… to cover up for our goals!

Having no previous intel about this guy, my ‘jerked’ reaction was simple.

‘Leaving aside any principle, a society which cuts ‘fallopian’ tubes will have a lower birth rate while that which vaccinates its children will notice a decrease in healthcare costs. And a lower mortality across the entire age spectrum!’

OK, let’s calm down and google. To find out who was this Oliver Wendell Holmes, after all.

“In that long span of (30) years on the Supreme Court he became acknowledged as one of the most notable jurists of the age—in the opinion of many the foremost. Often he has been called The Great Dissenter because of the brilliance of his dissenting opinions, but the phrase gives a falsely negative emphasis, and his penetration and originality are seen as fully in the opinions in which he expressed or concurred in the majority view of the court as in those in which he was in dissent.”


“Perhaps his best-known phrase is from Schenck v. United States, where he introduced the ‘clear-and-present-danger’ test as a means of limiting the power of the state to restrict speech and illustrated it by reference to a person’s ‘falsely shouting fire in a theater.’ His later development of this test, coupled with his emphasis on a basically unregulated ‘marketplace of ideas,’ was seminal for the development of modern free-speech law.
His retirement in 1932 was a national event, and he has remained, along with John Marshall, among the best known of all those who have served on the Supreme Court.”


“Few American jurists are as revered as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. A United States Supreme Court justice for close to 30 years, Holmes wrote seminal opinions that were clear and clever and elegantly phrased. It was Holmes who defined the limits of free speech in 1919 by noting that the law did not protect someone “falsely shouting fire in a theater.” And it was Holmes who thoughtfully amended those words a decade later by writing that nothing in the Constitution was more sacred than “the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” By most accounts, Holmes, an upper-crust Bostonian, served the nobler instincts of America’s privileged classes. That is why his reckless majority opinion supporting forced sterilization in a 1927 case remains an enigma. Was it an isolated misstep or something more: an indictment of Justice Holmes and the Progressive movement he appeared to embrace?”


“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Perhaps worst of all, Carrie Buck was not an imbecile. Both she and her mother were deemed “social undesirables” due to a perception of promiscuity which, in Carrie’s case, partially resulted from an illegitimate child who was the product of incestuous rape. This was fairly typical. The linked article describes how “people as young as 10 in North Carolina were sterilized for not getting along with schoolmates, being promiscuous or running afoul of local social workers or doctors.”

In all, more than 60,000 people—including 7,600 in North Carolina—were forcibly sterilized in the United States in the name of “progress.” Progressives of the time lauded the decision in Buck. Individual rights, they firmly believed, should not be allowed to stand in the way of collective progress. Justice Brandeis called Buck an example of properly allowing states the freedom to “meet modern conditions by regulations which a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive.””


Who was the ‘real’ Oliver Wendell Holmes?
That one whose teachings we choose to put forward, of course! Exactly as Justice Holmes had done himself.
And why is it our responsibility to choose?
Simple. It’s us, and our children, who will bear the consequences. Who will have to live in the environment shaped by those choices.

Cassandra by Evelyn De Morgan (1898, London); Cassandra in front of the burning city of Troy

“Oh God, please make it so that my prophecies won’t come to life!”
“I’m sorry Cassandra, that’s what I made Man for. Now, it’s Their job to heed to your warnings!”

“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

The larger your ‘skull’ is, the more ideas – sometimes conflicting ones, you are able to ‘harbor’.

This guy, a 31 years old father of two, is looking forward for a heart transplant.

Meaning that he, and his family, trust the doctors who are going to perform the surgery.
Who are going to open up his chest, take his failing heart out, sew the ‘re-cycled’ one in and patch him up again.
Doctors who need to hook him up to various machines and to pump him full of chemicals in order to maintain him alive – but unconscious, during the procedure. And who are going to closely monitor him – and, again, administer him a lot of vital drugs, during the rest of his life.

Meanwhile he, and his family, don’t trust the doctors who tell him he needs to get a Covid jab first.

David Ferguson, D.J. father, “said the Covid vaccine goes against his son’s “basic principles, he doesn’t believe in it”.”

“We are literally in a corner right now. This is extremely time sensitive,” the family said in its fundraising appeal, which has raised tens of thousands of dollars. “This is not just a political issue. People need to have a choice!”
D.J.’s mother, Tracey Ferguson, insists that her son isn’t against vaccinations, noting he’s had other immunizations in the past. But the trained nurse said Wednesday that he’s been diagnosed with atrial fibrillation — an irregular and often rapid heart rhythm — and that he has concerns about the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine.
“D.J. is an informed patient,” Tracey Ferguson said in a brief interview at her home in Mendon, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) southwest of Boston. “He wants to be assured by his doctors that his condition would not be worse or fatal with this COVID vaccine.”

