The lessons of "Adolescence"

I've just finished watching "Adolescence". An excellent mini-series, one of the best I've ever seen. Writing, directing and acting are all above Oscar grade. This is exactly the type of movies "they don't make as they used to". I'm grateful they still do.

Warning! Spoilers below!

But this is not about the movie. It's about the British Prime Minister's decision to back an initiative by Netflix "to stream the drama series for free to secondary schools across the country, so that as many teens as possible can watch it." Why? Because this will “help students better understand the impact of misogyny, dangers of online radicalization and the importance of healthy relationships."

I couldn't help noticing that the movie itself criticizes the fact that schools show movies in class as means of teaching. Showing this movie in schools will have exactly the same impact: None! It will only make students more anxious and scared, and leave them even more confused. What today's adolescents need is guidance. And "Adolescence" does not provide it. Adolescents will not "understand" the impact of misogyny, they will only see it and feel it at a very basic emotional level. Many will probably refrain from practicing it, but only because of the perceived impact, not because they understand it's wrong. For that, they need to be provided with a proper, life affirming moral standard of good and bad, which only a proper, life affirming morality can do. Absent that, adolescents are left with a dogmatic "Thou shalt not misogynize", but clueless about "burglarize", "racisize" or "nationalize". Adolescents need to be taught a clear moral standard based on which to choose their values and then evaluate their own actions on their way towards achieving them. A long list of DON'T-s provides no guidance whatever. They need to be guided on what to DO.

The producers of the movie made it "to provoke a conversation." God, please no! Millions of more conversations are just going to add to the noise of the trillions of conversations currently taking place. In today's moral vacuum, conversations lead nowhere. "We hope it’ll lead to teachers talking to the students, but what we really hope is it’ll lead to students talking amongst themselves" Brrrr!!! Noo! We need teachers to first learn the objective moral standard. And then teach it, not discuss it.

Deportation and philosophy

"... the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose" and "demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile."

Robert Cerna, ICE Acting Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations

=====

In short, according to Cerna, the lack of information highlights and demonstrates.

Fundamentally false! The lack of something never does anything, let alone to demonstrate. A lack denotes inexistence. A non existent causes nothing. These are basic metaphysical facts, which should be evident to all. The American legal system recognizes this when it says that every individual is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. A "proof" is an existent required to be presented for a guilty verdict. This is why an objective philosophy is needed in all realms. It is the only obstacle against politicians' ability to get away with this kind of nonsense.

As nonsense as this is, it is not just meaningless words. It is the basis on which people are being arrested, deported and incarcerated with no due process. 

Any American citizen who rationalizes this as stuff that only happens to those illegals is a fool. These words easily can, and eventually wiill, be uttered in any context if it just so happens that the Trump administration doesn't like it. Everyone's implicit strategy, then, to avoid being randomly imprisoned without legal judgment is to not do what Trump dislikes. And this is the very definition of a totalitarian dictatorship. The rule of law has all but disintegrated.

We have arrived ☺️ 

Is Bitcoin money?

Short answer: No. But the long answer is really what matters.

What is money? According to Gemini AI, money is anything that functions in all of these four ways:

- Medium of exchange. Money is used to buy and sell goods and services. It's a portable intermediary that avoids the limitations of barter.

- Store of value. Money can be saved and used in the future to purchase something. It retains its purchasing powerful over time

- Unit of account. Money is a standard unit of measurement for the value of goods, services, and transactions. It's also a basis for quoting and bargaining prices.

- Standard of deferred payment. Money is used to set debts and defer payments.

Bitcoin is definitely not a store of value, since it is extremely volatile. It does perform the other three functions, but only in limited cases, and only on the false assumption that it actually IS a store of value. So, no, Bitcoin is not money.

So, then, why do people buy it? Because those people believe that it eventually will become money. And when it does, it will be the ultimate, universal, objective standard against which all other currencies will be evaluated. Therefore, Bitcoin is currently an investment in a product that has the potential to, and eventually would, become money. And not just money, but THE money, a synonym of it.

