporting a den of fatcat politicians? Imagine my surprise to read the city "receives federal funding for a wide range of programs, including transportation, housing, community development, and public safety," and, under the American Rescue Plan, funding to "support initiatives like housing and homelessness services, community development, and justice diversion programs. Federal grants also contribute to infrastructure improvements and social services." In short, it goes to programs intended to reduce lawlessness across a wide range of situations and behaviors, everything from police to getting the homeless off the streets. Cutting the money for that in response to a determination that a city had become lawless is positive feedback!
It's a bad bill. It surrenders yet more power from the Legislative Branch to the Executive -- and sets up the exercise of that power in a way that makes the problem it purports to address even worse.
________________________
* Make of that what you will.
† I certainly did.
Congress has never done an outstanding job of living up to this expectation, but historically, they've done about as well as we might expect of ordinary men (and a few women). Through my lifetime, they've increasingly taken up the habit of handing power over to the Executive whenever they found the exercise of it inconvenient, had a majority of the same party as the President or wanted to dodge the blame if things didn't work out.
The most recent piece of authoritarian backsliding comes from the House, at the hands of South Carolina's Nancy Mace and Brandon Gill of Texas. Mace and Gill* want to give the Attorney General the power to deem any city "lawless" if it meets any of a vaguely-defined set of criteria, and to rinse away† federal funding to any not-so-fresh city so labelled for up to 180 days.
You probably know what feedback is -- that howl that sometimes arises in a PA system when the microphone is taken in front of the speakers, growing louder and sharper until someone relocates or turns off the mike. That's positive feedback. Negative feedback works the other way, damping down distortion; in electronics, it's how we stabilize amplifiers and limit their gain. Too much can be a problem; it's got to be set just right. When legislators try social engineering via laws, that's a kind of feedback. It's got to be just enough to accomplish the goal -- and it had better not be positive feedback, or it will only make the the problem worse.
The news release for the bill specifically mentions Los Angeles, where four square blocks of downtown have seen both peaceful protest and violence over the last few days, where 4,000 federalized California Guard members have been sent in -- without, so far, pay or provisions -- to protect federal buildings and some employees and where some 700 U. S. Marines have been dispatched to do something -- DoD hasn't been forthcoming about their exact mission.
I wondered just what federal funding Los Angles might be receiving now, and for what purpose? Was it, perhaps, paying a plushy addendum to the Mayor's salary? Supporting a den of fatcat politicians? Imagine my surprise to read the city "receives federal funding for a wide range of programs, including transportation, housing, community development, and public safety," and, under the American Rescue Plan, funding to "support initiatives like housing and homelessness services, community development, and justice diversion programs. Federal grants also contribute to infrastructure improvements and social services." In short, it goes to programs intended to reduce lawlessness across a wide range of situations and behaviors, everything from police to getting the homeless off the streets. Cutting the money for that in response to a determination that a city had become lawless is positive feedback!
It's a bad bill. It surrenders yet more power from the Legislative Branch to the Executive -- and sets up the exercise of that power in a way that makes the problem it purports to address even worse.
________________________
* Make of that what you will.
† I certainly did.
Wednesday, June 11, 2025
Breakfast Sandwich
A remarkable substitute for butter on a breakfast sandwich is...muffuletta olive salad!
The stuff is a chopped-up mixture of olives and other vegetables in seasoned olive oil, best dipped out with a fork and spread between layers. It would work directly on thick, toasted bread, but I prefer thin-sliced rye.
This morning's had a slice of crisp bacon, a thin slice of ham and read-through-it slices of roast beef, the latter two heated a bit in the skillet, plus a broken-yolk egg and a slice of Colby Jack cheese, and a generous amount of olive salad. Delightful!
The stuff is a chopped-up mixture of olives and other vegetables in seasoned olive oil, best dipped out with a fork and spread between layers. It would work directly on thick, toasted bread, but I prefer thin-sliced rye.
