Categories
folly individual achievement

Theseus’ Ship Sure Rocked and Rolled

It couldn’t have happened to a better-named defendant.

The Guess Who, a Canadian rock band, has continued over the years from its late-60s/early-70s heyday. Or hasn’t. 

Depending upon your ontology.

Yes. Theory of being.

The original band, known best for the hit “American Woman,” was originally made up of Randy Bachman, Burton Cummings, Jim Kale, and Garry Peterson, and became one of the first big Canadian exports to American and world popular music. But Bachman left in 1970, at the peak of the band’s fame — to create Bachman-Turner Overdrive — and lead-singer Cummings left five years later. Now these two are suing Kale and Peterson and the corporation that is the band itself.

According to The Rolling Stone, they call the “current lineup a ‘cover band’” and object to the band’s usage of photos from its classic period to, in the words of the suit, “give the false impression that Plaintiffs are performing as part of the cover band.”

Wikipedia says the band broke up in 1975, but was revived by Kale and Peterson.

Now, this is none of our business; we can hope the courts adjudicate it justly. But because it reminds us of the Ship of Theseus, discussed as a thought experiment by Plutarch and Thomas Hobbes, it’s hard to let this one go. An old ship has its planks and other parts replaced piece by piece, over time. Is the all-new ship the same as the old? 

Obviously, Bachman and Cummings don’t like being treated as so much old lumber. Regardless, wouldn’t there be an estoppel motion, or something like that, preventing litigation over the haecceity of a band named “The Guess Who”?

These eyes expected them to share the band, if not the land.

This is Common Sense — and I’m . . . Guess Who.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

Recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom individual achievement voluntary cooperation

Paralyzed Man Moves

After falling on ice, a 46-year-old Swiss man became paralyzed, losing all mobility.

Now he is beginning to move again thanks to a brain implant that enables what the Dutch firm Onward, its inventor, calls “thought-driven movement.”

The implant interprets neural impulses that are triggered when the patient intends to move. A second implant in his abdomen then stimulates parts of the body so that he can move them as he wishes.

Onward says that although its results are preliminary, “the technology works as expected and appears to successfully reanimate his paralyzed arms, hands, and fingers.”

This astonishing work is not without precedent. Over a decade ago, French neuroscientist Gregoire Courtine conceived of the possibility of a digital bridge between brain and body to help such patients.

It took a while to realize his dream. But this year, Courtine and Swiss neurosurgeon Jocelyne Bloch installed implants in a Dutch man, Gert-Jan Oskam, to restore his ability to walk after he lost the use of his legs in a biking accident.

One unexpected benefit of their procedure is neural regeneration.

“What we discover,” says Courtine, “is that when using this system for a long period of time, through training, nerve fibers start growing again. . . . That was like the dream, regenerative medicine!”

Onward CEO Dave Marver says that the next step for its own implant technology is small trials, then a larger one, then “hopefully get FDA approval and make it available.”

What a wonderful world.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai

Recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom individual achievement national politics & policies

Swim Against the Swamp

Mark Tapscott says Republicans should be made of sterner stuff.

He points to Senator Tommy Tuberville (R.-Ala.) as one who is showing Republicans “How to Win the Budget Battle Against the Swamp.”

Senate rules are such that a single U.S. Senator can prevent military promotions and appointments from being approved by unanimous consent (without a recorded vote). Tuberville has blocked hundreds, saying he’ll retreat only when the Biden administration drops its policy of paying for abortion-related expenses of military personnel. The policy violates the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits using tax dollars to pay for abortions.

Tuberville has stuck to his guns despite abuse. Emulate him, Tapscott enjoins.

Don’t mistake Tapscott to imply that negotiating a compromise is always legitimate, while he acknowledges: “nobody gets everything they demand, but everybody must get some of what they demand. [But only] when both sides realize that’s the only way out of an impasse.”

Demand what, though?

The principles, if any, that bring you to Congress should not be compromised. Whether forsaking them entails making any given unpalatable agreement isn’t always obvious. But often, it is. And you betray yourself by pretending otherwise.

What if, over the last 90 years, relatively decent lawmakers had never accepted deals — about spending, taxes, regulations, foreign policy, and other questions — that entailed violating the proper function of government as they understood it?

The battles, the outcomes, the procedures, and the precedents would have been much different. And I think we’d be far better off.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai

Recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom individual achievement

A Life of Meaning

My wife and I are attending tonight’s Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty dinner at the Cato Institute. We are very excited, for this year’s award will be given to a very worthy recipient: Jimmy Lai.

The 75-year-old Lai, alas, won’t be there.* He sits in a Hong Kong jail for committing the Chinese Communist Party’s most feared crimes: speech, association, practicing religious faith, advocacy for democracy and human rights. And he awaits more charges that could (and probably will) keep him in prison for life.

Lai is no stranger to this audience. Last December, I gave two thumbs up to the Acton Institute’s documentary†, “The Hong Konger: Jimmy Lai’s Extraordinary Struggle for Freedom”; back in 2020, I noted his long deployment on Hong Kong’s front lines of freedom.

Lai escaped to Hong Kong from Communist China as a kid. His hard work and entrepreneurial skills made him a wealthy man. He used that wealth to advance freedom, including publishing the pro-democracy Apple Daily, which was shuttered by Chinese authorities in 2021 under the National Security Law. 

Mr. Lai could have escaped it all with plenty of money to live comfortably somewhere far away from the Chinazis. “I think you have to live a life of meaning,” he offers. “And I find taking responsibility to fight for freedom is meaningful for me.”

Thanks to Jimmy Lai and the Hong Kong protesters for standing up against the CCP, the world has a much clearer view of those imprisoning him. Let’s hope the world acts accordingly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* The Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn, a friend of Lai, will give the keynote address. Jimmy Lai’s son, Sebastian, will be there to receive the award.

† The documentary now has over a million views on YouTube, which may be why Tik Tok “shut down” the Acton Institute’s account. Meanwhile, for context , a documentary to “mark the handover anniversary,” on which the Hong Kong government spent $1.3 million, garnered only 4,000 views.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai and DALL-E2

Recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom individual achievement meme

Jimmy Lai

Categories
First Amendment rights individual achievement social media

A Failure of Trust

Why is the Federal Trade Communication threatening to investigate Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter?

The FTC is reportedly reviewing the Tesla CEO’s takeover of the forum and will soon decide whether to conduct an anti-trust probe of the transaction.

Musk hasn’t been entirely clear about his plans for Twitter now that he is on the verge of acquiring it. But we can expect that this avowed free speech absolutist will do his best to ensure that tweet-speech is much more open than it has been. He won’t label every statement he dislikes as “hate speech” or “misinformation” and forthwith expunge it.

And this, I’m pretty sure, is the problem.

Certainly, no new “monopoly” is in the offing. It’s not as if we lack social-media alternatives to Twitter — or that Musk already owns the alternatives. His other gigs pertain to electric cars, tunnels, and space flight.

The problem must be that government officials, too, expect that Musk will be a much better friend of unfettered speech than the previous Twitter insiders.

Officials expect — but also fear — that his Twitter won’t routinely terminate the speech of persons who dispute “official” doctrines about COVID-19, elections, or what have you.

To fear the prospect of a Musk-run Twitter is to fear open debate — debates that are unavoidable and should be welcome if we value citizen control of government.

But of course, those who seek to control us worry: if the people do not agree with them about what is and is not a fact, what is and is not the highest moral and political value, they might not stay in power.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Recent popular posts