Hospital patient without COVID shot denied heart transplant.

Unvaccinated man denied heart transplant by Boston hospital.

Spune cineva pe net că filmul se termină cu discleimărul:

“UK a mai câștigat un an de pregătire și, în cele din urmă, a învins”

Nu l-am vazut. Nici n-am de gând…

Dacă se vede cineva cu scenaristul, vă rog să-i transmiteți din partea mea că anul ăla de pregătire a fost valabil și pentru Hitler.

Diferența dintre cele doua spații socio-culturale fiind că nazismul era deja ‘copt’ în timp ce englezii nu erau, încă, pregătiți din punct de vedere psihologic pentru un ‘nou’ război.
În anul ăla de pregătire, Hitler a construit tancuri și avioane în timp ce englezii s-au obișnuit cu gândul că vor trebui să mai învingă odată Germania.
Hitler a început războiul tocmai în 1939 pentru că abia atunci a avut la dispoziție suficiente arme. Dacă le-ar fi avut in 1938, intra atunci în război.

Cam același lucru se întâmplă și acum. După WWI, americanii s-au retras dincolo de Atlantic, englezii dincolo de Marea Mânecii iar francezii au impus despăgubiri imense de război Germaniei învinse. Economia germană s-a scufundat în mocirlă iar mizeria rezultată a constituit ‘îngrășămantul natural’ în care au înflorit aberațiile lui Hitler.
După WWII, americanii au fost mai isteți. Și-au dat seama că dacă se mai retrag odată, Europa va relua ciclul. Poate cu alți actori, doar că războiul s-ar fi întors cu aceiași regularitate. Așa că planul Marshall și NATO. Europenii, care învățaseră și ei lecția, au constituit UE. Aranjament care a ‘conținut’ comunismul în spatele Cortinei de Fier, unde s-a prabusit sub propria greutate – precum toti colosii cu picioare de lut.
Odată cu sfârșitul Războiului Rece, am reintrat în ‘necunoscut’. “Neconoscut” pentru că l-am uitat deja, dacă l-om fi înțeles cu adevărat vreodată…
Euroatlanticii au clamat victoria – vezi ‘sfârșitul istoriei’ prevăzut de Fukuyama, analist la State Department pe vremea când i-a venit ideea, în Martie 1989 – iar postsovieticii au refăcut traseul urmat de naziștii nemți. Au dat vina pe trădătorii interni – adică pe ‘Gorbaciov’- refuzând să recunoască – cu toate că abia ce se confruntaseră cu ele, ‘limitările’ intrinseci modelului autoritar.

Din păcate, euroatlanticii au uitat de învațămintele trase la sfârșitul WWI. Au lăsat spațiul ex-sovietic să se descurce singur. Și pentru că shit happens… it did!

Revenind la Hitler, francezii ar fi trebuit să reocupe Germania în 1936. Când Hitler a intrat in Renania, încâlcând brutal tratatul de la Versailles. Doar că ‘elitele politice’ franceze și britanice ale momentului nu erau ‘pregătite’. Drept pentru care a venit momentul 1938. Nici atunci nu ar fi fost târziu. Armata germană încă nu era suficient dotată pentru a face față unui asalt hotărât, declanșat de toate țările din jurul Germaniei. Dar, din nou, elitele politice nu erau suficient de ‘pregătite’.

Suntem, iarăși, în aceiași situație.
Ne punem, din nou, aceiași întrebare. Merită să-l înfruntam pe dictator?
Mai ales că acum dictatorul ne poate distruge.
Și pe el s-ar putea să nu-l intereseze ce rămâne in urma lui!

Întrebările la care trebuie să găsim răspunsuri sunt următoarele:

Cât de departe sunt dispuși să meargă cei din jurul dictatorului?
Cei care fac posibilă dictatura ‘internă’.

Iar după ce vom fi aflat răspunsul la prima întrebare va trebui să ne uităm în sufletele noastre și să ne întrebăm


Cu ocazia grevei am aflat câteva lucruri.

40% dintre cei 11 000 de angajati sunt șoferi și mecanici. Restul, „personal administrativ”.
80% dintre veniturile STB se duc ‘pe salarii’.

