A Response to a Response.

This lands in the “If you know, you know” category, but my brother recently sent a response to my “Open Letter to Family” post from back in August. I appreciate the dialog. I sincerely do. Any sort of political exchange these days that doesn’t devolve into a shouting match (or strained silence) should be celebrated. So, hurray us! With that, let’s dive in.

First up: religious faith, politics and the governance of a country. My wanderings through the world have led me to the conclusion that belief in (a) god doesn’t necessarily equate to wisdom and being a caring, compassionate human being. Some of the cruelest, most self-serving, and childish adults I have met profess to be strong Christians. At the same time, some of the cruelest, most self-serving, and childish adults I have met are avid atheists. And… some of the most generous, empathetic, and giving humans I have met have a deep religious faith. And… it’s also true that some of the most generous, empathetic, and giving humans I have met have either no faith, or a faith other than Christianity.

I think that while faith can be a good source of guidance on how to lead a good, moral life, the evidence would seem to indicate that it isn’t the only way. There’s also some evidence to indicate that many people use their loudly professed faith as a cover for actions that are in complete opposition to the very tenets of that faith. So as long as I’m not telling you what you have to believe and you’re not telling me what I have to believe and — especially — our government isn’t telling both of us what we have to believe, I think we can set aside using any particular faith as a litmus test on how to proceed.

One last side note: this may be neither here nor there, but it’s probably pretty clear that I don’t subscribe to any particular faith. I’m solidly in the agnostic camp. It seems like my options are to either believe that everything in the universe somehow came from nothing or everything in the universe came from something that always was. Either way, we have to engage in some magical thinking to explain how we walking bags of sentient ocean water came to be. Given that, I’m perfectly comfortable operating in the unknown and honestly saying “I don’t know.” Any time I encounter someone who gets rigid and dogmatic and claims some proprietary insight into the ultimate unknowable aspects of our existence, that causes my left eyebrow to shoot up.

Actually, one more side note on this subject. My guess is that if somehow there were some collective human amnesia that swept over the world tomorrow and erased all signs and memories of the thousands of forms and versions of belief in the supernatural, in short order we humans would come up with some new stories to explain our corner of the universe. And those new origin stories would probably be different than the multiple beliefs that exist today. Humans are good at concocting stories — it’s our superpower. Conversely, if we wiped away all scientific discovery to date, we’d eventually get back to exactly where we are with our understanding of the universe. The testable, replicable approach to observing and explaining the physical world should yield the exact same results.

New topic: Immigration. I’m 100% in agreement that countries need to have laws that provide for the control of their borders. Agreed. Also agreed is that it is the executive branch whose job it is to carry out and enforce those laws.

I think where we have some difference is how those laws are being enforced. If the law isn’t being enforced in the same way for everyone, or if the enforcement is being conducted in an unlawful manner, then the law and the power of the government become a tool of intimidation and coercion.

Some examples? These are the three that I find most concerning, although there are more:

  • Arresting and detaining U.S. citizens: While ICE policy explicitly states it cannot use its civil enforcement authority to arrest a U.S. citizen, there have been documented cases of citizens being erroneously arrested and even deported. 
  • A shocking lack of due process for those who have been arrested: See above. The fact that I can be swept off the street by Federal agents into an unmarked vehicle by unidentified, armed dudes in face masks is pretty unsettling. And if it’s not a straight-up kidnapping scenario, then I’m lucky that the courts get to take their leisurely time to figure out if I’m guilty or not. In the meantime, I can lose my job. I can lose my housing. My wife and kids can go hungry. This is not a fictitious scenario.
  • Targeting individuals based on protected characteristics: I guess the good news here is that the Supreme Court ruled last month that ICE can use race, language, ethnicity, profession, etc., as grounds for suspicion. That’s tongue-in-cheek about the “good news” part. As I mentioned before though, I don’t know who would trust the federal government with such broad legal rational for arresting and detaining someone. If ICE can willy-nilly arrest brown-looking construction workers, they can just as easily use that same logic to arrest white-looking loggers. We seem to have moved away from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty because Trump thinks you look guilty.” That should be alarming.

