Month: July 2019

Florida State Representative Frederica Wilson had this to say the other day:

Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace. We’re gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted. You cannot intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is against the law, and it’s a shame in this United States of America.

Yep.  She really said it:

The “crime” she’s trying to define here is “Lese majeste” literally “to do wrong to majesty”. It is the crime of disrespecting ones rulers, often with excuses like “Men didn’t make me King, God did, so to disrespect me is to disrespect God.” But in any case, disrespecting ones “betters” was just beyond the pale and deserving of punishment.

It’s a crime invoked by tyrants, pure and simple.

And apparently it only applies to Congress, not the White House.  After all, where was Rep Wilson when Peter Fonda suggested that Barron Trump should be ripped from his mother’s arms and put in a cage with pedophiles?  Where was she when Maxine Waters called for people to harass members of the Trump Administration.

And, apparently, it only applies to Democrat Congresscritters.  Where as Wilson when New York Times columnist Wajahat Ali (to name just one) mocked Republican Representative Dan Crenshaw (and flat out lying in the process)?  Odin himself looks down on Representative Crenshaw in approval, one one-eye to another.

No, she’s simply claiming special privilege for democrats.

In a gun forum on which I used to participate someone once said, to justify voting for Democrats, “I vote for the ones who support the rest of the Bill of Rights.”

Anyone remember when the Democrats actually did support “the rest of the Bill of Rights”?

Me neither.

They’ve always been “free speech for me, not for thee”, “free association for me, not for thee”, “due process for me, not for thee”, and so on and so on and so on.

How about try freedom, and let the chips fall where they may?

There was one and only one episode of The Big Bang Theory that I ever watched (and that not completely–came in partway in).  It was one where the main characters were going to a Halloween party.  First they’d all come out dressed as The Flash.  Then, after an argument they all went and changed costumes (with no one allowed to be The Flash).  One of the characters, dressed as Frodo, made a comment “I don’t want (don’t remember the name) to think I look like a dork.” Pause so the audience can laugh (because, of course, he does “look like a dork”). Yeah, that pretty much ended my interest in the show right there.  My life had been “make fun of the geek.” I didn’t need to watch a TV show on that theme.  But, I was overseas and it was the only thing on in a language I understood so I continued through the episode.

The point I wanted to deal with here, however, wasn’t the “make fun of the geeks” aspect but some events that centered around one of those characters and the halloween party.  This character (don’t know the name.  Could look it up but don’t really care enough to do so) got in a huddle with the others at one point and said that he’d been observing the interactions between the men and women at the party.  And one typically starts with someone saying to another “How wasted am I?”

So, we follow some of the other characters for a bit and then return to this one, sitting on a chair, when a young woman sits across from him and says “How wasted am I?”

Cut away to other characters for most of the rest of the episode.  Then, at the very end, they cut back to this one.  He’s in bed.  The young woman of “How wasted am I” is next to him on her side and sleeping.  There is a rather shell-shocked look on his face.

Looks like his observations paid off.

There are a number of problems with that.  We can certainly question the ethics (or even legality) of a sexual encounter which starts with one person being “wasted”.  However, it’s a different point I want to consider here.  And that’s the idea of observing what others are doing and mimicking that as a way to “learn” social interaction.  The problem with it is that unless one already has a good grasp of social interaction it simply doesn’t work.  Oh, sure, if one has that grasp one can observe others and derive tips to “sharpen ones game”, but without an already pretty good understanding to start with what you end up with is a rote script:  character A’s line followed by character B’s.  Then character A again.  Then character B.

The problem is that the other person will go off script pretty much immediately leaving the putative student of human behavior lost for a reply.  It just doesn’t work.

What you end up with is not the character from The Big Bang Theory, but the beta unit from The Last Starfighter.  Left behind to take Alex’s place while Alex was up fighting the bad guys and totally clueless about how to treat Alex’s girlfriend Maggie he listens to another couple and tries to use the man’s lines to woo Maggie on Alex’s behalf.  Since Maggie is quite different from the other man’s “girlfriend” (apparently one of many) and the relationship she has with Alex also quite different this does not go well.

