Poem 27 of A “Trump Alphabet”

I have added the sonnet below to my 26 poems of A Trump Alphabet.

And there you have the ABCs
Of an American political offender,
A felon exposing a civic disease:
Support for a pernicious contender.
Donald Trump isn’t competent, caring, or nice;
He’s selfish, rapacious, and cold.
Having chosen him once, we cannot choose him twice.
He is dangerous, wicked, and old.
The Republic has stood for many a year
And survived many crises and war.
But now we must face trepidation and fear:
Can democracy endure anymore?
We have to act boldly our nation to save
Lest the flag of surrender be ours to wave.

A Trump Alphabet

For a long time, I have been working on a project called “A Trump Alphabet,” a collection of 26 poems based on properties of the former president. I invite you to read the poems and pass them along to others who might appreciate them.

As a teaser, here is a sample poem:

Happy Reading!

“W” is for Womanizer For Trump, all women are toys for his pleasure, And marriage never inhibits his ways Of seeking, between comely legs, the treasure Of those who fall victim to his lecherous gaze.

Chinese Food Comes to Clifton Springs (Sort Of)

Clifton Springs, New York, has too few restaurants. Before I moved here in 2022, there was a Chinese restaurant on Main Street, a short walk from my apartment. It had closed before I arrived. I have been craving Chinese food but have not yet left the village to find any. Friends have recommended Chinese restaurants elsewhere, however, and I found one online that none of my friends seemed to know about.

I was very excited yesterday when a menu for a new Chinese restaurant turned up downstairs. Hong Kong Chinese Kitchen is opening where the old Chinese restaurant used to be. I don’t know if the old restaurant is being resurrected or whether Hong Kong is brand new. Last evening, I took a short walk to the place to check it out. I had already eaten dinner, but I thought I might have lunch there today. There was a sign on the door apologizing for not being open and referring patrons to the restaurant’s Facebook page for information about its opening. I was unable to find the restaurant on Facebook, so I telephoned one of the numbers on the menu. As I suspected, callers hear a recorded message. The restaurant needs to install a new sprinkler system, I was informed, and the projected opening date is now August 1.

Sigh.

New Hat

For a long time, I was pictured on my blog in a cream-colored hat I liked very much. I discovered that my friends associated that hat with me. Somewhere along the line, I lost the hat, probably having left it somewhere I didn’t remember. I’ve missed that hat.

For Father’s Day, my son took me to a new hat shop in Geneva and let me pick out a new hat. I found one only slightly different from my “famous” one. This hat is linen and a bit whiter—definitely a summer hat. See what you think.

Alleged Suspect

News organizations are careful to avoid suggesting the guilt of persons not convicted in a court of law. Thus, news reports often refer to “alleged” miscreants.

ABC News ran a video story on its Web site yesterday over the headline “13-year-old girl sexually assaulted at knifepoint in NYC park: Police.” The story made it clear that the police and the girl involved asserted that certain things happened. On ABC’s nightly newscast today, ABC reported that police were searching for the “alleged assault suspect.” My initial reaction to this phrase was that the use of “alleged” is unnecessary. A suspect is, after all, only someone thought to have possibly committed a crime. Police are seeking an actual assault suspect, not someone alleged to be an actual assault suspect. (Alleged by whom?) One is either a suspect or not. Being a suspect does not imply guilt.

On reflection, I began to question whether I had parsed “alleged assault suspect” properly, Perhaps, the police are looking for a suspect in an alleged assault, not assuming that the reported assault actually happened. This is a reasonable interpretation but likely not the correct one, as earlier reports suggested that the police have taken as fact that an assault actually occurred. The New York Times also framed its story by what the police asserted. Details of the story suggest, however, that the police may have physical evidence that has led them to conclude that the story told by the girl is substantially true.

I may be thinking about the phrasing used by ABC more that its reporters and editors did. Probably, “alleged” was unnecessary. It may have been added just to be safe, however.

How To Write Better Gun Laws

A far-right Supreme Court today invalidated the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives rule against bump stocks. The rule had been promulgated during Donald Trump’s presidency in response to the 2017 massacre in Las Vagas that was facilitated by the use of bump stocks.

The argument in favor of the ATF ban was that a bump stock converts a rifle into what is virtually a machine gun, the sale of which has long been severely restricted.