Here in my backyard, consider Cesar and Joswar, legally here in Spokane with Ben Stuckart as their legal guardian (Ben is a former City Council president here in Spokane and an acquaintance of ours). Cesar and Joswar were here to pursue permanent US residence. Joswar and Cesar checked every single box to be here legally, they had jobs, they were following every law laid out for them. They were checking in as requested for their asylum hearing where they were unlawfully arrested by ICE and then held in federal prison in Tacoma for months. Rather than languish in prison for an undetermined period of time, both have chosen to self-deport. That’s not justice.

Cesar and Joswar were detained on June 11th of this year. That afternoon, Ben rallied several hundred protesters to peacefully protest the arrests, with the hope of obtaining the release of Cesar and Joswar. The next day, the U.S. Justice Department sent out a mass email to all 93 U.S. attorneys ordering federal prosecutors to prioritize cases against protesters who defy federal immigration enforcement and to publicize those types of cases. In a move that can reasonably be seen an intimidation and silencing tactic, Ben and nine other US citizens are now up on federal charges for conspiracy to “impede or assault law enforcement officers”, which can carry a sentence of six years in prison and fines of up to $250,000.

Local fun fact: Rich Barker, the former US District Attorney here in Spokane, is the husband of one of my coworkers. Rich refused to bring federal charges against Ben and other protestors because he felt the charges were politically motivated and lacking in substance. Within a month, he was forced to resign. And just so you know, the Barkers are good, solid Mormon stock. Rich isn’t some radical left-wing type.

Within just the past few months, I’ve seen federal governmental abuses of power, lawlessness and political coercion/intimidation within a (couple) stone throws of my front door. I think the most dangerous threat to the rule of law and the Constitution is those who use loopholes in the law to weaken and tear down the rule of law. Turning the power of law away from the basis of civil society and into a tool to enforce conformity and silence is frightening.

As a good summation of the state of affairs with the militarization of America’s police and law enforcement (and more importantly, the “police-ification” of America’s military), pour yourself your favorite drink and give this a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcTZ_en5FTM Ezra Klein, the host of the podcast, definitely has his viewpoint but he asks some fair questions about where all of this is headed.

All right. New topic, of sorts. Am I being hypocritical in now wanting be an immigrant myself? I don’t think so. Especially given that I will be following the laws of the country we’re looking to move to. What would be hypocritical is if I expect special treatment solely because I’m a middle-class white guy. Whiiiich… is exactly what I have here in the good ol’ US of A. And I don’t like it. My rights and freedoms are only as solid as the rights and freedoms of those who are the most profiled, targeted and oppressed. And as of today, that feels pretty damn tenuous.

So here’s where I land, at least for now: I’m not looking to leave because I hate this country or because I’ve given up on its ideals. I’m leaving because I’ve seen too clearly how those ideals can be weaponized against the very people they’re supposed to protect. I’ve watched neighbors be indefinitely detained, prosecutors fired for refusing to play politics, and citizens threatened with prison for peaceful protest—all within walking distance of my home. At its best, the America I believe in doesn’t play favorites based on skin color or political loyalty. It doesn’t confuse enforcement with intimidation or mistake conformity for order. Maybe I’m naive to think I’ll find something better elsewhere, but I do know this: I can’t stand here and watch the rapid erosion of due process and equal protection under the law while pretending my comfort and safety somehow exist separate from everyone else’s.

Update…

First of all, the drop cap option within WordPress seems to have disappeared. So much for style consistency.

But on to more serious matters. The latest issue of The New American just arrived last week and there are two things of note: 1) there was zero mention of our newly minted federal police force in the form of ICE and 2) there was a piece on Putin that was a reprint… from nearly 20 years ago. Huh. Seems like there might be some more recent/breaking news on that topic.

Oh, and also: The Supreme Court handed down a decision last week that ICE can make arrests “based only on race, language, location and occupation.” Let that sink in for a bit. This is not rule of law. This is rule of power, based on the whims of whomever is in power. Using the exact same legal logic and justification (or lack thereof), ICE could be directed to arrest white, English-speaking folks wearing cowboy hats. Who in their right mind would trust the Feds with that power?



An Open Letter to Family, Seven Months In.

Hello, family.

I wanted to update you on where Maggie and I stand regarding the current state of our country. While our daily life in Spokane continues to grind along, we’re deeply troubled by what’s happening nationally.

