February 1, 2026: The Practice of Constitutional Protections Even By Us to Our Own Selves

Constitutional protections should not apply just to others, but also to how we treat and talk to ourselves.

Sovereignty and Sphere of Influence interact. To adhere to only one is to ignore the other. Hoonōs

I think the protections provided for by the Constitution and its amendments (e.g. due process, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, etc.) are not meant only for the treatment of others, but also in the way we treat ourselves.

For instance, hearsay, whether from others or from our own internal dialogue, deserves the above considerations. Okay, that might require more than a first-response denial.

While not the only crack in the practice and application of individual and collective rights (I am not a supporter of the “Citizens United” decision by SCOTUS, but the right to congregate and join groups is very different), expectations can be a serious problem in how we measure outcomes. Tis true that expectations are not all delusional. We expect, for good reason, that other drivers obey red lights and stop signs. We expect others to not steal from us. And so on.

Some expectations are not reasonable. Except those items in the first sentence, not many interpersonal or intrapersonal behaviors are codified. For instance, we can project our ideal about the perfect self, parent, child, spouse, gender, boss, employer, student, teacher, adult, etc. onto others. And they can do so onto us. The hitch is not that an ideal is inherently wrong—it might be a worthy goal–but that an ideal achieved morphs into yet another ideal. It’s the ol’ slippery pig problem.  Good luck with permanent satisfaction—and to those that promise it.

Perhaps it is in the space—the room to breathe peacefully—that due process, checks and balances, and the Bill of Rights are supposed to create.  We can be held accountable, but not just because an individual or a collective says so.  And not just because we like what someone or some group has constructed.

Many times, it’s so ridiculously difficult to examine our belief systems, we don’t even bother.  That’s a sign we’re thinking we’re done or annoyed or both.  If we’re alive, we ain’t done (even if it feels like we are).

Don’t misunderstand, it is a good idea to dodge a wrench if it’s thrown at you–pausing is not appropriate. Is it a good idea to automatically throw one back?  Situational awareness is learned by practice. Knee-jerk vitriol is a reaction, not a practice. Where appropriate, wait and let the space inform us, not just the stimulus?

Perhaps the notion of adopting the null as a practice is important.  The null means we honestly try and prove ourselves wrong. Trying to prove ourselves right or others wrong is subject to confirmation bias—a major rater error.

I am not above the fray.  It is why I consider family and friends important.  I am comfortable being alone; I am not comfortable going it alone.  Sometimes we practice alone.  Sometimes we practice together. But a failure to practice is an invitation to screw things up. Thinking we don’t need to practice is worse—it’s delusional if not outright psychotic.

Perhaps the best way to deal with chaos is to do the best we can to create peace instead of more chaos. Creating and practicing anything is not just nested in objective reality—it’s also about how we create and practice our own subjective peace.

In most folks, it is the left-hemisphere part of the brain that says and the right hemisphere that sees. Whatever the issue, working together, those two can better triangulate where we are emotionally and intellectually. Maybe that’s a good thing.

Here’s to good navigation and signal detection. It’s a practice for all of us, not just for “them.”