This morning's had a slice of crisp bacon, a thin slice of ham and read-through-it slices of roast beef, the latter two heated a bit in the skillet, plus a broken-yolk egg and a slice of Colby Jack cheese, and a generous amount of olive salad. Delightful!
Bad Math
Sure enough, someone took me to task: "One could also argue by your logic that 68% or so of the people were opposed to the Democrats [...] borders policy...."
Nope. One can argue that 30.9% of the possible voters favored the border policies put forth by the Democrats, 31.8% preferred Mr. Trump's Republican border policies, 1.3% wanted something different....and 36%, the largest group of possible voters, didn't care enough to fill out an absentee ballot or go vote in person.
Understand this. People who voted for candidates with a realistic chance of winning the Presidency constituted roughly 32% for the Republican and 31% for the Democrat. That's not a mandate. More voters said "Meh" and stayed home than exercised their franchise for either one. That's not a commanding victory. It's not a clear policy choice.
Sharp eyes will have spotted a "[...]" in my quote. The commenter wrote "...Democrats open borders policy...," and the problem with that* is, the Democrats do not have an open borders policy; you can go look up that party's 2024 platform (start on page 64) and read all about their actual border policy, amidst the campaign glurge. Under "Securing the Border," they wrote:
"In President Biden's second term, he will push Congress to provide the resources and authorities that we need to secure the border. This includes additional border patrol agents, immigration judges, asylum officers, cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect and stop the flow of fentanyl, and funding for cities and states that are sheltering migrants."
They published that version of their platform shortly before their abrupt change of candidate. Readers with undamaged memories may recall a 2024 bipartisan bill to beef up border security, tanked by the GOP after initial support: then-candidate Trump asked them to stop it, lest he lose an important campaign issue. He would not have done so if it promised to make border security worse. So don't come to me talking about "open borders." Democrats and Republicans ran on securing the border, with significant policy differences, but neither one was in favor of "open borders." Both of them promised to increase border security.
Hype and bullshit don't impress me. Repeating unsupported opinion as fact doesn't overawe me. We have a great big Internet and you can look this stuff up, and then look up the sources it relies on. Why people are so unwilling to do so mystifies me. I guess it's just too uncomfortable, all those long words and unfamiliar concepts.
___________________
* Aside from improper formation of the possessive, that is. Blog comments, like social media microblogging or dropping a postcard in the mailbox, are one of those things where you make an irrevocable act and watch, aghast, as your typos and slip-ups sail off, unreachable. It will happen to each of us over and over, and it probably already has.
Nope. One can argue that 30.9% of the possible voters favored the border policies put forth by the Democrats, 31.8% preferred Mr. Trump's Republican border policies, 1.3% wanted something different....and 36%, the largest group of possible voters, didn't care enough to fill out an absentee ballot or go vote in person.
Understand this. People who voted for candidates with a realistic chance of winning the Presidency constituted roughly 32% for the Republican and 31% for the Democrat. That's not a mandate. More voters said "Meh" and stayed home than exercised their franchise for either one. That's not a commanding victory. It's not a clear policy choice.
Sharp eyes will have spotted a "[...]" in my quote. The commenter wrote "...Democrats open borders policy...," and the problem with that* is, the Democrats do not have an open borders policy; you can go look up that party's 2024 platform (start on page 64) and read all about their actual border policy, amidst the campaign glurge. Under "Securing the Border," they wrote:
"In President Biden's second term, he will push Congress to provide the resources and authorities that we need to secure the border. This includes additional border patrol agents, immigration judges, asylum officers, cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect and stop the flow of fentanyl, and funding for cities and states that are sheltering migrants."
They published that version of their platform shortly before their abrupt change of candidate. Readers with undamaged memories may recall a 2024 bipartisan bill to beef up border security, tanked by the GOP after initial support: then-candidate Trump asked them to stop it, lest he lose an important campaign issue. He would not have done so if it promised to make border security worse. So don't come to me talking about "open borders." Democrats and Republicans ran on securing the border, with significant policy differences, but neither one was in favor of "open borders." Both of them promised to increase border security.
