when i was a kid, my dad used to drag me to hockey pools with him, and i'd end up reading through the draft magazines, because it was the only thing around to read.
and, there was this phrase that was often reserved for highly talented but under-performing russian prodigies, who had a margin of error in projection of roughly 50 points per year:
a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside of an enigma.
that's donald trump, for you.
and, the smart analysts should not forget that, as i did.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ARiddleWrappedInAMysteryInsideAnEnigma
Thursday, April 23, 2020
here's an article that repeats what i said using words that you probably don't understand.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7161506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7161506/
we all knew this, right - trump can rarely be taken at face value. he has no interest in truth; he will routinely lie his face off as a means to an end, whatever that end actually is. you consequently can't believe anything he says, and you're insane to think otherwise.
but, it's easy to forget that he's just a front, too - that there's an entire bureaucracy writing his lies for him, and there are subtle and complex motives underlying the dishonesty.
i initially couldn't figure it out. was he invested in this drug? what the fuck?
but, i dug around a little (something journalists are supposed to do.) and figured it out, and realized that there was some kind of method underlying this particular madness. it didn't have much to do with what he said, but he had reasons to secure a supply of this drug, nonetheless.
i still don't understand why he wasn't forthright.
but, it's a reminder that this president is very complicated.
but, it's easy to forget that he's just a front, too - that there's an entire bureaucracy writing his lies for him, and there are subtle and complex motives underlying the dishonesty.
i initially couldn't figure it out. was he invested in this drug? what the fuck?
but, i dug around a little (something journalists are supposed to do.) and figured it out, and realized that there was some kind of method underlying this particular madness. it didn't have much to do with what he said, but he had reasons to secure a supply of this drug, nonetheless.
i still don't understand why he wasn't forthright.
but, it's a reminder that this president is very complicated.
lupus is a disease that causes cytokine storms.
cytokine storms lead to organ failure.
hydroxycholoroquine is a drug that reduces those cytokine storms. for that reason, it is given to lupus patients to try to prevent organ failure.
covid-19 can also cause cytokine storms, in it's final stages before death - of organ failure.
the hope has been that hydroxycholoroquine may therefore be useful in stopping cytokine storms in covid-19 patients in the same way that it does in lupus patients.
this is still experimental. and, it may be the case that other immunosuppressants may be better suited for the task.
again: i don't know why trump did what he did. it certainly wasn't the most rational way to secure a supply of the drug. and, as the drug is an immunosuppressant, it is a bad idea to take it as a prophylactic.
but, there is a valid use of this drug as a last resort, for people that are already on the brink of dying of organ failure, as a complication of the disease caused by the novel virus - and articles or media reports citing studies correlating use of the drug with organ failure as a reason to avoid it's use are misunderstanding what it's use is, and consequently losing the plot.
i'm not interested in defending the use of hydroxycholoroquine as a prophylactic (i've been pretty critical of that.), and i don't imagine that the associated antibiotic would be useful at all, except perhaps to fight off infections picked up in the hospital, but i do have to comment on the results of some tests, which are being rather badly reported. the focus of this space is to act as a fact-checker and ensure honesty in media, so i need to be consistent on the point, even if i backtrack or contradict myself.
i'm not going to embarrass anybody directly on this, because the misreporting is total, and this is a subject that is beyond the (limited) intellectual capabilities of most journalists, let alone most readers.
as mentioned previously, this drug is an immunosuppressant, which means it should only be prescribed to patients that are going through the complication of sepsis. as sepsis is pretty much game over when it clicks in, it should also only be being prescribed as an absolute last resort. two things follow from this:
1) if the drug is being prescribed properly (and, despite unreliable media reports to the contrary, i'd have to assume that it actually is.), you would expect higher than average mortality rates to be associated with it's use, because it's essentially a last resort.