NPR, commenting on the court decision noted that, “Justice Thomas, speaking for the majority, said the bump stock doesn’t change the internal firing mechanism, so it can’t be classified as an illegal machine gun.”

Like so many decisions of this court, this ruling turns on minor, seemingly unimportant details.

The reason that lawmakers have had such a hard time framing gun laws is that they go about it in the wrong way. In today’s case, for example, we shouldn’t care about the gun’s trigger or its internal mechanism. What is important is (1) how fast the gun can fire a projectile and (2) how much energy is carried by that projective as it leaves the muzzle. A machine gun is a gun that can fire rounds above some specified rate carrying energy above a certain threshold. I don’t know what those parameters should be. and I doubt that muzzle velocity need be considered, as energy increases with velocity. If a gun performs like a machine gun, it is a machine gun, whatever its internal workings.

Defining firearms using what I suggest are the relevant parameters means that manufacturers cannot get around regulations using various technicalities. This is a much better way of describing what guns are illegal than, for example, listing them by model number or some other incidental characteristic. A ban on assault weapons, if we ever we enact another one, should be based on effective characteristics, not on model number, etc.

In the short term, Congress should pass a law banning bump stocks. Of course, the law must define a bump stock by what it facilitates, not by the means by which it does so. Unfortunately, in our current political climate, this won’t happen.

How Many Palestinians Is an Israeli Worth?

The big news from the Gaza war is that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have freed four hostages presumed to be held by Hamas. That operation is said to have wounded 700 Palestinians and killed nearly 200, many of them women and children. (The number of casualties has been variously reported, but it has clearly been substantial.) Israelis are jubilant. Presidents Biden and Macron praised the operation at a Saturday press conference in Paris.

Does no one see anything wrong with this picture? Are scores of deaths of innocents a moral price to pay for each Israeli rescued? Israeli leaders and citizens seem to think so. Israelis are dancing in the streets over the latest war news.

Israel, of course, was traumatized by the October 7 Hamas attack, which captured scores of hostages, of whom 120 or so are still unaccounted for. The passionate desire to repatriate those victims is understandable. But comparing IDF tactics to those of United States forces is instructive. When attempting to free hostages or to kill or capture high-value terrorist targets, the U.S. tries to avoid collateral damage, even aborting an operation likely to kill civilians. In light of this humane policy, it is distressing that President Biden seemed to give the IDF operation his unequivocal approval.

One may quibble as to whether Israel has established apartheid in the Middle East or whether the conduct of the current war amounts to genocide. Historically, however, Israelis have shown little respect or concern for their Palestinian neighbors either in war or in peacetime. Significantly, whenever there has been a prisoner exchange, dozens of Palestinians are exchanged for each Israeli released. This is possible because Israel collects Palestinian prisoners like tokens to be used as necessary and because Zionists view Palestinians more as vermins than as people deserving simple human dignity and respect.

I don’t know how many Palestinians constitute the moral equivalent of one Israeli in the Israeli mind. Whatever that number is, it is large, and that ethical calculus is a moral outrage. NPR quoted Israel’s defense minister Yoav Gallant as saying, “This morning not only did we have a successful operation but also an opportunity to fulfill the goals of this war.” A goal of the war appears to be to kill as many Palestinians as possible.

Concern for the hostages has become a justification for no-holds-barred aggression in Gaza. It is embarrassing that U.S. policy insists that hostages need to be returned but not that the killing of innocent women and children needs to stop immediately.

Why Is There a Refrigerator in My Bedroom?

The photo on the left was taken from my bed yesterday (Wednesday). It shows a refrigerator parked just inside the door of my bedroom. Therein lies a story.

I noticed recently that the freezer compartment of my refrigerator was collecting frost all around. At the same time, the compartment below seemed warmer than usual.

My Monday lunch consisted of a sandwich and some leftover potato salad. The potato salad, which was about a week old, tasted spoiled. I threw it away after one bite. Since the refrigerator seemed warmer than usual, I increased the temperature control to its maximum setting.

By Tuesday—in retrospect, I was slow on the uptake—after trying to measure the refrigerator’s temperature, I concluded that there was something seriously wrong. I reported the problem to the building’s maintenance man, Kyle, who suggested that my refrigerator had a bad fan. We went immediately to my apartment with a replacement fan in hand.

