Loud Noise at City Parks – Pro and Con

Can we agree on anything anymore? I often like to walk through Tower Grove Park, close to my house in St. Louis. On many evenings I like sit on a park bench and read and write. I've found it increasingly annoying that so many loud vehicles/motorcycles cruise through the park (some loud enough that you can hear their engines growling 1/2 mile away). Every night or two, somebody parks their vehicle, near a beautiful pond and garden area, opens their windows and blasts their music loud enough that you can hear it thumping 1/4 mile away. I see these two things as problems, so I called the park office and asked what we can do about this. I was told we can't do anything about the loud car engines, but I was given the park ranger's phone number in case someone "is playing their music very loud" or "blaring" their music.

I shared my concern on the Nextdoor.com website for my neighborhood and ten neighbors promptly "liked" the post. But I also received a long comment (liked by six people) who reminded me that it is a "public park," calling me "passive aggressive," suggesting that I am over-wrought and needing meditation and suggesting that I avoid the park during popular times. Ergo, we have two factions re loud park noise: Pro and Con.

Continue ReadingLoud Noise at City Parks – Pro and Con

The United States is Dictating to Facebook What We Can Say to Each Other

The U.S. government is providing a handy new service for us. We no longer need to worry about what to say and think! It is well-established, however, that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing private companies to censor.

I would like to think that the ACLU will file suit tomorrow to crush this obvious violation of the First Amendment, but I have no confidence that that will happen. And beware: Censorship is a potent narcotic that is difficult for governments to quit. Republicans are undoubtedly licking their chops now, waiting for their chance.

Continue ReadingThe United States is Dictating to Facebook What We Can Say to Each Other

Ed Snowden Talks Shop with Daniel Ellsberg

Ed Snowden invited Daniel Ellsberg to have a conversation. These two men who are heroes to me (and to each other), discuss the importance of whistle-blowers, free speech and the war powers of the United States. Ellsberg points out (at min 8) that he did not disclose the Pentagon Papers because the government was lying or because the Vietnam war wasn't winnable. Almost everyone knew these things at that time. He did it because the war was "wrong" and it was "getting bigger," at a time where Nixon knew that he might be drawing the Chinese into the war and he was considering the use of nuclear weapons.

At minute 12, Ed Snowden explains that he acted not because he was against spying (though he was against spying), but because the government was acting outside of the knowledge and control of the People. The government was reinterpreting the Constitution outside of the knowledge of the People (and outside of the knowledge of most members of Congress) in a "secret rubber-stamp court." The People were no longer "partner" with the government, but "subjects" of the government. Snowden continued, from Bush to Obama to Trump, "the government is becoming less accountable to the People, and the people are becoming more accountable to the government."

Continue ReadingEd Snowden Talks Shop with Daniel Ellsberg

Why We Need to Re-Teach the Importance of Free Speech to Each Generation

Jonathan Rauch, author of The Constitution of Knowledge, discussing free speech with Andrew Sullivan:

Books like mine, I hope, and work like yours [Sullivan's], will sound the alarm and show the way out, show that our arguments are strong, that pluralism is really the only path to a peaceful, productive and knowledgeable society. What the purists have to argue is only eternal warfare, in which arguments are not resolved. And the casualties are either physical human bodies, or ostracism, or ignorance, or chilling.

Even if we don't win that argument right now, I keep pointing out to people: Remember the notions of free speech and free thought and all the rigors of science? These things are profoundly counterintuitive. The idea that speech is blasphemous, heretical, wrongheaded, offensive--add your adjectives--that speech is like that? That ideas like that should not only be allowed, but affirmatively protected, is the strangest and weirdest, and probably the craziest social idea that was ever invented. And it's only rescued by the fact that it's also the most successful social idea that was ever invented by a country mile. I would argue that it put an end to the creed wars. It gave us knowledge. It gave us finally some peace. And the result of that counter-intuitiveness is that you and I and our children, metaphorically, and our grandchildren and their grandchildren, will have to get up every morning and defend these ideas from scratch against a new generation that, for whatever new reason, emotional safety-ism or critical race theory or something else, that they don't get it. And we just have to be cheerful about that because, historically speaking, we've done incredibly well for about two and a half centuries. This is a template in the history of the human species.

Continue ReadingWhy We Need to Re-Teach the Importance of Free Speech to Each Generation

Carl Sagan’s 1997 Prediction

In 1997, Carl Sagan wrote the following in "The Demon Haunted World":

Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren's time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance. As I write, the number-one videocassette rental in America is the movie Dumb and Dumber. “Beavis and Butthead” remain popular (and influential) with young TV viewers. The plain lesson is that study and learning—not just of science, but of anything—are avoidable, even undesirable.

We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements—transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting—profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

Continue ReadingCarl Sagan’s 1997 Prediction