It’s a lot easier when you’re writing.  Then, you can take these snippets from studying real people and weave them together because as the writer you can ensure that they stay “on script” and you get to define the kind of relationship they have and build the personalities of the individuals in question so that a given response is appropriate.

Real life, however, is much harder.

There’s a meme on the book of faces with a stereotypical American autochthon staring out of the picture and the text “I hate to tell you this, but you’re all illegal aliens.”

This one:

I hate to tell you this, but no.  We’re not.

First off, what immigration law did they have?  What were the borders?  What were the ports of entry?  What was the process for legally immigrating?  Or were they just totally isolationist with no one allowed to immigrate?  But, again, in that case what were the actual borders?  And if they didn’t completely shut out everyone from a certain territory and enforce that, what was the law on who was, or was not, allowed entry?

But that’s just by way of intellectual exercise.  The blunt truth is that we conquered it, or bought from people who conquered it (or at least claimed to–the land occupied by the Shoshone may have been claimed by Spain, who sold it to the French, who in turn sold it to the US as part of the Louisiana Territory, but the Shoshone remained of a different opinion and we ended up having to conquer it ourselves later).

In this, we were just like everybody else in the world.  This includes the American autochthons.  The various tribes and nations didn’t just drop into the lands they inhabited at the time they came into conflict with Europeans–their ancestors having crossed Bering Land Bridge and each group settling into uninhabited territory where it would remain until Europeans came.  Nope.  They engaged in conquest of each other’s lands, some successfully.  Some not.  But it remained conquest.  The Cree and Anishnaabe people pushing the Lakota out of Minnesota and into the Great Plains was no less a conquest simply because the conquerors and conquered were racially similar.

Everybody lives on land that was taken by force of arms from others who were on their previously…and were able to hold against others who tried to take it from them.  Everybody.

Mr. Autochthon up there is just complaining that we were better at it than his people were.  Oh, and we’re also the ones that decided that maybe, just maybe, the practice should be reined in a little. (Hey, we conquered most of Mexico–all the way down to Mexico city–and gave a big chunk back because, well, because we didn’t want it.)

So, yeah, I fully admit that Europeans came as colonizers and conquerors with the intent of making over this continent in their own image culturally speaking (and in the process creating something they never intended, something never before seen in the world, something greater than their grandest imaginings).  And had the natives had the foresight and ability to stop that they would have been in their right to do so. (Whether it would have been the right move is another story–the horse, the dog, and the wheel as just three examples of why it might not have been.)

Now, do you really want to convince me that illegal aliens are comparable to the Europeans who came to “The New World” back in the fifteenth century and since?  Because that involves convincing me that they are a bona fide existential threat to our nation and our way of life.  They are, if your comparison holds, an invading army bent on conquest.

And thus should be treated as such.

I had skipped a week ice skating because of LibertyCon.  And, well, for various reasons I was just having a bad time (personal issues) when I got back on the ice.  Both Friday and Saturday I ended up calling it quits early because I was screwing up badly that it was just not safe.

Sunday, normally class day, class was canceled (the instructors probably just wanted to have the time off for the holiday, which is fine).  Public skating was still open and so I got out to get some practice in.  Much better day then.  Much improvement on the on the one-foot-glides.  Friday and Saturday when I was working one foot glides I kept getting my weight too far forward, catching my toe picks and… Not a pretty sight.  Sunday much better.

Still need to get more comfortable with one foot glides and edges (that’s a one foot glide in a curved path–the skate is tilted slightly to one side or the other so that one of the two edges bites into the ice and the rocker, the front to back curve of the blade, guides you into a curve) before I can get back up to doing crossovers.

Crossovers are the last big skill I used to have way back in the day that I’m not able to do now.  Since I’m doing some things (backward skating and “swizzles”) better than I did before, that will be a major milestone in that I’ll then be better than I ever was before.