2) the end result of sepsis is organ failure, including heart failure. as most cases of the disease do not lead to organ failure, you would also expect use of the drug to be highly correlated with organ failure in a way that separates from non-use rather clearly.
stated simply, you wouldn't prescribe this drug unless you were concerned that the patient was going to die of heart failure in the first place. as such, even a very low success rate would be better than nothing.
so, a statement like "trials of the drug were correlated with higher levels of organ failure" is starkly misleading. the old cliche here is exceedingly relevant - correlation and causation are not the same thing.
it would be sort of like saying "80% of patients treated with ventilators end up dying". while a true statement, if used to imply that ventilators were the cause of these deaths, that would be deeply unfortunate, as 100% of the patients put on ventilators were in extremely bad shape. the ventilators were their last chance. such is also true of hydroxycholoroquine.
i don't fully understand why trump did what he did. was it some kind of performance art? was he trying to justify buying up so much for use in patients that are experiencing sepsis, as a last stage of the disease? or was he just trying to one-up boris johnson?
but, the gotcha journalists should pick a different target, because they sound absurdly ignorant in keying on this one.
you shouldn't take the drug unless you're exceedingly sick, and a doctor gives it to you as an absolute last resort. but, if a doctor does give it to you, you should realize what it's being used for, which is to stop your immune system from attacking itself.
i'm not going to embarrass anybody directly on this, because the misreporting is total, and this is a subject that is beyond the (limited) intellectual capabilities of most journalists, let alone most readers.
as mentioned previously, this drug is an immunosuppressant, which means it should only be prescribed to patients that are going through the complication of sepsis. as sepsis is pretty much game over when it clicks in, it should also only be being prescribed as an absolute last resort. two things follow from this:
1) if the drug is being prescribed properly (and, despite unreliable media reports to the contrary, i'd have to assume that it actually is.), you would expect higher than average mortality rates to be associated with it's use, because it's essentially a last resort.
2) the end result of sepsis is organ failure, including heart failure. as most cases of the disease do not lead to organ failure, you would also expect use of the drug to be highly correlated with organ failure in a way that separates from non-use rather clearly.
stated simply, you wouldn't prescribe this drug unless you were concerned that the patient was going to die of heart failure in the first place. as such, even a very low success rate would be better than nothing.
so, a statement like "trials of the drug were correlated with higher levels of organ failure" is starkly misleading. the old cliche here is exceedingly relevant - correlation and causation are not the same thing.
it would be sort of like saying "80% of patients treated with ventilators end up dying". while a true statement, if used to imply that ventilators were the cause of these deaths, that would be deeply unfortunate, as 100% of the patients put on ventilators were in extremely bad shape. the ventilators were their last chance. such is also true of hydroxycholoroquine.
i don't fully understand why trump did what he did. was it some kind of performance art? was he trying to justify buying up so much for use in patients that are experiencing sepsis, as a last stage of the disease? or was he just trying to one-up boris johnson?
but, the gotcha journalists should pick a different target, because they sound absurdly ignorant in keying on this one.
you shouldn't take the drug unless you're exceedingly sick, and a doctor gives it to you as an absolute last resort. but, if a doctor does give it to you, you should realize what it's being used for, which is to stop your immune system from attacking itself.
these are my notes for the long vlog update.
i'm going to eat, first, before i do it.
====
- 11th - first response
i'm going to eat, first, before i do it.
====
- 11th - first response
- sent email requesting denial of consent
- received consent over the 12th
- on 13th, was told coordinator is not available
(spent weekend ranting and sleeping, got pizza & watched debate on sunday)
- checked email on 16th, got pdf with second judicial response
- file complaint against judge
- tried to file consent motion at night, realized i can't. asked instead to file without notice.
- early on 17th, asked respondents for consent to file reference to s. 38.0.6 in writing
- slept until around noon
- left messages in afternoon
- went out on evening of 17th for pills, came back and realized door was unlocked
- it seemed like somebody was going through my stuff
- was missing court documents, some vodka
- decided that enough was enough (after weird stains on sheet, etc)
- sent email to landlord, who claimed to check camera
- landlord said he didn't see anything; clearly lying
- more evidence that landlord is a cop and i have to stay inside as much as possible to prevent further entry
- court shut down for three weeks on the 17th, when i was focusing on other things
- notice indicated court would continue filing documents and timelines are being respected,
- got response back on morning of 18th indicating that i can file reply factum when court reopens
- also got back response from oiprd indicating it wouldn't allow me to file a reference request without a consent motion
- after back and forth, sent request to acknowledge disability on afternoon of 19th
- received response on morning of 20th indicating they insist on a formal motion request
- sent motion request early on 21st.