Hype and bullshit don't impress me. Repeating unsupported opinion as fact doesn't overawe me. We have a great big Internet and you can look this stuff up, and then look up the sources it relies on. Why people are so unwilling to do so mystifies me. I guess it's just too uncomfortable, all those long words and unfamiliar concepts.
___________________
* Aside from improper formation of the possessive, that is. Blog comments, like social media microblogging or dropping a postcard in the mailbox, are one of those things where you make an irrevocable act and watch, aghast, as your typos and slip-ups sail off, unreachable. It will happen to each of us over and over, and it probably already has.
Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Predictably...
A few innumerate folks have written to tell me that nuh-unh, most American citizens really do want ICE raids and federal response to protests against them.
So let's run the numbers. 64% turnout in 2024, so 36% of possible voters picked None Of The Above, or at least didn't care enough to vote. The remainder and a bit of math gives us 30.9% of possible voters for Harris, 31.8% for Trump and 1.3% for someone else. That's 31.8% of possible voters who wanted Mr. Trump badly enough to go vote for him -- and 68.2% of them who did not.
This is a close match to a President whose favorability scores run in the 40s. Which they do, and were falling the last time I checked.
Sure, a lot of people aren't upset enough to go marching and waving signs, and even fewer are so mad they'll set cars on fire or throw things at well-armed police. But don't for a minute confuse that with enthusiasm for oppression or masked federal agents staging raids on people showing up for immigration hearings or hanging around big-box building-supply stores hoping to pick up work. It's not popular -- and will get less so as the high-effort, low-paid jobs that keep us fed and housed increasingly go unfilled.
My suspicion is that these chickens will come home to roost in the midterms, and the Trumpists in office and holding Administration jobs will cry foul when their numbers shrink. The only question is how bad the rout will be -- and if the opposition party (parties?) can come up with a clear counter-message of their own in the meantime. California's Governor Gavin Newsom, who was trying pretty hard to hunt with the hounds and run with the hares at the same time, is presently learning a painful lesson about carrying a scorpion across a river, but will it stick?
So let's run the numbers. 64% turnout in 2024, so 36% of possible voters picked None Of The Above, or at least didn't care enough to vote. The remainder and a bit of math gives us 30.9% of possible voters for Harris, 31.8% for Trump and 1.3% for someone else. That's 31.8% of possible voters who wanted Mr. Trump badly enough to go vote for him -- and 68.2% of them who did not.
This is a close match to a President whose favorability scores run in the 40s. Which they do, and were falling the last time I checked.
Sure, a lot of people aren't upset enough to go marching and waving signs, and even fewer are so mad they'll set cars on fire or throw things at well-armed police. But don't for a minute confuse that with enthusiasm for oppression or masked federal agents staging raids on people showing up for immigration hearings or hanging around big-box building-supply stores hoping to pick up work. It's not popular -- and will get less so as the high-effort, low-paid jobs that keep us fed and housed increasingly go unfilled.
My suspicion is that these chickens will come home to roost in the midterms, and the Trumpists in office and holding Administration jobs will cry foul when their numbers shrink. The only question is how bad the rout will be -- and if the opposition party (parties?) can come up with a clear counter-message of their own in the meantime. California's Governor Gavin Newsom, who was trying pretty hard to hunt with the hounds and run with the hares at the same time, is presently learning a painful lesson about carrying a scorpion across a river, but will it stick?
You Voted For This
Stock-market volatility; the CDC's entire vaccine advisory board removed despite RFK, Jr's promise to Congress not to do so; ICE raids in Los Angeles (and elsewhere) that triggered protests (also in LA and elsewhere), protests that periodically flare up into violence, and the violence in LA has resulted in 4,700 federal troops being sent in, despite LA and California officials saying they had the situation under control. California is suing the federal government: 4,000 of the soldiers are California National Guard members, and there's a difference of opinion over the legality of federalizing them in this manner.
