On Global Climate change and the Solidarity of the Covid-19 response;

We, Switzerland, and many countries of the world have closed down much of our economy to save the elderly, the baby boomers, from the Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2, Cornona) virus.  I personally have also chosen more social isolation than is required, in order to support our society handle this challenge. We have in just a few short days taken drastic measures to slow the spread of this virus. As the head of our Federal Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications, also the current Swiss president, Simonetta Sommargura put it, “we are a rich country, we can afford it.” The actions taken will be very costly to everyone in our society.

This sounds cold and inhuman to say saving our parents and grandparents is going to be quite expensive. I think most people are thinking it. I think all life is sacred and to paraphrase Penn Gillette,” I would strangle the last extant panda with my bare hands to save the life of an itinerant alcoholic elderly vagrant.“  This response begs the question,  now that there is a real danger for the baby boomer generation, they call for national solidarity, but why has there been no solidarity from them for the climate?.

The elderly are not in danger from climate change, they will be dead before real consequences for their inaction occur. Children and young adults have been marching for real protections for the environment and to stem the global climate change. The answer that has always come from the baby boomers was, ", and nothing is done.” The response to Corvid-19 shows we can make drastic changes to save people. We have taken as a world community extraordinary measures to save the elderly and I demand of them recompense for our children. We are able to take extraordinary measures to combat as a society a grave threat. Climate change is a grave threat to our children. I expect from the elderly, after this current crisis is over, support for real change to combat climate change and there can be no excuse, “but the cost is too high!”

still here, anyone reading?

Why America isn't the greatest country in the world anymore.

The Logical Flaw of the Stand Your Ground Law

THere is something that really bothers me about this law taht surprisingling the over-active 24h news media freak show hasn't dug into yet. Or at least I haven't heard them brign this particular point up.

that is Not how the stand your ground law relates to Zimmerman's actions, but how it realtes to Martin's actions.

Zimmerman says he had the right to stand his ground. He was trying to protect his community after a string of break'ins. So, for the sake of argument about this law. Lets say Zimmerman has represented the accoutn of that night very accuratly. And that he was justified in the killing.

But, as a thought expirement, let's reverse thing. If Trayvon Martin had killed Zimmerman tht night in thier struggle. Would not the "stand your ground" law protect him as well? He had the right to be there. He had some guy stalking him, with a gun no less. He had a legitimate right to fear for his life. Those are the grounds to use deadly force in Florida. SO I come to the conclusion that Trayvon Martin would have had the right to kill George Zimmermann.


My point?

How can anyone write a law that makes it perfectly legal to kill someone over a misunderstanding. George Zimmerman didn't know Trayvon Martin had a right to be there and only had skittles with him. Trayvon Martin didn't know that George Zimmerman was just trying to stalk him he was just trying to stop a rash of burgleries.

This is why sane places have the law that you have to retreat if you can. So just in case it was a misunderstanding, You don't have a circumstance where both parties have teh right to kill each other.

Thanks for reading my rant.

disclaimer:

I do not know what happened that night, this was a theoretical exercise.

Ben Franklin, full of it. from C. Hitchens

I am ready a collection of essays from Hitchens called Arguably. He supports his claims but the more I read the more I feel he is choosing his arguments not on evidence but on belief, but that he has a pre choosen narative and he is streching in every way possible to make as many peices fit into his narative as possible. The latest was his essay on the writtings of B. Franklin, US of A founding father. As Hitchens couldn't find in any support for his argument that franklin didn't believe in god he argued that Frankilin didn't mean what he wrote. That his famous almanac and its earthy wisdom was written in jest and that any intellectual could see that. W it is a well written essay and argument. I am not convinced. I, never having read any of Franklins work would have to read it myself to make that determination.

And that beings me to my point. From reading a few of the works of Hitchens. I think, as good of a philosopher as he is, is more interested in being interesting and sensational than being correct or arguing to find the truth. And I guess now i take this grain of salt in every thign of his I read now.

ps

I love how he quotes all these great sources to read myself.