20 Burst results for "Oliver Wendell Holmes"
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on The Argument
"Another possible reform that people have been discussing. And that is the addition of term limits. I'm interested first to hear from you Russ feingold as to term limits as a possibility and what could be the good side of term limits for the Supreme Court. I have come to the conclusion that there's something really untoward about the way the court is operating now where individual justices living far longer than the founders would have ever anticipated. End up crossing generations in terms of being on the court. Now, this can be a good thing on occasion, occasionally people would talk about this. Say, look, Oliver Wendell Holmes served on the Supreme Court till he was 90. But the truth is, this isn't about the ideology or the outcomes. This is about what's happening with people on the court. You have somebody like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who's in terrible physical condition, feeling that she has to hang on, hoping for a certain political outcome to determine who would succeed her on the court. This is not a good thing. In terms of the court and in terms of our system, not to mention her own family. And then you have the reverse. It's going on now. Justice Breyer and excellent justice. You know, frankly being pressured by progressives to quit so that President Biden can replace him. I don't think that's a good phenomenon either. And it has to do with the fact that people are encouraged now in the court to sort of game this in terms of elections. So if you had set terms, I think that you could have a situation that would be better, more predictable. And people would see it as fundamentally fair if everybody had to live by that 18 year limit. And by the way, those individuals could continue to serve as senior justices potentially. They could serve on the courts of appeal. They don't have to go out in the job market. And I would just add that, I wouldn't really worry about the justices getting jobs after their justices. I think they're in pretty good shape. I know Russ Miller, you are currently working a lot with German attorneys. And under German constitutional law, there is a term limit of 12 years. What are the drawbacks of term limits in your view? I mean, I keep thinking about the stories of thurgood Marshall basically watching soap operas towards the end of his life while his clerks did a lot of work. And I stand thurgood Marshall to be clear. But there is something about the fact that you have these big decisions being made by people who are 85 years old and basically untouchable. So what are the drawbacks term limits? Because I could definitely see some good arguments for them. Yeah, this is one of the reforms that I don't find as objectionable say as the proposals for court packing. It seems likely the most direct path would be a constitutional amendment. And that is, of course, again, almost impossible. Having said all of that, and I'm glad that you mentioned the practice in Germany, it's true that the apex court there, the constitutional court in Germany, has 12 year terms of service for its justices, if we have term limits, we should expect to see considerable turnover regular and persistent turnover. At the court. And I've already said that one of my main concerns about all of these discussions for reform is that we not sacrifice or compromise stability and predictability in the law. That is, if precedent is somewhat more malleable and constitutional contexts, one of the bulwarks against changing it is to have the same long serving justices at the court. But if we're turning over justices regularly, then we would be inviting reconsideration of this malleable precedent and constitutional context. That's a concern of mine. We're inviting considerable change and dynamism. At the risk of stability and predictability, values, justice values of predictability and stability. And just to clarify, the reading I've done on the proposal for term limits, specifically a bill introduced by the Democrats, it would create 18 year Supreme Court term limits, but it would not apply retroactively as in the justices who were on the court now would still get lifetime appointments. And they also would require the Senate to act on nominations within a 120 days before the nomination is automatically suited. But Russ feingold, what about appointing a set number of judges every four years that every president knows that they get two judges or four judges? I think that has a lot of merit to it. I think that the idea that people say, well, people are going to vote on the basis of who the president is going to appoint. Well, who do they think they're voting? How they're voting now. This was this has been driving the elections in a haphazard way, but what's thrown into the mix is sort of gaming who's the sickest member of the court, who's the oldest member of the court, and all these untoward things. It should be a regular process where everybody knows that every president gets some changes, but we don't want to get to the point as a professor correctly points out that there's so many changes and so much of this that you lose any kind of continuity in the court. The goal here is to create reasonable regular opportunities without going too far and undercutting the continuity of the court. I think the problem with that is that, of course, you're going to be exponentially increasing the number of incidences in which this intense process intensely politicized process for selecting and advising and consenting on the nominations. When that political circuits around appointments takes place, we're going to be exponentially increasing the incidences of this. And we've got three under Trump in one term. This would only be two. But the proposal that Jane offered was four per presidency. Let's just get weird. I think that's too much. I agree with you. Increase the incidence of one of the processes that the senator finds very problematic. Now, in its current operation. But problematic as a source of the delegitimizing politicization or partisanship at the court. In some sense, we're saying we're going to fix that by inviting more of those
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"You can persuade him to fight with you. We got to get to the next question. Thank you. I'm sorry. We'll take two or three more, okay? Okay. Hi, Charlie. I'm a big fan. But also, my question is, so I was blessed to have an aunt who had special needs who enriched my life in so many ways, and it's upsetting to hear politicians and influencers who are using people with disabilities as justification for abortion. So what is your response when people don't have the humanity to see the light these individuals can be into the world? It's such a beautiful question. Thank you. So there was a clip on CNN with Anna Navarro where she said, we need abortion because having special needs people can be expensive and can be terrible. And so or can be very difficult. So it goes back to the question of what is right? How should you design society? Well, the strong need to protect the weak that you don't discard a human being because maybe they don't talk as fast as you do. Or maybe because they're not as tall as you or maybe because you can walk and they can't. You know, in Iceland, they have completely eradicated the country of down syndrome. I had the same reaction you did. I thought it was disgusting. They didn't eradicate it through some sort of scientific innovation. They didn't eradicate it through better nutrition. They eradicated through pre fetal tests through pre field blood testing. Where that if you have a baby that is shown to have down syndrome, you must get an abortion. Period. And that's coming here. So the question is, what is a human being? Is it worthy and necessary of protection? And here's why Christianity is so important and why no civilization will ever be able to have the success or have the moral center that America had because we're founded on Christian values, which is it's very simple. What is a human being? The human being is an accidental clump of cells that evolved over a couple million years. Then yeah, just discard the people that aren't as smart. What's the argument against it? Everyone developed because they're an accident, right? You're just here because of a roll of dice, but if you believe human beings are designed and made and have a soul and not just a bunch of chemicals running to their body, then all of a sudden you have a totally different way of viewing humanity. And a different view of how you organize your state, your government, and how you yourself conduct yourself. And so it's very simple for us. We find that to be reprehensible and disgusting. Others did not. Oliver Wendell Holmes, who's actually revered by the American left, argued for mass sterilization of women, what he called idiot women in the 1920s. We sterilized tens of thousands of women. Actually, some Native American and Latino communities in the 1960s had mass sterilization of women because they were considered to be not cured. Done mostly, by the way, by radical leftists and eugenicists. So eugenics is nothing new. But a question needs to be asked to the American left, which is who's your God? They believe Darwin is their God. They believe the survival of the fittest, that the strong have a moral obligation to crush the weak, let nature play itself out. We say, no, no, no, no. We as human beings must resist the impulse or the temptation to ever try to crush people that might not have the same gifts that we do. And so it comes right front and center with the moral argument. They want abortion for convenience. We want life because it's the right thing and it's the moral thing. And I just want to say one final thing, which is we need to respond publicly and aggressively of how sick these people are to say they want to terminate people just because they have special needs. These people are sick. Period. How old are you? I'm 15. 15. Great question. I'm glad to see you here..