Meanwhile, at least two foreign journalists covering the mess in LA have been hit by "less-lethal" fire, and if you're in the few blocks where law enforcement, ICE agents and protesters clash, it looks pretty bad even before it turns physical. (Elsewhere in the sprawling city, it's life as usual, which seems to be a surprise to some commentators. There are ten million people in LA County, compared to almost seven million in, say, all of Indiana or Tennessee: there's a lot of room for life-goes-on. We only see what the cameras are pointed at.)
American voters chose this, 49.8% to (at least) 48.3. (Yes, yes, only the electoral college votes matter, and that was more lopsided, call it 58%.). In LA County alone, out of 3.7 million votes,* 1.2 million went to the Republican Presidential candidate. They voted for this, and I hope they don't have urgent business near the protests.
Vote for blood, expect blood. Still think it was a good idea?
_________________________
* 37% turnout? An estimated 17% of LA County residents are non-citizens. That leaves 46% sitting on their hands come Election Day, and compares very unfavorably to a national turnout of almost 64%. If you worry that a few high-population states dominate elections, I guess LA's got your back.
Meanwhile, at least two foreign journalists covering the mess in LA have been hit by "less-lethal" fire, and if you're in the few blocks where law enforcement, ICE agents and protesters clash, it looks pretty bad even before it turns physical. (Elsewhere in the sprawling city, it's life as usual, which seems to be a surprise to some commentators. There are ten million people in LA County, compared to almost seven million in, say, all of Indiana or Tennessee: there's a lot of room for life-goes-on. We only see what the cameras are pointed at.)
American voters chose this, 49.8% to (at least) 48.3. (Yes, yes, only the electoral college votes matter, and that was more lopsided, call it 58%.). In LA County alone, out of 3.7 million votes,* 1.2 million went to the Republican Presidential candidate. They voted for this, and I hope they don't have urgent business near the protests.
Vote for blood, expect blood. Still think it was a good idea?
_________________________
* 37% turnout? An estimated 17% of LA County residents are non-citizens. That leaves 46% sitting on their hands come Election Day, and compares very unfavorably to a national turnout of almost 64%. If you worry that a few high-population states dominate elections, I guess LA's got your back.
Sunday, June 08, 2025
Poking The Bear
Sure, you can probably make a case that those hard-working ICE agents are "just following orders" in LA, but even if they're victims of the system (eye roll), the people who gave them their initial orders and who keep sending them back out either know in advance or at least know by now that the protests are reactive; the violence is reactive.
If the feds were serious about stopping the protests, they'd pull those ICE agents out. Send them home or, better, to Las Vegas, and wait for the furor to die down. Come back more stealthily another day.
Instead, they've got LAPD in there running interference, and the last I heard, National Guard troops were warming up in the bullpen. I sure hope their officers didn't miss the use-of-force history lesson about Kent State. You can go on social media right now and find video of protesters tossing tear gas canisters back at the gas-masked police, and if that's just the early innings, it could get way more spicy.
And it will do so just as long as ICE and police and the National Guard keep getting sent in to poke the bear. This isn't subatomic rocket-brain physics; we know what started it. We know what's keeping it going. And you're either in there cheering on the spectacle or you're asking why the feds are still leaning on the throttle. What's in it for them? What's their endgame?
Better look close. This isn't war -- it's three-card monte.
If the feds were serious about stopping the protests, they'd pull those ICE agents out. Send them home or, better, to Las Vegas, and wait for the furor to die down. Come back more stealthily another day.
Instead, they've got LAPD in there running interference, and the last I heard, National Guard troops were warming up in the bullpen. I sure hope their officers didn't miss the use-of-force history lesson about Kent State. You can go on social media right now and find video of protesters tossing tear gas canisters back at the gas-masked police, and if that's just the early innings, it could get way more spicy.