After emptying the freezer—this was an obnoxious operation—we learned that ice was blocking the passage of cold air into the compartment below. The reason for this was unclear, but the freezer was quite filled and the weather had been very humid. My adjusting the refrigerator temperature upward had only made matters worse.

At this point, it became clear that living in an apartment building has advantages I had overlooked. Kyle offered to deliver a refrigerator as a temporary replacement. Happily, he had one available that was empty but operative, so it was already cold. The plan was to transfer my food to the temporary refrigerator and defrost my own refrigerator overnight.

The matter of where to put the temporary unit was tricky. Many of my outlets were in use, and I couldn’t find an extension cord on short notice. The solution we hit upon was to unplug my portable vacuum and put the refrigerator just inside my bedroom. The placement allowed me to get in and out of the bedroom, but I couldn’t easily get to one side of the bed to make it up. This explains the unmade bed in the above photograph.

Once Kyle left, I began transferring food from one refrigerator to the other. I then cleaned the sides of my refrigerator and the floor area that had been underneath it. Mercifully, only a modest quantity of water accumulated on the floor.

On Wednesday, Kyle came back to put my refrigerator back together—he had removed a panel at the rear of the freezer—and to return it to its proper place. I cleaned the interior and, once it had cooled down, I moved food from the temporary refrigerator to my own. This gave me the opportunity to do a degree of triage, discarding old or seemingly useless leftovers. It also allowed me to better organize my refrigerator, both top and bottom. 

Today (Thursday), Kyle returned to retrieve the lent refrigerator. Having put my refrigerator back together, I now have to put my apartment back together. 

Nikki Haley Shows Her True Colors

There has long been uncertainty as to how much integrity we should attribute to erstwhile U.N. ambassador and presidential primary candidate Nikki Haley.

During her run for the Republican nomination, Haley repeatedly told everyone what a horrible candidate Donald Trump is. After dropping out of the race, she did not discourage people from voting for her in the remaining primaries—as many did—and there was hope in some circles that she might, at the very least, not support Trump’s run for the White House.

Nikki Haley
  Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0
via Wikimedia Commons

The question of Haley’s integrity, however, has now been resolved. She has revealed herself to be, in the worst sense, a politician and neither a statesperson nor a patriot. Although she has yet to endorse the former president, in the sense of telling others to vote for him, she has declared that she will do so in the contest with Joe Biden.

In a historic understatement, Haley admitted in a recent interview that Trump “has not been perfect” on policies she considers important. Those policies include reducing government debt—something Trump massively increased when he was in office—and supporting freedom—something that Trump proudly took away from American women. Remarkably, Haley declared, “But Biden has been a catastrophe.” 

No doubt, many voters who watch Fox News or Newsmax or other right-wing pseudo-news outlets find Haley’s characterization of President Biden unremarkable. In driving from Clifton Springs to Geneva, I regularly pass a house displaying a sign declaring “Biden Sucks.” And I often see Trump supporters interviewed on television attributing characteristics, policies, and actions to Biden that are provably false. One might have hoped, however, that an intelligent politician who has clearly recognized Donald Trump’s multitudinous faults would be able to acknowledge at least some virtues in a fellow politician who is virtually the opposite of Donald Trump.

What is the nature of the Biden “catastrophe”? Although Trump initiated the quest for a COVID vaccine, it was Biden who orchestrated its successful rollout that halted the mounting death toll. Is saving people from dying a catastrophe?

Infrastructure Week had become a standing joke during the Trump presidency. Under Biden, the country is finally addressing the deferred maintenance of its extensive infrastructure. A catastrophe?

Trump either doesn’t believe in climate change or doesn’t care about it. Under Biden, however, the country is taking steps—possibly small ones—but steps to counter climate change. Well, Haley might find this catastrophic. The environment be damned!

Haley wants a president who will “have the backs of our allies.” Well, Biden is supporting Ukraine as it faces Russian aggression. It has been difficult, however, as Trump wants to sue for peace and, most likely, cede Ukrainian land to Putin. He tried to prevent Congress from supporting Ukraine. Isn’t what Biden has done supporting our allies? Isn’t this opposite to Trump’s inclinations? More catastrophe, I suppose. Biden has supported longtime ally Israel. Is supporting Israel’s defense while trying to restrain Netanyahu a catastrophe?

