Fortunately for the world, the United States has a First Amendment, which guarantees in part, the freedom of speech. This radical concept is coming under fire in an area which depends on the free flow of ideas and concepts; that of science.

In the article linked below, we find a short, concise discussion on those in our society who seem to have or wish to set themselves up as arbitrators of what is permitted and what is forbidden in discussions of science. These arbitrators include social media, the press and even many leaders in the scientific community. If these individuals and groups can “control what science says, they can control what is considered true.”, then we face the decline of science with all that it implies.  We have seen that before, in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and today in various authoritarian nations around the globe. When we have a lifelong bureaucrat state that “If you discredit me, you discredit science” we face a serious threat to true science and the benefits that can flow from it.

https://www.city-journal.org/in-defense-of-misinformation-restrictions-of-scientific-free-speech

Talk about great timing! If you caught yesterday’s posting (Fifty Years of Crying Wolf), you would think that I had inside information regarding the column in today’s Wall Street Journal by Walter Russell Mead (see link below). The recent global environmental conference, attended by 30,000 world “leaders”, national beggars, press, etc. ended with the usual false promises (they have a wonderful record of not achieving promised goals), demands for hundreds of billions of dollars for dubious projects, silence on why they have not been able to achieve any of their previous promises, etc.

How long will we who pay the bills for these gabfests have to put up with being told how we have to cut back on our standard of living while we fail to see any of the attendees lead by example? Private jets, limos, umpteen course dinners served in the finest locations, etc. are the norm for the “elite,” and the “best and the brightest” who seem to believe that the average citizen has no memory about past failed conferences.

Isn’t it time we demanded real accountability from those who live off the public trough?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-the-global-age-of-shams-cop26-glasgow-agreements-crisis-emissions-globalism-11637010052?mod=opinion_featst_pos1

For fifty years we have heard Presidents, scientists, spoiled children, professors, etc. telling us that we have only ten years to save the planet. Fifty years of hand wringing, spending trillions of dollars on wind and solar power, creating carbon credits, etc. have apparently not been successful as the claims of pending disaster continue unabated. Let us look at some of the predictions over the past half century:

• 1972: “We have ten years to stop the catastrophe” said UN “environment protection boss.
• 1982: The opening of the second UN conference as reported by the NY Times was not a happy meeting. Mostafa K. Tolba, executive director of the UN environmental program stated at if action were not taken, in 2000 we would face, “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.”

Similar warnings were issued in 1998, 1989 and 1990; always disaster within the next ten years. Massive crop failures, even “nations wiped off the face of the Earth” were predicted. The year 2000 came and went and we survived. In 2004 it was reported that the Pentagon told President Bush that climate change would “destroy us”. Among the disasters was Siberian winters in Britain, major European cities sinking beneath rising seas, etc.

In theory, the beauty of science is objectivity. The search for the truth, for the correct answer. We live in a world, unfortunately, where objectivity in science is the greatest threat since the false science under Stalin and Trofim Lysenko.

In the two articles listed below, there is evidence that applicants at major universities in the field of science must provide proof of their fealty to “Explicit evidence of commitment to diversity and of advancing understanding and outcomes for underrepresented groups.”  Additionally, applicants should “mention your (their) willingness to contribute to pre-existing (DEI) programs….”  Like the political commissars of the old Soviet Union, ideological purity is key.

The two articles referenced below should make each of us ask: “Can you name a nation governed by the left which has more freedom than before they turned left?”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-step-glenn-youngkin-to-stop-leftist-tyranny-diversity-dei-statements-11636302471?mod=opinion_lead_pos9

https://quillette.com/2021/11/02/tales-from-the-gulag/

Mark Carney has worked hard to get the major banks of the world to support the Green Movement. A former head of central banks in Canada and the U.K. has been knocking on bankers’ doors, trying to raise some of the trillions needed to cut carbon emissions and transform the way we produce and use energy. He is not asking bankers to pledge their personal wealth to his cause, but to pledge the assets of their banks.