Our Primary Concerns

Three issues are particularly worrying to us:

Federal overreach and Constitutional violations: ICE now operates with a budget 80% the size of the entire United States Marine Corps, essentially functioning as a federal police force. Armed, masked, unidentified federal agents are pulling people off streets and shoving them into unmarked vehicles—not just in distant cities, but here in Spokane, on our streets.

Military deployment against citizens: We’re witnessing the normalization of using federal forces against American citizens on American soil. Just as of yesterday (8/24/25), Trump announced he is (illegally) activating the National Guard in 19 states. This is after deploying United States Marines in Los Angles. Armed National Guard troops are now deployed now in D.C.? How is that okay? With anyone?

What the hell? This is in no way what America’s Founders envisioned. The silence from traditional “small government” and “Constitutional” advocates like the John Birch Society on these issues has been deafening.

Update as of today (8/25/25): Trump signed an executive order to activate the National Guard in all 50 states. That’s pretty bleak, folks, if you’re at all concerned about rule of law versus rule of power.

Messing with our electoral process: Texas has redistricted their House of Representatives districts, not on the regular schedule, but at the request of Trump?

Trump meets with Putin in Alaska for a 3-hour private limo ride and then announces that since Vladimir doesn’t like mail-in ballots, Trump is issuing an executive order to do away with mail-in ballots? We should all be asking… why does Putin care about our voting mechanisms?

Why This Feels Different

Trump’s character issues (34 felony convictions for election fraud, stemming from a cover-up of an affair with a porn star? The glaringly obvious Epstein connections? The E. Jean Carroll rape conviction?) combined with his actions in office have moved me beyond distrust of my government to active fear of my government.

We are witnessing:

  • Stripping people of due process. The federal government cannot legally deport people without giving them their day in court. And yet… here we are.
  • An executive branch that admits wrongly deporting people, then ignores court orders demanding correction
  • The pursuit of rule of power over rule of law
  • This is more tangential, but what’s with the odd coziness between Trump and Putin? It would be the irony of ironies if the true conspiracy here is that Russia infiltrated the John Birch Society and turned it into a mouthpiece for Russian interests… It seems plausible. Two days ago, Russia conducted a missle attack on an American electronics factory in Ukraine. Not a peep from Trump. See also: messing with the electoral process, as already mentioned.

Historical Parallels

I compiled an incomplete list of political actions from 1930’s Germany and 2025 America. See if you can identify which political leader took which actions:

  • Used populist appeals claiming to represent “the people” against elites
  • Scapegoated minority groups and outsiders
  • Attacked press freedom, labeling unfavorable media as “enemies” or “fake”
  • Attacked academics and intellectuals
  • Claimed only they could “fix” the nation’s problems
  • Used propaganda and legal tools to target minorities and “enemies”
  • Refused to accept electoral losses, claimed fraud, threatened democratic institutions
  • Deployed force to intimidate, detain, or suppress opposition
  • Showed antagonism toward an independent press and transparency
  • Expressed hostility toward institutional norms when they constrained power
  • Worked to circumvent checks and balances
  • Associated with political violence by supporters

The comparison? Every single action applies to both Trump and Hitler. The eventual scale of Germany’s horrors differ dramatically from where we are right now, but the foundational patterns? They’re remarkably aligned. Frighteningly so.

Our Decision

Given our country’s headlong lurch toward authoritarianism, Maggie and I are exploring moving out of the country. We plan to visit Panama in January (perhaps in October, if the stars align) then spend a month or so exploring living/working options. If current American trends continue, we aim to establish permanent residency there.

This decision hasn’t come lightly. We’re giving up:

  • Proximity to our children and family (this is obviously the one that has brought on the most tears and literal physical illness)
  • Careers that we enjoy
  • Retirement savings
  • A wonderful social network
  • Decades of the life we’ve built here

What outweighs all of this is the prospect of living in an increasingly oppressive police state. If we can get out now and provide our children a path out too, the writing on the wall says we should act sooner rather than later.

What I’m Asking

I’m not requesting any specific action from you, except this: if you share concerns about America’s rapid slide into an authoritarian police state (just because they aren’t currently targeting you doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist), Constitutional erosion, the stripping of rights from people legally here on American soil, the deployment of a MASSIVE and heavy-handed federal police, and an executive branch lacking a moral compass, it’s time to start talking.