Is that belief justified? That's the wrong question to ask. Here is why. Compare it with the USD. Why is USD money? Just like Bitcoin, it has no intrinsic value, like gold has. Just like Bitcoin, it is liquid, you can exchange it for other currencies. And yet the USD does function as a store of value. That's why it makes sense to deposit it and keep it over a longer period of time for later use. You have to account for inflation, but you have a pretty good idea of how many USDs you would have to exchange for a loaf of bread in ten years. But why? What is the foundation for this "pretty good idea"? Well, there isn't. People believe the USD stores value simply because the Federal Government promises it. Nothing else. The USD is just another government scheme, a tool of control. Initially, USD had the same credibility as the bank-notes issued by private banks, since they were all backed by physical gold stored in their vaults. Then it was imposed by the US Government as the only legal tender. Then they set a fixed, artificial, value for it in terms of gold. Then they confiscated gold. And then they discarded the gold standard altogether. Now, the Federal Reserve can manipulate it in any way they want. It's not even subject to Congress approval. The USD is a store of value ONLY because people believe in it. This is why the question to ask is not "Is it justified to believe in Bitcoin?" but "Should we believe in Bitcoin more than in the USD?". And the answer to that is an emphatic YES!

First, the qualities of Bitcoin: It is de-centralized and not-inflatable. It cannot be manipulated. You would know with certainty that 1BTC saved (and invested) today is going to get you more loafs of bread in ten years than what you're getting now, since it costs much less to produce value than to produce BTC. Therefore BTC will be more than just a store of value, it would virtually be a maker of value. And second, the bleak future of the USD (and of all classic currencies everywhere). Wars are looming around the world. Ukraine and the Middle-East are only the ones currently occuring, but they are providing perfect distractions for China to invade Taiwan. Even North America is not safe, since Congress has recently deemed necessary to introduce the No Invading Allies Act bill to prevent Trump from actually invading Canada. All these wars, as well as the preparations for defense, will need to be funded. The EU has just decided to issue bonds worth almost $1T to increase their military spending. "The EU needs to regain competitiveness and economic growth" to pay for all this, they say. Yeah! Good luck! They'll be left with the only solution - to inflate. Good luck inflating Bitcoin!

If I were the PM of Canada

If we're to believe Donald Trump, (I don't know why we would...) the US will impose 25% tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum sometime at the beginning of March. Canadians, lead by politicians of all colors, are in full panic mode. Everybody seems to agree that something must be done and that the proper answer to these tariffs is to get back at the Americans by imposing on them tariffs of our own. Trudeau and Poilievre are in a race to show who's got the toughest stand and the biggest balls. Both of them, and virtually everyone else, are wrong. If I were the PM of Canada, I'd say this:

First, let's get one thing straight. "Trade war", "Economic domination", "Tarrif threat", "Retaliatory measures", etc. are misnomers. "Threat", "Domination", "Retaliation" and "War" do not apply to the field of economics. These are military terms employed by the media to get the public's attention. Tariffs are simply an economic policy. The Government of Canada will treat them as such.

To the American people I say this: Tariffs are bad. The tariffs planned by your President are very bad for your trading partners, whether it's Canada, China, Mexico or any other nation. No question about that. But they are also bad for you, for the American people. No question about that either. This is a fact acknowledged by virtually all economists, regardless of their political inclination. The presumed benefits of tariffs are limited in scale, ephemeral and insignificant when compared to the damage they inflict on your economy, and ultimately on each and every single one of you. Your President would like you to believe that they are a good thing, a giant leap towards making America great again. Not true. Let's take steel, for example. As soon as the steel tariff takes effect, the first thing American steel producers will do is to increase the price of their products. Since the products of their competitors have become overnight 25% more expensive, increasing their price by only 20% is the smart thing to do for the American producer. Nothing stops them from doing it. It is actually part of their fiduciary duty. This will temporarily benefit the American steel producer, its employees and its shareholders. But it will negatively impact its customers, those in constructions, car manufacturers, ship builders who will have to pay a higher price for the steel products. The extra cost will have to be paid with money that would otherwise go into new investments, new projects, new employees. Layoffs will likely become a daily occurence. If their economic sector allows, they could also raise the price of their own products - buildings, cars, ships. That is, YOUR apartment, car and boat. Including the apartments, cars and boats of steel workers. That will maybe make great again the America in your President's imagination, but not the real America in which you live. President Trump either truly believes tariffs are good, which proves his utter ignorance in economics, or he's lying to you. Not sure which one is worse.