Haley wants a president who will “secure the border.” But when the Senate reached a bipartisan agreement to do exactly that last February—an agreement Biden was ready to sign— Trump made it clear that Republican legislators needed to kill that initiative so it could be used as a Republican fund-raiser and campaign issue. Another catastrophe on Biden’s watch?

Haley wants a president who will support “capitalism.” Biden has raised tariffs to protect, for example, the electric vehicle industry. Under Biden, the government is subsidizing the revitalization of the computer chip industry. Another catastrophe, I suppose. Better that we have a president who is only interested in enriching himself and his billionaire friends. But surely that would not be a catastrophe! 

Under Biden, inflation and unemployment are down. Another catastrophe, I suppose!

Alas, like so many Republicans, Haley has turned out to be a total hypocrite. Haley’s real catastrophe is that Democrats, not Republicans, are in power. Policy really isn’t the issue. If her favored candidate wins a second term, however, we will see what a real catastrophe looks like.

A Bad Culinary Week

Things have not gone well in the cooking department this week. Two days ago I was baking banana bread for yesterday’s coffee hour at the Clifton Springs Library. I poured the batter into three small (2 × 5 × 2¼ in.) silicone pans and placed the pans in the oven on one of the wire racks. Since baking was to take about an hour, I then went into the bathroom to take a shower.

As I was drying off from my shower, I detected a burning smell, which was not how my banana bread was supposed to smell. When I opened the oven, I discovered that the soft-sided pans had listed to the side and disgorged some of their contents. I quickly decided to write off my baking project, removed the silicone pans, and assessed the damage. Some of the batter clung to the oven racks—this was cleaned up easily enough—and some of it fell to the bottom of the oven. Unfortunately, the oven floor has wide slits on either side, and some of the batter fell into one of them. I turned off the oven and, when it cooled, removed whatever semi-baked batter was visible. Later, after regaining my composure, I got out my nut driver, removed the oven floor, and cleaned up the mess under it. I put the oven back together and attended coffee hour the next day empty-handed.

Today, I had another cooking project. I had agreed to make potato salad for the Memorial Day picnic for my apartment building. As the potatoes were boiling and later cooling, I collected the other ingredients for the dish, chopping as necessary. One of my recipe’s ingredients is chopped parsley. I have been told that this is unusual, but I haven’t researched the matter. Certainly, parsley doesn’t make my potato salad seem strange. (The apple cider vinegar is another matter, but I like the recipe.) I was midway through chopping parsley and adding it to a bowl of chopped hard-boiled egg when I realized that I wasn’t chopping parsley at all. I had mistakenly bought cilantro, an ingredient of which I am not at all fond.

Realizing that not everyone has the same aversion to cilantro that I do, I stopped chopping and substituted dried parsley for the remaining “parsley” that hadn’t yet been added to the chopped egg. The resulting potato salad tastes different from my usual effort—one can definitely taste cilantro—but my hope is that people will still find it acceptable.

I’m planning to cook as little as possible this weekend.

The Ten Commandments in Louisiana

Louisiana is about to enact a law mandating that the Ten Commandments—a specified version of them—be posted in every Louisiana school classroom. The proposed law even specifies a minimum size for the Ten Commandments classroom posters.

It should be obvious to any thinking American citizen that the proposed legislation violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Louisiana lawmakers argue that recent Supreme Court decisions have so weakened the wall of separation between church and state that their latest legislative fiat may survive judicial scrutiny. They have a point, but I hope they’re wrong. Surely, the proposed law is one “respecting an establishment of religion,” as the Ten Commandments are taken directly from a text sacred to Judaism and Christianity.

Dodie Horton, a representative from District 19 in northwest Louisiana argues: “Our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. In fact, without them, a lot of our laws would not exist.” This, of course, is pure poppycock. Our laws are no more based on the Ten Commandments than on Aesop’s Fables.

It is worth considering the Ten Commandments in light of our actual laws. The first four commandments are purely religious and therefore inappropriate in light of the Establishment Clause. They command that you should (1) have no god before the God of Israel, (2) not worship idols, (3) not curse using God’s name, and (4) keep the Sabbath holy. No U.S. laws are based upon these injunctions, nor should they be. Only the Fourth Commandment comes close. Though blue laws privileged Sunday, not the Jewish Sabbath, they are largely a thing of the past and have little support for their reintroduction.

