And, of course, we are doing exactly the same thing to the global poor via "Green Energy" initiatives. One begins to see a pattern, with the affluent deliberately harming the poorest, most vulnerable. So, we get to see, quite clearly, for whom we are "saving the planet". On the Supreme Court and Jay's lawsuit, there is no ambiguity here. What the government did was wrong. If the Supreme Court is unable to see this, the Supreme Court has become irrelevant as a means of defending the rights of citizens since freedom of speech is paramount. This was not a case of war or invasion. What the government did killed people and ruined lives and the government did it knowingly. It's that simple.
Having signed the Great Barrington Agreement led to my department questioning what I was teaching my university students. So someone was watching who signed the agreement.
Hopefully you told them that you were teaching university students that critical thinking requires Inclusion of Diverse opinions and reasoning and that the department should be Equitable to all the other students in allowing them to also benefit from this time-honored wisdom by insisting that all the other faculty teach their students the same thing.
![ทางเดินชีวิต - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ x อ.ไข่ มาลีฮวนน่า [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1f3wcG16dd4/mqdefault.jpg)
And, of course, we are doing exactly the same thing to the global poor via "Green Energy" initiatives. One begins to see a pattern, with the affluent deliberately harming the poorest, most vulnerable. So, we get to see, quite clearly, for whom we are "saving the planet".
On the Supreme Court and Jay's lawsuit, there is no ambiguity here. What the government did was wrong. If the Supreme Court is unable to see this, the Supreme Court has become irrelevant as a means of defending the rights of citizens since freedom of speech is paramount. This was not a case of war or invasion. What the government did killed people and ruined lives and the government did it knowingly. It's that simple.
Having signed the Great Barrington Agreement led to my department questioning what I was teaching my university students. So someone was watching who signed the agreement.
So, someone had spare time to check who signed. I’d say that is an opportunity for cost reduction.
Hopefully you told them that you were teaching university students that critical thinking requires Inclusion of Diverse opinions and reasoning and that the department should be Equitable to all the other students in allowing them to also benefit from this time-honored wisdom by insisting that all the other faculty teach their students the same thing.
This all seemed to me at the time to be group think hysteria