kengr

(and no, I don't mean in the veterinary sense, though that might be a good idea too :-)

After reading yet another story about the harm corporate profit seeking has caused (especially in the health industry) I've come to the conclusion that we need some new rules for them

First and foremost, a corporation *must* have an *explict* purpose other than "make money for the shareholders".

Second, that purpose must not be contrary to the public interest.

Third, that purpose must override the profit of the shareholders. Not that the shareholders must do things to further the company's purpose that will cost them money, but rather, they may not vote for things that get them more money at the *cost* of the company's purpose.

So "cost-cutting" measures that impair the ability to carry out the purpose of the company are out. If they are necessary to keep the company going, that's different.

Fourth, we probably need something about excessive profits. Like that cancer drug that costs around 25 cents a dose, but is sold at around a thousand dollars a dose. And contrary to the usual pious claims about paying for research on other drugs, it ain't going into that. It's going to stockholders and corporate officers.

I can hear the screams now. Especially from insurance companies. Too bad, so sad.

A quote from an article about folks opposing CRT.

“It teaches kids that whites are inherently racist and oppressive, perhaps unconsciously,” and that “all whites are responsible for all historical actions” and “should feel guilty.”
She added: “I cannot be asked for repentance for something my grandparents did or my ancestors did, right?”

My response?

Are you benefiting from those actions of previous generations?

Legally, you may have no responsibility. But morally and ethically? That a quite different matter.

And therein lies the rub. We may be benefitting from wrongs done by previous generations. And if those benefits are due to us being of the same "class" as those who committed the wrongs, *shouldn't* we bear some resonsibility? Especially if our benefits are at the *expense* of the *current* members of the wronged class?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10891021/Texas-State-Rep-Bryan-Slaton-says-file-legislation-BAN-drag-shows-presence-minors.html

https://twitter.com/AnthonySabatini/status/1533980818791604224

I just *love* some of the comments. And the protesters.

"Men in thongs"? That ain't a drag show, honey.

Also the comments about "grooming" and "sexualizing" children.

Ever take a look at kids beauty pageants?

I had a thought a while back and ysabetwordsmith recent post reminded me of it.

A complaint often seen is the developers keep building stuff for the high end and ignoring stuff for the lower end.

Also, complaints about all the unused business spaces around.

Besides zoning, and the arguments pro and con over it, I think cities and towns need to take different measures.

Get a local "census" of both people and housing/businesses. If there's an oversupply of stuff at one price point, developers trying to get approval for more of that get given a *firm* "No".

They should instead be directed at areas where there are shortfalls. Cheaper housing, smaller businesses and above all refurbishing/repurposing all that unused stuff.

Of course, development for development's sake needs to stop as well.

Which reminds me. It's long past the point where we should have stopped converting farmland to suburbs. Ditto for many kinds of forest.

Our local "urban growth boundaries" annoy the hell out of developers. [playing world's smallest violin] Gee, too bad folks.

We need more greenspace. We fewer mega business centers. We need *lots* more affordable housing.

We also need to do something about buildings and houses sitting empty.

Since former President Trump is apparently filing lawsuits in an attempt to regain access the social media platforms he's been banned from, I figure it's time to remind folks about how the First Amendment works.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

OK, lets take these in order. The religion clause says the *government* can't act *for* or against a religion *as* a religion. But it does *not* say that something being part of your religion gets you a free pass if it violates a law (unless that laws is specifically aimed a religion or religions).

It also doesn't say that "free exercise" of your religion allows you to try to force other people to live in accordance with your religion's rules.

Freedom of speech is again a matter of the government not being able to control what you do and don't say. But it says nothing about *consequences* to your speech. Libel, slander and obscenity laws all are cases of your speech having consequences.

Likewise, private citizens and groups are are not restricted from saying "you can't say that on my property". If you are in a public space, or on your own property, they don't have a say about it.

Well "disturbing the peace" does come into play, but that's about *how* you are saying it, not *what* you are saying.

Not the "on their property" bit. That's what makes it legally for social media companies to ban you or limit what you say. It's *their* soapbox you are using. If they object,, you are pretty much stuck unless you can make a claim of discrimination.

It's not violating your freedom of speech, because you can say things elsewhere.

Freedom of the press is much the same, except rather than individuals, we are dealing with "publishers". And website owners *are* publishers. Just as you can't force a newspaper or TV station to print/air your words, you can't force a website to carry them either. *They* have editorial control, not you.

Want t be able to say anything you want? Start your own site. Just remember that you are subject to the laws about libel, slander and obscenity. Also, if you are using a hosting company, *they* can object to your content.

Now as to "peaceably assemble", the "peaceably" is the biggie. That's the difference between a legitimate protest or demonstration and a riot. And yes, the definitions get abused a *lot*. In both directions.

