The little Thing

 I used to have an occasional feature on my old show that was called “The little Thing,” about something that I found particularly interesting - or particularly irritating - that wasn’t getting a lot of attention.

Okay, here’s an example of a “particularly irritating” one.

The Intercept just had an article noting that documents released as part of a suit relating to charges against the 15 Minnesota activists who resisted ICE in Minneapolis showed that ICE had been investigating and infiltrating the Sunrise Movement, along with a wide variety of other groups.

According to the article,

ICE declined to offer an explanation for why it investigated Sunrise and the other groups.

“HSI investigates individuals and organizations when there is just and legal cause to do so and within the scope of its legal authorities. To preserve the integrity of our work and protect law enforcement sensitivities, we do not comment on ongoing investigations, investigative tactics, or procedures,” an agency spokesperson said.

Okay, that sort of weasel word boilerplate really, really ticks me off and I don’t know why it doesn’t irritate more people.

First, the statement effectively admits there is an “ongoing” investigation - confirming that much of what those documents revealed.

The infuriating part is that the thugs then say they “do not comment” on any such thing when they already have, dammit!

They investigate “when there is just and legal cause.” If that means anything at all in this context, it means they are describing this “ongoing investigation” as having “just and legal cause” - that is, they had good cause to investigate and infiltrate, aka spy on. That’s commenting on the investigation.

But ask what that good cause is, and it’s “We can’t tell you that because we don’t comment.” Even though they do when it’s to affirm what we apparently are to regard as the undeniable justice and legality of their actions.

And it really really bugs me not only that they spew out this lawyer-finessed gobbledygook but that no one ever challenges them on it.

Yeah, it’s a little thing. But still....

I Knew This

“National Park Service concludes Trump’s arch is so big that it would intrude on other DC landmarks”

That’s the headline on an article in the August 3 “Independent.”

The first graph goes on to say that “The Trump administration’s proposed 250-foot ‘triumphal arch’ in Washington could have an ‘adverse” impact on nearly 40 other capital-area landmarks, according to the National Park Service.”

In the sacred tradition of “Toljaso,” I’ve chosen to elevate something of mine that previously appeared only as an entry in an earlier post into one of its own. The Independent article makes reference to the NPS having invited public comment; well, this was mine.

Submitted June 15, 2026

I write in opposition to the proposed “Triumphal Arch at Memorial Circle.”

Contrary to the description, this proposed arch celebrates not our founding principles but rather a parody of them. It is “monumental” for the sake of being monumental, its size substituting grandeur for grace, expansiveness for elegance.

It is, to put it simply, big just for the sake of being big, not for any artistic or even memorializing purpose; it’s an expression not of pride but of pridefulness.

Which is why it seems oddly appropriate that the proposal is [in its own words] “drawing on the historic Roman precedent of erecting freestanding arches,” reaching back to a time of emperors and empires, of “bread and circuses” and gladiatorial contests to find inspiration for architecture as well as for fights on the White House lawn.

It is particularly improper for this latest outgrowth of Donald Trump’s desperate desire to be remembered as someone of oversized importance to be intended as an entrance to Arlington National Cemetery, where if it has any effect at all it will be to disrupt and distract from the solemn air, the contemplative atmosphere, of the site.

If it is to be built anywhere, let it span some side avenue somewhere, where it can, in time, come to be seen like the monuments and arches peppering London, as a pretty but ultimately quaint and otherwise unimportant reminder of times when some leader’s sense of self-importance outran their self-awareness.

I have no illusions that my comment had some major impact, probably it had none except to add a 1 to the “No” pile, but considering how parts of it echoed (or from the perspective of my timeline, were echoed by) comments in the article, I admit to entertaining a pleasant vision of some comment reviewer reading the opening and thinking “yeah, fair point” and then smiling at the ending.