- after reimaging several times, spent weekend cleaning up february blog posts up to debussy show on the 16th
- debussy review late on the 22nd & early on the 23rd
(so, the week was spent on court stuff & ranting about the virus while cleaning up the blog)
- realize internet usage spike early on the 23rd. 1000% usage increase.
- noticed electrical spike on morning of 13th when i was in detroit.
- turned computer off all day
- response from court early on the 23rd indicating everything is shut down indefinitely, even filing
- i responded in the evening informing them that the directive from the court indicated filing was continuing
- finished blog clean-up until the man or astroman show on feb 24th
- finished blog clean-up until the man or astroman show on feb 24th
- turned modem & all computers off all day on the 24th
- they responded on the 24th that the directive was written on the 15th, and that filing ended on the 17th. nobody is in the office.
- turned modem back on early on the 25th and found 9 gb of traffic on a day with modem physically unplugged
- sent email to landlord, who claimed he has a fibre optic connection (i know this is false because i've received his cable bills in my box). more evidence that he's a cop...
- spent 25th reimaging laptop and looking for backdoors, then lost it all due to an error that forced an unwanted reboot. decided that this image was unworkable, moving forward.
- realized early on 26th that some extra traffic was going through router - dropped packets were 50% of total traffic.
- tried to move to 90s laptop to try to hack into router to get logs
- contacted teksavvy about new ip address. had to argue with them to take it seriously, they insisted it was a virus despite no logic, and won't send tech due to covid-19.
- turned modem off around 14:00 on 26th, didn't turn it back on until 13:00 on the 27th. finally got new ip address in afternoon.
- traffic logging still wrong on morning of 28th. slept most of the day.
- tried to move to 90s laptop on 29th, decided it was too slow to be workable
- found workaround instead
- teksavvy tried to sell me a modem, had to push back against it
(so, week was spent fighting with unknown internet traffic while slowly cleaning blog at end)
- finished reviews for man or astroman & grunge shows on morning of 30th
- awake late on 30th, check local traffic stats early on 31st and conclude that my network is compromised.
- completely disable network, get ready for grocery shopping
next segment is next.
next segment is next.
can i point something out, though?
the president might come off as kind of a moron sometimes. most of the time. ok, all of the time.
but, i promise you that he has better intelligence reports than you do, even if he has lower than average actual intelligence.
maybe the numbers he was citing early on were better informed than he let on?
the president might come off as kind of a moron sometimes. most of the time. ok, all of the time.
but, i promise you that he has better intelligence reports than you do, even if he has lower than average actual intelligence.
maybe the numbers he was citing early on were better informed than he let on?
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
south korea remains weird.
we got the delayed spikes in the other east asian countries that the science predicts. i've been over this, so i'll be terse: when you react to a pandemic with authoritarian tactics, what you do is scare the population into avoiding medical care. the result is that the curve stays flat for a while due to under-reporting and then explodes upwards once it can't be ignored any further. that is what the science actually "predicted" would happen, and what has actually happened.
.....except in korea. why is that?
well, either the koreans are doing some specific thing in an absolutely flawless way, or the data is stunningly flawed.
there are some reasons to think the data is funny. for example, people are testing negative, and then testing positive. we don't have to jump to conspiracy theories. are they testing properly? it would seem as though they aren't.
but, you don't get false negatives when you test for death, or at least you don't get them in a sustained manner.
so, i don't know. not yet...
if they're doing something spectacularly well, it would have to have something to do with keeping it away from the vulnerable. i can draw whatever conclusions i want about underreporting, but if people aren't dying it means that the weak are being protected. it would follow that if you want to learn something worthwhile about what they're doing differently, you should look at how they're protecting the elderly and other high risk groups.
it could very well be that the virus is actually running rampant in the general population, but has been effectively kept out of nursing homes. that would be the best-case scenario, anywhere, as you get immunity without killing people. but, they're not even logging the unlucky deaths. like, even in the absolute best case scenario, there should be a kind of background death rate of a few dozen people a day, and they're not even seeing that.
so, i don't know. not yet...
we got the delayed spikes in the other east asian countries that the science predicts. i've been over this, so i'll be terse: when you react to a pandemic with authoritarian tactics, what you do is scare the population into avoiding medical care. the result is that the curve stays flat for a while due to under-reporting and then explodes upwards once it can't be ignored any further. that is what the science actually "predicted" would happen, and what has actually happened.
