Also, I read that New Yorker article and it’s of course not what the headline makes it seem to be. It’s a review of a recently written book by a progressive law professor from Berkeley. The New Yorker doesn’t stake a claim here, they just explore, and in many circumstances critique, this guy’s conclusions.
I was happy to see them quote Thomas Jefferson in the article. This is something I have thought about a lot since visiting the Jefferson Memorial recently which has the following quote inscribed on it’s SE portico:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
There was robust disagreement amongst the framers. Madison didn’t even want a Bill of Rights. Jefferson thought the constitution should be rebuilt by every generation, as he believed that it was wrong for the dead to hold power over the living.
I don’t know what I think. I can see merit in both views. These guys were for sure smart and forward thinking, but knowing what I think I now know about the current ruling class, I’m no longer willing to just accept that these guys were all knowing, prescient benefactors. They were flawed human just like the rest of us, although likely not child sex traffickers or bioweapons manufacturers.
That was their headline. There have been similar headlines from the NYT too. Hillary, AOC and Walz openly want to criminalize misinformation while spreading it. They are pushing to undermine the foundations of a free society openly at this point IMO. That the piece itself (or the author) has a nuanced view is almost beside the point.
And "all-knowing" is a straw man. No one would argue that -- slavery was still legal even. But they had a deep understanding of human nature, and the document they all agreed to is the one that protected rights and launched the most prosperous country in the modern world. It has "proof of work" so to speak. We're no longer speculating as they were before it was ratified.
The president swears an oath to it. If one doesn't agree with it, that's one's right, but one cannot be president of the United States.
1. Isn’t it only one batch of Remdesevir being recalled? That’s a lot different than all of it.
2. I’ve listened to the whole Kerry thing in context. It certainly makes for a disturbing headline, but is he not ultimately acknowledging that the 1A makes countering disinformation a major challenge? He goes on to say that the only way to counter it is to try to convince people/win votes, which is exactly what you say the only defense is.
I don’t doubt that there are people that want to scrap the entire bill of rights. I count Trump among them, dude has threatened to jail flag burners. I won’t be voting for anyone at the top of this ticket.
1. I'll add the correction next week that it was only the batch with glass in it, but the drug had a lot of side effects (https://x.com/stu_chua/status/1602285863752171520) was expensive and given in lieu if safer and more effective cheap drugs like Ivermectin, i.e., it never should have been green-lighted and likely only was due to the profit motive.
2. I didn't hear it in context and will add that too. But -- the greater context is the WEF, and democratic partisans like Hillary, Walz and AOC have all been advocating to run roughshod over the 1A for "hate speech" "misinformation" etc. So for Kerry to complain about it interfering with their agenda seems to be, "wow it really sucks we have to persude people, would be a lot better if we didn't have to."
Agree Trump is probably not going to uphold the 1A out of some deep grasp of the principles. But I don't think you vote for Trump, you vote for the policies and people around him like RFK and Tulsi who DO understand the principles. And IMO there is no downside compared to the Regime. Worst case scenario he's equally bad.
I agree with the greater context in both situations by the way. Just think it’s important to be as accurate as possible when bringing this stuff up to people who don’t.
Also, I read that New Yorker article and it’s of course not what the headline makes it seem to be. It’s a review of a recently written book by a progressive law professor from Berkeley. The New Yorker doesn’t stake a claim here, they just explore, and in many circumstances critique, this guy’s conclusions.
I was happy to see them quote Thomas Jefferson in the article. This is something I have thought about a lot since visiting the Jefferson Memorial recently which has the following quote inscribed on it’s SE portico:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
There was robust disagreement amongst the framers. Madison didn’t even want a Bill of Rights. Jefferson thought the constitution should be rebuilt by every generation, as he believed that it was wrong for the dead to hold power over the living.
I don’t know what I think. I can see merit in both views. These guys were for sure smart and forward thinking, but knowing what I think I now know about the current ruling class, I’m no longer willing to just accept that these guys were all knowing, prescient benefactors. They were flawed human just like the rest of us, although likely not child sex traffickers or bioweapons manufacturers.
That was their headline. There have been similar headlines from the NYT too. Hillary, AOC and Walz openly want to criminalize misinformation while spreading it. They are pushing to undermine the foundations of a free society openly at this point IMO. That the piece itself (or the author) has a nuanced view is almost beside the point.
And "all-knowing" is a straw man. No one would argue that -- slavery was still legal even. But they had a deep understanding of human nature, and the document they all agreed to is the one that protected rights and launched the most prosperous country in the modern world. It has "proof of work" so to speak. We're no longer speculating as they were before it was ratified.
The president swears an oath to it. If one doesn't agree with it, that's one's right, but one cannot be president of the United States.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Isn’t it only one batch of Remdesevir being recalled? That’s a lot different than all of it.
2. I’ve listened to the whole Kerry thing in context. It certainly makes for a disturbing headline, but is he not ultimately acknowledging that the 1A makes countering disinformation a major challenge? He goes on to say that the only way to counter it is to try to convince people/win votes, which is exactly what you say the only defense is.
I don’t doubt that there are people that want to scrap the entire bill of rights. I count Trump among them, dude has threatened to jail flag burners. I won’t be voting for anyone at the top of this ticket.
1. I'll add the correction next week that it was only the batch with glass in it, but the drug had a lot of side effects (https://x.com/stu_chua/status/1602285863752171520) was expensive and given in lieu if safer and more effective cheap drugs like Ivermectin, i.e., it never should have been green-lighted and likely only was due to the profit motive.
2. I didn't hear it in context and will add that too. But -- the greater context is the WEF, and democratic partisans like Hillary, Walz and AOC have all been advocating to run roughshod over the 1A for "hate speech" "misinformation" etc. So for Kerry to complain about it interfering with their agenda seems to be, "wow it really sucks we have to persude people, would be a lot better if we didn't have to."
Agree Trump is probably not going to uphold the 1A out of some deep grasp of the principles. But I don't think you vote for Trump, you vote for the policies and people around him like RFK and Tulsi who DO understand the principles. And IMO there is no downside compared to the Regime. Worst case scenario he's equally bad.
I agree with the greater context in both situations by the way. Just think it’s important to be as accurate as possible when bringing this stuff up to people who don’t.