I dislike touchscreens, iPads, and the like. Part of that is that, while my muscular gross motor control is good to excellent, I don’t do as well with fine motor control, one of the reasons why I gave up trying to be an artist, although I actually won a scholastic art show in high school.

The other reason is that I have flat oblong fingertips, which means that it’s a bitch to compose anything on my iPhone. That’s why I use a mouse on my surface pro when I travel. For me, precision is far easier and quicker with a full-sized keyboard and a mouse. As for signing anything electronically, on those occasions, my barely legible signature turns into abstract art.

In a way, I could claim that iPads and touchscreens are discriminatory against people with large hands and broad or fat fingers, but then, if we really look at the physical world, every device and structure could be said to be discriminatory against someone. In fact, even the environment discriminates.

The sun blisters fair-skinned people in tropical climes and induces vitamin D deficiencies in dark-skinned people living in arctic areas (unless they take vitamins or watch their diet carefully).

Genetics discriminate, because some people are born more intelligent or stronger or faster or more coordinated than others.

Societies and governments usually discriminate in various ways, sometimes for the public good, as in locking up lawbreakers and forbidding children to drive some killing machines (i.e., automobiles) while often allowing young teenagers to drive smaller killing machines (i.e., ATVs). Often, societies discriminate on the basis of appearance, skin color, gender, and age, or religious faith or the lack thereof, and the culture/society into which one is born determines the degree of discrimination and challenges faced.

We all can cite blatant and obvious cases of discrimination such as slavery and lack of civil rights for African Americans in the U.S.; the holocaust in Germany; the Armenian Genocide in Turkey – and that list is long. But moving away from the blatant and obvious, “discrimination” isn’t always so easy to define or remedy.

Recent studies show that family backgrounds, especially their degree of prosperity, have a great impact on children’s futures. So does the physical environment. But to what degree should governments address the conditions that disadvantage children?

Both the right and the left have been debating and fighting over this question for generations, and while conditions have improved in the U.S., in many areas, obvious discrimination still exists. At the same time, some groups have filed lawsuits against governments and universities claiming that certain anti-discrimination measures discriminate against them.

But how much discrimination is structural? How much can be addressed by laws? And how much is chance?

I have no sense of pitch or rhythm, and I’m extremely fortunate to have been born into a culture that doesn’t require a high degree of linguistic inflection and pitch change, because I’m fairly certain that I’d be at a great disadvantage in China, Japan, or Vietnam. I couldn’t even hear the changes in inflection and pitch in Vietnamese when I was being prepared to be sent to Vietnam as a junior Navy officer.

All of which illustrates, in an odd way, why dealing with “discrimination” can be fraught with pitfalls. Even laws requiring perfect equality of opportunity wouldn’t make touchscreens any easier for me or allow me to sing professionally.

And while that seems far-fetched, how far can we take “anti-discrimination?”

Last Thursday, David H. Souter died at his home in New Hampshire. The former Supreme Court Justice is likely to be remembered, at least by Republicans, as a Republican in name only, because he voted so often with the “liberal” justices.

From what I’ve read and heard, Justice Suitor had only two passions in life – the law and the outdoors of his home state of New Hampshire.

What few of those Republicans who felt “betrayed” by Suitor’s Supreme Court votes and opinions understood, or wanted to, was that for Souter, the law and the Constitution were sacred. He had few illusions that the Constitution was perfect, but he said, if not in so many words, that laws should be interpreted in the spirit of the Constitution. He also understood that, as I’ve written before:

Never mistake law for justice. Justice is an ideal, and law is a tool.

Justice Souter also understood that the way that tool was used – or misused – made all the difference for society.

There are two fundamental approaches to making or applying laws. One is along the lines that Trump is currently pursuing, which is to make and apply laws and regulations to obtain a predetermined goal, regardless of the Constitution and/or other existing law and precedents, while disregarding the harmful direct and indirect consequences of such a course.

The other approach, the one seemingly followed by Justice Souter, as best I can determine, is to interpret and decide laws based on both the text and the spirit of the Constitution. This approach used to be more common, particularly among moderate Republicans, and even some rather conservative Republicans.

Justice Souter, and his example, will be missed, not that most current Republican officeholders will ever understand why.

During the 2024 Presidential campaign, Donald Trump came out strong for states’ rights, particularly when it came to the abortion issue.

Trump has also trumpeted his support for states’ primacy on other issues such as disaster aid, education standards, public lands, and other issues where conservatives have opposed federal laws and initiatives.

Yet, for all the talk about states’ rights, since Trump became President for the second time, he’s attacked states and state programs that don’t agree with his rhetoric and agenda.

Just one day after Donald Trump’s inauguration, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove wrote a memo to the Justice Department calling on U.S. attorneys to prosecute state and local officials who do not cooperate with the deportation efforts of the Trump administration.