  • Discuss your concerns within your social circles
  • Call your elected representatives and demand accountability
  • Make sure your passport is current and consider having an exit plan

The time for silent worry may be passing.

With love and concern, Mark

Proper role of government

According to Abraham Lincoln, ‘The legitimate object of government, is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they cannot, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves.”

Let’s discuss. Feel free to add comments below. Since we’re now off of Facebook’s algorithm, feel free to throw bombs. Go ahead, be inflammatory. But here’s the single ground rule: attack ideas, not the individual. Here we go.

The Spokane River and the Jet Leaving Spokane International Airport. Peaceful Valley, October 13, 2024

The jet: loud.

The river: quiet.

The jet: powerful.

The river: also powerful.

The jet: complicated.

The river: infinitely more complicated.

The jet: simple.

The river: infinitely more simple.

The jet: requires energy.

The river: exudes energy.

The jet: fragile.

The river: resilient.

The jet has one purpose.

In my chair, my feet in the water, sun on my legs, toes in the pebbles, watching a turtle and

my head in the air.

Parenting, Jesus and me

Holy crap. In less than two pages, Simon Rich summed up everything that anyone might ever want to know about parenting. Here’s the link: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/02/and-the-lord-said-youve-got-a-time-out-mister

But, just in case link rot kicks in and the link above doesn’t you where you need to go, here’s the full text of the article:

And so the Lord created two humans in His image, called Adam and Eve. And He put them in the Garden of Eden and provided them with everything that they could want. And all He asked in return was that they not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. But, lo, it came to pass that they did eat from this tree. And when the Lord saw that they had disobeyed Him, He was filled with wrath. And so He said to Eve, “Because you have done this, I will make your labor pains severe, and you will suffer greatly during childbirth.” And to Adam He said, “From this day forth, you will work by the sweat of your brow in the fields, and indeed you shall die there, for you are made of dust, and to dust you shall return.” And He banished Adam and Eve and brought forth His Angel to guard the Garden with a flaming, whirring sword for all eternity.

And when Adam and Eve were out of earshot, the Lord turned to His Angel and said, “Was that too harsh?”

And the Angel stared back at Him and said, “Uh, yeah, probably. They ate one piece of fruit.”

And the Lord groaned and said, “Why didn’t you stop me?”

And the Angel said, “We’re supposed to be a united front. If we contradict each other, it’ll just make them confused.” And she shook her head and said, “What was with that ‘dust’ thing?”

And the Lord sighed and said, “I don’t know. I knew it was crazy even while I was saying it, but I couldn’t stop myself. It was just, like, out of nowhere I heard my dad’s voice coming out of my mouth.”

And the Angel said, “Well, I guess we should go talk to them.”

And the Lord said, “What do you mean?”

And the Angel said, “You know, to tell them we changed our mind about the punishment.”

And the Lord said, “No, we’ve got to follow through. Otherwise, they’ll never take anything we say seriously again!” And He handed her the sword and set it on fire and told her to start whirring it.

And the Angel said, “I really don’t think we’re going about this right.”

And the Lord said, “Just let me handle the discipline, O.K.? I know what I’m doing.”

And so the Lord stuck to the banishment thing. But, despite the harsh punishment, the humans continued to sin. And one day the Angel showed the Lord a note from school, and He was, like, “Fuck, this is some major shit.”

And the Angel said, “Yeah, they’re starting to have real behavioral problems. We should talk to a psychologist and get some advice on what to do.”

And the Lord said, “There’s only one thing we can do: bring the hammer down.”

And the Angel said, “What? Why?”

And the Lord said, “Because we set a precedent with that fucking fruit thing! If we don’t punish them at least that much for this new stuff, they’re going to think that sodomy and murder aren’t as bad as, like, sharing a bite of an apple.”

And the Angel said, “I’ve actually been reading a lot about this lately, and most experts agree that punishments are counterproductive.”

And the Lord said, “So, what, we’re just supposed to let them do whatever they want and become drug addicts?”

And the Angel rolled her eyes and said, “I’m obviously not saying that I want them to become drug addicts.” And then she added, softly, “This is why we should’ve signed up for that class.”

And the Lord said, “That class was bullshit!”