Four commandments involve behavior about which the law is silent. Number 5 requires the honoring of one’s parents. Numbers 7, 9, and 10 enjoin abjuring adultery, bearing false witness against a neighbor, and coveting the property of others. Of course, bearing false witness is illicit in particular legal contexts but not in ordinary discourse.

In fact, only two commandments have any significant relation to American law at all. Number 6 prohibits murder, and number 8 prohibits theft. Such provisions have been part of virtually every legal and moral system for millennia and probably did not originate among the Israelites anyway.

Louisiana legislators argue that the Ten Commandments offer moral guidance, though guidance unlikely to be appreciated by atheist, Muslim, Sikhi, Jain, or other student religionists. And it may be tricky to explain idol worship or adultery to first graders or why non-Jews seem not to care about the Sabbath.

The Louisiana initiative is ill-conceived and, I pray to God, is destined to be struck down by the Supreme Court. If it is not, this country will be in even more trouble.

The proposed legislation follows a 2023 Louisiana law requiring “In God We Trust” to be displayed in every classroom. (Classrooms may run out of wall space if the legislature continues what is becoming a trend.) I have written about the motto elsewhere and will merely say here that the sentiment that has become our nation’s official motto is, at best, hypocritical.

One final aside: If I were allowed to post Christian propaganda in school classrooms, it would be Jesus’s admonition to love God and one’s neighbor. Or, on second thought, just

Movements in My Lifetime

I’ve lived through the Civil Rights movement and the Women’s movement, each of which achieved successes though neither achieved all its goals.

The recent Reactionary movement was suppressed by the election of Joe Biden. That movement is attempting a resurgence, threatening to usher in a Totalitarian movement.

Your vote is important to preserve the Republic.

Will We Get Better Presidential Debates This Year?

President Biden has challenged Donald Trump to participate in presidential debates this year, and the former president has accepted. Given that Mr. Trump has avoided debating his Republican challengers, it has not been clear that he would agree to debate Mr. Biden. Today’s news is therefore encouraging. Details of any debates will need to be negotiated. Neither side has been satisfied in the past with decisions made by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which apparently will have no part in structuring the 2024 presidential debates.

The Biden team has articulated its desired ground rules:

• Two debates: in June and September. This is apparently acceptable to Team Trump, but Mr. Trump has expressed a desire for more debates.
• There should be no live audience. Mr. Trump has spoken of wanting a large venue, presumable with a large audience.
• The only participants are to be the Republican and Democratic candidates.
• Only broadcast networks that have hosted recent debates (CNN, ABC News, Telemundo, and CBS News) should be eligible to host the first debate. Apparently, the same restriction has not been proposed for the second debate. It likely should be.
• The moderator should be chosen from a network’s “regular personnel.”
• There should be firm time limits on candidate responses, and the candidates should be allotted equal time.
• A candidate’s microphone should only be live when it is his turn to speak.

We may get more effective and useful presidential debates this year, but, when the presidential camps get down to serious negotiations, that goal may prove elusive. Donald Trump would certainly like a large, preferably partisan, audience, and may not take kindly to the concept of losing his microphone for any reason. That Mr. Trump has said he would like more debates is a bit surprising—he is not good at actual debate—but this may be a negotiating position to facilitate horse trading involving other matters.

I have long advocated some of the ground rules Mr. Biden is promoting—widely available debates, no audience, and time limits enforced by controlling candidate microphones. (See my October 29, 2015, post “Suggestions for Presidential Debates.”) The presence of an audience is particularly problematic. Historically, audiences told to keep quiet do not, in fact, do so. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to assemble a non-partisan audience in which everyone exercises the same level of self-control. The debates are for the American people, not for a selected debate audience.

Most important, and most likely to be fought by the Trump camp, is the idea of time-limited speech enforced by administratively controlled microphones. The former president exhibits limited self-control in general and virtually none in past debates. Clearly, the Biden campaign wants to avoid Mr. Trump’s garrulousness and his obnoxious habit of interrupting other participants. I discussed this issue in the aforementioned essay. I revisited the issue in “A Suggested Tool for Debate Moderators.”)