.....except in korea. why is that?
well, either the koreans are doing some specific thing in an absolutely flawless way, or the data is stunningly flawed.
there are some reasons to think the data is funny. for example, people are testing negative, and then testing positive. we don't have to jump to conspiracy theories. are they testing properly? it would seem as though they aren't.
but, you don't get false negatives when you test for death, or at least you don't get them in a sustained manner.
so, i don't know. not yet...
if they're doing something spectacularly well, it would have to have something to do with keeping it away from the vulnerable. i can draw whatever conclusions i want about underreporting, but if people aren't dying it means that the weak are being protected. it would follow that if you want to learn something worthwhile about what they're doing differently, you should look at how they're protecting the elderly and other high risk groups.
it could very well be that the virus is actually running rampant in the general population, but has been effectively kept out of nursing homes. that would be the best-case scenario, anywhere, as you get immunity without killing people. but, they're not even logging the unlucky deaths. like, even in the absolute best case scenario, there should be a kind of background death rate of a few dozen people a day, and they're not even seeing that.
so, i don't know. not yet...
i'm not gloating.
i'm just pointing out that the data to deduce this was there from the start.
the more important point to get across is not that i was right, it's to be skeptical of corporate media. you shouldn't listen to every math nerd with a blog. but, you should consult a variety of sources with contradictory perspectives in analyzing the data for yourself.
all authority is flawed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-antibodies-california.html
i'm just pointing out that the data to deduce this was there from the start.
the more important point to get across is not that i was right, it's to be skeptical of corporate media. you shouldn't listen to every math nerd with a blog. but, you should consult a variety of sources with contradictory perspectives in analyzing the data for yourself.
all authority is flawed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-antibodies-california.html
we need an anti-authoritarian left to emerge out of this, one that points to real science to undo the statist response, and one that takes back these slogans that the right has appropriated.
if we just quietly sit inside through this, we're essentially conceding to capitalism.
this is the time to revolt. let's get a move on it.
if we just quietly sit inside through this, we're essentially conceding to capitalism.
this is the time to revolt. let's get a move on it.
the people out on the street are the soldiers we need for a socialist revolution.
don't look at me - i'd just yell at them and call them names. i don't have any people skills.
i'm sorry.
i don't organize, i type.
if you're good with people, if that's your skillset, then get out there and do it. so long as you're not fat or old...
don't look at me - i'd just yell at them and call them names. i don't have any people skills.
i'm sorry.
i don't organize, i type.
if you're good with people, if that's your skillset, then get out there and do it. so long as you're not fat or old...
we're in a very confusing time on this continent right now.
not just this virus, but in general.
these are left-wing ideas, and leftists are right to feel a twinge of support for people they wouldn't normally associate with. but, this is a condition that has been building for some time, now; the novelty and shock should have largely worn off.
i want to actually make the opposite argument to the one that the fake left media has been so keen on pushing: it's important that the left doesn't let this get away from us. there is no revolutionary potential in the obeisant middle class reaction of cowardly sitting at home, and doing what we're told.
our people are out on the streets, holding up republican placards yearning for freedom.
it's bizarre, but it's real - and we need to get our people back.
there's no way forward in building alliances with people that slavishly do what they're told.
not just this virus, but in general.
these are left-wing ideas, and leftists are right to feel a twinge of support for people they wouldn't normally associate with. but, this is a condition that has been building for some time, now; the novelty and shock should have largely worn off.
i want to actually make the opposite argument to the one that the fake left media has been so keen on pushing: it's important that the left doesn't let this get away from us. there is no revolutionary potential in the obeisant middle class reaction of cowardly sitting at home, and doing what we're told.