And the Angel said, “How would you know? You refused to even read the description on the Web site.”

And the Lord said, “It was held in the basement of a toy store! It was obviously just a scam to sell us toys!”

And that was how the conversation ended, without any resolution about the whole discipline thing.

And so the Lord punished the humans more and more, with floods and plagues and entire centuries without any television, and He kept giving them new rules, some of which made sense, but some of which were arbitrary, like “Don’t mix milk and meat,” which was something He’d just blurted out one morning when He was half asleep but now felt obliged to stick to. And it got to the point where He could barely even keep track of the rules that He had made, or what the penalties were for breaking them. And so the humans were punished inconsistently, in ways that had more to do with His frustration level than with any kind of actual philosophy or game plan. Like, sometimes the humans would have punishments heaped upon them for basically no reason, and sometimes they’d do something truly messed up and get no punishment at all, or even be rewarded with political office.

And the Angel would say, “What happened to being consistent?”

And the Lord would tell her some bullshit about how it was a Test, but really it was just that He was overwhelmed and exhausted and also privately kind of stressed out about money.

And so it came to pass that there was basically zero continuity. And one day, in desperation, the Lord suggested that they pick the ten main rules and engrave them on a pair of stone tablets.

And the Angel said, “A, they’re never going to follow that, and, B, it’s completely unenforceable. Like, the only way to police it would be to watch them around the clock, which would be more of a punishment for us than for them.”

And the Lord broke down and admitted that the Angel was right, and that the tablet thing was crazy, and that He’d only suggested it because He was so beat down and broken and stressed out about money that He didn’t know what the fuck to do anymore about anything.

And the Angel said, “What is going on with you? You can tell me.”

And the Lord took a deep breath and confessed His secret fear: “I feel like the humans are becoming bad people, and it’s all because of me.”

And the Angel took His hand and said, “That isn’t true.”

And the Lord looked hopeful and said, “So you think the humans are turning out all right?”

And the Angel said, “No. They obviously have some real issues. But I don’t think it’s all because of you.”

And the Lord said, “Everything’s all because of me. I’m omnipotent.”

And the Angel said, “I think maybe, when it comes to creating humans, no one is. Sure, you can guide them a little here and there, and, obviously, it’s possible to really fuck them up, like, that’s been proven with those Romanian-orphanage studies. But in general you can’t control what kind of people they become. No matter what you do, they just end up turning into . . . themselves.”

And, as her point was sinking in, the Lord looked down and saw that the humans had started a new war. And He was going to do what He normally did (punish all involved, whether they’d started it or not), but instead He turned to the Angel and said, “Maybe we should go out tonight?”

And the Angel said, “What about the flaming sword?” Because she’d been whirring it around this whole time.

And the Lord was, like, “I’m sorry I made you do that. You can put it down. That was just me being nuts.”

And so they dressed up and went out for the first time in eternity. And they ordered drinks and appetizers and the whole thing. And they talked about fun subjects that they couldn’t discuss when the humans were around, like whether or not Heaven was real, and how the secret numerical code in the Bible really worked. And they had so much fun that it felt like they were back In The Beginning, before they had humans, or even any animals, and it was just the two of them floating around among the sun and moon and stars.

And it came to pass that spending some time away from the humans made them feel better about them. And the Lord quoted some of the cute things He’d overheard them saying lately, like “I have a plan for my future” and “Here is the forecast for tomorrow’s weather.” And the Angel showed the Lord photos of some of the cute crap that the humans had made recently, like forts and towers and cities, and even though the Lord knew that it was going to be a pain in the ass to clean it all up, and that the humans would probably cry when He knocked it all down, He had to admit that it was adorable.

And they stayed out so late that they lost track of time, and their babysitter, Satan, texted them saying the next hour would be forty dollars, because after 10 p.m. counted as overtime.

And the Lord said, “Maybe we should find a different sitter.”

And the Angel said, “There’s no one else. I’ve checked.”

And the Lord told her how grateful He was that they were doing this crazy thing together, because, even though it was a shit show, there was no one in the universe He’d rather create humans with.

And the Angel smiled and said, “Do you ever think about creating more?”

And the Lord said, “No fucking way. I mean, where would we even put them?”

And the Angel shrugged and said, “We could add another continent, or, if that’s too expensive, put up drywall.”