Swizzle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuwzmityB7I

---

Although they didn’t have the learn to skate lessons they did have the Learn to Play Hockey classes that my daughter takes.

Here’s some pictures.  She’s the one in red.  Apparently, they were doing some form of ice soccer.

They did other things, of course, during the hour of class time, but this is what I caught pictures of.

 

Some recent events have prompted me to want to bring this forward even though the original wasn’t all that long ago.  I’ve added some references to said events in the post below:

---

Whenever one complains about misbehavior in the public sector the cry from certain segments goes out “That’s just a few bad apples.  Most are…”

Depending on what precise sector is misbehaving the segments raising that cry may differ, but the cry itself is generally the same.  We can’t blame all of them because of “a few bad apples.”

What these people forget is the origin of the expression about bad apples.

The old aphorism was “one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.”  And it’s true.

If you have a bad apple snugged in among a bunch of good apples, the microorganisms in the bad one will spread to the previously good apples causing them, in turn, to rot.  And they, in turn will spread the rot to other.  The one bad apple, given time, will spoil the whole batch.

What you need to do is remove the bad apple as soon as it is found to keep the rot from spreading to others.  It needs to be completely removed from all the apples.  You can compost it or feed it to livestock that isn’t bothered by the decay, but it absolutely cannot be allowed to remain among the apples that one intends to remain good.

The application of the metaphor should be obvious.  Far from being an excuse to be dismissed, “a few bad apples” indicates something that needs immediate attention, “apples” that need to be removed immediately and permanently from the “batch”.

However, instead we get this. Trooper Anthony Piercy arrested Brandon Ellingson on suspicion of “operating a boat while intoxicated”.  He handcuffed him, took him into his patrol boat. and incorrectly put a life jacket on him.  He then departed the scene at a high rate of speed in his patrol boat.  Ellingson fell off the back.  The life jacket came off when he hit the boat’s wake and Ellingson drowned while Piercy looked on, making no effort to save him.  And while the state did rescind his law enforcement license the judge reversed that decision.  Oh, and he’s got ten days of jail time–served two at a time, basically giving up five weekends.  Piercy is still a cop and “merely on unpaid leave.”

Or perhaps there’s this one, with State Troopers discussing the best way to frame someone of a crime since they didn’t like him filming them…and even calling another department to see if they have a “grudge” against the guy:

So far as I can tell, all of these people engaged in conspiracy to violate a man’s rights are still serving in “law enforcement.”

Or this one.  SWAT raid over a code violation (gas turned off). “No knock” warrant (like they’re going to get rid of evidence–flush the gas meter down the toilet?). Family dog killed.  Oh, they claimed the dog was charging them but “shot in the side and back” which means it was facing away from them when shot.  Over the course of the dozen or so articles I searched on this incident, not one word about the police officers involved, including the one who, let’s be kind and say “embellished” a line about history of violence to justify the “no knock”, being fired or even disciplined.  Oh, there’s some talk about “revising policies” with said revisions remaining unstated.  But no chucking of bad apples.

So, instead of removal, you get dismissal of the problem as “a few bad apples” and those bad apples remain in the batch.  That’s not an indication that the problem is too small to merit attention.

It’s an indication that the rot has already spread.

An episode of Babylon 5 focused on a cultural practice of the alien species the Drazi.  Every so often they had a big battle between Drazi wearing green scarves and Drazi wearing purple scarves.

There was no philosophical or economic dispute between the two sides.  There was no matter of class or status or race that stood between them.  No, they had a big box of mixed scarves and whoever drew out a purple one was on the purple side, and whoever drew out a green one was on the green side.

American politics has long born entirely too much resemblance to that conflict.  Oh, don’t get me wrong, there are differences of principle between the major parties, and between various minor ones.  However, those differences in principle get forgotten when it comes to actions by the party representative in office.