It has often been noted that debating skill, or whatever skill is needed for the so-called presidential debates, is not a particularly important capability needed by the President of the United States. Readers may be interested in a very different debate format I once proposed in “A Different Kind of Presidential Candidate Debate.” That essay was oriented toward debates leading up to the selection of a presidential candidate, but some of the ideas could usefully inform the contests between actual candidates.

Perhaps, we will get better presidential debates this year. But perhaps not.

Outside Agitators

The news has recently been dominated by reports of demonstrations supportive of Palestinians at U.S. colleges and universities. It is distressing that many seemingly peaceful protests have been shut down by police at the invitation of school administrators. In some cases, civil authorities have in part justified police action by asserting that “outside agitators” were among the demonstrators. Often, the “agitators” have been quite literally outside, which is to say not on campus at all.

I am greatly distressed by the term “outside agitators.” I remember this term as one used by racist Southerners to identify the brave souls from northern states who risked their lives to take a stand against Jim Crow. The present “outside agitators” may be non-students, but we have seen no evidence that they are “agitators” rather than citizens in sympathy with the goals of student demonstrators. Among this group may in fact be a few agents provocateurs with disreputable motives—not an established fact—but damning every non-student as an “outside agitator” is unfair.

As for the student demonstrators generally, I think they may be seeking the wrong objective. Imploring their institutions to disinvest in Israeli enterprises is an obvious goal, but it is difficult for the schools to implement and an objective with considerably less than universal appeal. It means to punish Israel but will not be particularly helpful to the Palestinians about whom the students purport to be concerned.

Unfortunately, President Biden seems incapable of taking any action that might discourage bad behavior by Benjamin Netanyahu. The students should adopt a more useful objective: insist that the United States cease providing any and all military and financial support to the state of Israel pending resolution of the current war against Hamas, a war that seems increasingly like a war against the Palestinian people. A less extreme objective might be to obtain an immediate ceasefire by all combatants.

Students have missed an opportunity here and, as of tonight, Israel seems to be proceeding with its military plans against Hamas and the inhabitants of Gaza.

The Out-of-Control Supreme Court

During my time in junior high school, I remember the complaints of Republicans that the Supreme Court was in the disreputable habit of “legislating from the bench.” Of course, their problem was not with “legislating” but with handing down decisions they just didn’t like, however legally justified they might be. Most especially, they railed against Brown v. Board of Education, the famous desegregation case. The court found that the Constitution logically did not permit racial segregation in conspicuously unequal public schools. Ironically, although the Warren court declared unconstitutional the long-held notion of “separate but equal”—the equal part never seemed to be achieved in practice—it failed to “legislate,” in the sense of declaring what was to be done to eliminate the unequal treatment of Negro students in Topeka schools.

Whereas the basic task of the Supreme Court is to decide what is legal and what is not, even a relatively liberal court is not about defining its own fix for what it believes is illegal. In Roe v. Wade, for example, the court need not have invented its own trimester scheme for determining when abortion is permissible. Having ascertained that the Constitution does not allow an outright abortion ban, the court could have left many details to the legislative branch.

Today, Republicans are delighted that the radically “conservative” Supreme Court engineered by Donald Trump gleefully legislates from the bench when it suites the proclivities of the most reactionary justices. In Trump v. Anderson, the court was asked whether Colorado could remove Donald Trump from a Republican primary ballot based on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that is, did Trump’s involvement in an insurrection prevent him from holding public office. Unsurprisingly, the court held that an individual state cannot use the Fourteenth Amendment to disqualify a candidate for federal office. The court further held, however, that only Congress, not the courts, could apply Section 3. The practical effect was to invalidate that section of the Constitution for the foreseeable future.

Now the Supreme Court is considering whether Donald Trump, a former president, can be held legally accountable for actual crimes committed while in office. That the court even granted certiorari for this case is outrageous; the president is not a king, and the Constitution establishes a republic, not a monarchy. Whereas it is unlikely that even this Republican-dominated court will agree with the Trump legal team that a president may even murder his political rivals with impunity, the justices are trying hard to delay a decision (and therefore a trial). The justices failed to put the trial on a fast track, seemed almost indifferent in oral arguments to the matter actually before them, and is worried about crafting a judgment “for the ages.” That the nation is facing the question at issue for the first time in more than two and a quarter centuries suggests that a decision “for the ages” is not an urgent need. But the court is happy to legislate, particularly if it is helpful to their political consigliere Donald Trump.