On March 25th, Trump issued an executive order directing an independent bipartisan federal agency, the Election Assistance Commission, to impose voter registration mandates on all fifty states; place restrictions on the deadline for states to receive legitimately cast ballots; and threatened to withhold funding for election safety programs if states fail to comply.

Tom Homan – Trump’s “border czar” — has threatened to go after states and cities that refuse to comply with the president-elect’s deportation plans, including arresting mayors, despite the fact that past Supreme Court decisions have held that the federal government cannot force local authorities to carry out federal laws, nor to incarcerate local leaders for not adhering to an administration’s policy.

Just this past week, Trump issued an executive order week directing the Justice Department to stop states from enforcing their own climate laws. The order targets a broad sweep of state policies, from environmental justice reviews to decade-old carbon markets, as well as taking aim at states suing fossil fuel companies for damages related to climate impacts. He also issued an executive order pushing the building of coal power plants and ordering attacks on state laws that would prohibit or limit coal fired power plants.

The bottom line?

The only rights and principles Trump supports are those that get him what he wants. When states’ rights suit him, he’s for them, but when the states oppose him, they’re the enemy to be destroyed.

…in the heights of Cedar City last bloomed untrammeled by late snow and frost?

Not this year, although, so far as the lilacs are concerned, this spring has been a half-glass proposition because the lilacs actually got to bloom, but the weather got cold enough that while the blooms were gorgeous, the frost nipped them to the degree that there was no fragrance.

That’s a first in thirty years.

When you live at 6,000 feet between two mountain ranges and near the top of a sizable hill, you come to expect extremely variable weather, as well as frequent high winds.

We’ve had springs where the lilacs avoided the unpredictable inclement weather and they bloomed and perfumed the yard, and springs where they were snowed out or frozen and we had neither blooms nor fragrance. And quite a few springs where they budded and the buds immediately froze enough that when they thawed, they just dried up without opening. And even a spring or two where the wind was severe enough to blow off the blooms before they fully opened.

But full blooms with no fragrance? Never before.

Then, again, we’ve seen a lot this year that we never thought we’d see, and it’s not just here. Even Paris was just bombarded with intense hail and flash floods. Why should the lilacs of Cedar City be immune?

So… I’ll wait for next year and hope for both blooms and fragrance.

What’s with Boeing?

Not only did the aircraft manufacturer create a disaster by failing to inform buyers of the 737 Max-9 that the new version of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) was considerably different from previous systems, but Boeing also initially failed to inform the FAA. As a result, two crashes killing 346 people ensued, and the 737 Max aircraft were grounded for 20 months, during which time the FAA lifted Boeing’s ability to issue airworthiness certificates for individual aircraft. In July 2024, Boeing pleaded guilty to criminal charges regarding the fatal accidents.

In January of 2024, Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 suffered a mid-flight blowout of a plug filling an unused emergency exit, causing rapid decompression of the aircraft. The FAA grounded some 171 Boeing 737 MAX 9s with a similar configuration for inspections.

Previously, in 2018, a $3.9 billion contract was awarded to Boeing to build two new 747-8 aircraft for use as Air Force One. The two aircraft were to be delivered by December 2024, but subsequent delays by Boeing led to that being pushed back to 2028, with another delay announced earlier this year pushing delivery back to 2029 or later. This tends to raise questions, given that the basic 747-8 that is the starting point for the new Presidential jet currently goes for around $400 million, and Boeing claims it can’t come anywhere near the contract price.

Boeing has also suffered problems with the 787 Dreamliner, including manufacturing flaws with the fuselage, battery fires, and significant production issues in South Carolina, with numerous flaws found in quality assurance checks.

The Boeing 777, particularly the 777X variant, was projected to enter service in 2020, but technical problems have delayed entry until 2025, at the earliest.

In the military area, Boeing had restructure the KC-46A Pegasus, designed for aerial refueling, in order to redesign its remote vision system due to visibility problems that could affect stealth aircraft refueling, resulting in significant cost overruns, totaling billions in losses for Boeing due to fixed-price contracts.

Multiple other programs, including the T-7A Red Hawk jet trainer, have faced substantial delays. For instance, the T-7’s critical design review was pushed back by nearly two years. Since its introduction, the V-22 Osprey has been involved in accidents that have resulted in at least 62 fatalities. This figure includes incidents from the 1990s through to recent years.

In addition, the Boeing Starliner is not only behind schedule, but suffered multiple technical issues, including propellant system valves, flammable tape, parachute issues, helium leaks, and propulsion system design vulnerabilities, which led it its being not safe enough for the manned return flight.

And Boeing’s reward for all these disasters?

An apparent award from Trump and DOD to develop and supply the next generation F-47 fighter.

So much for fiscal responsibility and competence.