our people are out on the streets, holding up republican placards yearning for freedom.
it's bizarre, but it's real - and we need to get our people back.
there's no way forward in building alliances with people that slavishly do what they're told.
while i do have some solidarity with the anti-lockdown protesters, i don't think their tactics are very useful.
if they are business owners, they should just open and dare the cops to shut them down.
and, if they are workers, and their bosses won't open, then they should take advantage of the situation to seize the means of production and open without management's blessing.
going to the state capitol and yelling is just pointless.
the ancient pagans were at least empirical; even if they didn't fully understand what they were observing, they at least gave it a go. it was the right approach, even if they didn't really get it.
the abrahamic faiths have no such redeeming values - it's just a bunch of stupid rules designed to make you more pliable slaves.
the abrahamic faiths have no such redeeming values - it's just a bunch of stupid rules designed to make you more pliable slaves.
listen, i'll say this again: worshipping the sun at least makes a little bit of sense. it's the source of all energy, all life.
arguing that god was incarnated as a human and died for our sins is, comparably speaking, actually a pretty fucking stupid idea. it's a step backwards in terms of complexity, and in terms of usefulness in understanding the world.
i don't really expect the sun to react to any kind of magic verses, or anything. but, i'd be far more likely to participate in a solar ritual than a christian one, as it would make far more sense to me.
well?
here's your history.
there'll be a quiz tomorrow, read up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisii#Wars_with_the_Romans
here's your history.
there'll be a quiz tomorrow, read up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisii#Wars_with_the_Romans
so, i got half done what i was doing yesterday before i crashed hard, again. these are 16 hour days, which are maybe not short for some people, but i'm used to only sleeping 3-4 hours a day, and i think even that is too much. i wouldn't sleep at all if i didn't have to. i hate it. maybe i need to drink stronger coffee.
i shouldn't be tired like this after 15-16 hours...
whatever it is, i'm going to focus on getting the vlogging update finished before i do anything else.
it's just one stupid thing after another, i know. i'm hoping to get back to work soon. really. it's just that there's a process, and it's linear, and i can't multitask...
i shouldn't be tired like this after 15-16 hours...
whatever it is, i'm going to focus on getting the vlogging update finished before i do anything else.
it's just one stupid thing after another, i know. i'm hoping to get back to work soon. really. it's just that there's a process, and it's linear, and i can't multitask...
am i the one that didn't assimilate?
should i go back to norway?
honestly? i didn't decide to migrate here. if you were to buy me a plane ticket, i'd be gone in a minute.
i'm sure i'd fit into the culture there a lot better.
that's not reality; i was born here, i'm stuck here and i will fight to change the culture here to reflect my values and morals.
should i go back to norway?
honestly? i didn't decide to migrate here. if you were to buy me a plane ticket, i'd be gone in a minute.
i'm sure i'd fit into the culture there a lot better.
that's not reality; i was born here, i'm stuck here and i will fight to change the culture here to reflect my values and morals.
"but, in the history of western civilization, the church has played a central role in maintaining normalcy in the face of collapse."
well, that would be a correct perception, if you're approaching the situation from a roman or christian perspective.
but, if you're approaching the situation from a german or pagan perspective, or a turkish one for that matter, then the church is a relic of a vanquished culture, not a place of solace during difficult times.
i identify with the forces of revolutionary change that overthrew the empire, not the forces of conservatism and stasis that searched for something to hold on to in times of crisis.
am i getting my point across, here?
and, as inheritors of the british empire, are we not also inheritors of heresy, of henry viii, of anti-popes and of skepticism towards papal absolutism?
as inheritors of the french revolution, are we not also inheritors of the replacement of superstition with reason, and the overthrow of the ancien regime?
and are both of these traditions not inherently pagan, inherently german, in their rejection of roman christianity?
well, that would be a correct perception, if you're approaching the situation from a roman or christian perspective.
but, if you're approaching the situation from a german or pagan perspective, or a turkish one for that matter, then the church is a relic of a vanquished culture, not a place of solace during difficult times.
i identify with the forces of revolutionary change that overthrew the empire, not the forces of conservatism and stasis that searched for something to hold on to in times of crisis.
