Freedom is not safe

It is ironic that the US bullied the Japanese in the late 80's and early 90's during our trade wars with them, saying that they worked their workers too hard. Typical Japanese workers worked every other saturday. back then, with roughly half the staff there on one saturday and the other half on the next saturday (I'm referring, of course, to offices and factories and what not that would normally be open 5 days a week, but in Japan were open monday through saturday. A social issue that developed during this time was workers who had been worked to death. And families were starting to sue companies saying that their loved one had been overworked and died as a result of that. America bullied Japanese companies to cut down worker hours and stop Saturday hours. Japanese were way overworked and consequently notoriously spent the days messing around.

Consequently when their hours were shortened, productivity improved. America is still pushing hard work for low pay.

 

Where is this being done? Are you stuck in the early sixties when the Supreme Court first ruled against prayer in schools? Do you really think that made a big difference in religion? protection fromThose perfunctory, state-mandated religious exercises? Doesn't it seem contradictory to you that you're concerned about the intrusion of government, when it was government that was mandating the prayers and how people could relate to their God?
The prayer concerned in the first of the cases, Engle v. Vitale in 1962, was admittedly a bland, "to whom it may concern" utterance written by the New York Board of Regents: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." But Justice Hugo Black, good Baptist that he was, read the Constitution the way he read his Bible: Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion. He concluded that if the It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.” He saw the issue as similar to the Book of Common Prayer in the Church of England, which prescribed the formulae people were to use in praying to their God: "composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental pro-gram to further religious beliefs" That, he said, was what our Founding Fathers were trying to get away from, and the reason they included the Establishment Clause in our very first constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights. Some people were hopeful that the opinion was restricted to government composed prayers, and that if they could substitute a prayer composed by some other source, like the Lord's Prayer, it would get by. But the Supreme Court struck that one down to in Abington School District v. Schempp (1963). Justice Clark, writing for the Court, reasoned that any state selected prayer would violate the separation of church and state, and that “the breach of neutrality that is today a trickling stream may all too soon become a raging torrent and, in the words of Madison, ‘it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties."

So are you for or against government intrusion into our religious life? You talk about "allegiance to government as though it were a bad thing, but in the next breath seem to advocate government mandated religion. When students pledge allegiance to the flag, they pledge it to "One Nation, Under God..." The Seventh Circuit has upheld a moment of silence (2010) as a practice which neither advances nor inhibits religion. And "see you at the pole" voluntary student prayer events on school campuses seem to be constitutional, so long as they are student led, voluntary., and not during the school session.I submit this is a reasonable balance between religious liberty and protection from State intrusion into relgion.

 

How vague. This could be referring to any of three things:
(1) climate change, which Retrumplicans think is a hoax; (2) the use of masks and vaccines to fight Covid, which Retrumplicans have made into an ideological issue; and (3) evolution by process of natural selection which Evangelical Christian have rejected for over 2 1/2 centuries.

1. Climate Change. Climate change is science. Some 97-98% of publishing climate scientists are convinced that human activities are primarily responsible for significant global warming since the late 1800s and that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause.
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience
Expert credibility in climate change - PubMed
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
The few holdouts in the scientific community are mostly fossil fuel industry-funded sellouts.
The Climate Denial Machine: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Blocks Climate Action.
Fossil Fuel Industry Climate Science Deception
Tweet the Story of the Fossil Fuel Industry's Climate Deception
A brief history of fossil-fuelled climate denial
Yet the polls consistently show a widening gap on climate change, with most Republicans in denial on the subject. Poll: The partisan gap on climate change is widening
So it is not the Democrats who are pushing their political agenda on the matter as a hoax. It's the Republicans who are pushing anti-science as their political agenda.

2. Anti-maskers, anti-vaxers.
Can face masks help to prevent the spread of Covid-19? Mayo clinic says Yes.Can face masks protect against coronavirus?
A systematic review and meta-analysis of available research agrees. Face masks to prevent transmission of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis - ScienceDirect
The CDC and the World Health Organization both recommend them.Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus
But the anti-maskers say No, and they tend to be Retrumplicans. Once again, it the Retrumplicans who are pushing anti-science as their political agendas.
Same goes with anti-vaxers. Over 1.7 billion doses of the vaccines have now been administered over the past 7 months, and seem to be remarkably safe and effective. Six months of COVID vaccines: what 1.7 billion doses have taught scientists The CDC director warns that the U.S. is facing "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" U.S. facing 'pandemic of the unvaccinated', CDC warns as cases, deaths rise Covid-19 cases and hospitalizaions have been rising primarily in the red states, where vaccination rates are well-below the national average.
Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations rise, particularly in unvaccinated red states
Undervaccinated red states are nowhere near herd immunity as dangerous Delta variant spreads
I live in one of those. As the song goes, "Folks are dumb where I come from..."

