The False Fire This Time

Look, Facebook can ban whomever they want.  People screaming about First Amendment violations are either missing the point, ignorant about what the First Amendment is, or both.  The First Amendment just keeps the government from restricting free speech--except when it doesn't.  The First Amendment says nothing about whether private businesses can limit their customers' ability to express themselves.  Indeed, if someone stood on a table at a bowling alley and started screaming about how the leaders of the worldwide Jewish conspiracy were abducting and murdering children to drink their blood and gain immortality, then the owner of the bowling alley would be within his rights to toss the guy out on his ass--no matter how many frames he had left to roll.

OK, Facebook isn't a bowling alley (I checked). And sure, one could argue that it's a bit disconcerting for a platform whose whole raison d'etre is to promote conversation--stated raison d'etre, at any rate; we know it's whole purpose it to sell users' attention spans to advertisers, but let that go for now--for a service whose purpose is to allow people to connect, to enforce restrictions on people's ability to do so.

But even the government--which isn't "allowed" to restrict free speech--has imposed limits on what people can legally say.  Something about fires and crowded theaters comes to mind.  So how much more allowable, then, from a strictly legal standpoint, is it for a private company to impose limits?

A lot more.

While anyone with a shred of sanity or sense of civic responsibility can applaud Facebook's decision to join Twitter and YouTube in banning The Former Guy, however, one can still feel unease at the power of unelected billionaires to serve as gatekeepers for the limits of public discourse.  Still, I don't think this case is quite as complex as people have made it out to be.

Let's go back to the idea of falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. (That "falsely" is often left out when people reference Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous analogy, but it's pretty important.  After all, if the theater really is on fire, YELL AWAY!)  Holmes was arguing that the government can restrict dangerous speech, speech that presents a clear and present danger to public safety.  So the government can prosecute dangerous speech, but that doesn't forbid non-governmental actors from intervening and stopping dangerous speech.  If some lunatic tries to start a panic by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, you don't need the cops to  make him stop.  The usher or the popcorn guy or even just a concerned fellow audience member could get up and hit the guy with a stick.  Or, you know, just tell him to shut the fuck up.  Facebook is the popcorn guy in this analogy.

So, yeah, if The Former Guy is going to continue to spread lies and whip his followers into bloodlust--and he's shown no inclination that he won't continue to do so--then all these social media platforms are well within their rights to continue to block him.  Some would say they have an obligation to do so.

Check

Nothing to report today. I’d feel bad, though, if I didn’t at least take the time to report that I had nothing to report. Discipline, above all!

Couldn’t Happen to a Nicer Guy

Under the guise of a “legal fund,” the Former Guy fleeced his worshippers for some $250 million. These expenses were supposed to support efforts to overturn the 2020 election. 

I forget, how did that work out? Oh, yes, double impeachment. Good job, all around.

Anyway, I read today that friends and allies of Rudy Giuliani—

(DIGRESSION: And what the hell happened to Giuliani? I mean, seriously, the man should rot in hell, but, in time, if someone wants to write an opera about this era, they could do worse for a protagonist than Giuliani. Talk about a character arc! EOD)

—are in high dudgeon that Trump hasn’t quickly authorized the use of any of this money to help his former attorney with mounting legal fees, despite the fact that his legal woes all stem from work he did for Trump.

And to be clear, it doesn’t seem like any of the money has been spent on anything yet.

My question for Giuliani and his flock, though: Seriously, have you guys MET Donald Trump?!?

There’s a “Simpsons” episode where, for various reasons, a pig is launched into a long, majestic flight through the skies of Springfield. We cut to the offices of miserly plutocrat Montgomery Burns, who is gazing out the window and says to his flunkie, Smithers, “I’m going to donate a million dollars to charity... WHEN PIGS FLY!” They both laugh, and then the airborne pig sails past the window. Smithers asks, “So, will you be donating that money, Sir?” Burns says, “No, I’d still rather not.”

Trump makes Monty Burns look like Santa.

Immunity

Scientists speculate that the United States will never reach herd immunity for Covid-19.  This isn't quite as bad as it sounds.  As long as the most vulnerable populations (the elderly, the immuno-compromised, the hypochondriacal) are immunized--along with as many others as possible--then even if Covid never fully disappears (it won't), its damage should be mitigated  People will still get sick, but the virus shouldn't continue to rampage through the population, overwhelming the medical system and necessitating widespread lockdowns.  The "hope" (if that's the right word) is that Covid eventually becomes a seasonal threat: unpleasant, certainly, but manageable.