am i getting my point across, here?
and, as inheritors of the british empire, are we not also inheritors of heresy, of henry viii, of anti-popes and of skepticism towards papal absolutism?
as inheritors of the french revolution, are we not also inheritors of the replacement of superstition with reason, and the overthrow of the ancien regime?
and are both of these traditions not inherently pagan, inherently german, in their rejection of roman christianity?
back in the middle ages, these were called buboes and gave their name to the bubonic plague.
do we really know what's going on, here?
https://globalnews.ca/news/6848644/covid-toes-skin-rash-coronavirus-symptom/
do we really know what's going on, here?
https://globalnews.ca/news/6848644/covid-toes-skin-rash-coronavirus-symptom/
i'm still young enough that it's not a total culture shock. i've spent much of my life watching this flip.
but, older democrats are going to be in for a real generational shift, as they watch biden become the butt of every joke on every tv show.
we'll see how long it takes for the colberts of the world to crack. but, it's just too tempting.
wait for it.
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
it's interesting how stark the line down the middle of the map is, isn't it?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png/650px-ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png)
what's also interesting to me is that, in a few cycles, that might actually flip over, as that line from north dakota down to texas increasingly leans democrat, while the line from minnesota to louisiana is increasingly lost. minnesota is the last to fall. will it fall in 2020?
i'm not going to predict the map.
but, this is going to be sort of an interesting experiment. how long can snl and etc avoid lampooning joe biden for? it's sooooo tempting.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png/650px-ElectoralCollege1996-Large.png)
what's also interesting to me is that, in a few cycles, that might actually flip over, as that line from north dakota down to texas increasingly leans democrat, while the line from minnesota to louisiana is increasingly lost. minnesota is the last to fall. will it fall in 2020?
i'm not going to predict the map.
but, this is going to be sort of an interesting experiment. how long can snl and etc avoid lampooning joe biden for? it's sooooo tempting.
i'm actually opposed to this. religion has no role to play in this response; directing these resources to charities is something you'd expect from a right-wing government. it's thatcherian. and, it's exactly what donald trump just did.
the way to help poor people is not to force them to deal with religious groups but to give it to them directly, and that's supposed to be what government does. they could do this through the cra, or they could do it through local assistance programs set up by the municipalities.
but, this money should not have been given to charity groups, and canadians should not be forced to deal with religion in order to access it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6845930/coronavirus-support-vulnerable-canadians/
the way to help poor people is not to force them to deal with religious groups but to give it to them directly, and that's supposed to be what government does. they could do this through the cra, or they could do it through local assistance programs set up by the municipalities.
but, this money should not have been given to charity groups, and canadians should not be forced to deal with religion in order to access it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6845930/coronavirus-support-vulnerable-canadians/
so, if we're going to bring poor people in on purpose, we need to be properly funding support systems; if we're not going to fund the support systems, we should stop bringing them in on purpose. the market will not take care of it on it's own.
the people we bring in on purpose should be properly screened for educational requirements to ensure they can succeed and contribute.
the people we bring in on purpose should be properly screened for educational requirements to ensure they can succeed and contribute.
the "mistake" that democrats tend to make (and it's disingenuous to call it a mistake. they generally know what they're doing.) is to take these studies that are about skilled immigrants and apply them to unskilled immigrants. so, you'll see them argue that farm workers create multiplier effects, when all of the actual data suggests that they don't. or, they'll argue that refugees are a net benefit on the social system, by citing studies about skilled immigrants.
i'm happy to bring in refugees, if we're willing to fund the social infrastructure - housing, language training, cultural adjustment classes, etc. but, the argument from our leaders in recent decades has been that we don't need to do that because "the market" will take care of it, and that is really the crux of my dissent.
the market will not take care of it; if you saturate population levels at the lowest levels of society without funding the systems required to deal with it, you just put enormous strain on the system, and everybody suffers from it. the likelihood of anybody succeeding in this mess, domestic or foreign born, is exceedingly low. what people call "the american dream" was at best a delusional fantasy in the 20th century that was propped up to advance statist interests - it's not even a desirable fairy tale in the 21st century. the entire concept should just be flushed down the toilet as utter nonsense.
