“Separate but equal isn’t”
navigating the second Gilded Age through humor, invective and insight
“Separate but equal isn’t”
Trump the First followed through on this campaign promise to end birthright citizenship, issuing an executive order to do so.
One of the fascinating things about Trump’s approach to life is that it’s steeped in “my way or the highway” thinking. As my friend Seth pointed out when The Donald was first elected, that’s likely because throughout almost all of his personal and private sector life he really didn’t need to pay attention to anyone else. You worked for him or his company, you played by his rules, or else.
That’s not an environment wherein you learn one of the most important rules of social behavior: you have to at least pretend other people have rights, too.
Most of us learn this early. In fact, most of us take it to the next level, and don’t just pretend, but internalize the belief “for real”.
It’s an important belief for a social animal. And it’s related to a foundational element of democracy: one governs at the consent of the governed…which term appears in an important historical document you may have heard of (emphasis added):
Consent of the governed – Wikipedia
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.
Having fought a revolution to get rid of King George III, we’ve apparently decided to elect his replacement, Trump the First. Granted, it took us a couple of centuries to do this. Some beliefs die hard, I guess.
I would’ve loved to attend the hearing before Federal District Court Senior Judge Coughenour on a request for an injunction to block this latest brainstorm from the depths of Trump’s evil soul. Because it was filled with all sorts of things I wouldn’t ever want to hear from a judge, if I was a lawyer:
What’s even more interesting about all this is it would appear to be long-settled law. As Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray stated in the majority opinion in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (a child born in the US of Chinese immigrants; emphasis added):
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | Constitution Center
Of course, the current conservative morons on the Supreme Court could simply declare Gray to have been wrong or that the ruling violated the Alito Rule.
mostly incoherently, but still…
Trump commenting on his brilliant move to supply more water in California:
“Today, 1.6 billion gallons and, in 3 days, it will be 5.2 billion gallons. Everybody should be happy about this long fought Victory! I only wish they listened to me six years ago — There would have been no fire!”
Unfortunately:
But who cares about farmers?
© 2025 Mark A. Olbert, except where noted. All rights reserved.
For many reasons, I will never forget Mr. Muchio, who taught me algebra in the 7th grade.
One of the biggest challenges in learning algebra isn’t the math itself. It’s learning how to parse descriptions into mathematical equations you can then use the rules of algebra to solve. It’s a process of abstraction, figuring out what are the essential details and what is “merely” descriptive and/or reflective of a particular situation. This is commonly known as learning to solve word problems.
We quickly became masters of this…or thought we had.
As Mr. Muchio pointedly kept reminding us, what we were actually doing was leaving stuff out to overly simplify the problem. I still remember his admonition, decades later: “You’re using a silly rule: ‘when in doubt, leave it out’. But it means the problem you solve isn’t the one you were supposed to solve. Be careful about what you leave out!”
Once upon a time I was chief financial officer of a startup biotech company. One day my boss, the CEO, and I were traveling back to meet with investors to pitch them on why they really wanted to keep buying our stock.
During the flight I reviewed the financial models and presentation I’d spent days creating. Somewhere over the Midwest I suddenly realized several of the key summary values, which were central to my analysis, had gotten hard-coded. They didn’t reflect the revised assumptions I’d made.
This meant my beautiful and compelling pitch was completely wrong. In fact, we didn’t look like such a good investment after all.
Needless to say, I didn’t get much sleep that night. I had to revise everything.
Ever since, my Excel models are littered with “check figure” lines, that confirm totals are, in fact, reflective of the data they claim to summarize.
One of my earliest political memories was of Joe Namath, a very talented and famous quarterback in 1968, being asked who he thought should be our next President. I was 13 at the time.
I remember thinking “He’s a phenomenal quarterback. But why in the world would anyone think that’d make him an expert on national politics and the Presidential candidates?”
It takes a lot of time and effort — and focus — to become an expert in anything. Very few of us have the resources to do that in many different fields.
This spillover expertise effect really comes into play, at least in the United States, with business titans and governing.
Just because someone is successful in business, they don’t necessarily have a clue as to how to successfully lead a community in its pursuit of happiness and the greater good. Business, for all its challenges, is a much, much simpler environment to operate in than government. I know this from personal experience because I worked in each for 20 years, as a financial executive and as a local elected official.
In business, you succeed by focusing on making money while not breaking the rules. Or at least not breaking them too much.
In government, at least in a representative constitutional democracy, there is no single goal, and no marketplace in which to value tradeoffs from moment to moment. In fact, there’s often no market at all.
The Michelson–Morley experiment, which produced the data that overthrew Newtonian physics, was performed in 1887.
But it went unexplained until 1905, when Albert Einstein published the special theory of relativity.
What were the world’s physicists doing during those 18 years? Ignoring the data and hoping it would go away? Playing pinochle?
No, they were trying to jam the empirical data into Newtonian physics. Because that just had to be true! It’d successfully explained everything (well, almost everything) for centuries!
Once you accept the box you’re in, it’s damn hard to break out of it. Or even realize you’re in a box.
Ever wonder why research reports in Science, Nature, or any other scientific journal are terribly boring and hard to read?
It’s because the authors are required to disclose, fully, materials and methods, how they did their analysis, etc. They have to establish provenance, and reproducibility…both of which are key to critical thinking.
They only get to discuss what their results (might) mean in the last few bits.