About climate change

If we stop for a moment with the political nature of the debate, and just look at what's happening in the world, we see something is happening with our climate.  More intense hurricanes.  More wildfires.  More droughts.  More intense tornadoes. And so on.

Now whether this is "man made,"  or natural, or part of a local cycle of weather (we only have reliable data for 150 or so years, over a 3 billion year span), we just don't know.  And its totally fine to debate that aspect and consider what it would take in general to deal with it.

But where is the risk in spending some time and money on investigating it further? Of understanding our world as fully as possible?  Of preparing ourselves to deal with these new issues? Rather than always spending money on cleanup and whatnot on the back end, maybe we could spend some amount on the front end. 

Heck we spent $2.3 trillion on Afghanistan over 20 years. I mean 10% of that is $230 billion.  Imagine how much we could have accomplished in that space with that kind of money.  Just understanding the weather would go a long way toward getting somewhere.

Remembering some old political ads

During the 2004 election cycle, there were these blusterous ads running for and against whatever candidates, at various levels. 

Terrorism fears were running high so they ran the gamut about one person doing well, or poorly, or that the other person would do better (or worse).

But two ads are still relevant today.

THe first showed a classroom with kids wearing gas masks.  The intent was to show that the candidate was weak on terror and a biological threat wasn't dealt with, and kids will have to wear gas masks for the foreseeable future.

Its ironic, in a way, that 16 years later we're dealing with a more natural threat from a virus, and we're debating about students wearing cloth masks, rather than gas masks. But the premise is the same - there's a threat and students have to wear masks ... for some of the foreseeable future.  And yet, the tone of the debate changed in that time.  We can't seem to take a virus as seriously as we would have had it been a tangible foe, who we could beat with our army.

The context of the second was a never ending war in Afghanistan.  There's a woman holding a child, and the caption reads "you can't have him" - clearly shining light on small child being possibly drawn into service in that endless war in 16 or so years time.

And sure enough, the war was endless, going on for around 20 years.  Again, that one came true, though it was still a volunteer army as it wound down.

Crazy, isn't it?

 

Personal freedom

I was thinking about this notion of "personal freedom" and making vaccines and mask mandates about individual liberties, rather than the common good.

It's ironic when you think about how the framers of the constitution set it up as a collective good and it even starts with the line "we the people…" As opposed to "hey it's all about me"

You have rights and privileges, but must act for the common good. To use a famous kennedy phrase "ask not what your country can do for, but what you can do for your country" is spot on in today's world.

And what of the parallel to personal liberty known as "personal accountability?" When you talk about your freedoms, who are you accountable to? Yourself? Your family? Your friends? Your community? The nation on the whole?

Get over yourself and do what's in the best interest of our nation. One whose constitution you *think* you know and understand. But in our experiment, you surely can't appreciate.

10 Challenges For Flat Earthers

This is fun. 

Holmes Dissenting in Abrams v. United States, 1919



This is a really interesting dissenting opinion. And it's well worth reading. 

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. I wholly disagree with the argument of the Government that the First Amendment left the common law as to seditious libel in force. History seems to me against the notion. I had conceived that the United States through many years had shown its repentance for the Sedition Act of 1798 (Act July 14, 1798, c. 73, 1 Stat. 596), by repaying fines that it imposed. Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants [250 U.S. 616, 631] making any exception to the sweeping command, 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.' Of course I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that in their conviction upon this indictment the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States."

https://firstamendmentwatch.org/history-speaks-holmes-dissenting-abrams-v-united-states-1919/

You can also hear the deeper cut of this story on a RadioLab episode:

https://pca.st/episode/bf29df7a-ebd0-4ec0-a678-e45198c1843b

Short. Sweet. To the point. That's the beauty Dave's iPhone. 

A good read about the delta variant

https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2021/08/10/what-we-now-know-about-how-to-fight-the-delta-variant-of-covid-column/

Short. Sweet. To the point. That's the beauty Dave's iPhone. 

Up With People - Freedom Isn't Free

Back in the 70s and early 80s, Up With People achieved some national acclaim. I had s teacher in middle school who was friends with the founder/director, so they were at least popular in my school. 

When we’d do musical productions, they would often include at least one song from the repertoire. And we learned the words to many songs. 

Lately, this one has been running through my head. 

You gotta pay the price. You gotta sacrifice for your liberty. 

Wear a damn mask. And get vaccinated.