they did nutritional tests on the huddled masses on staten island back in the middle of the twentieth century and found that italian immigrants had shrunk in size due to malnutrition. they were better off in sicily. but, that wasn't the point - american businesses were looking for cheap labour, so they brought them in with fraudulent appeals to a false utopia that almost nobody actually got to. what we got instead was widespread organized crime.
i don't see any use in being foolish about this, given the hindsight of history - your chances of success on this continent if you don't have an education are approaching zero. yes, there's an epsilon, but that epsilon itself is reduced by the number of people competing for sparse resources. people arguing otherwise are either dishonest or stupid.
but, the bourgeoisie is of course famously short-sighted.
it's a shame that it's not critical mass, isn't it?
i'm happy to bring in refugees, if we're willing to fund the social infrastructure - housing, language training, cultural adjustment classes, etc. but, the argument from our leaders in recent decades has been that we don't need to do that because "the market" will take care of it, and that is really the crux of my dissent.
the market will not take care of it; if you saturate population levels at the lowest levels of society without funding the systems required to deal with it, you just put enormous strain on the system, and everybody suffers from it. the likelihood of anybody succeeding in this mess, domestic or foreign born, is exceedingly low. what people call "the american dream" was at best a delusional fantasy in the 20th century that was propped up to advance statist interests - it's not even a desirable fairy tale in the 21st century. the entire concept should just be flushed down the toilet as utter nonsense.
they did nutritional tests on the huddled masses on staten island back in the middle of the twentieth century and found that italian immigrants had shrunk in size due to malnutrition. they were better off in sicily. but, that wasn't the point - american businesses were looking for cheap labour, so they brought them in with fraudulent appeals to a false utopia that almost nobody actually got to. what we got instead was widespread organized crime.
i don't see any use in being foolish about this, given the hindsight of history - your chances of success on this continent if you don't have an education are approaching zero. yes, there's an epsilon, but that epsilon itself is reduced by the number of people competing for sparse resources. people arguing otherwise are either dishonest or stupid.
but, the bourgeoisie is of course famously short-sighted.
it's a shame that it's not critical mass, isn't it?
yesterday got away from me, i guess. i broke a plate early in the morning trying to cram it into my fridge and it kind of threw me off for the day. i just dropped it, out of clumsiness. i ended up sleeping earlier than i wanted, and later than intended; i wanted to get the recycle out this morning, and missed it altogether. i ended up unexpectedly tired all day...
i could smell some drugs in the air from the neighbours and am going to blame it on that. but, i was out shopping on wednesday night. if i finally got it, that's fine, i'd rather beat it myself, but let's hope it's quick.
it seems like the divisional court is canceled until the fall, but i'll want to get a verification on that. right now, i'm going to plan to get to toronto, regardless, so i can file these stupid motions in person, and yell down the coordinator if i need to. this is the end of june. if social distancing isn't actually working, and the peak hits in mid may rather than late may, there's some chance they may be open by then.
let's see if i can type up a point form list of things to do today and stick to it:
- i was going to finish the rest of the pasta today, but i had to toss it. so, i'm going to make some eggs, instead.
- i need to redo my sheets due to complications from breaking the plate of pasta.
- i'll have to reimage the 90s laptop, as well. i can do that while waiting for laundry.
- i'll want to get in the shower, after that.
- and then i'll want to finish that vlogging update, for the second half of march, and then do one for the first half of april, as well.
it seems like the divisional court is canceled until the fall, but i'll want to get a verification on that. right now, i'm going to plan to get to toronto, regardless, so i can file these stupid motions in person, and yell down the coordinator if i need to. this is the end of june. if social distancing isn't actually working, and the peak hits in mid may rather than late may, there's some chance they may be open by then.
let's see if i can type up a point form list of things to do today and stick to it:
- i was going to finish the rest of the pasta today, but i had to toss it. so, i'm going to make some eggs, instead.
- i need to redo my sheets due to complications from breaking the plate of pasta.
- i'll have to reimage the 90s laptop, as well. i can do that while waiting for laundry.
- i'll want to get in the shower, after that.