Republican implements gun control by executive fiat?  That’s unimportant, his supporters say. “Who cares about…” or worse. “4-D Chess.” Democrat proposes gun control?  High dudgeon from the Republican’s supporters.

Democrat says “we must enforce our immigration laws”? Cheers, or at least silence from Democrat pundits and voters.  Republican says the same thing, and continues policies started under a previous, Democrat, office holder? Screams of “concentration camps”, “never again!” and “war crime” (one wonders with whom we are supposed to be at war).

For entirely too many people, principle takes a back seat to supporting “their team.” Unlike the Drazi, they may have chosen a side based on principle rather than simply pulling a scarf out of a box but when it comes to actual political action it’s “Green!” “Purple!”

Or “Red!” “Blue!”

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

---

Independence Day, on every July 4th, we celebrate this document and the war we fought to throw off tyrannical rule and establish our own government to preserve the Liberty of the people.  In addition to remembering what has gone before it also serves as a reminder to those in power:  there’s plenty of room on the calendar for another holiday should the people of the US decide this point has been reached again: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Going up a little bit late today.  I bumped one of my pre-scheduled posts to do this one.

I don’t recall how long I’ve been going to LibertyCon regularly.  I think it was LibertyCon 23.  We just had Libertycon 32 so that makes ten years.

Unfortunately, this was…the roughest one for me yet.  Understand none of that is the fault of LibertyCon and the people who run it.  It’s just that I was dealing with some personal issues and they kind of interfered with my getting full enjoyment out of the con.

LibertyCon runs from Friday afternoon to Sunday afternoon.  This year it was Jun 28-30.  I usually schedule so as to arrive there Thursday evening because there’s generally a big range trip Friday morning and I don’t normally want to miss it.

This year they had to change the date at the last minute because the original hotel they contracted with had basically pulled the rug out from under them.  That was a benefit to me since the original schedule conflicted with Finals Week at my daughter’s high school.  If the con dates hadn’t changed the trip would have had to be very brief indeed.  So, the change in schedule worked out.  However, I was being hit hard by personal issues during the time of its new schedule so maybe if it had been a week later maybe… And maybe if I’d had to wait the extra week the personal issues would have been worse.  No way to tell.  And none of that is Brandi’s (the con chair) responsibility.

This was a sad LibertyCon in another way.  Not long ago, May 12 to be exact, Tim Bolgeo “Uncle Timmy”, one of the founders of LibertyCon and one of the nicest guys I have ever met, passed away.  He is and will be sorely missed.

So, that said, onto what happened at this year’s LibertyCon.

The drive down to LibertyCon is moderately long, about 8 hours with stops (gas, bathroom, food).  About six hours into it the engine on my car (2005 Ford Explorer) starts running rough (rougher–I’d been having a minor issue) and losing power on acceleration.  Then the “service engine soon” light comes on.  I look at where we are, how far it is to get back and press on.  I think I have a pretty good idea what the problem is (more on that later) and if I’m wrong, well, a repair bill is a repair bill whether here or at home.  I, nevertheless, continue the drive with fingers crossed.

We arrive at LibertyCon about 5:00 on Thursday evening.  My daughter and I head over from where we’re staying to the Mariott and Convention center at which the con is being held.  I meet Sarah Hoyt (Author Guest of Honor at LibertyCon 32) and a couple of other people at the hotel.  Friends from around the country that I don’t get to see often (like…ever).

Early registration for the con is open so Athena and I pick up our badges and I get my programming schedule.

The next morning, we get up and out for the range trip.  I offer a ride to one gentleman.  We get together and head out, timing things so that we’ll be at the range pretty much as soon as it opens.  Well, actually, we’re a little early.

Unfortunately, my daughter reports that she’s not feeling well.  It’s bad enough that we have to bail but first things first, we ensure that the guy we’d brought had a ride back.  It’s good so we go.