----- {Evolution to follow.)

 

3. Anti-evolutionists.

Ronald Reagan told us that evolution was "only a theory". but actually, as scientific theories go, it's one of the better-supported ones, with evidence from a variety of sources: fossil evidence, homologous, molecular biology (similarities and differences in DNA sequences), biogeography, comparative anatomy, etc. A scientific theory is more than just a guess or a hunch. It is “an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.” Scientific theory - Wikipedia Like other scientifc theories, it is refutable—only one pre-Cambrian rabbit away from being discarded as nonsense. So far, no rabbits.

What is an alternative theory? Apparently, the creation account in Geneisis 1. Far be it from me to badmouth Genesis 1, since I owe my Christian faith to Gen. 1: 26-27. No truth is more important than that, but it’s a metaphor, not science. Gen. 1 refutes the Babylonian creation myth of the Babylonian Enuma Elish, and Gen. 1:26-27 tells us we were created not as slaves of the gods but in the veritable image and likeness of God, something to keep in mind the next time we visit Walmart.

Evangelicals have been at odds with Darwin as long as there have been Evangelicals. Catholics have no trouble with evolution, since Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that God established "seeds of potentiality" in creation rather than finished products. Evangelicals, however, tend to take take the Bible literally.: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." And unfortunately, Evangelicals are the backbone of the Retrumplican political base and the anti-science contingent--conditioned to swallow any nonsense a smooth talking bible thumper tells them, even if he holds his bible upside down.

 

The U.S. had over 325 mass shootings ("four or more shot in a single incident, not including the shooter") this year., with 350 dead and 1,400 injured.Mass Shootings in the US Fast Facts - CNN This follows the mass shootings in 2020, which was the worst year on record for that kind of crime, with 611 mass shootings, resulting 513 deaths and 2,543 injuries.U.S. Had A Record Number Of Mass Shootings In 2020 | The Daily Wire Every year, nearly 8,000 children and teens are shot, and 1,663 killed by gun violence in the United States. Key Statistics. There were 14,400 gun-related homicides in 2019. Killings involving a gun accounted for nearly three quarters of all homicides in the US in that year America's gun culture in charts Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. More Americans own guns than anywhere else in the developed world, and the research is clear that more guns leads to more gun deaths. What Are Gun Control Laws In Other Countries? 9 Nations The US Should Learn From Yet the thing that worries you is banning firearms form the general population? Like they did in Australia and the UK, not usually considered to be tyrannies Public opinion polls show support for regulation (not banning) of firearms is strong, deep and widespread. Trends In Public Opinion On US Gun Laws: Majorities Of Gun Owners And Non-Gun Owners Support A Range Of Measures - PubMed Like most Americans, I don't favor a complete ban on firearms in the general population, but I do favor regulations like background checks, firearms safety tests and courses, licensing and universal background checks of handgun purchasers, stronger regulation of gun dealers, and extreme risk protection orders. But all of these things are resisted by the gun lobby and Red State politicians who fan the flames of Second Amendment absolutism in the U.S.

The Second Amendment begins with the words:“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Nobody in his/her right mind would consider the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Boys or the Three Percenters to be the kinds of organizations the Founding Fathers had in mind as "well-regulated" militias. Those words were emphasized to uphold restrictions on private gun ownership until D.C. v. Heller in 2008. In that case, upholding an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. even Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, acknowledged that : "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Reasonable regulation doesn't violate the Second Amendment.

 

When I think of banning guns, I think of a country like Mexico which is corrupt from the very top to the bottom and citizens are supposedly banned from having firearms. Drug gangs can just take over cities when ever they want because they have all the guns they want and the police and the military are on the take. Citizens don't stand a chance. Maybe if they had a few million guns they could hold some scum accountable.

And if we had a president with sizable plums, he would give Mexico 1 year to get rid of the drug gangs or we're coming to do it. They are and have been killing people here for decades.

 

And furthermore, what in the hell is wrong with this country when it comes to war? Viet Nam/ Lives destroyed and / or wasted, millions spent. Result? WE lost. It was for nothing ,except for making money for the war machine. Afghanistan-20 years pouring money, lives again lost and / or destroyed. Result? We lost. More money down the shit hole. War should never be fought --in theory. But god dammit, if you have to go to war--DON'T FUCK. AROUND. WIN IT!! And i'm not saying we had to go to war , especially in Viet Nam---the damn domino theory was at work as an excuse.