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"10% and get free shipping. Mag breakthrough dot com slash Kirk, check it out right now. In the west, based on judeo Christian values and principles, we believe that the strong must protect the weak, the big must protect the small. We take this for granted. You see in the 1920s and 1930s, there was a massive eugenics movement in America. It was led by people such as Margaret Sanger and many others, eugenics basically comes from a Greek word, you, which means good or well, and gen X obviously, which means genes grown into being from the beginning. It's a set of beliefs or practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a specific human population. Now, America didn't just dabble in this, we went full throated into it. We massively sterilized tens of thousands of women in the 1920s, that we called idiot women. Oliver Wendell Holmes Supreme Court Justice wrote extensively about the moral need to sterilize women that IQ is too low. So eugenics is set on a belief of practices trying to kill or trying to get rid of people that are less than. Now because of a religious revival in our country and an awakening, we decided this was wrong inappropriate and immoral at every single turn. We were trying to attack the Nazis, the national socialist Workers Party for doing eugenics. When in reality, the Nazis actually got some of their ideas of eugenics from Margaret Sanger in Oliver Wendell Holmes..
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on WLS-AM 890
"Is not the law. Here, you need proof. That tip great Rush Limbaugh. Paper flip. Here's the Atlantic, a left leaning outlet. We've used this article many times before, Jim brought it up again today. It's a left leaning outlet. It's time to stop using the fire in a crowded theater quote. Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago. You idiot. I'm 47. When I was 7, this was overturned. I don't know how old vocal is. 40, 50, 60. I don't care. I don't ask women their ages. But there was overturned 40 years ago. And it was a comment that's not the law. Here, despite the crowded theater quotes, legal, irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as the final word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rodman wrote for this reason, it's worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech when used metaphorically. It can be deployed against any unpopular speech. Worse, it's advocates or tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the court. It's quite simply is Ken white calls it the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialog about free speech. It was overturned by the Brandenburg decision, which was crystal clear. That the speech is not to be regulated, unless it is inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. There is no such law about fire in a movie theater. Oh my gosh. What was the second part? It was another part. I got so lost in the stupid. What was the other part about this is the second part. Then I'm going to have to play it again on the other side of the break because I don't want to miss it. I'm really sorry liberals. You keep buying into the stupid all the time. Really? Like, I can tell you the truth, right? Tell you the truth. There are downsides to the exercise of any God given right, because we live in a fallible world. People are going to use and abuse speech. They're going to use an abused assembly to do really nasty things. They're going to use and abuse the right to self protection. But taking away those rights is a far greater consequence. So left can't tell you the same. They just why do you all the time? I'll get to the second part of that if the break will be right
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on Leading Saints Podcast
"Help. But I think I hear you saying there is often times when we complain about the way things are, we're looking to the church to change. And you're kind of saying first, look at yourself. There are things you can do to take responsibility for your experience, whether it's in the church or in life with your finances with your health, with your spirituality, there are things you can do to own your own experience and become converted. And then the other issues that you might have had, they might actually not become or be issues anymore at that point. You know, the gospel is so simple. It's really just two things. The savior already worked out the immortality part of God's purposes. The internal life part has really only two key components. For me to be changed in my heart, sanctified her meat we seal in my generations. Saint divine and sealed. That's the whole class. Well, there actually is a third part. To help other people become sanctified and sealed. Yeah, I did the same process. That's all there is. Yeah. I want to just one more thing that other corners brought up here that I think is useful for our audience. The idea that as an area presidency, you did so much thinking that you could develop a 52 page document. But then you continued to do so much thinking that you could reduce that to two meaningful words or mantras. I think that's an incredible lesson in and of itself. Yeah. You know, this is the famous quote from the American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, who is reported to have said that he would give nothing for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but that he would give his life for the simplicity on the other side, a complexity. Yeah. I love that. That's powerful. And was that the typical process with different area plans you're evolved in. They're just started really bloated, and then you had to skim them down. Well, part of it depended on what they wanted. How many financial plans and how many building projects and how many specific demographic statistics did they want? Yeah. But they came to ask for those in a different format and ask for the area plan to be something for the members. So the format team. And I'm curious, I tend to go on these tangents. But being in a state presidency and being handed this area plan, according to council, and sort of this feeling of like, all right, here it is, but I didn't witness the development of it and so it's sort of hard to maybe digest it in the moment, or sit with it. What general vice would you give when it comes to area plans for leaders and in specific areas? And let's not talk just about area plans at about plans for stakes and wards. Forums and classes and families and businesses and mega corporations and international operations. The process is the same. The question is, what is your purpose? What is your process? How are your people and what are your fundamental principles? If you're clear about what your process, your purpose is, if you're clear about what processes are appropriate, you know who the people are. You must know your people. And then you apply the principles in consistent, credible, defensible ways, add a little creativity, a little prayer, a whole lot of counseling together, you're likely to succeed. Yeah. Yeah, that's really helpful. I'm curious, you know, not a lot of people get the opportunity to serve as bishop once, and you have the opportunity to three times I assume with a lot of your traveling with medical school and medical practice and whatnot. That was just the nature of your experience. But what have you learned about that role as bishop being in that role three times? Well, there's some fundamental principles about leadership that may be useful to mention. I'm going to name 6, so we can talk about them in any order or not at all, but I think that there are 6 key principles that have stood out to me. And that goes not only for leadership in the church, but maybe leadership in a corporate setting in an academic setting. The first principle is keep the wheels on and the train's running. Particularly when you become a new leader. The second principle is, don't do dumb things. I love it. The third principle is, it's not about you. The fourth principle is, take care of your people. The 5th is mind the dollars, which applies even in the church. And finally, is nurture, purpose and joy. So, those are key things I've learned that are set out to me. Awesome. Is it useful to talk about it? Yeah, let's jump into number one here. Keep the wheels on and the trains running. You know, we perpetuate the image of the ideal leader. As one who's bold, creative, innovative and charismatic. This moves nearly appointed leaders to completely overhaul the leadership team or to reassess the fundamental mission and purposes of the organization to change the core policies and procedures. Rarely, is it appropriate to make any substantive changes in an organization for the first few months? It may be much wider to spend those initial months encouraging your people. Endorsing the institution its purposes and praising their performance and their products. Learn who everyone respects. Who builds unity among the people, and who makes sure that things get done right. By the way, those people are often not in leadership positions. Sometimes it's the secretaries. Invite corrections and suggestions including about yourself as a leader. Keep the organization moving forward while you learn the ropes. Value the successes and learn from the failures or predecessors. Before you start making a lot of changes, it just isn't possible that everyone was doing everything wrong all the time before you came along. I love that. If I could ask a follow-up question, one of the things that's most provocative in there to me is this idea getting to know the people and spending even an inordinate amount of time of getting to know them and you mentioned that you said, you know, you said purpose process, principles, but when you talked about people earlier, you really emphasize that. What does that look like for a newly called elders quorum president, relief society president, bishopric member? What does it look like to really get to know their people? Let me jump to this concept of taking care of your people in general. Awesome. You'll never really have their hearts. If they don't believe you've got their banks. So know your people. Learn and remember their names, and as much about them as you can as quickly as you can. If you can, print out a photo directory and spend time memorizing their names and faces and call them by name. Establish salary and promotion policies that are transparent fair and motivating in unemployed setting. And then try to find ways to help everyone meet their targets. If each of your employees is succeeding individually, they'll see to it that your enterprise succeeds collectively. This is especially true in the church where it's not an employed setting. But it's not enough for a person to accept a calling. The organization head who supports them, and the bishop himself should watch carefully to make sure that all that needed support is provided so the person thrives in the calling and enjoys it. If each person who serves finds joy and fulfillment in their service, the word will run well. Turn over in colleagues will be minimal. There will be a feeling of shared purpose and progress among the members. This is especially important for the less active. The needing, those with challenges in their lives. And those who feel excluded, they have to be closely ministered to a nurtured. Now, the problem is that when you stand up and talk a second meeting, you're talking to people who came to Sacramento. Yeah. So we preached how to improve yourself to the people who need least to improve themselves. It's not just that we preach to the choir. We almost only preach to the choir. A great key to doing though that though is that it needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't consume the bishop. If that attentive minister is done at the levels closest to the person, meaning their family members, their ministering brothers and sisters, and organization leaders. Many more people get involved and blessed, and a feeling of love and unity will permeate the word. Everyone feel like they matter because they see that everybody else matters too. It's been wisely said that the key to the 99 is the one when the people in the ward invest their energy.