First thing my daughter and I had to do, before the con started, was get her set up in the Art Show.  As I’ve pointed out before on this blog, my daughter is an incredible artist.  She had several pieces in the show, hoping to sell them.  So, we had to set them up for display.

My first programming event is “Ask a Scientist – Kid’s Edition”.  As it turned out, we only had one kid in the audience but, well, the rest were young at heart, right?  Discussed a number of things that people brought up.

After Ask a Scientist we had the official Opening Ceremonies.  At core, this is a chance to introduce the various guests.  This one also included a musical tribute to Uncle Timmy.  And after the Opening Ceremonies I had an hour in “Author’s Alley” where I had a table I could sit at and attempt to sell some of my books. (Hey!  Want to buy a book?  Look over there to the sidebar.  I have book for sale.)

Let me interject something here.  Normally at a con I’ll look through the program, find panels I’d like to attend–either because of the subject matter or because a person I’d like to hear is on the panel–and try to work out when I need to be where.  I didn’t do anything like that this time.  I had my own schedule printed on the back of my badge (and again on the name tag they provide to set up when you’re on panels so people know who you are). And this time (personal issue again) when I didn’t have actual programming I needed to be at I basically retreated to my room.  I didn’t attend other panels.  I didn’t do any parties.  I’m already a pretty strong introvert and even when it’s basically a big extended family like LibertyCon, where I was emotionally I just wasn’t up to dealing except in modest doses.

Saturday, my first item was Author’s Alley again, followed immediately by an Autograph Session (which, at my stage of the game, is just another opportunity to try to sell books).

In the evening I had 500 Vampires, No Waiting, a discussion of the use and misuse of vampire in fiction.  I think we all agreed that nobody liked that sparkly sonofabitch.

Later in the evening the panel was “Nuclear Weapons 101.” Discussion involved real world and fiction.

At the Nuclear Weapons 101 panel I noted something.  At any panel, by any quantifiable criterion you cared you name, there will be one person least qualified to talk about the subject of the panel.  I observed that LibertyCon seemed to have chosen me for that roll in all panels.  Every panel, I was that least qualified person.  Yes, my degree is in physics, but it’s a “BS” not a “PhD” (let alone the multiple PhDs of some of my co-panelists and I’m pretty far away in specialization from anything nuclear related.  Sure, the word “Atomic” appears in my job description but “Atomic Force Microscopy” has nothing whatever to do with nuclear weapons.  OTOH, as a writer, I’ve pored over open-source materials in the interest of “getting it right” when I used them in fiction (notably Big Blue), and the lack of access to classified material meant that I was freer in what I could say than were my colleagues.

Finally, late that night we had the “Mad Scientist Roundtable.” This basically started from an informal discussion one of our regularly attending scientists (Les Johnson NASA physicist and author) had out by the pool in an earlier venue.  It drew a crowd and the con chair (Uncle Timmy back then) asked him to “do it again” for the next one.  Basically, what it is is a large room where a bunch of us get together and discuss some of the important developments in science and technology over the past year.  There are a couple of topics that are “off limits” because they tend to lead to arguments which produce more heat than light.  And since we have several truly world-class scientists in a variety of fields (not me.  I’m the little guy way over here) we can have some truly amazing discussions.

BTW, while I was at the Mad Science Roundtable, I was handed an “Honorable mention” award for “hall costume.” The person going around giving those awards liked the outfit I was wearing, basically, a Victorian ruffled shirt, dress pants, dress shoes, with a walking stick with a large “glass” knob on the end.  I never thought of it as a “costume”, just dressing up a bit, but it was nice to be recognized.

Sunday, things are usually winding down.  It starts with the Kaffeeklatsch, basically a meet and greet with coffee served. (Can’t stand coffee.)  I had a reading right after, I had a reading right after, a chance to read from one of my books (I chose The Unmasking) to maybe generate interest that could lead to people buying books. (See?  Over there on the right, at least if you’re reading this on a laptop or desktop?  I have books for sale.)