 

This one is a head scratcher. What exactly are you talking about? It sounds like you're complaining about some form of compulsory energy conservation or rationing, but without further information it's hard to tell exactly what the gripe is. Load shedding is a common form of energy rationing used when electricity markets are unable to keep up with peak demand. Of course we had gasoline rationing during World War II, and while people may have grumbled, most went along because it was a wartime emergency. During the energy crises of the seventies, Carter encouraged voluntary thermostat adjustments in his cardigan sweater speech, and Nixon pushed his controversial Emergency Daylight Savings Time extension. The Ford era Energy Policy and Conservation Act gave the feds the power to make regulations to reduce energy demand.

Concern about climate change has led to some drastic "sustainability" proposals from radical progressives like the so-called green New Deal of AOC, which would embrace the Paris Agreement's ambitious goal by reducing greenhouse gas emissions 71% by 2030, roughly when we're expected to cross the point of no return: a global temperature rise of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The Green New Deal calls for a wartime-like retooling of our economies and our lives . We need to reduce consumption, with everyone sharing the burdens. AOC's plan for achieving this would shift power generation to renewable sources, upgrade our buildings to be energy efficient, and decarbonize manufacturing and agribusiness. Are any of those what you're muttering about? These are, of course, general policy proposals rather than detailed plans. Eric Orts, Wharton’s Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership, sees the central takeaway as the emphasis on moving away from fossil fuels to renewables in order to combat climate change. Is that what you see as "wanting to tell people how much energy they're allowed to use"? If not, what is?

 

I thought that was the law of the workplace, for as long as I've been in it. I expect to be employed so long as I can contribute "a certain value or more", and if and when I can't, I'd expect to be out of a job. I thought that was the American way. Or are you talking about something else?

 

Again vague. I assume you're talking about affirmative action and so-called "reverse discrimination", or possibly civil rights laws in general. Deciding by race who could do what is, of course, exactly the way it was done back in the day. In my state, which had formal Jim Crow, it was decided that African Americans could not use certain drinking fountains or hospitals or eat in the same restaurants as whites. Up north, things were more informal, but in practice they couldn't live in the white neighborhoods and positions in professional schools were closed to them. An employer can't discriminate in hiring or promotions on the basis of race, but may and must take race-based action to correct past discriminatory practices. No system is perfect, but by and large I think affirmative action has been fair in allowing people who were handicapped by a century of discrimination to advance in society.

 

Oh no! I will only be able to use electricity when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing! Whatever will I do????

LMAO!

 

As a side note, on the field tour associated with the Forestry research conference in Kyoto in the mid 90s, we visited rather new campground along a river in the mountains. Our hosts explained that Japan was building campgrounds as means to teach its citizens to use and enjoy outdoor recreation activities….and work fewer hours.

 

I must admit that on this issue I'm hopelessly politically incorrect. To my knowledge, I've known only one transsexual in my lifetime--a local physician who started out male, had surgery, and ended up a lesbian. The right wing Maryland solution of going by the sex of origin seemed stupid to me, since to enforce it it would seem to require that a person bring along a birth certificate to use the john. On the other hand, going by subjective identity, as OSHA recommends, seems problematic, since I know hetero sleazeballs who would welcome the opportunity to crash the ladies room. I though it made sense to go by what's between your legs, but when I voiced that opinion on another thread I was roundly chewed out.

I think on some (many) issues the "woke" progressive left may be wrong, but hey, ain't that America! At least we haven't tried to overturn the election, insist the loser won,storm the Capitol, deny scientific reality, oppose vaccinations, or stack the election laws so we always win. That's what I think is really dangerous, and why I think a Fascist America may be just around the corner--and it will be Retrumplican!.

 

I have tried to make it a practice in my life of mainly minding my own business and trying not to care what other people do in their lives, short of the their infliction of harm on human or animal beings or at least express my disdain for such. I just do not get why people get all het up about the differences in people--IE: color, languages,sexual preferences, etc. What people do about their sexual, behavioral lives--again --short of inflicting mental or physical harm to me or others , has no affect on my life, that I can determine. The only effect is that I get pissed off when I see others hurt.

Of course I do have some strong opinions on certain issues, but those opinions reference inequities, the stupidity of continuing wars by humanity, the treatment of those with differing opinions by the powerful, the recalcitrance of presently elected legislators to offer help to average Americans, ( which certainly applies to many other countries) ,the fact that some are allowed to have unlimited amounts of money and power while many, many others starve or exist in quiet desperation and poverty,--etc, etc.

But for sure I am nothing and nobody. All I can do is try to help my immediate family members and maybe a few others as I go along, but I make no mistake in saying that when I die, there will only be a handful of humans that will miss me --for a few weeks at most. And that's about what life amounts to . So it goes.

 

That is so Japanese! LOL!!!

 

In attempting to address the buckshot stream of consciousness in Trudgin's post, iIoverlooked this one. (Actually, I addressed it somewhat in Post 412 but not the compulsory aspect.
"Forced medical procedures" covers a lot of possibilities. Are you thinking of the forced sterilization of poor and disabled and women of color that was practiced in the U.S. during the heyday of the eugenics movement from 1897 until 1981?
100 Years of Forced Sterilizations in the U.S.
When Forced Sterilization was Legal in the U.S. | JSTOR Daily
The practice was upheld for the "feebleminded" in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell.(1927) Justice Holmes, explaining his decision remarked, in the politically incorrect language of the time:“three generations of idiots is enough.” That case was never overruled.

My guess is you're probably referring to the more topical issue of Covid vaccinations, which to my knowledge are not "forced" on the general population, which is why so many are getting sick.
As I understand it, vaccinations for Covid in the U.S. are still largely voluntary, although they may be required for health care workers and military personnel, and by private employers.
The Delta variant of Covid-19 is raging in the U.S., but mostly in red states, where hostility to vaccinations is strongest..
The Delta variant is hitting red states hardest as the US's vaccine divide widens
Republicans Are Wiping Themselves Out As Delta Variant Surges In Red Areas And GOP
But, but ...Whaddabout Europe Aren't they better vaccinated than we are over there, and still getting sick? Apparently not.(better vaccinated, that is).
The One Area Where the U.S. COVID-19 Strategy Seems to Be Working
Covid-19 vaccine tracker: View vaccinations by country

But, but...isn't it un-American to force people to get vaccinated? Trump defender and Harvard emeritus constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz caused a stir when, citing Johnson v. Massachusetts, concerning compulsory smallpox vaccinations, he said : "Let me put it very clearly: you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease, even if you disagree. You have no right not to be vaccinated.…And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm." Government "police power" to protect the health, safety, welfare and morals of the community extends to the power to enact mandatory vaccination laws to control outbreaks of disease. It is only the state governments, not the federal government, that have this power, and historically state and local governments have.primary responsibility to enact vaccination laws for the general public.

There is little doubt, however, that Federal jurisdiction over public health matters under the commerce clause could be successfully invoke if need should arise. The federal government requires vaccinations of U.S. troops for a number of diseases, and for immigrants seeking entry into the U.S. The Public Health Service Act authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries or from one state to another. Yes, The U.S. Constitution Allows Compulsory Vaccinations Yes, Uncle Sam can "force" us to do lots of things we may not want to do, like pay taxes and fight in our wars, During the world wars and Vietnam, for example, they "forced" young men to sleep together in barracks, wake up at ungodly hours, engage in arduous drills, march in formation, and even risk their lives in the service of their country. Do you object to that? The current Covid vaccines were approved on an emergency basis, without meeting the rigid requirements for FDA approval. Because of this, I wouldn't go so far as to require compulsory vaccination for Covid-19, but a utilitarian case could be made for it--I.e., a risk taken in the interest of public health.This is the moral equivalent of war. The virus has already claimed more than 600,000 lives in the United States Covid has claimed more than 600,000 lives in the U.S., The number of Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. is nearly the number of total U.S. deaths in World War II, the Vietnam War and the Korean War combined, Putting COVID-19 deaths into perspective, comparing to history | kcentv.com

.I know the right wingers, encouraged by Fox, feel put upon that the Biden administration is threatening to go door-to-door promoting voluntary vaccinations. Poor snowflakes!

 

Ouch!! You skinned him big time!!! Very nice , informational post. Well, at least for those that like facts.

 

And then there is the Pro-Life problem which I forget now if that is covered already or even brought up-----but talk about compulsory----pro-lifers want to take away a woman's bodily autonomy---an unalienable right if there ever was one---and force her to undergo a biologically induced procedure regardless of how it was induced or what the circumstances of the mother (whose rights are thereby enforced away) may be.

It is ridiculous that anyone should complain about forced medical procedures while also taking women's control over their own body away from them in order to objectify them into nothing more than a baby factory.

 

So , I read on the news that someone in Texas--some official--has asked the supreme court to overturn Roe V Wade. Oh boy--here we go !!