there's an underlying assumption in the discussion around food security in the north that the problem is infrastructure related, and just the result of bad planning. this perspective seems to be pervasive, but it's rooted in a sort of denial of the purposeful colonial practices that have led us to this point.

stated as tersely as possible, the food security issues are an entirely artificial problem that was created on purpose. and, how did we get here?

well, there have been people living there for thousands of years, and they always had plenty to eat before - they ate high fat diets of caribou, seals, walrus, narwhal and supplemented shrubs. it may be hard to grow plants that far north most of the year, but there's not an actual deficit of things to eat. and, what has happened?

what happened is that we moved in, rounded the people up into settled camps (stopping them from migrating) and fed them by shipping in food from the south. we also brought in the church to brainwash them into colonial living norms, which led to the demonization of traditional food sources as "country food", and a people raised to interpret their own traditions as backwards and satanic. the next things that came in were oil and guns; dogsleds became replaced by skidoos, spears by rifles. and, over time, they've forgotten how to hunt.

i'm not sure that it is possible, or even makes sense, to talk about undoing this. but, you can't truly address the issue without understanding that we did this on purpose, to separate these people from their heritage.

and, yes - now they're hooked on doritos and coke, because it's what we fed them with.

these areas are more than capable of sustaining their own food networks, but in order to get to that point you have to loosen the colonial grip that the federal government has put in place in order to prevent it.

so, it took me a few days longer than i'd have liked it to get groceries done; i picked up a few things late on thursday, a few more on friday and had to wait until saturday afternoon to get some raspberries & strawberries at the far store, as they were overpriced at the close ones. so, i'm a few days behind.

i've got my workstation set back up now and am ready to get back to work in rapidly finishing up the consistency check over 2014 and moving to rebuilding 2015 in one swoop.

guinea pigs. what have we done to them?

it was the other night, walking home with groceries, maskless, that i was thinking about the virus, and potential vaccination approaches. with all of this skepticism around basic science (people challenging the science around antibodies, for example) that i'm pushing back against, it's frustrating that we're not seeing a more healthy skepticism around vaccine use; the potential dangers of handing out an untested vaccine don't seem to be registering with the general population, who seem a little bit frighteningly naive about the safety of untested vaccines, as they've been conditioned to be by a media that understandably targets vaccine skeptics as a public health nuisance.

but, i need to stress that a tetanus shot has been widely tested for a long period of time. we know that adverse reactions are rare, and it's a relatively safe way to protect yourself from something that can legitimately kill you. it's going to be impossible to do proper testing with these covid-19 vaccines before releasing them; the safety trial is going to be the first deployment of the vaccine.

so, the people that get the vaccine first are going to be...guinea pigs. you want to argue you should give it the elderly first, but given that the first recipients are going to be guinea pigs, is it potentially better to give it to a more resilient population, like kids?

but, then do you support treating kids like....guinea pigs?

and, i stopped and decided that, no, i don't support treating kids like guinea pigs - it is the elderly at risk, and they must assume it.

but, then i stopped to realize that i don't even support treating guinea pigs like guinea pigs.

what have we done to these creatures? we have entirely co-opted their identity, fully stolen their existence from them. for when we think of guinea pigs, we no longer imagine vibrant, high-strung rodents flopping around the edges of the forest floor, but imagine animals in cages under human experimentation. they exist, in our language, solely for our own amusement.

there's a historical parallel in how we've used racial terms to refer to slaves in various languages, so that the word that we use to describe that racial group is the same word we used to describe the concept of a slave. in english, we've adopted the word slave from anglo-norman invaders, who brought it to the island with a germano-latin ruling class that enslaved the slavic-speaking speakers to the east of europe, largely to sell them to the arabic rulers in the middle east. so, in english, our word for slave is the same as our word for slav. in arabic, the concept of slavery is intrinsically tied into the physicality of blackness, which is something that partially developed in the united states, as well.

i support them in principle, but this is maybe not the best idea just right now. 

if you don't want to wear a mask, then don't. it's not necessary to gather in the park and make a show of it; in a sense, they've got you, if they can get you to do that. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/anti-mask-march-montreal-aug-8-1.5679598

time's just about up, justin.

well, he's got the ndp in place to blame, when the bankers grill him on it.

but, people are losing or have lost patience. if he's serious, he'd better be spending his vacation working something out (wouldn't that be a dramatic change, itself) and be ready to ram it through on day one, because he doesn't have much public goodwill left, and consequently doesn't have much time left to change minds.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2020/08/08/insiders-say-justin-trudeau-doesnt-want-an-election-he-wants-to-remake-canada.html

i want to be clear....

my skepticism about the virus, and criticism towards public health measures, isn't rooted in a political persuasion. i'm not sitting here hoping that people get sick, and if i thought we could have stamped the virus out, i would have supported it.

but, my analysis of the situation was that the virus would not be suppressed. this was based on what i was able to gather about the contagiousness of the virus, combined with what kind of measures could be realistically put in place; i pointed out that the social distancing thing was really just a ridiculous joke in terms of keeping people apart from each other, and that the laboratory assumptions put in place in these studies around mask use did not reflect the realities of people fidgeting with masks, putting them in their pockets, accepting them from centralized locations that are touched and breathed on by dozens or hundreds of people, etc.

i legitimately expected these measures to fail - not because i wanted them to, but because a sober analysis concluded that they just would. and, if you listen to the public health experts, it was clear that they all knew that, they were just reacting out of desperation, to try to solve something they didn't know how to deal with.

see, here is where i maybe get political, but i'd challenge somebody to negate this phrase and argue it: i don't think it's the role of government to take wild guesses on policy and hope it works, but rather that it is the role of government to look at the data through sober, critical filters and make the clearest deductions from it possible. if government had done that, if it had truly followed the science rather than base it's policy on faith and hope, then it would have concluded that it should have brought in policies to mitigate the eventual spread, rather than policies to stop it from spreading.

and, then, what does mitigation mean? it means protecting the elderly and weak, and trying to keep the spread within communities that have the highest chances of fighting it off. something we've learned is that the spread of the virus comes down substantively at around 20% exposure. while the measurements we've observed around that magic number of 20% represent a broad cross-section of the population that is at least partly demographically representative of the population as a whole, the lesson from that observation is that the contagiousness of the virus decreases to a manageable level when you can provide immunity to as little as one out of five possible spreaders. policy should then be shaped around building in immunity in the much greater than 20% of the population that is at least risk of mortality.

at this stage in the pandemic, opening the universities is probably the best thing they can do.

but, if you're old, stay inside and away from students during september, please.