Categories
folly individual achievement

Theseus’ Ship Sure Rocked and Rolled

It couldn’t have happened to a better-​named defendant.

The Guess Who, a Canadian rock band, has continued over the years from its late-​60s/​early-​70s heyday. Or hasn’t. 

Depending upon your ontology.

Yes. Theory of being.

The original band, known best for the hit “American Woman,” was originally made up of Randy Bachman, Burton Cummings, Jim Kale, and Garry Peterson, and became one of the first big Canadian exports to American and world popular music. But Bachman left in 1970, at the peak of the band’s fame — to create Bachman-​Turner Overdrive — and lead-​singer Cummings left five years later. Now these two are suing Kale and Peterson and the corporation that is the band itself.

According to The Rolling Stone, they call the “current lineup a ‘cover band’” and object to the band’s usage of photos from its classic period to, in the words of the suit, “give the false impression that Plaintiffs are performing as part of the cover band.”

Wikipedia says the band broke up in 1975, but was revived by Kale and Peterson.

Now, this is none of our business; we can hope the courts adjudicate it justly. But because it reminds us of the Ship of Theseus, discussed as a thought experiment by Plutarch and Thomas Hobbes, it’s hard to let this one go. An old ship has its planks and other parts replaced piece by piece, over time. Is the all-​new ship the same as the old? 

Obviously, Bachman and Cummings don’t like being treated as so much old lumber. Regardless, wouldn’t there be an estoppel motion, or something like that, preventing litigation over the haecceity of a band named “The Guess Who”?

These eyes expected them to share the band, if not the land.

This is Common Sense — and I’m … Guess Who.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
folly ideological culture

Bill Gates Wants to Bury Trees

The latest plan from one of the world’s most annoying billionaires is to cut down trees and bury them.

It’s part of the “thinning” controversy.

The subject? Forest management. 

In the old days, human beings cleared forests or kept forests and harvested from them (for firewood, fungi, and fauna) on an ongoing basis. And, periodically, nature would swing around and forests would burn — a story as old as the hills, forest fires being part of the natural cycle. 

But when humans use forests for all sorts of things, but most especially harvesting building material (lumber), we have to take some control of the natural cycles. Forest thinning — cutting and removing some trees and leaving the rest — is a key silvicultural practice.

Some environmentalists have objected to this practice on the grounds that Nature Is Good and Sacred, with silviculturalists generally arguing that without thinning, forests become tinder-​boxes, ripe for runaway fires in which forests are destroyed, value is lost, and people die.

A recent article in The Epoch Times covers some of this. I am not qualified to adjudicate the ecological disagreements. But Bill Gates pushing the thinning of forests not as a means of harvesting lumber or as a means of reducing forest fires, but as a way of sequestering carbon, seems loopy: “Through his foundation Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Mr. Gates is a part of the $6.6 million seed investor pool backing Kodama Systems in its proposal to remove trees in California’s fire-​challenged woodlands and bury them in Nevada to sequester carbon dioxide (CO2).”

I would prefer sequestering that carbon in housing, which we need more of, not less.

But Gates has his eyes on atmospheric CO2 levels, not helping the poor in America.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Firefly and PicFinder

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment folly national politics & policies

Don’t Fence Me In?

“The Biden administration on Thursday said it would expand former President Donald Trump’s wall,” informs The Gray Lady, with a stiff upper lip. 

And do it lickety-​split: “Biden criticized for waiving 26 laws in Texas to allow border wall construction,” the UK Guardian headlines its report

In fiscal 2023, government data shows 245,000 people entered the United States from this Rio Grande Valley sector.

“There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project areas,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stated in the federal registry.

“Well, Mexico didn’t pay for the wall,” quipped the American Economic Liberties Project’s Matt Stoller, “Biden did.”

“There will not be another foot of wall constructed in my administration,” the president had promised to the contrary during the 2020 campaign. Now Sleepy Joe’s administration has so awakened to the need for action on immigration that it argues for fencing off the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Endangered Species Act from getting in the way … 

of building that wall

Fast!

The New York Times notes “intensifying” complaints coming from “Democratic leaders in New York, Chicago and elsewhere who say the influx is overwhelming their ability to house and feed the migrants.” 

Want a nimble response to the border crisis? 