To the American Congress and the American Courts of Law I say this: Please, I beg of you, make sure your President does not acquire enough power to single-handedly take military action, of any kind. No one takes seriously his ridiculous suggestion that Canada might become the 51st State. He's not, yet, likely to send Special Forces to stealthily take Ottawa. But it's not ridiculous to imagine him ordering the Coast Guard to delay Canadian ships on their way to Mexico. Or ordering armed ICE officers to more thoroughly investigate Canadian truck drivers. Again, I beg of you, do everything in your power to avoid this. Despite your President's sustained efforts to filter out rational individuals from all branches of your Government, I am sure there are still enough of you left to take significant, apropriate action. Please, I beg you, do so. 

To the American companies I say this: Your President's tariffs will be imposed on the grounds of an Economic Emergency that he, himself, has imagined and declared, followed by annulling, overnight, the Free Trade Agreement that he, himself, has signed, during his first mandate, with Canada and Mexico. Regardless of how irreproachable your reputation might be, the risk of doing business with you is now unmitigatable. I can only imagine how much more difficult your endeavours have become. If I were you, I'd start looking for a better place to conduct business.

And finally, to the Canadian people I say this: Tariffs are bad. Bad for all, including Canadians. The Canadian Government does not have the mandate to hurt the Canadian economy, regardless how good it might feel to stick it to them in return. Therefore it will not impose ANY tariffs on the United States. On the contrary, it will unilateraly remove all tariffs with all trading partners. Canada will, overnight, become a Free Trade Zone with the entire world. This action might seem to hurt some sectors of the Canadian economy. But the presumed damage will be limited in scale, ephemeral and insignificant when compared to the enormous beneficial effects it will have on the overall economy. Just take the steel example above and apply it in reverse.

Milei in Davos, the 2025 instalment

The President of Argentina, Javier Milei, delivered, just as he did in 2024, a great speech in Davos. Last year's speech had the extra punch of being a spearhead. This year's speech had the extra weight of Argentina's amazing success based on Milei's principles.

The only thing I disagree with is what he views as the "murderous abortion agenda" of the environmentalist movement. That is not an agenda. People in the West simply choose to have less children because the bleak future they see ahead. But if Milei's policies continue to be implemented throughout the West, we will see less and less abortions and more and more children.

What worries me though is Milei's favorable view of some of the leaders in the West, such as Orban and Trump. Both are very far from being champions of freedom. Orban has proved it during his 14 year long dictatorship. Trump is rapidly gaining ground on him. I hope Milei will remain true to his agenda of promoting freedom and will not begin to confuse it with anti-woke. It would be very sad to see the greatest moral, political, and economic turnaround of the modern era descend into a national conservatism of the Catholic kind.

FCC's vision on Free Speech

On November 23, the newly appointed chairman of the FCC, Brendan Carr, sent this letter to the CEOs of Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft.

Here are the opening paragraphs:

"Over the past few years, Americans have lived through an unprecedented surge in censorship. Your companies played significant roles in this improper conduct. Big Tech companies silenced Americans for doing nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights. They targeted core political, religious, and scientific speech. And they worked—often in concert with so-called “media monitors” and others—to defund, demonetize, and otherwise put out of business news outlets and organizations that dared to deviate from an approved narrative."