The History of the Supreme Court Justifies Opinions Against Forced Medicine
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough declared the supreme court in buck versus bell decision of nineteen twenty seven. I'm reading from timeline. Dot com quote. It is better for all the world. If instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecilities society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. That decision was written by oliver wendell. Holmes and forced sterilization became fully legal in the united states. The case came at the height of popularity for the pseudo sciences of eugenics which maintained that negative character traits like criminality and stupidity or the entirely the product of bad genes. The court decision that set the precedent for intervention on the sterilization of women was the jacobson v massachusetts thankfully. Many decades later there was a lawsuit that included deloris madrigal. Who is the lead plaintiff in the nineteen seventy-eight case which brought suit against la county's usc medical center birds nonconsensual sterilization of mexican american women in the nineteen sixties and seventies. It would make sense. Why certain communities are apprehensive of the government forcibly putting medicine on you.
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on Harvard Classics
"Poems by oliver wendell holmes the chambered nautilus this is the ship of pearl which poets fain sales the une shadowed main ventures bark that flings on the sweet summer wind it's purple wings engulfs enchanted where the siren sings and coral reefs. Lie bear where the cold sea maids rise to some they're streaming hair it's webs of living gods no more unfurled wreck does the ship of pearl and every chambered cell where it's dim dreaming. Life was want to dwell as the frail tenant shaped his growing shell before the lies revealed. Its iris ceiling rent it. Sunless crypt unsealed year after year. Beheld the silent toil that spread his lustrous coil still as the spiral grew. He left the past years dwelling for the new stole with soft step. It's shining archway through build up. Its idle door stretched in his last found home and knew the old no more. Thanks for the heavenly message. Brought by the child of the wandering see cast from her lap forlorn from the dead lips clearer. Note as born than ever tried and blue from read horn while on mine eared rings through the deep caves of thought. I hear a voice that sings. Bill de more stately mansions. Oh my soul. As the swift seasons roll leave die. Low vaulted past let each new temple nobler than the last shut the from heaven with a dome more vast till dow at length art free leaving dine outgrown shell by life's on resting see old ironsides a tear. Her tattered and down long has it waved on high and many and i has danced to see that banner in the sky beneath it. Run the battle shout and burst the cannon's roar. The meteor of the ocean air shall sweep the clouds no more her deck once red with heroes blood where knelt the vanquished foe when winds were hurrying or the flood waves were white below. No more shall fill the victors tread or know the conquered ni the harpies of the shore shall pluck the eagle of the c o better that her shattered hawk should sink beneath the wave. Her thunder shook the mighty deep. And there be her grave nail to the master holy flag set every threadbare sail and give her to the god of storms the lightning and the gail the last leaf. I saw him once before as he passed by the door and again the pavement stones resound as he totters or the ground with his cane. They say that in his prime air the pruning knife of time cut him down. Not a better man was found by the crier on his round through the town but now he walks the streets and he looks at all he meets said in one and shakes his feeble head that it seems as if he said they are gone. The musi marbles rest on the lips that he has pressed in their bloom and the names he loved to hear have been carved for many a year on the tomb. My grand has said poor old lady. She is dead long ago that he had a roman nose and his cheek was like a rose in the snow but now his thin and it rests upon his chin like a staff and a crook is in his back and melancholy crack in his laugh. I know it is a sin for me to sit and grin at him here but the old three cornered hat and the breaches and all that are so clear. And if i should live to be the last leaf upon the tree in the spring let them smile as i do now at the old foresaken bow where i clean contentment. Little i asked my wants are few. I only wish ahead of stone. A very plain brownstone will do that. I may call my own and close at hand as such a one in yonder street that fronts the sun. Plain food is quite enough for me. Three courses are as good as ten if nature can subsist on three. Thank heaven for three. Amen i always thought vittal nice. My choice would be vanilla ice. I care not much for gold or land. Give me a mortgage here and there. Some good bank stock some note of hand or trifling railroad share. I only ask that fortune. Send a little more than i shall spend. Honors are silly toys. I know and titles are but empty names. I would perhaps be plenty po but only near saint james. I'm very sure. I should not care to fill our guber nader's chair jewels are baubles. Tis ascend to care for such unfruitful things. One good sized diamond in a pin some not so large in rings a ruby and perl or so. We'll do for me. i laugh at show. My dame should dress in cheap attire. Good heavy silks are never dear. I own perhaps. I might desire some shelves of true kashmir some merrily crepes of china silk like wrinkled skins on scalded milk. I would not have the horse. I drive so fast that folks must stop and stare and easy gate to forty five suits me. I do not care. perhaps for just a single spurt. Some seconds less would do no hurt of pictures. I should like to own titians and raphael's three or four. I love so much their style and tone one turner and no more a landscape foreground golden dirt the sunshine painted with a squirt of books but few some fifty score for daily use and bound for where the rest upon an upper floor. Some little luxury. There have read morocco's gilded gleam and belem richest country cream busts cameos gems such things as these which others often show for pride i value for their power to please and selfish charles deride one stratovarius i confess to mir shams i would fain possess wealth wasteful tricks i will not learn nor eight. The glittering upstart fool shall not carve table serve my turn but all must be of bull give grasping pomp. It's double share. I asked but one recumbent chair..
