Possible Supreme Court Free Speech Outcomes
It was only a few years after Kent State, in 1973, that George Carlin's seven dirty words aired on the radio and eventually led to the 10pm-6am 'indecent 'programming' times on radio and television. What further legislative/policy outcomes could stem from a supreme court case related to the anti-semitism bill?
Drug Q for Krystal and Saagar.
Saagar says all/most drugs should be illegal. Krystal says all drugs should be legal. I'm somewhere in the middle leaning toward Krystal. I'd been addicted to various and sundry most of my 20s due to untreated chronic pain/depression (36 now). I don't think jail time would have helped me or anyone. However, I never used street drugs (aside from weed) because of fear of legal repercussions and of impurities/additives in black market products. How would Saagar prohibit these substances and enforce it in a way that doesn't set the addict up for failure (criminal record, etc) and actually helps? In my experience, AA/NA and most outpatient recovery programs are mumbo jumbo (not well-founded in biomedical research), aside from medications that ease withdrawal symptoms. And Krystal, I strongly agree no one should face legal problems for the health issue of drug addiction, but I think selling drugs is different, no? What do you think? Should fentanyl and meth dealers face legal trouble? There is definitely a certain fraction of would-be hard drug addicts living healthier lives because legal deterrence prevents them from trying the most addictive examples, like heroin or fentanyl. Thanks!
Can we engage companies & leaders for impactful change?
WSJ recently suggested that fund managers recommend engaging with companies directly to change their corporate policies as a more impactful strategy than divestment. How can we foster an environment where diverse perspectives are heard and respected effectively? The path of apathy, besides cringe three-letter acronyms (DEI, BLM, etc.), does not seem to work for anyone. While this may corporate speak re: effectiveness of divestment, what do you recommend as a more effective channel of dissent to further human rights? I might be naive, but I always look at things through a persuasion perspective to create a better outcome. I understand the POV of K&S; you both have honest intentions but different approaches, and I know we cannot leave emotions at the door, but those in power often dismiss them as irrational. How do we create change that improves, not divides? Do you ever see a coalition that can inspire? Or will they always be controversial due to human nature?
Ideas for Friday's Show
I have a few ideas for Friday's show. Scott Horton v. Destiny or Ryan Grim v. Will Chamberlain The reason I put these guys up against each other is because they share a similar demeanor and thus, in my opinion, would create a productive/informative debate. Will and Ryan will have a calm and peaceful debate. Whereas Scott and Destiny will be a more WWE style debate but informative nonetheless.