Mai sunt multe cifre prin articolele apărute ‘pe chestia asta’. Aveți două linkuri mai jos.
Sincer să fiu, mie mi se pare că șoferii sunt plătiți prost. Și că 60 tone de motorină furate, într-un an, dintr-o întreagă autobază, nu e foarte mult.

Doar că am mai aflat ceva. Pe propria piele.
Orașul nu s-a blocat.
Nu doar că viața a continuat neabătută, dar nici măcar nu a fost mare aglomerație de ‘autoturisme personale’. Și taxiuri câte vrei la toate colțurile…

Ce rezultă de aici?

Că cei care au organizat greva au tendințe sinucigașe.
Și cei care au pus botul.

Păi… șoferii știu că nu pot fi înlocuiți. Că la banii ăștia nu găsești prea mulți doritori care să tragă de covrig prin aglomerația din București.
Le-a fost frică celor care au băgat mâna în rezervor? Și pentru asta faci grevă? Ca să atragi și mai tare atenția asupra ta?!?

Șefii de sindicat ar trebui să știe structura de personal.
Și că n-are cum să mai meargă în felul ăsta.
Că orice om sănătos la cap ar trebui să facă o restructurare la sânge a companiei.

Și atunci?
Faci o grevă? Ca să ce? Să se oftice lumea pe tine? Să nu mai aibe nimeni nici un fel de milă pentru cei ce urmează să fie disponibilizați?
Mai ales că disponibilizații vor veni mai ales din rândurile personalului administrativ, nu dintre șoferii care au făcut grevă… dacă cei ce vor face restructurarea vor fi oameni cu scaun la cap, bineînțeles… că doar n-o să dea afară șoferi și să-i păstreze pe ceilalți…

‘Neo-liberalii’ ar trebui să-și frece mâinile de bucurie…
Încă o trăsnaie din asta și să vezi cum se găsește cineva să spună că STB trebuie privatizată. Că altfel nu se mai poate ieși la liman….

Iar bucureștenii, exasperați, s-ar putea să cam fie de acord!


People who are recognized for mastery of one field, DO seem to sometimes over-reach themselves when diving into another field without taking the trouble to learn about it

I came across this over the internet. I couldn’t have said it better myself, hence I ‘borrowed’ it.
Click on it and read the whole post, it’s very interesting on its own.

Below is the comment I left on the FB wall where it all happened.
Don’t see any need to change anything.

“The key words here being “are recognized for”.
Real mastery involves knowing your limits.
Being recognized as a master by somebody else – the more ‘recognizers’, the worse, tends to annihilate any ‘master’s’ ability to own the very existence of their limits.
The intellectual limits are the hardest to notice/accept.
‘Accrued’ age brings about crystal clear evidence about our physical limitations.
Accrued knowledge enlarges one’s vision. Puts distance between the observers themselves and the limits of their ability to ‘observe themselves in the act of observing‘.

And if/when the above mentioned accrued knowledge becomes recognized/admired by the (naive) ‘general public’…
You don’t have to trust me on this because of my white beard.
I have a better argument.
I’m an engineer!”

‘OK, and the point of this post is …?’

The fact that there’s no such thing as ‘personal improvement’.
Any ‘improvement’ which we might ‘inflict’ upon ourselves derives from our intercourse with the others. Through ‘learning’.
All change which happens to us, actually, comes from our ultimately aleatory intercourse with the environment in which we happen to live. From being taught to being ‘influenced’ by the passage of time.
All that is ‘personal’ in ‘personal improvement’ is that we do it ‘willfully’.

Much of the change which happens to us goes either unnoticed – up to a point, or is merely accepted by us.
‘Personal improvement’ is chosen by us. And imposed by us upon our own selves.

To do it – ‘improve’ ourselves, that is, we follow ‘suggestions‘.
We should keep in the back of our mind that it’s our call to follow – or not, those suggestions.

I have no idea who the ‘suggested’ guy is. Just googled ‘personal improvement books’ and chosen the most visually appealing – for me, obviously, link.
Just wanted to illustrate the deluge of suggestions which is constantly directed at us.

True enough.
Good people don’t need laws to tell them how to behave while the ‘cunningly willful’ amongst us will indeed, time and time again, try to circumvent the consequences of bypassing the law.

Then why?
Two and a half millennia after Plato had dispensed this piece of wisdom we still have laws.
Is there a possible explanation for this apparent aberration?
Are we that thick-headed or there’s something else?

To settle this question – to start attempting to settle it, actually, we must first agree upon the difference between good and bad.