My last scheduled event for the day was another stint in Author’s Alley.  Only I’d made a mistake.  Somehow I got it in my head that it was 2:00 and I went down to set up.  There was an empty table, so I grabbed it.  Set up and did my hour.  Only one problem.  It was 1:00 when I got there and I was an hour early.  I suppose I could have stayed there for the second hour but 1) I’d paid for a total of three hours and I’d just finished the third hour and 2) my daughter wanted to eat and we just had time to head over to City Cafe before closing ceremonies.

We went, we ate, we came and then I remembered she had to get checked out of the art show.  So we went to do that, collect up her pieces (none sold, dammit), and sign the paperwork confirming that, yes, we got back everything we put in.  Unfortunately, this took longer than anticipated (I’m still unfamiliar with procedures–need to plan more time in the future) and we were about 15 minutes late for the beginning of closing ceremonies.

Mostly, Closing ceremonies is a time for Brandy and the con chair to answer questions and field suggestions from folk at the con, things to try to make LibertyCon better next time around.  The most common single “suggestion” people make is “increase the membership limit next time” (LibertyCon has been selling out of its ceiling of 750 attendees–which includes Staff and Guests). Unfortunately, on the one hand their charter doesn’t allow it.  On the other, while it is perhaps theoretically possible to amend the charter (I have no idea about that) there’s a real reluctance to let it get bigger for fear of it losing some of it’s “family” flavor.  I can certainly see their point.

After the con was over, we drove back.  Yes, the Explorer held out.

Once I got home I did take some time to dig into the Explorer.  A while back I’d replaced the spark plugs (realized it hadn’t been done since I bought it back in 2006 and so it was probably running on the original plugs).  They were severely worn.  I had originally intended to replace the wires at the same time but that looked to be a much more challenging task due to the wire routing.  You had to actually remove the alternator to get at the passenger side wires.  So that had been sitting undone.  Well my problem, thanks to a code reader, was “misfire on cylinder 3”.  So I bite the bullet, dig into it and replace the wires.  Result being that the care runs like a champ now, plenty of power on acceleration and the gas mileage has improved.

And that is the saga of this year’s LibertyCon.

It is not just the origin or basis, or even the degree of political power that defines totalitarianism.  A despotism can be ruthless, freely willing to use deadly force against even the slightest dissent, but that by itself doesn’t make it totalitarian.

What makes something totalitarian is the all-encompassing scope over what the state dictates about people’s lives.  A dictator may may be ruthless, ordering deaths on a whim, but care little about how people raise their children or whether they are religious or, if they are what religion they follow.

It is the coverage of the vast range of human activities, from personal relations of the most intimate nature to philosophical beliefs, and everything in between that constitutes totalitarianism.  The originator of the term “Totalitarian” (in Italian “Totalitario”), Benito Mussolini, put it thus:

All through the state, all for the state, nothing against the state, and nothing outside the state.

Before the twentieth century the closest societies got to totalitarianism was certain religious communities where religious and political power were combined such that religious doctrines regarding peoples personal lives such as raising of children, love and marriage, and what religion one is permitted to practice were matters of law.  Indeed, to a large extent that was the only way that totalitarianism could occur because the very scope of authority which totalitarianism encompasses requires some kind of unifying ideology to pull it together.

It was in the 20th century that totalitarianism really came into its own with the Conjoined Twin ideologies of Fascism and Communism.  People attempt to paint these two as opposites but the truth remains that they resemble each other far far more than they differ.  Fascism talks about the state.  Communism talks about the people or the proletariat, but in the end that ends up functionally meaning the state.  Both use similar means to similar ends–the concentration of power to use for the “common good” which invariably means for the benefit of those in power.  The Mussolini quote could just as easily have been said by Lenin, Stalin, or Mao.  They were all totalitarians.