It is past time to reform the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas refuses to recuse himself on a case involving the January 6 insurrection, even though his wife was a cheerleader for that mutiny. Both Thomas and Justice Alito have received substantial gifts from wealthy Republicans who applaud and benefit from the rightward movement of the court. Although President Biden requested a commission report on court reform, nothing came of the report. It is perfectly clear that the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate that the direction of the country would be set not by Congress and the president, but by the Supreme Court. It is time to fix the court and, therefore, the Republic.

Jury Duty

 I was subpoenaed for jury duty today. As I sat during the jury selection process, I was composing an essay in my mind about my experience as a juror. As it happened, I was not chosen for the jury, and I’m unsure whether to be happy or disappointed about that. I was not happy that I had to rise earlier than usual to be in court by 8 am. However, I was able to leave for home by about 10:30.

When I arrived at the courthouse, I filled out a form requiring mostly demographic information. (This was somewhat difficult for me, as I had mistakenly left my reading glasses at home.) Potential jurors were shown a brief film about implicit bias, and the judge gave a lecture about being a juror. He also told us that the trial involved the sexual abuse of a minor and would likely last two days. Then a dozen of us—there were about 30 subpoenaed folks in the room—were seated separately to be questioned by a prosecutor and the defense attorney. Many of the questions we were asked were probing our ability to be objective. We learned during this process that several of the women had been molested as children, that one man had a religious objection to judging anybody under any circumstances, and that one man wearing a brace after knee surgery had difficulty sitting for long periods. Some of the questions by the defense attorney involved the credibility of teenagers. Apparently, one of the prosecution witnesses was to be a teenage girl. Oddly, I noticed that the defendant was better dressed than his attorney. Perhaps the lawyer was trying to look folksy.

When the questioning was over, the dozen potential jurors were given a break while the principals left to consult about who of our number would be on the jury. We had been told that the charges were only misdemeanor charges—felony charges are adjudicated in county, not municipal, courts—and the jury would consist of six regular jurors and one alternate. I thought it likely that the jury, or most of it, would be chosen from our group. I was wrong. Only three were selected; the rest were dismissed.

I was surprised by the courtroom procedure. From fictional dramas and actual trials I’d seen on television, I expected that those in the jury pool would be questioned individually by the prosecution and defense, after which they would immediately be selected for service or not. That procedure is surely more stressful for potential jurors than what I experienced today. Of course, I cannot know what transpired among judge, prosecutors—there were two—defense attorney, and defendant while they were out of the courtroom.

This was the third time I’ve been called for jury duty. The first time, I was excused because I was about to travel to a computer conference. The second time, I was asked many specific questions and made an initial cut, but not the final one. I suspect that our group today was selected based on the questions we answered on paper, so I likely made the first cut again.

I would like to know why I have never been selected. I may never serve on a jury, though I have always thought I would make a good juror because I am used to doing logical analysis. It was clear today, though, that the only evidence in the trial would be witness testimony, and jurors would need to evaluate the credibility of those witnesses. I’m not sure how good I am at that task.

Facebook Idiocy

For the second time in the past few weeks, I received this warning—reproduced here exactly—when trying to make a post on Facebook:

Your post may go against our Community Standards on violence and incitement

Your post looks similar to content that we’ve removed for going against our Community Standards. You can delete it now to avoid potential account restrictions.

What I was trying to post was this:

U.S. to Israel: Kill all the Palestinians you like, but you must feed the survivors.

Any reasonable person would understand this as ordinary political commentary, slightly exaggerated perhaps, but a normal observation about current U.S. and Israeli policy nevertheless. It certainly does not incite violence; implicitly, it deplores it.

What “community standards” does this violate? A standard about saying anything not a verifiable fact? I can cite Trump supporters who never post anything that’s true! Are any words related to violence forbidden? Would a phrase like “kill him with kindness” be flagged as inappropriate by Facebook?

I assume that an algorithm was behind my warning. If a person was, that person is an idiot. (I probably couldn’t say that on Facebook.)

The last time I received such a warning on Facebook, I said I wanted to strangle some public figure. I don’t remember who that was, but it was probably someone like Marjorie Taylor Green or Kari Lake. That wasn’t an actual threat, of course, but I see how it could be taken the wrong way is seen out of context. Facebook doesn’t appreciate irony.