‘Everybody knows what good and bad is’ doesn’t really work, right?

In principle… maybe, but when it comes to putting principles into practice… we need guidelines!
Just as ‘good fences make good neighbors‘, a clear understanding among the good about where the realm of the bad starts in earnest makes life a lot simpler. For all of us. And the more visible that line is, the simpler our life becomes.

Only this is but half of the actual explanation.
Laws do make our life simpler, indeed. Unfortunately, ‘simpler’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘better’.

As some of you already know, I’ve spent half my life under communist rule.
Does ‘Ceausescu’ ring any bells with you?

Under communism, life was a lot simpler than it is now.
Presumably, life was a lot simpler under any of the many flavors of authoritarian rules experienced by humanity during its history. This being the reason for no matter how horrible a dictatorial regime had been, there were always some who had regretted when that regime had fallen.

‘OK, so what’s your point?
That laws, in general, might be good but the laws which impose an authoritarian regime are bad?
You know that you’ve just opened a fresh can of worms, right?’

How do you determine the difference between a good law and a bad one?

There’s no such thing. No law is above good and bad. For the simple reason that we call laws are made by us.
We are fallible human beings and everything we make, including our laws, is, and should continue to be, constantly improved.

‘Then you’re nothing more than a ‘closet progressive‘!
I knew it!
‘Constant improvement’… yuck!
Not to mention the fact that the most important Law comes from God, not from Man!’

I’ve already disclosed that I’m an agnostic.
That I have no idea whether a(ny) god had anything to do with what’s happening around/with us.
All I know is that all laws, including the Bible – and all other Holy Books, had been written by people.
By Humans, that is.

And I also know that there are two kinds of law.
‘Natural’ – as in noticed by us, and ‘synthetic’.

While all laws are ‘artificial’ – ‘written’ by us, the natural ones had been first noticed and only then put on paper.
While all laws had been written on purpose – each ‘writer’ had their own reason for doing it, the ‘synthetic’ ones had been put together with a specific goal.

While observing – and when necessary improving, the natural laws benefits all, the ‘synthetic’ ones serve only those who make it their business to impose those laws upon the rest of the community.

While observing – and, when necessary, imposing them upon SOME, improves the prospects of the entire community, designing and imposing ‘synthetic’ laws upon a community will always bring a huge amount of disturbance.
Sometimes fatal for that community.
Always fatal for the regime attempting it!

‘How about some examples?’

I’ll give you two natural laws and a ‘synthetic’ one.

The law of gravity. Also known as Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
This law didn’t need Newton to notice it. The Earth had already been orbiting the Sun for a while before Newton told us why.

‘Do not kill’. A subset of the Golden Rule, ‘Do no harm, if you can help it’.
Also ‘natural’ but a lot more ‘fluid’.
And, strangely enough, noticed and ‘put on paper’ way before the law of the falling objects…
Just think of it!
The ‘law makers’ have noticed long, long ago that the communities which follow the Golden Rule fare much better than those whose members treat each-other like dirt. Yet only a few short centuries ago somebody ‘noticed’ that things fall according to a constant rule… and bothered to make it into a law.
Was ‘gravity’ too obvious? Inescapable, so why bother?
While the Golden Rule worked better when enforced? When the formal rule mandated that even the rulers themselves had to obey the rule?

It’s easy to notice that the first two, the ‘natural’ ones, produce consequences regardless of people observing them or not.
Meanwhile, ‘synthetic’ laws are, entirely, the figment of somebody’s imagination. And produce consequences only when/if enough people are ‘seduced’ by the perspectives of those laws being put into practice.
Communist rule, for instance, could be put into practice only when enough people had been seduced by Marx’s ideal that all property should belong to the state and be managed by a ‘select’ few. Only then, after those ‘select’ few had, somehow, convinced enough followers, could Marx’s ideas be transformed into laws. And put in practice. With the already obvious consequences…

‘OK, but I still don’t get it!
Is there a way to tell whether a law is good or bad before-hand? Before its consequences had become manifest?’

That’s a tall order. And you know that!

Actually, no!
There’s no fire-proof method of ascertaining anything before-hand, let alone something made by us.

But there is a next best thing.
The ‘natural’ laws are natural because they had been first observed. Only then written into law. And because of things proceeding in this order, whenever something changed those who had noticed the change had adapted the wording of the law to the new reality. Simply because those who had to make do with the consequences of the law being put into practice could not wait too long whenever they had noticed that there was a better way.