And it will do so just as long as ICE and police and the National Guard keep getting sent in to poke the bear. This isn't subatomic rocket-brain physics; we know what started it. We know what's keeping it going. And you're either in there cheering on the spectacle or you're asking why the feds are still leaning on the throttle. What's in it for them? What's their endgame?
Better look close. This isn't war -- it's three-card monte.
Saturday, June 07, 2025
Giant Dopes
I am convinced the people helming the so-called "Artificial Intelligence" efforts don't understand how a Large Language Model works -- or they think that's all anyone is: a mechanism that, given a topic and general direction, is able to predict the most probable next words and phrases, over and over:
"Our vision is that, over time, A.I. would become part of the core infrastructure of higher education."
That's Leah Belsky, OpenAI’s Vice President of Education. She's talking about a contraption with no mechanism for distinguishing between truth and fiction, no sense of right and wrong, no notion of the difference between meaningful art and utter dreck. This is not a matter of preferring Rodin to Picasso but of not understanding the distinction between the work of either of them and a mud pie -- or a cow pie. The software knows nothing of pain or joy, truth or beauty, lies or horror.
It's not that AI doesn't care; it's that there is nothing there to care. The output may be telling you Jane Austin and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley were sisters, but it's not because the machine believes that: there's nothing inside it to do the believing. It was just the most plausible sequence of words in response to your particular question at that particular point. The haunting truth is there is no ghost in the machine. And it appears that most "AI" executives believe there's no ghost of personhood inside anyone around them, either.
Trained on plagiarized works, even the very best "AI" anyone has isn't doing anything more than coming up with the most likely logical and grammatically-correct sequence of words in response to a prompt. It's an impressive feat, and I'd trust a good (and well-disciplined) AI to create a meeting transcript, or a top-of-the-line one to suss out whether I'd correctly employed the subjunctive (as if!). But you cannot learn from them; they cannot be trusted to referee facts, let alone exercise judgment.
It should be no more legal or socially acceptable for a private entity to build and make use of LLM "AI" in open-ended discourse, counseling or teaching than it is for a private company or individual to stockpile sarin gas or make their own nuclear weapons.
"Our vision is that, over time, A.I. would become part of the core infrastructure of higher education."
That's Leah Belsky, OpenAI’s Vice President of Education. She's talking about a contraption with no mechanism for distinguishing between truth and fiction, no sense of right and wrong, no notion of the difference between meaningful art and utter dreck. This is not a matter of preferring Rodin to Picasso but of not understanding the distinction between the work of either of them and a mud pie -- or a cow pie. The software knows nothing of pain or joy, truth or beauty, lies or horror.
It's not that AI doesn't care; it's that there is nothing there to care. The output may be telling you Jane Austin and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley were sisters, but it's not because the machine believes that: there's nothing inside it to do the believing. It was just the most plausible sequence of words in response to your particular question at that particular point. The haunting truth is there is no ghost in the machine. And it appears that most "AI" executives believe there's no ghost of personhood inside anyone around them, either.
Trained on plagiarized works, even the very best "AI" anyone has isn't doing anything more than coming up with the most likely logical and grammatically-correct sequence of words in response to a prompt. It's an impressive feat, and I'd trust a good (and well-disciplined) AI to create a meeting transcript, or a top-of-the-line one to suss out whether I'd correctly employed the subjunctive (as if!). But you cannot learn from them; they cannot be trusted to referee facts, let alone exercise judgment.
It should be no more legal or socially acceptable for a private entity to build and make use of LLM "AI" in open-ended discourse, counseling or teaching than it is for a private company or individual to stockpile sarin gas or make their own nuclear weapons.
Friday, June 06, 2025
Watching The News
I cannot help but think that it is not a good sign when a spat between two very powerful men over a piece of legislation neither one of them has a vote on dominates the headlines for an entire day.
One of the two will, eventually, have the opportunity to say yea or nay to the entire bill, but until then? They're both Just Some Guy; any American has a chance to write to or ring up the offices of their Senators and Representatives, and no one of us should have any louder a voice than the rest of us.