And the Lord laughed and said, “You’re nuts! If we add more humans, we’ll never have a handle on things.”

And the Angel said, “Yeah, but maybe they will.”

And the Lord was taken aback, because He’d never considered that possibility, that someday the humans would know things that He didn’t, fix problems that He couldn’t, make new things that He wouldn’t. He’d been trying to mold them in His image, but maybe they never would be. Maybe, instead, they’d be better.

Crypto. And such.

I know jack about crypto. But what I do know, I learned from this Bloomberg Businessweek issue: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2022-the-crypto-story/

Billed as the only article you’ll need to read about crypto, I can’t comment one way or another about the veracity of that statement. But it is thorough, I will give it that, coming in at 40,000+ words on the topic. That’s an entire magazine issue, written by Matt Levine. I am willing to go on record to say that it cleared some things up for me. What things, you ask? The following:

  1. Much of modern life exists as entries in a database. The money in my bank account isn’t really money in my bank account. Instead, it’s an entry in a ledger saying I have a certain amount of money that my bank owes me. The title of my house and my car are, at their essence, lines in separate, but similar, databases.
  2. There is a good amount of public trust in those entities charged with keeping tabs on those databases to not cheat, take my money or give away my house and my car.
  3. Cyrpto came along and said, in Levine’s words, “No, no, no. Trust is bad. Don’t trust your bank. Use immutable code. Verify every transaction for yourself, or download open-source code and verify that it works correctly, and then use it to verify every transaction for yourself, or at least use a network in which that’s possible and in which economic incentives demonstrably make it likely that it will happen. And do all of this in a system that’s resistant to changes, that can’t be controlled by governments or banks, that’s immune to the rules of wider society.”
  4. So… what if there were one database, and everyone ran it?
  5. And there you have the basis of blockchain, and the basis of crypto.
  6. From there… it gets weird. Really weird. But there’s one takeaway: Money, all money, is a social construct. “If you do good stuff for other people, they give you money, which you can use to buy good stuff for yourself.” And crypto, just like “fiat” currency, is money that is controlled by consensus. And the database entries in the blockchain of who owns your house or your car or the number of pennies in your bank account are also controlled by consensus.
  7. For the time being, I’d prefer some consensus rule that also includes a healthy dose of regulation and oversight.
  8. Consensus says it’s my bedtime.

Republicans and the presumption of innocence

Innocent until proven guilty; the concept is a bedrock of American jurisprudence. The state has a duty to prove — beyond a reasonable doubt — that someone is guilty of a particular crime charged against them. Doubt? That’s our get out of jail free card. Seems pretty darn reasonable, no? It’s a safeguard against oppressive government overreach and an idea that pretty much everyone can get behind.

Except, of course, when it comes to conservatives and their views on the choices women may make about the control of their bodies.

In an opinion piece worth reading, Ronald Reagan’s daughter tries to paint some nuance around her father’s stance on abortion. Reagan, as governor of California in 1967, signed one of the nation’s first bills making abortion legal for victims of rape and incest, as well as for cases where a woman’s mental or physical health was in danger. What a progressive fella.

By 1970, Reagan began “to have regrets because he’d learned that some psychiatrists were diagnosing unwed mothers-to-be with suicidal tendencies after five-minute assessments so that they could get abortions.” While Reagan continued to support a woman’s choice in cases of rape or incest, he went on to appoint ardently anti-choice justices to the Supreme Court. And here we are, on the cusp of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. But let’s press pause for just a moment.

For the sake of Reagan’s argument and his moral unease about abortion, let’s assume there are women out there who terminate pregnancies on a whim. Heck, let’s assume there are women who might even intentionally get pregnant just so they can have the thrill of getting an abortion. Fine, assumption made. It’s an unlikely and improbable assumption that probably only a man could make, but fine. There very well may be someone out there who fits the description. Oh, and let’s also assume that these actions constitute a crime. Fine, assumptions made.