Anyway, I decided not to post either comment but to write this commentary instead.

More Curve-Stitch Designs

Some readers may know of my longstanding interest in curve stitching, creating designs using only straight lines. Curve stitching began using physical objects, string and cardstock. I was introduced to such designs in junior high school, but I never employed the traditional materials. Instead, I, first drew designs with pencil and paper, then with drafting paper and India ink. The tedium of creating complex figures by hand led me to follow other pursuits for decades.

Eventually, I discovered that I could produce curve-stitch designs on my computer. I did so by programming in PostScript and began posting my work on my Web site, Lionel Deimel’s Farrago. More recently, I have converted PostScript files into Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) images that can be viewed at any level of magnification without loss of fidelity. (Earlier designs were posted as JPG or PNG files.)

The section of my Web site discussing and displaying my curve-stitch designs can be found here. In the past month or so, I have added four new pages of curve-stitch designs:

• Another Family of Designs—a group of designs based on many-sided polygons
• Some Accidental Designs—design inspired by programming mistakes
• Mystic Rose and Other Designs—various circular designs
• Millington-Inspired Designs—designs copied from or inspired by Jon Millington’s landmark book on  curve stitching

I invite readers to check out the new pages or the entire section of my Web site on curve stitching.

Sample design from “Millington-Inspired Designs”

Republican Malfeasance

In happier times, the two political parties worked together to make life better in America. Compromise was often necessary, but useful legislation actually got passed. Now, however, Republicans do not want to pass any legislation, no matter how necessary, if there is a danger that Democrats might get any credit for it. In particular, Republicans do not want to pass any popular legislation while a Democrat is in the White House.

The most blatant example of Republican malfeasance is Donald Trump’s directing his minions in Congress to reject the compromise border bill worked out in the Senate. To facilitate the passage of aid to Ukraine that is desperately needed, Democrats compromised on longstanding positions on immigration, adopting Republican policy preferences the GOP had no reason to think would ever be achieved. But Donald Trump instructed his minions in Congress to torpedo the compromise, lest President Biden get credit for passing a bill giving Republicans what they have always wanted. Being able to criticize Democrats in the upcoming presidential campaign for failing to deal with the “border crisis” was more important to Republicans than solving the reputed crisis. 

Republicans are no longer motivated by helping Americans. They are only interested in achieving and wielding political power. If we want beneficent and effective governing, we need to elect Democrats.
 

Thoughts on the Key Bridge Collapse

I awoke this morning to the news that the main span of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge was struck by a container ship and plunged into the Patapsco River. Dramatic video was already on the Web showing the accident. The ship, the Dali, apparently experienced a power failure and drifted into the south pier of the central span. Unsurprisingly, a collapse followed immediately. Apparently, the ship sent out a mayday message, and police were able to divert traffic before the I-695 bridge was hit. News reports this afternoon were raising questions about the bridge design.

The span in question was a continuous truss opened in 1977. There is no indication that the bridge was in any way defective.  It is difficult to imagine any that 1200-foot long bridge could survive a significant strike of a main support. Since the bridge was built, cargo ships have gotten much larger. The Dali is nearly a thousand feet long. Such a ship, even at low speed, carries enormous momentum. The bridge could perhaps have been protected by a fender or wall to protect the main piers. But any such protective obstacle would need to be massive indeed given the size of current cargo ships.

The immediate question is what a replacement for the bridge should look like. One attractive alternative would be replacing the bridge with a tunnel. This would be an expensive, time-consuming, and disruptive option. I suspect a new bridge will be built instead. Although the main span of the Key Bridge was a continuous truss, its approaches were carried by a series of simple beam bridges built into the river. The most obvious and secure way to protect a new bridge from out-of-control vessels is to increase the span of the bridge, perhaps even putting its piers on dry land. This would require that the much longer bridge would need to be a suspension bridge. Not only would such a bridge be better protected from accidental damage but also it would allow for construction with hardly any negative impact on traffic in what is a vital shipping channel.

Today, I heard replacement of the Francis Scott Key bridge compared to the rapid bridge replacements effected recently in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Such comparisons are absurd. The task faced in Baltimore is enormous and will, in any case, take years.

We will have to wait to see what sort of replacement roadway is ultimately chosen. Neither a cheap nor a fast replacement is possible.