Nowhere in my piece to I modify the term “press” with “free.”
My bad. Duly busted. Given your prior, consistently eloquent defenses of democratic principle and process, I drew the conclusion myself from what you did write.
Which therefore leaves me wondering: are you defending anything at all above? Or just adding to the dogpile of cacophony which in aggregate comes out as “All Things Trump = BAD”?
As for specifics, no, I am neither read-up on Ibsen nor on climate science (which at first I thought was your topic but alas…) So I had to do a fair amount of extrapolating from the whole thing to see if you had any thesis at all. My conclusion was, and I see here it was the wrong one, you believe that a free press (again, my mistake) can better defend us from bad climate outcomes by making orthodoxy of speculation, than a brand-new administration elected in part on its promises to bring that same press to heel for its well-recognized excesses, and which also does not happen to agree that orthodox speculation will protect anyone from anything.
Or, maybe you just wanted to talk about high school?
Now I’m more confused than ever. If you had a point at all, please do me the favor of assuming I’m stupid, and spell out for me what it was.