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM
"Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes appointed by Republican nonetheless, a so called progressive He writes in the decision. Buck vs Bell. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the fallopian tubes. Three generations of in Brussels are enough. And back opened the floodgates by 1938 total of 24 states were involved in involuntary sterilization. This is why some people fear the paragraph mark that would never happen again, Folks. That was in the 19 twenties and thirties. At the beginning of the Covid 19 pandemic estates. They should lockdown orders that closed businesses and prohibit a large gathering Several judges justified. Those restrictions based on Jacobson vs Massachusetts Since it was the most recent decision explicitly addressing state powers during disease epidemic, even if it was 115 years old. But in a reversal, the U. S Supreme Court ruled in 2020 against broadly applying the logic of Jacobson to all covid 19 lockdown restrictions, and Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn. Versus Andrew Coma, the court decided the state of New York violated the constitutional rights of citizens wanted to safely gathering churches and synagogues during the pandemic. The reasoning was the lockdown laws barred religious gatherings altogether while still allowing secular business to operate at limited capacity. His vaccines against Covid 19 became readily available across the U. S. Employers, including government agencies, hospitals and so forth started to mandate the shots of employees. That followed a joint statement from a major medical group encouraging the policy. Now this is where we are, You see, because One of the arguments that is assumed can be made. Will be that Joe Biden has the Southern border open illegal aliens coming into the country. Do not have to be tested do not have to be vaccinated, even people coming in from Afghanistan. Do not have to be vaccinated so people are coming into the country, potentially spreading the virus. While Joe Biden Is putting the arm On private businesses and so forth, and the question is going to be if he actually has the statutory authority. He's using an OSHA regulation. He doesn't have a straight up statute. He's using an OSHA OSHA regularly. So there are a lot of questions that will be raised. The problem is, we have a lot of results oriented justices and judges below them..
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, appointed by Republican nonetheless, a so called progressive He writes in the decision. Buck vs Bell. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. And back opened the floodgates by 1930. A total of 24 states were involved in involuntary sterilization. This is why some people fear the power grid mark that would never happen again, Folks. It was in the 19 twenties and thirties. At the beginning of the Covid 19 pandemic estates. They should lockdown orders that close businesses and prohibit a large gathering Several judges justified. Those restrictions based on Jacobson vs Massachusetts Since it was the most recent decision explicitly addressing state powers during disease epidemic, even if it was 115 years old. But in a reversal, the U. S Supreme Court ruled in 2020 against broadly applying the logic of Jacobson to all covid 19 lockdown restrictions in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn. Versus Andrew Coma, the court decided the state of New York violated the constitutional rights of citizens wanted to safely gathering churches and synagogues during the pandemic. The reasoning was the lockdown laws barred religious gatherings altogether while still allowing secular business to operate at limited capacity. Vaccines against Covid 19 became readily available across the U. S. Employers, including government agencies, hospitals and so forth started to mandate the shots and employees. That followed a joint statement from a major medical group encouraging the policy. Now this is where we are, You see, because One of the arguments that is assumed can be made. Will be that Joe Biden has the Southern border open illegal aliens coming into the country. Do not have to be tested do not have to be vaccinated, even people coming in from Afghanistan. Do not have to be vaccinated, so people are coming into the country potentially spreading. The virus. While Joe Biden Is putting the arm Private businesses and so forth, and the question is going to be if he actually has the statutory authority. He's using an OSHA regulation. He doesn't have a straight up statute. He's using an.
Press Secretary Jen Psaki Confirms That Biden Is Colluding With Tech Giants
"You know what? Let me play Jen Psaki. First we'll play a little bit of peppermint Patty here and her just really stunning words from the lecture and I can't believe she said this and didn't no one in the White House caught it. She said this about the government's efforts now to work with Facebook, a supposedly air quotes, private company to track and flag free speech on the site. Check this out. This is a big issue of misinformation specifically on the pandemic. In terms of actions, Alex that we have taken our we're working to take. I should say from the federal government, we've increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon general's office. We're flogging problematic post for Facebook that spread this information. We're working with doctors and medical professionals to connect to connected medical experts with popular with popular who are popular with their audiences with with accurate information and boost Trusted content, so we're helping get trusted content out there. You believe this? You believe what she just said? Well, do you understand that? How bad of a screw up a tactical mistake. This was why Folks. There's long precedent in the Supreme Court. Another federal courts as well. The appellate circuit level There's a long precedent establishing the fact that the government obviously because of the bill of rights and freedom of speech cannot quell free speech outside of very limited conditions. Everybody gets that right. You're frequently here. If you say fire in a movie theater, by the way, your band and muted instantly from any social media feed. I have, you know, you know the well. The government can stop free speech. You know, fire in a movie, too. There's no fire in a movie theater. It was an Oliver Wendell Holmes thing that cases since been tossed that that's not the standard. That's not this and stop saying that that's a leftist thing because they do no homework at all.
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on On Being with Krista Tippett
"In right because for them. It's it's very much so like. Why are we complicating this conversation right. Like let's figure out whatever the shortest distance between ambi straight lines. So let's do the straight line way and say here's what you could do. Stop being racist right. Now it's on you to figure out what that means but that's the answer. Oliver wendell holmes the simplicity that lies on the other side of complexity. That's what i'm searching for. What i'm trying to to push for. Just step out your neighborhood. Just talk to somebody different because we underestimate with this does for the mind. that's all. We underestimate what it does for the imagination and as long as those imaginations are firing often their libraries will continue to be filled. Somebody told me at that same lecture. It cuts off when you watch them on the internet but at the same lecture when we got to the pipe a woman stood up and she said if you've ever been to senegal and i said no she said do you know any senegalese people i said i do and she said you should ask them about what what they say. Whenever an elder has died in the community. And i said what do they say. They say that a library has burned now. I didn't know this right but isn't that something. Yeah a has burned so in the year. Twenty twenty before twenty twenty became twenty twenty. You publish this book with abram x. Candy called stamped racism anti-racism and you it is a you. Call it a remix of of his book stamped from the beginning. When did this book actually get published. Merging was march. Oh my god really the week of the lockdown in the exact. We were on tour. So i think like following on what we've just been talking about. This book is about ideas. But it's about what has formed our imaginations correct which has formed our lives which has formed are symbols which is formed the way we in granular ways structure and organize our life together. Absolutely i mean this book is it's interesting. No one's ever talked about it that way. Good on you krista. No one's ever talked about it that way. I think i think you know. Usually people talk about well. This is the history of thing right and it is but that history is birth out of the imagination right. It literally was conjured up. We're talking about like this is. This is how imagination is so powerful that it could set forth four hundred five hundred years of something wrong which means that it very well could set forth four hundred or five hundred years of something right. That's the beauty of humanity. James boy famous ball quote and he has a gazillion. Obviously but my favorite bombing quotas the interior life is the real life right. The interior life is the real life and the intangible dreams of a person may have tangible effects on the world right like it basically saying what one can imagine internally one can think about. Nobody knows when nobody's around. One secrets could shift human life. What an amazing thing to think about and my role even with stamping and remixing and the reason we call it a remix because it's not like a why adaptation. Because i actually wrote the entire book i wanted it we we he and i both wanted to figure out how we could tap into the imagination of young people and when it comes to books around ray so when it comes to history books Usually they are presented to students that humans Right right that's a great distinction. And i think we wanted to make something the first of its kind. Something that was literally made thinking about a twelve year old or fourteen year old or sixteen year. Old what they would want to read and how to engage them so that they actually can Store new language new lexicon vocabulary newt new histories. In in their personal libraries after a short break more with jason reynolds support for on being with krista tippett comes from the fetzer institute helping build the spiritual foundation for a loving world veterans new study. What does spirituality mean to us. Reveal spirituality informs our understanding of ourselves and each other and inspires us to take action for.
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on WBUR
"Edition. Hey, I'm lot of Nasser this radio lab, and today we've been talking about talking talking about who ought to be allowed to say what it could be The freedom of speech before the break. We told the story of how are say Almost anything approach to free speech came mostly from a single Supreme Court opinion. A dissenting opinion no less written by Oliver Wendell Holmes. That was talking about talking. Now we're going to shift gears. We're gonna be arguing about arguing. This is a live debate that our sisters show more perfect held back in 2017, and it gets pretty spirited. Take a listen so before we got into it I took a poll of the audience everybody who thinks that your right to free speech, especially online, Okay, people say some bad things fine. But you're right to free speech should remain pretty much unlimited. Those of you who feel that way, make some noise. All right. You guys are you guys are thunderous over here. Let's do let's do 11 more time. So I can just get a sort of more accurate as those of you who don't think should be limited. Go. Okay, Now those of you on the flip side, those of you think there should be some clear hard limits. Easy, easy. Those of you think there should be some clear limits on what you can say online make some noise. All right. Okay, that gives us a good sense of where we're starting. All right. So let's introduce our debaters for around one. The question is, Should the government limit online free speech Taking one side of that question is Mr Elie missed Al Our legal editor at more perfect, also an editor above law, a site for legal news. He is on one side of the stage and of the question on the other, Mr Ken White. First Amendment litigator, criminal defense attorney at Brown, White and Osborne in Los Angeles. He has joined us here from the left Coast. He's a former federal prosecutor. He runs the free speech and criminal justice blog. Pope at dot com. Give it up for Ken. Just give me all right? Let us begin. We'll start with you, Ellie. Uh, Is there something wrong with the First Amendment? Would you say no, I don't have a problem with the First Amendment. It was a beautiful thing written for white people who wanted to overthrow the government. It's fine. I have a problem with absolutists who want to elevate threats, harassment and calls for genocide to the level of a sacred, right. I do not think that the first Amendment prohibits us from preventing a Nazi from getting a permit to rally any more than I would think that the second Amendment prevents us from having a sociopath not get a gun permit, Okay? Absolutism is Absolutely wrong on this issue. Okay, Ellie Mastel. Strong beginning, Ken, What do you think? Well, I don't know what absolute Ezeli is talking about The last one I know is Hugo black and he died 1971. We have well established narrow exceptions to the First Amendment, and they are narrow for a reason. We got them narrowed on the backs. Of the powerless being suppressed by the powerful All of the types of restrictions that Ellie would like are ones that have historically been used against Communists against Labour protesters against war protesters against minorities and everyone else. The Nazis aren't the ones in danger from the types of restrictions in L. A. Is suggesting he'd like. Okay, there are the two basic positions. Let's get the debate started. All right, Ellie, us off. Explain why you think that hateful speech? Fake news shouldn't be protected by the First Amendment Can just admitted just agreed that we already regulate speech at some level, so really all we're debating about tonight. The only thing that's even up for debate is where we want to draw that line. 10 would draw that line. So it protects Nazis. I would draw that line, so it protects us from the Nazis. Let's start with a pretty simple example. Fire. Just kidding. There's no actual fire. I'm sure you've all heard that The thing that you can't say is that you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. But actually, under our current laws, I probably can because our current standard is that what is unprotected are things that lead to direct incitement. Of imminent lawless action. That's a very high bar so I can probably say fire when I probably can't say is fire. Kill who you must to survive. That would probably get me in trouble. But the fire analogy comes from an older standard older than the one that I just quoted. It comes from Oliver Wendell Holmes, who some of you might have heard of and his standard when he used the You can't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater analogy. His standard was false and dangerous speech that is false and dangerous is not protected by the Constitution. I think that's where the line is. I think that's an eminently reasonable line. I think that we had 150 years of a free republic with that line, So I want the line where dangerous lies are not protected by the Constitution. I don't want the government deciding what's a line of what's true. May I remind you? We are currently led by a president who thinks that global warming is a Chinese hoax to corner the tungsten market. And that's why I don't want the government deciding what to suppress based on its decision about what is true or not. Now, Ellie refers to the fire in the crowded theater just as homes, famous quote. Let's remember what he was talking about. He was using that quote you can't shout fire in a crowded theater to justify jailing a man who was protesting World War two by handing out flyers suggesting that people resist the draft. That was the clear danger that the government saw now if you don't think that it's plausible that the government will be suppressing the same type of speech. Now, if you gave it the power if you handed it to them out of fear of Nazis. Then just look at what happened after the protesters Last year, the alternate right and neo Nazis rose. There were massive protests in response and are largely Republican dominated. State legislatures leapt into action and in 17 places. They proposed heavily punitive anti protest bells, including four charming examples. Making it easier for you to get off. If you run over a protester in your car, That's what the government does with the power to suppress speech. When you let the government decide what's true, I think you just proved that our current First Amendment standard doesn't do bull to actually protect protesters. All it does is protect Nazis. You want to talk about the Oliver Wendell Holmes skates. Let's talk about where our current standard comes from its relatively recent 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio Now what was that case? I said 1969, you probably thought it was probably like civil rights. And Yeah, they were making it. No, it was for Klansmen. Brandenburg was a Klansman. He was all making clan statements. Somebody arrested his ass for being a Klansman. He got convicted for inciting violence, and the court said, uh He's just a Klansman. We really need a new standard that protects the right of Klansmen to threaten black people in 1969, but U C l You know that That's not the right case. That's the one that's best for your argument. The right cases, 12 years think that means us. The right.
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on KPRC 950 AM
"From Ronald Reagan. Now What I don't know is if the blind they came from Ronald Reagan was original or if that had been recycled from something else. You know, most of the most of great lines. Given in the political world have been used before. What was it? Um John F. Kennedy was famous for Um Why is it boys escaping me now? But it was it was a line he used. They became one of his most famous speech lines. Ask not what you could do for this country. Asked what this country That's not what this country could do for you Ask what you can do for this country. That's what it was. And they could that went back to like Oliver Wendell Holmes. In the 18 hundreds. So recycling material for speeches. It is nothing really new. So would you like to hear? I've got side by side comparison for you, Ronald Reagan delivering the line and the reaction he got from the Coast Guard. And Joe Biden delivering the well butchering the line and the reaction he got from the Coast Guard. Here you go. My Coast Guard aides have been excellent. One of them taught me that. And I quote the Coast Guard is that hard nucleus about which the Navy forms in time of war E. Coli soon. That you enjoy educating your family about how the Coast Guard is quote. Hard nucleus around the Navy forms in times of war. You are why you're really don't class. Dude, you blew the line. And the delivery's not there either. Yeah. Because they didn't laugh at you. They blew it. Bull, your dole class. Nice, Joe. Way to go, Joe. Surprised they're letting him make speeches. I guess I guess they got problem up somewhere every now and again, right? I suppose. I think there we go. That's that's what I'm talking about. Reagan delivered the line correctly. And by the way, depending upon where it was during his administration, his faculties may not have all been there, either, because, as we know he had Alzheimer's And who knows where he was and in the process when he was delivering that speech? But Ronald Reagan on his worst day. Is 10 times better than Joe Biden could be on his best day. So there's no there's no real comparison. Plus. If you remember the military like the Coast Guard. Don't I guess you would You expect to be polite to a sitting president the United States because, after all, these think Commander chief But don't you suppose there was a lot more enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan to be there? Delivering a speech? Then it was for Joe Biden to deliver speech. I mean, The military, although they're trying to liberalize the military, although they're trying their level best to weed out conservatives from the military. The fact of the matter is That there are probably more conservatives in the military than virtually any other occupation, other than perhaps law enforcement. And there's a reason for that. These are people who are sacrificing for the country, the understand something about representing the country about sacrificing for your country about service. That Many other people don't especially politicians, especially liberal politicians don't understand. Back. Liberal politicians, generally speaking, have not been very supportive. Of the military on principle. Just the militaries of violent place, right? They fight wars. They have weapons. That's not something The left is a big fan of most of the time. Other some members of the left. You are Is usually the right it who were thought of as being more the military supporters. And then quite honestly, in some cases, thought of being more the warmongers, although we're certainly not saying that this time out of our way. No. Trump was getting us out. Of a whole bunch of stuff. Under Trump. He actually had. The Israelis. And Egypt and Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries at peace with one another talking with one another call what operating with one another. What do we have now? Middle East is Very close to being on fire. Although I guess they'll come up with some service Cease fire if they haven't already. In fact, I'd like to know what we could do An update on that and buy him an hour. I've got David. Reuben He's the former mayor of Shiloh in Israel. Former remember the United States. He calls Israel home Now I'm not sure where it is real. He is. From where he is. Certainly he's following all the news that's going on in in Israel right now, and we can get a little update from him in about an hour. Where Lance and what I would really like to ask him about it. I'm going to, but I'd really like to ask him about Is How the Israeli people perceive. The new administration. Versus the Trump administration. Because here in the United States Jewish people historically are Democrats, and there's still plenty of Liberal Jewish Democrats. Who remained loyal to the Democrat Party, despite the fact that you have received to leave and a lot of these other progressives the squad Who are all about the Palestinians and completely against Israel. And this administration. Because of the squad and the more progressive members of the party. Certainly are not supporters of Israel the way they have been in the past. So I would think that that doesn't go unnoticed. I'm sure by the people of Israel And by the Israeli government, so we'll get into all that. When we talk to him again in about an hour from now, let's of other things you're going to join in on the show today 713 to 1 to 09 50. That's 713 to 1 to 09 50 back with more in just a second. Jimmy.
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on KSFO-AM
"America's first news continues its the ninth day of October knew this morning, hours after police foiled an alleged plot to kidnap her Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer, arguing in a speech Thursday that President. Trump's words have been a rallying cry for extremists. The FBI in Michigan State police arrested six individuals charged in a federal complaint. With conspiring to kidnap the governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, according to the complaint unsealed this morning. Adam Fox. Very Croft tie Garbin. Caleb Franks. Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta. Inspired to kidnap the governor from her vacation home in the western District of Michigan before the number of her election. Several other charged with Attempting to our plotting, I should say to attack law enforcement officers and overthrow the government. Wittmer said The president had spent the last seven months of the Corona virus pandemic quote, denying science ignoring his home. Health experts stoking distrust, fomenting anger and giving comfort to those who spread fear, hatred and a division. The president saying Whitmer should thank him because law enforcement foiled the plot in 1981. President Ronald Reagan spoke to the end of the CPS annual convention and his comments stand in sharp contrast to what we have seen on the national and state level. From his own beloved party in 2020, he said, a few isolated groups and the backwater of American life still hold perverted notions of what America is all about. Recently. In some places in the nation, There's been a disturbing recurrence of bigotry and violence. Then Reagan sent a direct message to those Who still adhere to senseless racism and religious prejudice. You are the ones who are out of step with our society, he said. You are the ones who willfully violate the meaning of the dream. That is America. In this country. Because of what it stands for, will not stand for your conduct. So let me say this loud and clear hatred, bigotry and violence have no place. In the great state of Michigan. She singled out the president's debate, comments that the proud boys stand back and stand by President Trump's campaign senior advisor and Jason Miller. I also have to say, Bill. These are some pretty shameful comments here from Governor Wittmer on how we could take because how you go from a moment of unity to attacking President Trump, I thought was just completely ridiculous if we want to talk about hatred Then Governor Whitmer, go look in the mirror. I mean, the fact that she wakes up every day with such hatred in her heart towards President Trump. President Trump said Wittmer should thank him because federal authorities foiled the plot. Presidents that may choose a Supreme Court justice is based on politics. But once that black robe goes on, justices don't tend to be political that from Supreme Court Justice Stephen Friar, who is set on Thursday that The justices don't always agree with the president who nominates them. So it's important to remember it may be a political process. It leads to the nomination of Judge. The president may think I've got someone who will always agree with me. That's what Jedi Roosevelt thought. Manipulated. Oliver Wendell Holmes got him nominated on the court in three months, homes decided something Roosevelt couldn't stand. Roosevelt said. I could carve a judge with more backbone out of a banana. He was furious. But Holmes was doing his job. He's once that black robe goes on. You are a judge, and there is no point and I haven't seen deciding things on political grounds. President Trump is hoping to have his third high court nominee, Judge Amy Cockney Barrett, installed before Election Day that would forge a 63 conservative majority on the court. Cairo, Santos kicking a 38 yard field goal with 1 17 left the Chicago Bears and knocking off Tom Brady for the first time in six tries. 2019 the win over Tampa Bay. Brady threw for 253 yards and one touchdown, but the box came up short against Khalil Mack. And of that bears and defense. You are a special group..
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on KSFO-AM
"Is a big help for us to get in the best possible shape in advance of the storm. Secure in the knowledge that our federal partners you're standing with us on and that we have the available resource is and know that that, uh That we're going to be sharing in the expenses. As well. Unfortunately, Hurricane Delta is expected to make landfall in the southwest Louisiana early tomorrow evening. As a Category two hurricane And Very, very close to the exact location that Hurricane Laura made landfall just over a month ago. Unlike law, there are there are Several differences and Ben's going to get into this more later. Um But As it approaches our coast. Hurricane Delta's forecasted to be weakening rather than strengthening. On. It's gonna be a storm that moves faster and it should be moving in a northeasterly direction rather than do due north direction. Haven't said that. It is very clear. The Southwest Louisiana is going to get more of a punch from this, then we would like to see for sure, because I'm still trying to recover from Hurricane Laura. No. As Hurricane Delta turns north northwest toward him expected landfall late today. A hurricane warnings in place from high Island Texas Toe. Morgan City, Louisiana. New this morning the United Nations World Food Programme, winning the Nobel Peace Prize for efforts to combat hunger and food and security across the globe. The announcement made Friday in Oslo by the terror of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The Rome based organization provided assistance to almost 100 million people in 88 countries around the world. Last year. It's long been headed by an American in 2017 President Trump tapped a former Republican governor of South Carolina, David Beasley, for the post. Getty. Beasley praised the family the WFP e family as he called it and said they deserved the award. A 17 year old accused of killing two protesters days after Jacob Blake was shot by police in Kenosha is due back in court today as his attorneys fight efforts toe send him to Wisconsin to stand trial on the homicide charges at Call. Rittenhouse is last court hearing in late September, his attorneys asked for more time to prepare their opposition. To his extradition from Illinois. President may choose Supreme Court justices based on politics. But once the robe goes on, justices aren't political that from a Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who said on Thursday that Justices don't always agree with the president's who appoint them and so it's important to remember. It may be a political process. It leads to the nomination of Judge. And a president may think I've gone someone who will always agree with me. That's what gave the Roosevelt thought. When he appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes got him nominated on the court. In three months, Homes have decided something Roosevelt couldn't stand. Roosevelt said. I could carve a judge with more backbone out of a banana. He was furious. But Holmes was doing his job. Is once that black robe goes on. You are a judge, and there is no point and I haven't seen deciding things on political grounds. President Trump hoping Navis third High Court nominee Judge Amy Kuney Barrett installed before Election Day that would forge a 63 conservative majority on the court. Joe Biden pressed on it again yesterday, he says. He will give you his answer about packing in the court after the November election, whether or not he'll do it on my.
A New Way To Respond To Old Problems
"Another way that you can make a day better if it's not going to good. Are Actually, you don't even have to wait for it not to go good some of these things if we would do them on a regular basis, we wouldn't experience as many bad days and have to fight them off how about doing something new that will keep your life from being stale and stagnant because nothing has changed for the last twenty five years. I'M GONNA. If you don't like change well, get ready for. Boring. And then. If, we stop learning and growing were breathing but not truly alive. Joyce Meyer said. Oliver Wendell Holmes said a mind stretch by new experience can never go back to its old dimensions. Now, I believe that learning. Can actually add a little exciting element. To our life every day maybe the biggest thing we need to learn is a new way to respond to old problems. So here's a little story for you. Once upon a time complained or father that her life was miserable and she just didn't know how she was going to make it. She said I'm tired of fighting struggling all the time. It just seems after one problem is solved. Another one comes right on top of our father who was a chef took her into the kitchen and filled three pots with. Water placed each one of them on a high fire wants a three pots began to boil. He placed potatoes in one pot eggs in the second pot and ground coffee beans in the third pot it then let them sit and boyle without saying a word, his daughter, the daughter Moan and Groan complain and she was impatient wondering what was he doing after twenty minutes? He turned off the burners It took out the potatoes. Put them in a bowl full the eggs out, put them in a bowl. Then he ladles some of the coffee out into a cup turn into her and ask his daughter. What do you see? She's potatoes, eggs, and coffee look closer. He said touched the potatoes touched the eggs, SIP the coffee. So she did in noted that the potatoes. were. Soft. Go take an egg and break it and after pulling off the shelves she observed that it was hard. He Nice go to sip the coffee and it brought a smile. The rich aroma brought a smile to her face. Father what does this mean? What are you trying to teach me? He then explained that the potatoes, the eggs and the coffee at each face the same adversity, the boiling water however. Each one reacted differently the potatoes went in strong and hard and came out soft and weak the egg one in fragile with a thin outer shell protecting its liquid interior. But when it was put in the boiling water, it came out hard. However, the coffee beans were unique after they were exposed to the boiling water they change the water and created something new. So when you have. Problems and you know we do have problems and. I'm well aware that some of you have some serious problems going on in your life right now. and. If you're not in this building, surely many watching TV I've gone through. Terribly difficult times in my life, but we have to be so careful that our problems don't make us. We can win be where we don't just start having a give up attitude. and. Then we also want to make sure they don't make hard and harsh. Leave us with a bitter attitude. What we WANNA do we have problems is let God use them to change us and then let us change the world around us because of what God has
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on One Life Radio Podcast
"Everyone welcome to one life radio. This is Bernadette with Rinaldo Davis and I have Mary Holland on the line. We're talking about the covert Vaccine Update Mary serves as General Counsel and Vice Chair of the board at Children's health defense she is also the CO author of Vaccine The author of the HP, vaccine on trial seeking justice for generation betrayed Mary received her master of Arts and Juris doctor degrees from Columbia University and our undergraduate degree from Harvard. She has worked in international public and private law, and we're so fortunate to have around the show with us today getting an update on the Kovic vaccine. Okay. So right before the break I, asked you the question of why is our medical freedom worth fighting for? Bernadette health is life and basically if you can't protect your life by making decisions with your own healthcare provider about what you want and what you don't want. Nothing, the government can't do really there's nothing the government can't do based on the Supreme Court decision that said that there could be compulsory vaccination. They justified four sterilizations called the buck, the bell decision from the nineteen twenties it was by a known eugenicist Oliver Wendell Holmes. Forced. Sterilization is now a war crime is internationally recognized stuff. Once you justify putting into people's bodies material that they oppose there's nothing the government can't do mean there's no and vaccines. There's no ability right if if you get injured or damaged if you get a Cova vaccine, forget about it, you're not going to get any kind of recompense if you can't work anymore, you're not gonNA have a salary. You're not going to have this ability insurance and if you dye your ears aren't GonNa get anything there's no liability for these products and if they. Mandate them very lucrative to mandate vaccines has been the for school children but at the captive market, the company doesn't have to advertise. You don't have to convince you to take it and then they're not liable. So mandates are extremely dangerous right. Now, Bernadette Children Child Not even just childhood vaccines. A federal study showed that about one in forty people who got a vaccine have some kind of adverse events some of them very serious with the mild but one in forty, these are warp speed rushed vaccine that won't be licensed that are liability free. Logic tells me the injury rates going to be a lot higher than one in