December 4

 I often feel like events are whirling around but nothing is really happening. For all the furor over George Santos, the politics haven't changed--it is still deadlocked. The Middle East is still deadlocked in a deadly confrontation between Hamas and Israel. And it is splitting the US into pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian camps both unwilling to admit the other side might have legitimate grievances. The Former Guy was handed two new decisions that confirm he doesn't have immunity from prosecution because of his status as a former president. But the cases continue and his lawyers continue to delay, and delay, and delay ad infinitum.

I found this opinion piece by Kieth Magee on CNN interesting. We don't really listen to the other side and too many of us are unwilling to "agree to disagree." Nor are some of us willing to let others make moral choices if those choices are what they would decide. And all too many think "there oughta be a law" which would take the issue out of the realm of morality. The question of what anyone would vote for or against The Former Guy (or, for that matter, why one would vote for The Other Guy) is by far a simpler question. 

NPR reports that the medical establishment, or rather some doctors, are moving away from aggressive suggestions that patients lose weight when ever a patient consults them whether the condition is directly related to the problem the patient wants addressed. The basic problem though is that patients don't feel doctors actually listen to them. My mother had the same complaint when she went to a doctor to deal with her shingles case. The doctor quickly moved away from the shingles, for which there is no cure and only treatment to ease the symptoms, and to a search for something to treat. Mom hasn't gone back. I have heard similar stories from others, all women. Even when the doctor is a woman. As with the last paragraph, listening, really listening, would be an excellent change.

It is amazing how people can't say something with which a sizable portion of vocal people don't agree without vicious responses. There was a report that actors who expressed either support for Palestinians or disapproval of Israel suddenly found themselves without jobs because of that political sin. Another example is the response to the man, an oil executive with the Abu Dhabi state oil company, who is running the COP28 conference who said that he didn't see any science behind the notion that phasing out fossil fuels would keep global temperatures below 1.5degrees above pre-industrial levels. He has now "walked back" his statement after an intense push back. I wonder, though, how right (or wrong) he might have been in his original statement. If we phased out fossil fuels, will it result in stop the rise in global temperatures? How quickly would we have to phase to phase out the use of fossil fuels? I have seen reports that say the greenhouse gases we have already released will keep increasing global temperatures for a long time even if we stopped using fossil fuels today. The proponents of phasing out fossil fuels, if not a total elimination, have their eyes on a single goal: stopping global temperatures from rising. They don't seem to have considered the possible negative impacts--and those will be considerable.

However, a healthy discussion (or debate) requires the expression of various ideas, even those many of us might not like. Right now there is no side of any debate which goes along with the notion (I forget who first expressed it)  "I don't agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It is called "freedom of speech." So long as the speech doesn't further crimes or immediately and serious harm, we should tolerate it.