It is the exclusion and suppression of sources of direction outside the state that defines totalitarianism.  Everything must fit within the overriding ideology.  Anything that doesn’t is to be suppressed (“nothing against the state”) and anything that does must be co-opted by the state to ensure that it continues to do so (“nothing outside the state”).  Everything.  Children are indoctrinated with the official ideology.  They are taught to betray even their own parents for “badthink.” And as adults, even friends and lovers must conform to official ideology–because if they don’t and are caught, you can be punished right along with them unless you denounce them first.

History.  Science.  The Arts.  All must be made to fit this official ideology.  Consider Hitler’s “authoritative” pronouncements on everything under the sun or Stalin’s dictating even what would be officially accepted scientific theories (including the disaster of Lysenkoism applied to agriculture) or the many sayings, on every conceivable topic by which good party members were supposed to live, included in the Little Red Book of Mao’s.

Totalitarian ideology typically features

1. The localization and compartmentalization of “evil” whether that be in Jews, Capitalists, The 1%, Infidels, or any of a number of “Those people.” This creates the illusion that solutions to age-old human problems can seem feasible in a reasonable timeframe.  “If we just get rid of ‘those people’, or properly punish them, then all our problems will go away.”
2. The localization and compartmentalization of “wisdom.” The need to define some uniquely informed and wise group who alone can see the solution to these problems that have beset humanity since time immemorial.  And, of course, that this means these uniquely wide and informed people must take power, despite what the uninformed masses might desire as expressed through democratic processes, is purely a coincidence.  They have your best interest at heart.  Trust them.
3. A single scale of values that applies to everything.
4. The presupposition of sufficient knowledge to achieve the claimed desired goals.  Not only must the sources of wisdom be able to see the general form of solutions to these age old problem that no one had managed to discover before, they have to have the detailed knowledge at their disposal to implement the myriad details necessary in actually reaching the desired goals.
5. The problem, no matter how old it is and how long mankind has lived with it is presented as so urgent that even the most extreme and, yes, ruthless, steps to take it are justified.
6. Claimed association with a large body or the populace on whose behalf one is acting, but whose opinions can be disregarded and who may be sacrificed “for the greater good” not only with no guilt, but even claiming virtue from doing so.  “The greater good” can encompass no end of evil, with the claimed “good” only being one more atrocity away.
7. The ideology must be self-contained, excluding all other views and visions.  This requires converting questions of fact into questions of motive.  Facts can be stubborn things.  They might challenge the core tenets of the ideology and one can’t have that.  So the answer is not to address the fact but instead to challenge the motive of the ones presenting the facts.  Various “-ists” are quite useful to that end.  Simply assign inimical motives to the presenter of the fact and you cna dismiss it without needing to deal with the fact itself.

By reducing the complex range of social, political, and even scientific issues to a simple, self-contained platform–a few simple, easily grasped precept usually–totalitarian ideologies tend to appeal to people who, for whatever reason have limited experience of those complexities:  youth, those generally inexperienced, and masses who had previously simply not paid much attention to politics.

One result of this appeal to the inexperienced is that as people gain experience, some at least will start seeing the cracks in the ideology.  Discordant facts that cannot be simply dismissed by challenging motive will start creeping in.  This usually leads to one of several outcomes.

• One is defections from the ideology.  The increased inability of the ideology to cover the ever increasing complexity of ones knowledge of the real world leads to rejection of the ideology.
  Many devoted believers in totalitarian ideologies in their youth become equally devoted opponents when older.
• Another is an attempt to adapt the ideology to the increasing understanding of the complexity of the world.  This leads to ever increasing patches to the core tenets of the ideology while struggling to retain some semblance of plausibility.
  These folk are generally treated exactly like the defectors by those who remain “true” to the core ideology.
• A third is simple rejection of the discordant facts.  The dismissal of everything that disagrees simply becomes more and more strident as the complexity of the real world attempts to intrude on the simplified certainties.
  These folk are especially harsh to the second category.
• A fourth is acceptance that the ideology is flawed but continuing to pretend belief because it is a useful for attaining ones own goals, usually some combination of wealth and power.

We call this last category “politicians.”