Welcome to a discussion about the upcoming 5th Revolution in the US, which I’ve titled the “Revenge Revolution.” For more about the Revenge Revolution and the author, Entry #1.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US. Entry #430 was the most recent “sense check.”

BEGIN ENTRY #447: Following the leak of the draft of the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe vs Wade, far-right members of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Samuel Alito, publicly encouraged US states to pass laws that could challenge rights for blacks as affirmed by the Dred Scott decision.

During a meeting of Republican governors, Alito stated, “Just look at the US Constitution for guidance. When the Constitution was adopted, blacks were not equal to whites and blacks had no rights. Based on the original Constitution, there is no reason why blacks, and for that matter other non-white groups, should have the same rights as whites. “

Alito continued this opinion was shared by all conservative members of SCOTUS, except, of course, Chief Justice Roberts, whom Alito considers more liberal than conservative. When pressed about support from Justice Thomas for reinstating Dred Scott, Alito stated that Thomas agreed once he was guaranteed an exemption from any new laws that might affect his rights.

Far-right members also encouraged the governors to eliminate any laws protecting rights to privacy. Alito stated, “Why don’t people understand? There’s nothing in the US Constitution protecting privacy.“

When asked by a reporter from Fox if he meant the reference was to the wording of the US Constitution as originally approved, Alito responded sharply, “Of course! Are you some kind of idiot?“

The reporter then asked that “Since amendments to the Constitution were not part of the original document, does your position mean the 2nd Amendment no longer is valid and citizens no longer have the right to bear arms?“

Alito, obviously flustered, huffed and walked out of the meeting. His lapel microphone was still active, and he was heard mumbling about “the damn media.“

Ok, so the entry is tongue-in-cheek. But, don’t consider the theme too far fetched. Many of what most citizens consider everyday rights were denied in the Dred Scott vs Sanford decision. END ENTRY #447

Other Topics. Interested in more info about climate change, what’s required to electrify a fleet of cars/trucks, what it was like to work day-to-day with Lee Iacocca and an array of other topics? Visit another page of this website, https://usrevolution5.com/jrd-thought-comments/  

Welcome to a discussion about the upcoming 5th Revolution in the US, which I’ve titled the “Revenge Revolution.” For more about the Revenge Revolution and the author, Entry #1.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US. Entry #430 was the most recent “sense check.”

ENTRY #439 BEGINS: The pandemic seems to have spurred many people to begin claiming their individual rights have been violated. But when it comes to decisions affecting others, who has the right?

Many of the claims of individual rights center on wearing masks and/or requiring vaccinations. So let’s assess, “whose right and who’s wrong?

Many anti-maskers claim no one can force them to wear a mask. Well, the mandate does not force anyone to wear a mask. The mandate only forces a mask if you are involved in certain behavior. Want to avoid the mandate? Then stay at home.

But if you want to go shopping, say at a grocery store, then who has the right to decide whether a mask is required? If the store requires all shoppers and staff to wear a mask, then the store is not discriminating against anyone. Everyone who shops there must wear a mask.

Anti-maskers claim their rights are being violated by the mask requirement. How are rights being violated? Everyone who shops at the grocery store must wear a mask. If you don’t want to shop for groceries at the store, buy groceries elsewhere or buy them online and have the groceries delivered. No one is being singled out. Everyone who shops at the grocery store must follow the same rules.

If a restaurant requires a coat and tie to eat dinner there and welcomes all who comply, then how are individual rights being violated? Don’t want to wear a coat and tie? Then eat elsewhere.

What about an employer requiring vaccinations? Everyone who works for the employer is a subject to the same requirement. Whose rights are being violated. The employer has a right, and in most cases is required legally, to protect the safety of employees. Don’t like the rules of the company? Get another job.

Another high profile, but more complicated and controversial story about individual rights, is an alleged claim of discrimination by the New York Giants, and implicitly the NFL, in considering candidates for a new head coach. One of the candidates, who was not hired, claims in a class-action suit that the New York Giants and all 32 NFL teams discriminate against prospective him, in part because he’s black.

Huh? Maybe the New York Giants didn’t want to hire the guy because his record as a coach was mediocre and was fired from his last job.

Part of the plaintiff’s claim notes about 70% of the NFL players are black. OK, so they’re black. From all indications those players were selected for the teams based on their ability to play football, not because they were black.

If race were key criteria in selecting players, then less than 20% of the players in the NFL, and the NBA, would be black. If merit is a key criteria for playing, why isn’t merit a key criteria for hiring coaches?