People have dreamed of flying since god only knows when but they had learned how to do it only after they had been told that everything is pulled to the center of the Earth.
‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ had been very useful. For a while… Now we use the same principle – do no harm, but we implement it in a more nuanced manner.

People have also dreamed of a fair society.
And, frankly, ours is a lot fairer than that of our grand-parents. Because we have constantly improved our ‘manners’.
We have not only observed ourselves while living but we’ve also done something when anything went wrong.
The problem is – and it’s only one problem here, that not all things can be reversed. Some mistakes can be fully redressed, other compensated … but we’ll have to take with us the consequences of those mistakes. And the longer a mistake is allowed to happen, the more important the consequences.
So. ‘Synthetic’ rules are bad not because they have been dreamed up by us. They are bad because those who promote them cannot accept the idea they might have been wrong.
The really bad ‘synthetic’ rules were those who could not be changed from within!

Whenever a law maintains that things cannot happen, ever, but in the manner prescribed by that very law, that text is no longer a law. It’s a dictate!
It’s dictates that we can do without, not laws.
And it’s our job to make out the difference. One way or another.

You haven’t ‘heard’ this from me.
I’ve only ’embellished’ some ideas I’ve stolen from Popper, inasmuch as I’ve understood anything from them.

Am citit mai puțin de un sfert din cărțile pe care le-am primit ca temă în timpul școlii/liceului.
Și nici una dintre cele care aveau ceva de a face cu critica literară.
„Autorul vrea să ne spună…” îmi ridica părul pe ceafă.
‘Păi ce, eu sunt prost? Nu știu să citesc? De ce trebuie să-mi spună ăsta ce vrea să spună autorul?!?’

‘Și atunci? Ce te-a apucat acum?’

Tocmai ce am aflat că un premiu literar, pentru poezie, a băgat zâzanie în bula feministă din internetul românesc. Discută oamenii cu o pasiune…

Eu sunt inginer. Nu le am p-astea cu exprimarea elegantă.
Mă doare la bască despre cine ce cuvinte folosește.

„Uitând de toate
(O portiune a anatomiei mele, dar nu creierul) e o mașinărie războincă
Care vrea să-și facă dreptate”.

Acuma, că nu vă mai puteți ascunde după frusta pizdă, ce înțelegeți din textul de mai sus?

Eu, unul – inginer fiind, citesc că o „pizdă” – independent de restul ființei de care este ‘atașată’ și făcând abstracție de toate celelalte condiționalități care ‘limitează’ existența tuturor ființelor, cu și fără pizdă – se operaționalizează în „mașinărie războinică” și se pornește să-și facă dreptate. Sieși… Adică pentru sine!

Cum bine zicea mai sus unul dintre comentatori.
‘Copilul intolerant care se pornește să-și devoreze mama anacronică.’

O parte dintre observatorii lumii cultural artistice susțin că adevăratul artist ‘șochează’.
Că pentru a ‘deschide ochii privitorilor’ artistul trebuie să le ‘violeze’ acestora ‘retina’.

OK, cică scopul scuză mijloacele…
Dar care scop?

Tot de pe net:
Ce scandal! O femeie vorbește despre propriul ei corp!!
Dacă v-a picat rău, luați niște versuri respectabile (cum altfel?) de Eminescu:

(Urmează o serie de citate, din care voi folosi doar unul)

Ah, cum nu-i aicea nime
Să mă scap de mâncărime
Să storc boţul între craci,
Să-i sug măduva din saci.

Și uite-așa ajungem tot la ‘ce vrea să spună artistul’…
Până la urmă, contează cu ce rămâi după ce ți-a fost ‘violată retina’!

Eminescu și proaspăta laureată folosesc, într-adevăr, aceleași cuvinte.
Dar nu spun același lucru…
Eminescu glosează, cât se poate de la obiect, despre cum e să ajungi, împreună cu cineva, la orgasm.
Iar laureata NOASTRĂ vorbește despre jihad. Despre dorința arzătoare de a-și face singură dreptate. În orice condiții…

Și de ce am ‘strigat’ „noastră”?

Pentru că Ileana Negrea n-a apărut din pustiu.
A crescut printre noi și trăiește cu noi.
În timpul acestei vieți a adunat toate simțirile pe care le strigă acum.
De la noi a învățat ‘expresia artistică’ de care se folosește pentru a-și exprima trăirile.
Expresie artistică pe care tot noi i-am validat-o!
Noi, contemporanii ei, suntem cei care i-am dat premiul care „a băgat zâzanie în bula feministă din internetul românesc”.