One key point in today's news, though, is that medical professionals and other scientists fear that the conclusion that the US won't reach herd immunity (defined as anywhere from 70 - 90% of the population being immunized) will further discourage the vaccine hesitant from getting their shots (which, to be clear, is still highly--highly--recommended as one of the most effective ways to combat Covid).  Why bother getting vaccinated, they'll "reason," if the country won't reach herd immunity no matter what?  And no one will be able to make them see that a major reason herd immunity is a futile goal is because of morons like them who refuse to be vaccinated!

Ignorance may be nothing to be ashamed of, but it’s nothing to take pride in either.  Too many Americans are way too proud of their own idiocy.

Overdrafted

 Accidentally tuned in to coverage of the 973rd round of the 2021 NFL draft:

“So, Tom, tell us about the 972nd round. Who do you think made the best pick?”

“Well, Dave, I think Atlanta caught lightning in a bottle with their pick of Shawn McAtee out of University College. I mean, McAtee’s not the biggest player. . .Not the strongest . . . He’s not the fastest guy you’ll ever see. . . Not the smartest. . . Kind of flabby. . .  Really not what you’d call a ‘good’ football player. . . . But I really think the Falcons might have something special there. . .”

*****

Where do football teams find punters, anyway? I mean, you never hear much buzz around the top college punters entering the draft. I certainly can’t remember ever seeing a team draft a punter. In fairness, that’s partially because I’ve never actually watched the NFL draft, but I can’t shake the feeling that even seasoned draft enthusiasts would be hard-pressed to recall the selection of a punter. The drafting of a punter is like a baby squirrel: You know such things must exist, but you’re never actually going to witness them.

Ain’t No Suppression Like Voter Suppression

Florida legislators just passed Georgia-style restrictions on voting. The usual stuff: Barriers to mail-in voting, reductions in the availability of drop-boxes, penalties for distributing food and water to people on line to vote. 

By the way, what is the Republican obsession with preventing the distribution of food and water to voters? Snacks are not a partisan issue. I have it on good authority that even MAGAts like cookies.

The only hope for the country is a huge backlash to this kind of Republican thuggery. In my fantasy, this becomes a highly effective campaign issue for Democrats, and, like, Stacey Abrams rides this indignation to a landslide victory in Georgia’s next gubernatorial election. I’m not really optimistic, but that would certainly be delicious.

*****

NBC is promoting the Tokyo Olympics as “An Olympics like no other.” Apparently they think that’s a good thing.

Context Cluelessness

 “Certainly Mr. Trump’s fabled étourderie and his inability to staff a cabinet with qualified officials sympathetic to what was ostensibly his agenda are a part of the story.”

                    —“Biden’s First 100 Days Would Make Trump Jealous,” Matthew          Walther, New York Times, April 30, 2021.

For those of you who don’t speak/understand French [raises hand], Google Translate informs us that the fifth word in that sentence translates to “thoughtlessness.” Another translation site suggests “blundering,” which seems more apropos, given the former guy’s propensity for, well, blundering. The point of today’s entry, though, is not to comment on Donald Trump’s ineptitude, nor to discuss the finer points of translation, but rather to take issue with the writer and/or editor of the article in which the opening sentence appears.

Etourderie is not particularly common, not a foreign word or phrase that most moderately well-read English speakers (such as readers of the New York Times) would be familiar with. It’s no eclair or soupçon or joie de vivre.

And don’t get me wrong: I certainly don’t object to writers engaging in vocabularical calisthenics, whether by coining neologisms (like, I presume, vocabularical) or simply by reaching deep into their mental dictionaries to dazzle readers with sesquipedalian pyrotechnics. Indeed, I could argue that a writer has a responsibility to employ le mot juste in order not only to convey precise meaning but to offer the reader a bit of enlightenment. I, for one, now know what etourderie means—though I’m no closer to knowing how to pronounce it—and this piece of knowledge has now taken its place in my mental universe.

(Unfortunately, since I no longer have the capacity to add information to my store of knowledge without removing some equally large piece of information, I no longer know what “crepuscular” means. DON’T TELL ME! I’m trying to hold on to etourderie at least through the end of this afternoon, when the light starts to become. . . something.)

The point, here, is that, when a writer deploys an unfamiliar word, fulfilling the responsibility to enlighten the reader comes with an additional responsibility of providing sufficient context for the reader to figure out the meaning. In this case, in an article describing how President Biden’s actions have occasionally been indistinguishable from what one might have expected from his predecessor, and in a sentence describing some of Trump’s shortcomings, one could guess that etourderie had a negative connotation. But any number of English words or phrases could be plugged into that sentence with apparently equal effectiveness: bigotry, racism, self-aggrandizement, narcissism, thin-skin, megalomania. . .

(DIGRESSION: Donald Trump is a truly horrible and worthless piece of human garbage, isn’t he? EOD)

Using big words for their own sake is not great writing. It’s just rude.

Also, for the record, there’s nothing “fabled” about Trump’s etourderie: The man is unarguably a blundering moron.