"...you participated in a censorship cartel that included not only technology and social media companies but advertising, marketing, and so-called “fact-checking” organizations as well as the Biden-Harris Administration"

---------------------

Brendan Carr is hailed by Trump as a "warrior for Free Speech". This shouldn't come as a surprise since Trump doesn't understand words, let alone concepts. But the way Carr's letter is formulated might fool the average reader into believing that it does indeed stand for Free Speech. It doesn't. Quite the contrary.

Carr's trick is to package into the word "censorship" two concepts that are very different from a political perspective.

The first is what Facebook and other platforms do: filter content. Most content is produced by third party users who have explicitly and freely agreed with Facebook's filtering process. The producer's content is subject to Facebook's standards, policies, opinions, moods, feelings, whims and beliefs, whether right or wrong, true or false, real or imagined. No content producer should expect Facebook to blindly accept on its own platform every single post. Facebook has never promised, or agreed in any way, to allow all posts regardless of their content.

The second concept is what governments do: threaten individuals or companies to suffer consequences if they don't comply with the governments' moods, standards, beliefs and whims. Only this concept is indeed censorship.

The crucial difference between the two concepts is the explicit, free agreement between two parties in the first case, as opposed to the forced, unchosen, dictatorial character of the second. A producer who disagrees with Facebook's standards may choose to switch to another platform, or create his own. A producer whose ideas go against the government's ideology has no choice but to retract the post, to abstain from expressing his view, to simply shut up.

Only censorship is a violation of Free Speech. Content filtering is not. The First Amendment applies ONLY to government.

Carr's letter is a violation of the First Amendment, infringing therefore on Facebook's right to Free Speech. The threat tries to be veiled, but it is evident:

"I am confident that once the ongoing transition is complete, the Administration and Congress will take broad ranging actions [...] and those actions can include [...] a review of your companies’ activities...".

Carr simply cannot be so dumb as to believe what he wrote. He might have been a warrior for Free Speech in the past, now he's turned into a boot licking hypocrite.

Antisemitic woman arrested in Montreal

Mai Abdulhadi at a protest

In short: A woman participated at a protest where she performed a Nazi salute, made antisemitic remarks, and yelled "The final solution is coming your way", referring to the extermination of Jews. The woman owned two franchises of Second Cup.

As a result, Second Cup terminated the franchise agreement, closed down her two cafes (ironically both located in the Montreal Jewish Hospital 🙂), while Montreal police arrested her.

Something very important is missing from this story: Why was she arrested?

The simplest assumption is that she actually did act in a violent, threatening manner and CBC forgot to mention it. I doubt it. The last two paragraphs reveal the justification.

<<Jewish advocacy group B'nai Brith Canada commended the Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) for making the arrest.

"This sends a clear and powerful message: hate and antisemitism will not be tolerated on Canadian streets," the post read. "Thank you to the SPVM for standing up for justice and protecting Canadian values. Together, we remain vigilant in the fight against hate.">>

If this is indeed the reason for the arrest, then this is as wrong as it gets. Hate and antisemitism are not valid grounds. "Final solution" and the Nazi salute are not violent actions, or real threats to commit one. They are manifestations of an individual's Right to Free Speech. That her cause is wrong, that her behaviour was abhorrent, that she went against "Canadian values (whatever that means)" as true as they might be, they're definitely not enough to put her in jail.

I am really afraid that in fact she did not display a violent behavior and she was arrested simply for what she said and for the meaning of her acts. In a free country as Canada claims to be, to arrest someone for that is much more abhorrent than the woman's behaviour. If there is one Canadian Value, Freedom of Speech should be it.

_________________

What about Second Cup's unilateral act to terminate the woman's franchise agreement? Aren't they also guilty of violating her right to speak freely? No. In a free society an individual is free to act in any way it wants as long as it's not violent. A contract is a limitation of an individual's basic freedoms, including free speech.  Second Cup might be guilty of breach of contract, but this has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with lawyers.