Yeah, yeah, realpolitik admits it ain't that way and it never has been, but the field used to be at least a little bit flatter, and everyone pretended it was even more so than it was. Now you can't even express an opinion without picking a prince.
It's not a horse race and neither of the principals knows what he's doing when it comes to the national economy or the federal budget. Watching them is like watching a couple of chimpanzees fighting with sledgehammers in a house under construction: sure, it's fascinating, but sooner or later, one or the other of them is going to knock out something load-bearing and it will all come tumbling down.
One of the two will, eventually, have the opportunity to say yea or nay to the entire bill, but until then? They're both Just Some Guy; any American has a chance to write to or ring up the offices of their Senators and Representatives, and no one of us should have any louder a voice than the rest of us.
Yeah, yeah, realpolitik admits it ain't that way and it never has been, but the field used to be at least a little bit flatter, and everyone pretended it was even more so than it was. Now you can't even express an opinion without picking a prince.
It's not a horse race and neither of the principals knows what he's doing when it comes to the national economy or the federal budget. Watching them is like watching a couple of chimpanzees fighting with sledgehammers in a house under construction: sure, it's fascinating, but sooner or later, one or the other of them is going to knock out something load-bearing and it will all come tumbling down.
Thursday, June 05, 2025
I'm Done Reaching Out
There's no point to it. No point in reaching out politically, the gulf is too wide; no point in reaching out professionally, since I have at most three and a half years to go; no point in reaching out personally because friends are a nearly universal disappointment (perhaps I have terrible judgement). I'm happy to have congenial acquaintances, but no closer.
No point in finding new places that stock the oddball stuff, much of it electronics, that interests me: the ones that haven't already closed are winding down. The same is true for fiction magazines; what were once paying markets (and they do still try) are endless wells of financial need and to subscribe is to receive emails a few times a year, admitting things aren't going so well and inviting you to kick in a few bucks to keep the publisher going. You'd have to be heartless (which I'm not) or wary of losing money (which I am, past a spare five I didn't need for lunch anyway) to turn away.
The world I grew up in and became a functioning adult in was fading away before the pandemic, albeit with a little grace. The pandemic and political turmoil upended it and what's left is mostly ruins. I don't care for the world that is emerging from the wreckage and I am unwilling to spend the rest of my days weeping in the ashes of the past -- and so I am done reaching out.
You people want to fuck up the world? Great, get to it. Go screw yourselves. I'll be reading books I already own.
No point in finding new places that stock the oddball stuff, much of it electronics, that interests me: the ones that haven't already closed are winding down. The same is true for fiction magazines; what were once paying markets (and they do still try) are endless wells of financial need and to subscribe is to receive emails a few times a year, admitting things aren't going so well and inviting you to kick in a few bucks to keep the publisher going. You'd have to be heartless (which I'm not) or wary of losing money (which I am, past a spare five I didn't need for lunch anyway) to turn away.
The world I grew up in and became a functioning adult in was fading away before the pandemic, albeit with a little grace. The pandemic and political turmoil upended it and what's left is mostly ruins. I don't care for the world that is emerging from the wreckage and I am unwilling to spend the rest of my days weeping in the ashes of the past -- and so I am done reaching out.
You people want to fuck up the world? Great, get to it. Go screw yourselves. I'll be reading books I already own.
Wednesday, June 04, 2025
Context Stripping
One of the things a news story should do, past "who, what, when, where, how," is provide context: a Mob hit done by running the victim over with a car may look just like a pedestrian struck down by a driver busy texting, but an English teacher from Springfield arguing online about WWE wrestlers who flattens an elderly shopper and a "button man" from Hoboken taking out a damaging witness with a stolen Caddy are not, in fact, the same story.