Noi, contemporanii ei, suntem cei care pierdem vremea discutând despre pizdă în loc să ne vedem în oglinda pe care ne-o ține Ileana Negrea.

Am devenit atât de individualiști încât restul ni se pare normal.
Restul, adică tot ce nu ne oripilează pe NOI.

„Uitând de toate
….mea e o mașinărie războinică
Care vrea să-și facă dreptate”

Uitând de toate…


Între timp ‘am făcut rost’ de textul integral.


Ai grijă
O să te prind în mine cu răutate
Răutatea copilului egoist
Care nu a avut nimic al său
Să-ți opresc pentru o clipă mișcările
Să stăm așa
În timp ce lumea asta
Se duce dracului
Cu virușii și ghețarii
Și animalele și planeta
Și chiriile și evacuările și șomajul
Și violența domestică și precaritatea
Și perverși
Uitând de toate
Pizda mea e o mașinărie războinică
Care vrea să își facă dreptate
Capturat și cuminte
Mă vei privi cu ochi tremurători
Și-abia atunci te voi primi cu-adevărat
În mine
Și-abia atunci
Te vei putea mișca
Și-abia atunci

Poezia asta chiar începe să-mi placă.
Realitatea descrisă – așa cum a fost ea percepută de Ileana Negrea, continuă să mă oripileze.
Pe voi ce vă oripilează? Ce ați vrea să schimbați?

According to Reuters, he never uttered those words.
But “Burke did say something resembling the quote in his “Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents” (1770): “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

‘OK, and where’s the difference?
The meaning’s the same…’

Not exactly!
Burke was speaking about the fate of individual people while the quote attributed to him is about evil itself.
According to Burke, the good people must associate in order to protect their livelihoods and their way of life while the mis-attributed quote pretends that there are circumstances in which evil might prevail.

‘I still don’t understand you! Good people loosing their cause doesn’t mean that evil has prevailed?!?’

Good people might loose from time to time. Being good doesn’t mean those people are perfect.
People make mistakes. Some of which can’t be undone.

Evil things do happen. From time to time. Either through sheer bad luck or through good people making horrible mistakes. But evil cannot prevail. Not on the longer run!

For two reasons.

Small enough mistakes can be overcome. Either individually or collectively.
Serious enough mistakes will kill you. Individually and collectively.
This was the first reason.

If evil hadn’t been that bad, we wouldn’t have called it that way.
If evil would have led to survival, we would have called it ‘good’.

Good people doing nothing doesn’t mean that evil will triumph.
Good people doing nothing only means, as Burke had said, that those good people will fail. One by one.
Bad people having it their way doesn’t mean much. Historically speaking.
After they had finished vanquishing the good, the bad had always started to fight among themselves. It’s in their nature to do that.

That’s how each evil eventually dies out…

Until the next one appears?
Indeed! Weeds will always spring up. Specially if the soil is rich.
That’s what hoes are for! If only people knew how to make good use of them…

The way I see it, it makes more sense to tax those who don’t want to get a jab than to bribe people to accept the vaccine.
The vaccinated individual enjoys the benefits, the jab is already paid for by the community… and the community, as a whole, is safer.
You don’t want to be jabbed, for whatever reasons, you should pay for the privilege.

After all, this is a matter of personal choice.

There are three kinds of personal choice which impact the wider community. Regardless of who covers the financial costs of healthcare, people being sick is a burden shouldered by the entire society.

Eating too much.
It can have a whole series of consequences but most of them are of a ‘personal’ nature. You can be a bad example for your kid but that’s about all you can do to negatively impact the health of others through eating too much. Except for the financial implications, of course.

Still a personal choice. But the consequences of your bad habit directly affect those who happen to be around you when you exercise your ‘right’. Smoke travels freely…

“My body, my choice.”
Refusing to ‘put experimental substances into my body’ is, again, a personal choice.
But getting sick with Covid has far wider consequences for the wide community than smoking. Let alone the fact that smoke is visible while the virus is not.
Smoking in a plane won’t give a lung cancer to each of the passengers present but a person infected with Covid breathing inside such a cramped place can directly infect many. And god only knows how many more after the passengers reach their final destinations …

Since the above mentioned decision of the Supreme Court – that government should not tell ‘the people’ what to do with their bodies (unless federal money is involved) – things are getting murkier.
Smoking seats might return on planes. Smoking tables in pubs.
And who knows what else…

%d bloggers like this: