The novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand is the reason why we wear a mask and will continue to wear a mask despite an ABA rated "non-qualified" federal judge/Trump appointee from the middle district of Florida (naturally) deciding that people should not be required to wear masks on public transportation.
Ms. Rand, an emigree from Russia, who through her all-time best-selling novels outlined her philosophy of Objectivism, credited the fundamentals of Objectivism to Aristotle and the logical proposition that "A is A".
What that simple statement means is that reality cannot be changed despite a person's deepest desire to do so.
The first A in this case is Covid variant Omicron. It exists. It is more transmissible than the original Covid19 virus and it is sweeping the country. The second A is that masks prevent the transmission of Omicron.
So while we are virus-tired, and "so over this" the fact remains that people die everyday from this virus and that if you do not wear a mask in crowded, in-door public places like courtrooms, airplanes, elevators, movie-theaters and the like, you will get sick, and some of you will die.
It just will not be us.
Imagine you are in the hospital. You are having difficulty breathing and the doctor wants to place you on a ventilator. You cannot get better and increase your O2 levels by telling the doctor "but a judge said it was OK to not wear a mask."
"Oh, wait! If I judge said you don't have to wear a mask on a plane, then you must be ok. Try taking a deeper breath. It cannot be covid."
Yes it can. Because A is A.
For more on this and other information on Objectivism, try reading "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Philosophy Who needs it?"
17 comments:
Weren't you just going after Trump for seeking to recuse Judge Middlebrooks for being a Clinton appointee? Excoriating judges based on which President appointed them is no way to instill trust in our judicial system, and that should go for Democrats and Republicans. If you take issue with the reasoning behind the decision, well, that's what we all do every day. But also consider that the Court's ruling was not based in any way on whether masks work. Instead, the questions included whether the CDC has sufficient authority and grounds to institute the mandate, along with dry but important issues such as whether there was sufficient opportunity for public comment on the rulemaking. BTW, if you think the ABA is politically unbiased, I want to sell you some real estate near Chernobyl.
Nobody care why you wear your mask. Knock yourself out.
Ummm someone cares-- like you, since you're reading and commenting on this. And thanks for reading, we sooooo greatly value having you- yes you- as a reader. It makes it all worthwhile.
God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Ray Charles is God.
STFU about masks and just wear one if you want. I will point out that a government mask mandate is an infringement on individuals rights. You seen a little confused about that.
No I am not confused. But then, I am versed after a lifetime of study in fields like epistemology- which we both know you needed to Goggle. Government's exist for limited purposes- or should exist for limited purposes. One of which is to prevent acts of violence by ignorant individuals who cannot compete with their minds, so they feel the need to use violence. In this context, not wearing a mask and getting everyone around you sick is an act of violence and not a violation of individual rights. But you're clearly at the high school level of individual rights in which, thinking about the concept for the first time, you reach very juvenile conclusions like "hey if I want to drive 180 mph on a street and the government won't let me, that's a violation of individual rights". Try reading the books I recommended, I know reading is hard for you, but try. And then, maybe you will understand.
"Charlie is innocent"
--DOM
The opinion, assuming you read it instead of criticizing the author's age and lack of experience, is a text book explanation of the basics of administrative law. There is ZERO chance the 11th will reverse it and ditto the supremes. And when it gets there, I guess you would be ok with J Kagan recusing herself since she never tried a case either.
11:34, the ABA is not unbiased. The ABA is biased in favor of the rule of law, mainstream U.S. jurisprudence, established traditional legal procedure, and using hard work, disciplined thought, and ethical behavior to help clients effect gradual changes when needed. They have a whole motto of boring lawyer ideas that actually preserve our society. The ABA qualified a lot of judges who are ridiculously conservative. But the current leadership of the Republican party wasn't satisfied with that; they went to the very bottom of the legal barrel to get people to rule the way they wanted.
If “A is A” then a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Right Rumpole? After all, it is a “logical proposition.”
The CDC is there to protect Americans from diseases and protecting the public health is one of the best reasons for government. There are a lot of terrible diseases out there that threaten our families. COVID is not the only one. Thank you guys for fighting for the right of a tuberculosis sufferers to infect others. We don’t all agree with every rule of decent society but we’ve agreed that this agency should make rules regarding public health, if that’s no longer necessary then abolish the agency and remove good public health policy from the responsibility of government.
Again, candidates are propped up to run against Anglo and Jewish incumbents. The only one of this group I've heard anything neg about is the sailor.
CIRCUIT COURT
Group 20: Judge Robert Watson (incumbent); Brenda Gitchev Guerrero
Group 34: Judge Mark Blumstein (incumbent); Ariel Rodriguez
COUNTY COURT
Group 19: Judge Jeffrey Kolokoff (incumbent); Lissette De La Rosa
Group 42: Judge Scott Janowitz (incumbent); Alicia Garcia Priovolos
A deeper dive into the opponents may be warranted, and also a look at the applications of the appointed judges who are now drawing opponents. You can get a copy of the applications by making an anonymous public records request. You may thereby learn who is a member of the Federalist Society (as Watson is), who worked for/ with Daniel Nordby, the Tallahassee Shutts & Bowen member of the JNC who sent candidates to Gov Scott and now to Gov De Santis. Janowitz is a UM grad, serves on a Rules committee; would be good to know more about his background and former practice; appointed by Gov De Santis. Kolokoff is a former ASA; Bucknell & Mercer grad, for some geographical diversity; very short time on the bench, NFI. Blumstein, a former longtime Navy JAG, has been on the bench since 2016, so has a track record with some attorneys, who are encouraged to share opinions on the blog or elsewhere.
As for the opponents, Ms. Guerrero is a 2005 admittee, with 17 years of practice in family law; St. Thomas grad. Ariel Rodriguez has his law degree from Notre Dame and is a US Trustee for the Dept of Justice (as a bankruptcy trustee), admitted in 1998. Ms. Priovolos is seeking a judicial post directly from the SAO; not a disqualifier, certainly, but the governor has been appointing only prosecutors (Watson was a federal one; Kolokoff state), so maybe this is not the year to also elect another one from that office; an FIU grad, admitted in 2005. Ms. De La Rosa is an insurance defense attorney in Broward, admitted in 2001, a grad of Nova Law.
Rump, this is one of the only topics I disagree with you on regarding the mandate. I am all for masks and wear them in crowded places and will still wear them on any plane I go on, probably for the rest of my life. However, there is a fundamental difference between driving 180 mph and not wearing a mask.
Regarding Blumstein, he got an opponent because he deserves to be unseated. I’m not sure who his opponent is, but I do know that Blumstein was on the top of the list of incumbents to run against and it looks like his opponent was the first to put his name in the seat. Blumstein is a very bad judge that won an election based on violating the rules using his sailor suit. He is inconsistent in his rulings, is not smart, does not respect attorneys’ calendars and rules solely based on bias.
Jeffrey Kolokoff has turned to be a pretty good judge who follows the law. There are judges who are not former ASA's and do not do well on the bench.
Your mix of libertarianism with collectivism doesn't hold water. The libertarian way is that individuals, not the government, decide whether they want to protect themselves with a mask or not. The government should stop mandates "for our protection" and limit itself to provide accurate information on the benefits of masks and to ensure the availability of actually effective masks (N95 or KN95) for those who wish to protect themselves. Why do you care if others are not wearing their masks if you are protecting yourself by wearing yours? Masks are for personal protection not for collectivistic protection.
You do not have the faintest idea about what you are talking about.
First of all, as an objectivist, I am NOT a libertarian. But to understand that you would have to understand the pillars of philosophy and what terms like "Ethics" and "metaphysics" and "epistemology" mean, and by your very question it is clear that you do not.
But as to whether or not I care if a person doesn't wear a mask and gets sick, I mostly do not except to the extent that when they do get sick and start gasping for air they race to ERs and fill up hospital beds that should be for those who took care of themselves and need the bed for an emergency. But then, being an objectivist, I have already paid for private care at a hospital with a private doctor who limits her patients to about two hundred and is paid on a per visit basis along with a yearly fee to be available when I need her.
Post a Comment