Instead, we see a NIMBY response — from big-​city politicians, as the buses arrive from down south.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment folly too much government

The California Experiment

California is determined to give us the full bleak picture of totalitarianism, American-style.

Anticipating proposed SEC regulations, Newsom’s California is set to impose nonsensical mandates for reporting greenhouse gas emissions and “climate-​related financial risk” that target companies with annual revenue of $1 billion or more (according to the terms of SB253) and $500 million or more (SB261).

Billion-​dollar businesses will have to report all direct and indirect emissions, including emissions produced throughout a business’s supply chain. Business travel. Employee commutes. Penalties for failure to report could be as high as $500,000.

The cost is in time, money, privacy, freedom, with no benefits except to bureaucrats and politicians who enjoy bossing us around and destroying our ability to function.

These requirements are tyrannical in the same way they’d be tyrannical if required of you and me as individuals. 

Do you know all about the emissions produced in delivering the water, electricity, electronics, gas, paper you use each month? 

Care to drop everything you’re doing to find out? 

And submit the data in a bureaucrat-​satisfying format?

We already know what the results of California’s experiment will be. We already know that crushing freedom and giving unfettered power to slave-​masters is not the road to wealth and happiness.

What we don’t know is exactly how far the Tarnished State’s aspiring totalitarians will go. But whatever the consequences, they’ll blame others … or just mutter “Good riddance, we didn’t want that prosperity and those evil businesses anyway.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-​E2 and PicFinder​.ai

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment folly too much government

Downshifting Before the Cliff

A scenario: You and millions of others are willy-​nilly running toward a cliff.

You don’t want to go over the cliff; like Bartleby, you would prefer not to. But you’re caught in the surging mass. Enough of the stampeders think that it’s the greatest idea ever — long overdue, in fact.

But just as you’re coming within sight of the cliff, the Great Leader leading the charge raises his hand and asks to be heard.

“We have decided that we are running too fast toward the cliff. We need more time to make the transition. We will therefore reduce the speed of our blind hurtling toward the cliff by 11 percent.”

Fiction? No.

The above summarizes the amended policy of British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak vis-​à-​vis how quickly policymakers will shove Britain’s industrial society over the proverbial cliff in the name of pretending to fine-​tune global climate. Various bans on various things that people need in order to function will reportedly be slightly delayed so that people have more time to … pretend … to prepare.

It won’t become illegal to sell petrol (gas) and diesel vehicles so that buyers of new cars would be stuck with more expensive and impractical battery-​powered cars until 2035

Not 2030 as previously stated.

Instead of 100 percent of gas boilers being phased out by 2035, the new goal is 80 percent.

Off-​grid oil burners will now be banned in 2035, not 2026.

Other slight delays of annihilative mandates are also in the works.

British people, enjoy your five-​year and nine-​year reprieves.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability folly national politics & policies

Will We Comply?

“To every COVID tyrant who wants to take away our freedom, hear these words,” intoned Donald J. Trump, eleven days ago, “we will not comply.”

The former president did not stop there: “So don’t even think about it. We will not shut down our schools. We will not accept your lockdowns. We will not abide by your mask mandates. And we will not tolerate your vaccine mandates.”

While Trump still boasts about his vaccine heroism, his supporters range from iffy to hostile on the subject. So Trump positions himself against mandates and for “freedom,” while in the past he was for masks and for lockdowns, as well as pushing the novel vaccines that cleverly (and perhaps dangerously) leveraged the spiked protein protuberances on SARS-​CoV‑2.

Meanwhile, Dr. Anthony Fauci, whom Trump brought into the world conversation about the pandemic in 2020, is similarly trying to position himself with some trickiness and … care. 

Fauci foresees mask recommendations, but no mandates — but note that he focuses on what federal bureaucrats say and do, not on what governors in the states do under federal bureaucrats’ advisement. 

CNN’s Michael Smerconish interrogated Fauci about the many studies showing that masks are ineffective against respiratory diseases like COVID. 

Fauci’s reply? Against the big study cited here in February, Fauci mentioned “other studies,” lamely and unconvincingly. He admitted that, overall — as affecting the course of the pandemic — “the data” about mask efficacy have been “less strong.” But “on an individual basis of someone protecting themselves, or protecting themselves from spreading to others,” Fauci still insists “there’s no doubt that there are many studies” showing “an advantage.”

If you buy that, you’ll wear masks forever — or comply with anything.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts