Fraud versus the Constitution

I do tend to pay attention when people scream "Fraud!"  I do have a couple of steps which I use, internally, to determine the validity of the claim.  

The first thing I do is look at the person who is claiming fraud has been committed.  Does this person have a personal history of numerous events in which decisions were ... well, let's call them decisions which were made by a thin margin?  Were they decisions that came from a known and "level" "playing field"?  Was the contest fair?  Was there a chance for the contest, whatever it was, to be grossly or minutely influenced by what you might want to call "nefarious contributors" that is, people who might not want to see a fair contest?  Is or was the decision questionable?  Is there a history - either the contest, or the contestant - of questionable results?  Is the claim in any way valid?

When it comes to the Orange Jesus Nazi Sympathizer who is now saying we need to set aside the Constitution because he says he's been cheated, let's be honest.  There are undoubtedly a number of instances where the overall contest might be subtly, or grossly, influenced.  There are chances for a small number of influencers to attempt to vary the outcome from that which was desired by those who voted in the contest.  

However, are there checks and balances?  I do understand that some people of ... well, let's say those who lack experience with things like computer programming may find it all "magic".  As my mother said, before I heard it elsewhere, "magic" is what the chimpanzees call fire, or anything they don't understand.  Mind you, I doubt that any other primate on the planet has a similar concept to our "magic" ideas, but the point she wished to make was that those who choose not to learn of the details and simply prefer to suggest that anything they do not understand operates outside the accepted rules of the system in which they operate, then yep, that's what some folks call "magic".  Anything they don't understand is magic.

Back in the day of photography when one exposed light onto a media which had been chemically treated to detect different levels and colors of light, well, yup, that was downright magic.  Having participated in, and later learned exactly how to extract the magic from those systems, I know that there are certain chemical operations which must occur to cause the whole process to work.  Back in the day when I was learning how to develop film, the very biggest challenge I had was in being able to get the film out of the canister after it had been exposed, in the camera, to the image I wished to capture, into the canister where the chemicals did their thing and washed away the material which had been deposited on the film, leaving behind various levels of coating to represent the image.  That is, my biggest challenge was getting the damned film to properly and completely wind in the blasted reel which was then placed inside a completely sealed canister, where you later added your chemicals.  I regularly had film that would not remain where I put it - or so I thought.

See, the ancient trick from the old 35mm film days was you started out with a strip of basically plastic, a little more than an inch wide,and try to reel it into the film canister reel - this thing had a nice little spiral wire starting on the outside of the container, and spinning around the core maybe twelve to fifteen times.  And here was the part I learned.  When I took Photo in High School, we were each issued four little reusable film canisters.  They were four pieces each.  You started with a film spindle, the teacher called it.  It was like anything else you'd roll something onto, with guides to keep it even.  That's right.  Think a big old cable reel, any sort of thing that you roll things onto - that was it.  There were two small caps, metal caps which fit tightly to the spindles, and snapped onto the final piece - the cover - that kept all of the film enclosed and inside the dark little canister so it was ready to use when you put it into the camera.

After a number of ... well, I suppose I'd call it exhortations to be careful with the film, don't use a lot, I learned that if I left a tail of about three or four inches hanging OUT when I finished loading my film, I could then easily get the film all the way into the center of the reel, and carefully get it guided into the little spaces between the wires.

The trick was, every bit of film that was not in contact with something else would have the proper chemical reaction you needed.  If, on the other hand, you had film touching itself, then you'd ... lose the image.  It would not properly react to the chemicals, and what ever picture you thought you had was gone.

What's this got to do with fraud?  Simple - because I initially didn't know what was happening, I presumed I didn't know all of the proper steps, and the "magic" was beyond me.  When I figured out that simple little trick to leave more of a tail, I could easily reel the film onto the canister reel, close the canister with up to three rolls of film in, and start the development process.  It required careful chemical mixing, and timing, and then ... well, if you're of an age and you remember seeing strips of film hanging to dry, you know how it happened.  The chemistry fixed the image onto the film (in fact, one of the chemicals we used was called "fixer" which was one of the last steps, just before the final wash, to make sure all the chemicals were gone), then we had "negatives".  That was half the "magic".  The other half was putting that little image into an enlarger, which helped you to see and focus the image onto another board below.  Once you had it looking exactly right, you turned off the white light in the enlarger, you placed your photo paper below the enlarger, then set the timer and flicked the switch.  The white light came on, shining through your negative, onto the photo paper below.  Then it went off and you swiftly pulled it out and placed it in a tray of more chemicals.  

If you've ever had the opportunity to wait for a polaroid picture to develop, you know what's happening.  If not, it's a lot like a picture fading in.  The quality of the image relies on your focusing the image onto your lower surface, the control of the light and focus, and ... well, magic.  One of the techniques I learned in the darkroom was that some images could be adjusted.  

Huh?  Well, let's say you were looking to take a picture of something in full sunlight.  It's a very bright image.  That is, when you look at the negative, it's almost clear.  It looks like there's no detail.  I took some pictures of clouds on a sunny day (it was the assignment), and I learned that I could bring out detail in the image by reducing the exposure.  Not in the camera - the picture was already taken. But in the darkroom.  I could reduce the amount of light in certain areas of the image by using what we called "shaders".  That is, they were tools that ... well, they didn't pass light.  They were opaque.  Like your hand in front of your eyes.  Unless it's an atomic explosion.  

In this case, I used the shaders to reduce the amount of light around the edges of the images to bring out the little branches and leaves on them, the clouds, and yes, the sun was dead smack in the center of the image.  My first print of the negative was a total washout.  My second print was, my photo teacher said, pretty darned good.  You could see branches, leaves, details in the cloud, and the sun, directly in the center.  Exactly what the assignment was.  

It wasn't the best picture, because one of the kids used his dad's welding helmet lens, shot a picture of the sun through that, and he even captured sunspots.  Pretty cool.  But I wasn't quite that well equipped.

What does this have to do with fraud?  Well, if someone doesn't understand the game, or they don't like the results, their first reaction is often to cry they were cheated out of a fair win.  Mind you, when the system has numerous checks and balances, and they all agree the contest was fair, then it doesn't take a genius to see that the whiner is, well, a whiner.  

So when it comes to the Orange Jesus Nazi Sympathizer, well, yeah, I'm about certain that the man is no longer fit to function as an elected official in this country, by his own word.  Thus, I would like to think that the upcoming Presidential election will not be between him and the current occupant of the White House.  Aside from his criminal activities elsewhere, it's clear that his choice to encourage and aid an attempted coup renders him a man guilty of treason, who is in no way qualified to function as an elected official in this country.