Finally we have "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". That one is fairly obvious. But again, *how* you do it matters. See my comments above about the difference between protests and riots.

I will note that you are more likely to get you "petition read/listened to if you aren't screaming or name calling.

Anyway, getting back to Trump, he'll almost certainly be claiming his freedom of speech is being violated. But in actual *fact* what he wants is to violate the social media company's freedom of the press by forcing them to publish things they don't want to.

The mess in the Capitol reminded me of something. A quick search found it in H Beam Piper's Space Viking

"I'm sorry, Prince Edvard. You had a wonderful civilization here on Marduk. You could have made almost anything of it. But it's too late now. You've torn down the gates; the barbarians are in."

While going through a bunch of quotes I came across two that are among the most damaging ideas in circulation.

The results you achieve will be in direct proportion to the effort you apply. -Denis Waitley

If you want it badly enough, there are no limits on what you can achieve. -Brian Tracy

Both are contrary to reality.

Much that is wrong with our society is based on one other the other. Effort does *not* guarantee results. In fact it is quite common to have a situation where no amount of effort will yield useful results.

For example no amount of effort will get you a job doing X unless you have the skills *and* qualifications to do X.

Yes effort applied to developing those skills or learning about X *may* help. But they are not a guarantee. If you are tone deaf, you aren't going to get a job with an orchestra.

But note that the improvement in your chances requires that the effort be exerted in the proper direction. And that no amount of effort will help if you are lacking something key or if what you want just plain isn't available.

This is why "Try harder" or "You aren't trying" are not actually useful criticisms. Rather they are an abdication of responsibility by someone who doesn't care to help or doesn't actually know how to help. Or who just plain hasn't bothered to examine the situation.

Likewise, just because you want something doesn't mean that it is available. And there are *always* limits. Yours, society', reality's.

So this one encourages people to want things and to believe that just because they want it badly, they somehow deserve it. Which damages society i a different way.

In the end, yes it takes effort to do things. But it has to be the right *kind* of effort. And even then it may not be possible or practical.

And wanting is necessary to obtain things. But it's not sufficient.

In Union county, Oregon, they went from 22 Covid-19 cases last week to 224 this week. this in a rural, low population area.

It appears that the increase is mostly due to *one* church there. Even though the county was in phase 1, which means no large gatherings they had a service with several hundred people in attendance. There was a video of it up on their website (which has since vanished, but people saved copies)

Said video shows nothing remotely resembling social distancing. Doesn't show any masks either.

I'm sure they felt they were exercising their rights. Freedom of religion (which hasn't actually been restricted), freedom of assembly (which *has* been restricted and quite *legally* restricted)

What they actually did was exercise their right to be stupid. And exercise the *non*-right of endangering other people.

Oh yeah, about that freedom of religion bit. It'd only be a restriction on that if church gatherings were restricted aand other types weren't.

Since *all* gathering above a certain size are restricted there is *no* religious component to the restrictions.

the protests that it is infringing their freedom of religion are just another case of people thinking that their religion (almost always Christianity in the US) is somehow "special" and deserves to be exempt from the rules.

Sorry doesn't work that way.

And I trust the jump in cases demonstrates the idiocy of "god will protect us".

We've got free will. And that means god *has* to let us suffer the consequences of making bad choices.

As an asthma sufferer who has had a few (thankfully few) *bad* asthma attacks, let me assure you that while you do have to be breathing to talk, that does *not* mean that you are getting enough oxygen.

Your blood oxygenation level can be really bad long before you become unable to talk. When someone is no longer able to talk, it's likely too late, or at least it's gonna take major efforts to save them.

This needs to get spread far and wide. Not just to police, but to *anyone* who has occasion to restrain people. People die from being pinned to the ground *regularly*. Not just cops doing either. Folks running "camps" to "train" kids out of unwanted behaviors, churches that are doing similar things. Poorly trained "orderlies at "clinics".

Basically, any place where there are people who either can't control themselves or who have god reasons for not wanted to be there.

I was watching the season finale of NCIs: New Orleans and at the end, there was this misogynist white male complaining at the person who'd exposed him as a major league jerk and cost him an important appointment.

He was ranting about all the effort and time he'd put in to get the job.

and that's when it clicked. He was equating effort with success.

and *that* is what's wrong. Not merely with his attitude, but with the way society views so many things.

Yes, effort is necessary for success most of the time (when success comes without much effort, people tend to get upset) but contrary to the beliefs of many, it is *not* a guarantee of success.

Thinking that effort ("hard work") guarantees success is why these same people insist that poor people and unemployed people are lazy or "not trying".

The so-called "Protestant work ethic" and related things (like the "you don't work, you don't eat" adopted in some of the Colonies to *survive*) have turned into the worst sort of victim blaming.