His pitch to the financial community is aimed at getting them to part with some of the estimated one-hundred fifty trillion dollars ($150,000,000,000,000) over the next thirty years as the entire global power infrastructure must be revamped. To achieve this, he follows the fourteen-page protocol created by the U.N. which outlines how companies are to be rewarded or punished through lending, regulations, etc. if they adhere to or resist the dictates of the protocol.  There has been resistance from the banks as concerns over law suits due to failure to fulfill pledges or meeting targets.

The ideologies of sexual revolution and feminism promised all of us wonderful things and there have been positives which have come about over the past fifty-years. There have also been costs and we have ventured into areas which could not be imagined at that time. How are we to judge the plusses and minuses, the gains and losses, the freedoms gained and their costs? Like most movements, no one can ever declare victory and let the movement rest on its laurels; there are too many people who have profited from the movement that has become either an industry or religion. Indeed, it has a momentum of its own and to question any aspect of the path being travelled earns the title of “hater,” “homophobe,” “misogynistic,” etc.

“As a teenager you are at the last stage in your life when you will be happy to hear that the phone is for you.”

― fran lebowitz

There are times when you read an article or news report and just for a moment, you think it must be a joke. The link below will take you to one of those moments; an action taken in the name of political correctness that is not only short sighted, but also clearly stupid. Ms. Stein, who joined the museum earlier this year, fired all the docents (who are all volunteers) because they were all white women.  Apparently, because they are all white, visitors of “color” are offended or cannot comprehend what the docents are saying. Or the docents cannot explain how the Impressionistic painting at the museum relate to the experiences of a person of “color.”  Instead, those visitors will be free to wander the halls and view many of the 300,000 works of art on their own, creating their own “truth”. When criticized by the Chicago Tribune for the action, the Chairman of the Art Institute defended the action with the following words: ““Critical self-reflection and participatory, recuperative action is required if we are to remain relevant to the changing audiences seeking connection to art.” What? Would you buy a car from a salesman who speaks like that?

To become a docent, the volunteer is “engaged in eighteen months of twice-a-week training to qualify as a docent, five years of continual research and writing to meet the criteria of 13 museum content areas, and monthly and bi-weekly trainings to further educate ourselves with the materials, processes and cultural context” of the Art Institute’s collection. Clearly this type of knowledge and dedication must be stopped. And what will Ms. Stein do to replace these women with all their expertise? Well, nothing at the current time, but I am sure with her obviously brilliant management expertise, she shall be able to produce a solution in no time.

Once again, political correctness leads to a lowering of standards and to ignorance.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/indecency-art-institute-of-chicago-docents-diversity-firing-11634310172?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

The world, and the United States in particular has done much to protect our environment. Yet, the nature of mankind is to move forward, and we often find that our own laws and regulations which are designed to protect our environment hinder our natural desire to grown. How do we balance protection vs. growth? The link below provides some examples of the imbalance that can occur with the best of intentions. It should not take years, often up to a decade, tens of thousands of pages and many lawsuits to achieve balance. Unfettered grown can be a blight for all of us, but laws which increase the costs of progress many times delay growth and can lead to even greater environmental problems. Congress, even a split Congress should be able to act to solve the problems, but those who oppose change, including the Federal bureaucracy itself must be challenged. Obstruction is not free and the ones who ultimately pay are the taxpayers themselves who receive smaller benefits at a greater cost.

https://www.city-journal.org/when-environmental-regulations-backfire

The linked article provides, and embedded videos provide excellent examples of the pros and cons of each side. Be sure to spend time on the video with Jordan Peterson at the University of Toronto as he presents his case vs. two opponents who come at him from two different angles.

Peterson rise to wide social prominence during the discussions in Canada regarding C-16, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding “gender identity or expression” as a prohibited ground of discrimination. It also extended hate speech laws to include these two terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” and made it a hate crime to target someone for being transgender, publicly inciting hatred or advocating genocide. The question during debate, is the definition of “hate speech;” is disagreement in speech a right of free speech or can it be interpreted as “hate speech”? For example, can a woman be charged with hate speech if she objects to a trans individual using the same changing or rest room? Can a male inmate who “identifies” as a woman demand to be housed in a female prison and can female inmates who object be charged with a hate crime?

If you are not conversant with this subject, be prepared!

https://quillette.com/2021/09/21/the-progressive-case-for-renouncing-gender-extremism-last-of-a-three-part-series/