Why then, dear conservatives, do we then make the leap to presume that all women seeking an abortion must be guilty of the above? Again, for the sake of the argument, let’s classify abortion as murder. But where is the presumption of innocence? Most adult humans are fully capable of murder but our system of justice requires that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a killing can only be prosecuted as murder if there is no doubt about a self-defense claim. If women have no claim to innocence via self-defense, as things now stand in the great state of Texas, how is it that all killing is not murder? If a woman can’t claim self-defense in protecting herself (and her family and her livelihood and her property) against another human being, how can others claim a defense that isn’t available to a pregnant woman? Is a pregnant woman somehow sub-human and not deserving of such protections? If a pregnant woman shoots and kills a violent intruder who is threatening her with bodily harm, is that act to be viewed differently than abortion in a court of law? Can the family of the intruder sue for wrongful death because the person pulling the trigger was a pregnant woman? Do I, as a straight white guy lacking a uterus, also no longer have a claim to self-defense? I have some questions about this whole thing.

Back at the ranch…

Let’s assume that Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell and Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Republicans at the federal level read the above and say “Hmm. You raise some good points, sir”, where do we go from here? If Republicans want to negate self-defense claims, it seems to me that the government is going to have to step up, bigly, to support women and families. If a woman can’t claim that the human in her uterus is a threat to her health, wealth, or well-being, that should cut down on the number of abortions, amiright? So c’mon, Republicans, put your money where your mouth is. Or at least where your penis was.

Republicans and self-defense

All right, Republicans. You’re on the brink of reversing Roe v. Wade and wrapping up a nearly 50 year crusade. Without getting into the tactics used (the bombing of health care clinics, targeting practitioners, bullshit political maneuvers at the US Senate level, etc.)… congratulations. It seems you’ve finally caught the car.

Now what?

If the rights of one human being (if that is what we are now calling an unborn fetus) are given unquestioned priority over the rights of another human being, in this case let’s focus on the woman carrying that fetus, how are you going to square that with the championing of your “Stand Your Ground” laws?

For instance, here is the text of Idaho’s Stand Your Ground law that provides a legal justification for the use of deadly force to protect both oneself or someone else from harm: A person may stand his ground and defend himself or another person by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge without the benefit of hindsight.

A hypothetical: if a woman has a pregnancy that threatens her health, wealth, property or well-being, doesn’t she have the right to use all force and means necessary to protect herself?

Will Idaho have to amend this particular law to read that everyone except pregnant women has the right to stand their ground?

The way I read the proposed reversal of Roe v. Wade, coupled with the desire of right-wing America to grant full personhood to the unborn fetus, and the various Stand Your Ground laws around the nation, it leaves me scratching my head. They can’t all be in effect at the same time.

Maybe, as with many things, this just comes down to marketing. We progressives, and others silly enough to think that women can make these important decisions on their own, need to stop protesting and marching for abortion rights. Instead, we need to start protesting and marching for a federal Stand Your Ground law.

The Internet is Rotting… and a response from a reasonable man

A tip o’ the hat to Eric W. for bringing this to my attention: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2021/06/the-internet-is-a-collective-hallucination/619320/

If, at some point in the next decade or two, you find this blog post and click the link above, there is about a 50/50 chance that the link will take you back to the actual Atlantic article. If so, great. Read it. It’s good. If it doesn’t take you back to the article, well… that’s the point of the article. “Link rot,” also known as the inability of the Internet to provide stable and reliable access to historical information, is a problem. And it’s growing.

So, do you want the good news or the bad news first?

Bad, you say? Ok. Here it is: we’re fucked.

The good news? We’ll probably be fucked relatively quickly. How’s that for a cheery upside?

In a sentence, here’s the problem: we’re drowning in informational shit.

Let me explain.

Prior to the advent of scratching symbols on slates of clay and training up a priesthood of folks who knew what those symbols meant, human knowledge was transferred from one generation to the next through the oral tradition. Song, poetry, storytelling… those were the vehicles that passed along information. Not just any information, however. There are only so many hours in a day (or a lifetime) to recite poetry, sharing accumulated knowledge about the importance of observed weather patterns or wildlife migrations, and so on. The additional hurdle was that the younger generation needed to commit those details to memory. This had a couple implications for the inter-generational flow of information. The most important, in my view, is that the important shit had to be really important shit. The passing of information about how a culture sustains itself (with the goal being as little change and “disruption” as possible) couldn’t be a willy-nilly thing but a task that took time, care, curation and attention. The ancillary benefit of keeping change to a minimum also, as it turns out, increases the efficiency of generational transfer of knowledge. If my great-grandmother and grandmother and mother are all telling me the same thing about the best way to continue my culture, it becomes “stickier.”

Once human societies moved from pre-agriculture to agriculture-based societies, we needed to start keeping a written record of who owned what and who owed whom what. Hyper-specialization got a nose under the flap of the tent and specialized bodies of knowledge about such things as dog breeding, dog grooming, canine veterinary care, dog leash laws, dog nuisance laws, codified programs to reduce the load of dog feces in our urban stormwater systems, etc., all had to be written down. All of it. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The fact that I can sit on my porch and type these thoughts about the shortcomings of the written word on a laptop that magically sends signals over the fucking air to some box in my basement that then shuttles it onto the Internet is all thanks to the power of the written word.

But… the moment I press the “Publish” button when I’m done with this post, I will have added my bit of weight to the roughly 2.5 quintillion bytes per day of data that humans (and our machines) are creating. Being a helpful guy, I looked it up for you: there are 18 zeros in a quintillion. Tonight there is more data and information to manage, collect, sort and store than there was this morning. And who is keeping track of it? Everyone. And no one. But more importantly, no one is in charge of curating, collecting, storing and reliably retrieving the important shit.

Let’s go back to those clay tablets for a moment. A profession sprang up (yes, a specialized profession) to dutifully catalog, safely store and predictably retrieve those tablets. But those tablets themselves? Damn, they were expensive to produce, laborious to write on, heavy to carry around, not so easy to store, difficult to duplicate, you could only take one at a time with you to the bathroom, and a whole long list of other drawbacks. So while such things as clay tablets, papyrus scrolls, illuminated manuscripts inked on vellum, and other such media vastly expanded the ability of humans to capture and pass down information, it still had to be pretty damn important stuff (at least in some minds) before it would be committed to preservation.

The printing press, bless Gutenberg’s soul, may be the closest corollary to our current crisis. Gutenberg blew shit up. And kudos to him. He (and his press) took what had been almost exclusively the realm of the church and academia and pushed it out to the masses. Kudos again. Gutenberg created a boom in the information management industrial complex, from which I continue to benefit. Libraries and librarians sprang into action, doing what we do best: cataloging, storing and retrieving valuable stuff. And there was more valuable stuff than ever before. Things were booming.

The Gutenberg analogy to the modern day boom of information production holds true on many fronts: we librarians are currently flopping around in quintillions of bytes of daily data, with centuries of work ahead of us to wrangle and impose some order on the mess. Just as the crush of books gave rise to new technologies to make the information useful (hugs, Mr. Dewey), there are any number of tools that current-day libraries and librarians are using to tame the electronic data beast.

But back to the bad news: we’re fucked.

Why? Because of ownership. In the era of print-based publication and dissemination, libraries could act as curators to identify, catalog, and store the valuable shit. This had some obvious downsides. If the librarian making the selection decisions had a bias for “valuable” that discredited marginalized and colonized communities, there was real and lasting harm in those decisions. Setting those issues aside for the time being, libraries were able to purchase and own their collections. And that’s the crux of the situation we find ourselves in today.

With libraries increasingly relying on access rather than ownership, the curation bit of the equation has been drastically broadened (hooray, a good thing, by and large) but the storage and reliable retrieval process has been left to market forces. The invisible hand. And as it turns out, an invisible hand job is not as great as one might imagine it to be. Case in point: it wasn’t until 2014 that all “big five” American publishers even allowed public libraries to purchase (and catalog and store and retrieve) their e-books. We could “lease” them but ownership wasn’t on the table. Fuckery, nicely summed up by this piece from the Washington Post.

While there are efforts underway to capture, archive and reliably retrieve wide swaths of the internet (see also: https://archive.org), libraries — and those we serve — will continue to struggle if our traditional role of curation, storage and reliable retrieval is whittled down to just retrieval. We can’t reliably retrieve what we don’t own. And if we don’t own it, we haven’t curated it. And if we haven’t curated it, we haven’t had the chance to try keep just the important shit. Sooo, yeah… here we are.

Knowing all of this, I hereby move that this blog post be printed, bound, cataloged and entered into the permanent collection at the United States of ‘Murica’s Library of Congress. It shall be shelved under the official Library of Congress Subject Heading of “Shit, important”.