forty. Well, there's so many things I wanNA talk about Oh my gosh, you're just GonNa have to come back sooner rather than later but one of them is that federal government and Yell Are Holding Clinical Trials I. This was on Facebook by very credible doctor Dr Jen Myers are holding clinical trials on how best to persuade Americans to take nineteen vaccines. What do you? How do you read that oh? I think it's it's extraordinary Bernadette. So what it is just to tell your listeners so they're getting federal money to kind of psychologically manipulate people to get Cova vaccine and they're saying, Oh, you have to be brave like the firemen and if you don't get Kobe vaccine. Or they're trying to try out you know you need to be altruistic for your neighbor or they're trying to try out you know if you don't get vaccine, you're parasite in your selfish. They're trying out different psychological narratives in fifteen different groups to figure out what is most convincing, what is most likely to get people to take suspected with the assumption That these things are gonNA be valuable and be useful and the the real mad reality is. The trial so far people have been injured and they're only the super super super healthy ever get admitted into these trial and we don't really know it works. You know these people it's not a challenge trial. These people are going to go out into the public. We don't really know if they're gonNA be confronted with the virus or not. They're not GONNA be very. They're not gonNA be very robust trial and they're gonNa have been done in a period of time that is a fraction of what is a standard period of time for testing for the vaccines on the childhood schedule or the adult schedule. So I just think people should be very skeptical. They should be very aware some of the biggest proponents over the last twenty years Verna debt for vaccines for children and for mandates and for getting rid of religious exemptions and so. Dr, Paul it I just watch the video of Dr off it saying I wouldn't take one of these vaccines. I. Don't know what's in it. It's a theoretical scene I wouldn't say, yes. If this point name that's rather extraordinary this is somebody who who's whole career has been promoting vaccine, and yet he is telling the public I don't have confidence that these are going to be effective or that they're going to be safe. Well, you know it's funny as I was reading this morning reading like my laptop thing from Health magazine headline said, yes you still need the flu shot even during the Kobe not. Nineteen. Hurting to expert and you're more important than ever this year and I was like really, and so you know you can't help but but but look at the big picture. Okay. So everyone pretty much everyone knows now that the flu shot doesn't work On it makes you it doesn't work. It makes you. Yeah and so they they have to have a replacement for it because you were talking about how how profitable this is I mean last year you know we're talking about Bill Gates. Last year you know Bill Gates Fourth Writing League, told an interviewer that he expects to make a twenty fold return on his ten billion dollar investment and global vaccines. How is that even okay how are they? Even why is it okay to even make a profit on something that is My. Gosh. What am I trying to take that is right. It's a great question I mean in some countries, it is a government product if the government. The government has to make it and there's no profit it goes to the government. Also I is it that the government can mandate a commercial product with no liability Very, reasonable question. Well. So you know. You know what are your thoughts regarding an ongoing fight for opening schools in the fall? Should children go out of the classroom right now I thought you know I'm very concerned Bernadette about the schools for this coming year I. Unfortunately believe that it's going to be very, very traumatic and chaotic, and I don't have a school age children child at this point. But if I did I would be very seriously looking at home schooling options and perhaps. Doing co-operatively and what they're calling an educational pod. I would be very concerned to send a young child or even a high school student to school having to wear a math and having to sit six feet away from everybody and twenty five percent of the students at once in every other day, and then as soon as somebody tests positive and everybody has to isolate or quarantine for two weeks. I mean I think it's a recipe for disaster. Frankly, I really do. I wish I didn't feel that way. I think they're going to be some schools in some states that say you know what? We're just going to go back to school like usual and we're just GonNa do what we do and you know I would send a child into that environment because I think this is on par with a severe seasonal flu and I do think that there are some effective treatments out there although I think they're not being You know. Advocated but I would not send a child into an environment where the message to the child is be afraid of your neighbor don't get close to anybody don't get closer to your teacher. You are time bomb I think that's a terrible message to to teach any young people. I really do and and I'm very concerned about it I. Don't I. Think it's one of the you know.
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on WTMJ 620
"Biggest challenges and we continue with our American stories in our special celebration of mother's day now it's time for my own celebration my own mother in her life I want to start with a few quotes first from history in historical figures all that I am or ever hope to be I owe to my angel mother I was Abraham Lincoln if evolution really works how come mothers only have two hands that's one of my favorite comedians Milton Berle your use fades love troops believes of friendship fall but a mother's secret hope outlived them all that's the great Oliver Wendell Holmes one of America's great jurists and moral philosophy the world didn't notice when she died in December of two thousand twelve at the age of eighty those of us who knew her and loved her we all notice we lost someone live for us someone who loved us someone who would have done anything for us enter friends even strangers Houston a lot to do with my mom came into the world December of nineteen thirty two a pretty tough time to be born you're saying though.
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on Newsradio 970 WFLA
"You don't use the proper personal pronoun I'm going to you know have you find interesting this this is what autocrats do and and we don't want to do that you know so and I start the first chapter of giving the devil his dues with the the opening story of where this all came from which was in nineteen nineteen there was a socialist in Philadelphia name shank who was passing out fliers to draft age young men who were about to be drafted in the first World War as America was getting involved and any equated the draft conscription with slavery yeah it's a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment you should be able to control your own body the government cannot send you to die this was the argument okay so this ended up in a Supreme Court case in which Oliver Wendell Holmes decided that was the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater that's where that comes from that phrase a clear and present danger it comes from that court case and that ever since then it's been decided that if the government decides what your doing or thinking or saying is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater it could be a threat to the nation we can control you we can stop you can jail you and yet that's too dangerous that's so are you simply saying though Michael what's is giving the devil his due that people should be allowed to say anything they want at any place almost I mean obviously there's some restrictions you know you can't give the nuclear codes.
"oliver wendell holmes" Discussed on KGO 810
"Into the valley creek really it was the acceptance of southerners cabins and they had come to Kansas looking for opportunity they will pour others and and kill them all and and then he had his son's got their bodies with cattle resorts to make the death one hall and I hate the abolitionists this is me the rest the other southerners into fourteen from Kansas it was it was an unbelievably approaches thing to do a banister explain away to the abolition of intent but typically in a Massachusetts and it it it was it to the southerners this was almost not quite but close to prove that there was no hope of any peace between this disease in the public mind a new understanding of why we fought the civil war Thomas Fleming as the author when we come back Oliver Wendell Holmes in search for his son during the civil war and what he finds looking over battlefields and hospitals after the slaughter I'm John Batchelor this is the John masters this is the John Batchelor show on KGO eight balance of nature changing the world one life at a time I just want to tell you about I can't believe what the done and I've only been taking it for what couple of months I don't know I got to the point where I was I was very discouraged and my energy was down and tell yeah my wife really wonderful well so much better my attitude is different my energy is good and I can't tell you how much I appreciate it this.