No one is forcing black athletes to play in the NFL or NBA. If the players or prospective players believe their rights are being violated, don’t join the NFL. Find something else to do.

Individuals do have many rights and those rights are sometimes infringed upon. For example, a question for those claiming the mask requirement violates their individual rights. What’s your position on the rights of women to seek an abortion?

Whose rights are superior, the rights of the individual woman or the rights of a bunch of elected officials, most of whom that promote abortion restrictions are male?

Does the argument that companies and organizations have rights that sometimes supersede an individual’s rights mean there is no discrimination? Not at all.

But the idea that an individual‘s rights always supersede everyone else’s is simplistic, selfish and non-workable. FYI anti-maskers, a democracy is created when a group of people decide to relinquish certain individual rights in favor of an organization to oversee the collective rights of the citizens. That organization is called government. By the way, the way to make changes in a democracy is called voting.

Other Topics. Interested in more info about climate change, what’s required to electrify a fleet of cars/trucks, what it was like to work day-to-day with Lee Iacocca and an array of other topics? Visit another page of this website, https://usrevolution5.com/jrd-thought-comments/

Welcome to a discussion about the upcoming 5th Revolution in the US, which I’ve titled the “Revenge Revolution.” For more about the Revenge Revolution and the author, Entry #1.  Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether a revolution in the US is possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US. Entry #430 was the most recent “sense check.”

START ENTRY #437: For the past two years I’ve been involved with a group of fellow MIT alumni trying to develop practical, non-partisan solutions to climate change. The group, which includes a broad base of educational backgrounds and work experiences, has developed a roadmap of solutions.

The idea of a roadmap is not unique to the group. Others have developed a roadmap as well, suggesting solutions similar to ours.  However, I think we’re providing more specificity about how to implement the recommendations.

While I can’t speak for the other groups, I can state we believe that the biggest barrier to addressing climate change is not the technology. Existing technology can be used to make huge strides toward reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

The biggest barrier is “political will.”   Just to be clear, my definition of political will assumes “moral, ethical behavior,” “counting country before self” and “courage to do the right thing, even if you don’t benefit personally.”

The adjective “political” applies to more than office holders. The term “political” applies to people who vote for perspective office holders.

We, societal we, elect the people to represent us and to make decisions for us. Voting for a candidate of a particular party, especially one with a track record of no political will on key issues is being irresponsible as a citizen.

I would liken it to handing over the keys of your car to someone whom you know is grossly inebriated. Then, you jumping in the passenger seat and not buckling your seatbelt. How much more irresponsible do you want to be?  Yet, putting your life in the hands of a drunk driver is what we, again societal we, are doing with respect to addressing climate change.

In Congress all Republican and a couple of Democrats refuse to support legislation to address climate change. Why?  Are money and power so important they are willing to create economic and social calamity for your children or grandchildren?

Apparently so because some Senators gets their panties in a wad over a few social programs rather than addressing causes of climate change and putting the population at great risk.

The idea that climate change programs are “too expensive” is pure, unadulterated BS. In case Republican senators didn’t know, the Federal Reserve controls the money supply.  And, despite claims by Republicans to the contrary, the US government has considerable assets backing up the issuance of money.  Assets as in land, buildings, highways, etc.

Hard assets are not the case for all currencies in the US.  Maybe the senators don’t realize that companies issuing stock is the same as creating currency and many of these companies have virtually no assets.  Even worse is cryptocurrency, which is based on a computer program and has zero assets supporting it.

If you don’t think climate change is a threat, then you need to wake up.  What is happening to weather now and labeled by Fox as a “1-in-a-100 years” event is going to intensify for the next 75+ years.  Today, there is an ice sheet in Antarctica that’s roughly the same size as Florida.  (Numerous articles.) 

The sheet has split from the base and climatologist estimate the sheet could separate completely in the next five years or so.  There’s enough ice that when it melts, the ocean levels are expected to rise by 2 feet.

If you don’t think 2 feet is a lot of water, then go to Florida, the North Carolina barrier islands, New Jersey, New York, any place on the coast and measure how much farther inland 2 feet of water will carry at high tide with a full moon. Then add 2 feet of water to any surge associated with a hurricane or major storm.  Now start counting the number of cities that will have serious floods flooding problems and may become uninhabitable.

So why then do we keep supporting members of Congress who put self before country and money before the welfare of your kids or grandkids? If you’ve got an answer, please let me know. END: #437

Other Topics. Interested in more info about climate change, what’s required to electrify a fleet of cars/trucks, what it was like to work day-to-day with Lee Iacocca and an array of other topics? Visit another page of this website, https://usrevolution5.com/jrd-thought-comments/