Early coverage is going to be the same -- "[NAME] was killed at [TIME/DATE] by a hit and run driver while crossing [LOCATION] Street. Police are seeking...." Follow-up should tell readers/listeners/viewers more: what notable connections did the victim have to wider events? If the suspected driver is arrested, what is known about him and his circumstances? If he is charged, what are the charges? Did accused killer and victim know one another?
There are limits. News stories aren't trials; you'll notice I wrote "accused killer" in the previous paragraph, not "murderer;" he or she will not be the latter unless they are charged and found guilty -- and in the case of the distracted wresting fan, "manslaughter" is the more likely charge. Ledes (the first few sentences or opening paragraph) are generally written in neutral language. It should not be so neutral that it obscures what happened: "Died following a shooting incident" is mealy-mouthed avoidance; the victim was shot and killed, presumably by the accused killer. This kind of dancing around is most evident when police kill someone -- the facts are often not in much dispute, though circumstances may be murky, but the Press shies away from admitting that yes, sometimes the police kill people, in favor of passive-voice construction in which people are, somehow, killed.
Of late, this kind of "exonerative" construction has been bleeding over into non-police killings; when a gay voice actor was shot and killed at the site of his family home, itself recently destroyed by fire, after what appear to have been months if not years of conflict with neighbors, news stories have carefully tiptoed around the situation; he's another person said to have "died following a shooting incident," as though a mistaken hunter or some wandering, self-animated firearm shot him, and not a guy from his street, presently in police custody.
Maybe it's the influence of corporate attorneys, worried about lawsuits; maybe it's just lazy writing. Maybe they're trying to avoid delving into what appears to be a complicated situation. But I'm here to tell you, when a person is shot, someone's finger was on the trigger. Maybe it was a distracted English teacher; maybe it was a hitman. Maybe it was a homophobe shouting slurs or a hothead annoyed about late-night parties and beer bottles over the fence. Whatever it was, those things are part of the story and the lede should at least put alleged fingers on real triggers, and not just float the gun in via a telekinetic poltergeist. It's not too much to ask.
Early coverage is going to be the same -- "[NAME] was killed at [TIME/DATE] by a hit and run driver while crossing [LOCATION] Street. Police are seeking...." Follow-up should tell readers/listeners/viewers more: what notable connections did the victim have to wider events? If the suspected driver is arrested, what is known about him and his circumstances? If he is charged, what are the charges? Did accused killer and victim know one another?
There are limits. News stories aren't trials; you'll notice I wrote "accused killer" in the previous paragraph, not "murderer;" he or she will not be the latter unless they are charged and found guilty -- and in the case of the distracted wresting fan, "manslaughter" is the more likely charge. Ledes (the first few sentences or opening paragraph) are generally written in neutral language. It should not be so neutral that it obscures what happened: "Died following a shooting incident" is mealy-mouthed avoidance; the victim was shot and killed, presumably by the accused killer. This kind of dancing around is most evident when police kill someone -- the facts are often not in much dispute, though circumstances may be murky, but the Press shies away from admitting that yes, sometimes the police kill people, in favor of passive-voice construction in which people are, somehow, killed.
Of late, this kind of "exonerative" construction has been bleeding over into non-police killings; when a gay voice actor was shot and killed at the site of his family home, itself recently destroyed by fire, after what appear to have been months if not years of conflict with neighbors, news stories have carefully tiptoed around the situation; he's another person said to have "died following a shooting incident," as though a mistaken hunter or some wandering, self-animated firearm shot him, and not a guy from his street, presently in police custody.
Maybe it's the influence of corporate attorneys, worried about lawsuits; maybe it's just lazy writing. Maybe they're trying to avoid delving into what appears to be a complicated situation. But I'm here to tell you, when a person is shot, someone's finger was on the trigger. Maybe it was a distracted English teacher; maybe it was a hitman. Maybe it was a homophobe shouting slurs or a hothead annoyed about late-night parties and beer bottles over the fence. Whatever it was, those things are part of the story and the lede should at least put alleged fingers on real triggers, and not just float the gun in via a telekinetic poltergeist. It's not too much to ask.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)