- and then i'll want to finish that vlogging update, for the second half of march, and then do one for the first half of april, as well.
if seasonal influenza has a r-nought around two and was stopped with social distancing, and covid-19 wasn't stopped with the same practices in the same places at the same time, it would have to have a much higher r-nought value.
i'm not going to guess. but, it's a bound.
i think this is stretching, though.
i'd like to see more widespread testing for influenza in covid-19 patients.
i'm not going to guess. but, it's a bound.
i think this is stretching, though.
i'd like to see more widespread testing for influenza in covid-19 patients.
well. where'd all the flu deaths go?
you need to answer this in some way.
nononononono, let's think this through.
let's say the haphazard hypothesis is correct - that social distancing has brought down flu deaths. it obviously hasn't been so successful for covid-19. if influenza deaths have crashed to almost zero, while covid-19 deaths have skyrocketed, in the same period and the same geographic spaces, what conclusion can we draw?
it must be that the coronavirus is a lot more contagious than the flu, right? so, just how high is that basic reproduction number, then?
you need to answer this in some way.
nononononono, let's think this through.
let's say the haphazard hypothesis is correct - that social distancing has brought down flu deaths. it obviously hasn't been so successful for covid-19. if influenza deaths have crashed to almost zero, while covid-19 deaths have skyrocketed, in the same period and the same geographic spaces, what conclusion can we draw?
it must be that the coronavirus is a lot more contagious than the flu, right? so, just how high is that basic reproduction number, then?
while also approaching the situation from the opposite direction, these people are explicitly recommending that both viruses be tested for.
https://journals.lww.com/pidj/Citation/9000/Coinfection_of_Influenza_Virus_and_Severe_Acute.96209.aspx
https://journals.lww.com/pidj/Citation/9000/Coinfection_of_Influenza_Virus_and_Severe_Acute.96209.aspx
this article is making the opposite point, which is no less valid, in theory. but, the context is that flu deaths are strangely down.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/03/covid-19-can-coexist-with-other-respiratory-viruses.html
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/03/covid-19-can-coexist-with-other-respiratory-viruses.html
i need to present a little caution: just because the information coming out of china is being increasingly realized as completely wrong doesn't mean that this happened on purpose, or that it's some kind of nefarious ploy.
they could have just been wrong.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764787
they could have just been wrong.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764787
like i say, it makes you wonder what the co-infection rate is, and how often the cause of death is being misreported.
just because you died with covid-19 in your body doesn't mean it was the cause of death. but, nobody has time for the autopsies just right now, and it may be creating a confused perception.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0299_article
just because you died with covid-19 in your body doesn't mean it was the cause of death. but, nobody has time for the autopsies just right now, and it may be creating a confused perception.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0299_article
so, supposedly the executive order is to ban people with green cards.
these are legal immigrants - skilled workers. they aren't depressing anybody's wages. they're the kind of migrants america should want more of.
dumb policy, through and through.
we should make an announcement that we're willing to look at any skilled applicants that the americans don't want.
these are legal immigrants - skilled workers. they aren't depressing anybody's wages. they're the kind of migrants america should want more of.
dumb policy, through and through.
we should make an announcement that we're willing to look at any skilled applicants that the americans don't want.
if i'm not clear, when i say "enforce labor laws", i mean sending employers that hire migrants under the table to jail.
i'd like to see a major clampdown...
but, i'd almost never support deporting somebody. and, i'd eventually like to see the borders largely erased - once some of the things i've talked about are in place.
i'd like to see a major clampdown...
but, i'd almost never support deporting somebody. and, i'd eventually like to see the borders largely erased - once some of the things i've talked about are in place.
the short answer is that bringing in skilled labour will usually increase aggregate demand, because these are people that end up with spending money that is recycled back into the economy. you actually want to talk about multiplier effects, not wage suppression.
however, bringing in unskilled labour will generally have minimal effects, as they are paid so poorly as to only be able to subsist, if they aren't sending their excess wages out of the country. if they aren't occupying jobs that domestic workers can do directly, they are at least setting the wage floor much lower than it otherwise would be.
it would follow that you would want to put a focus on skilled immigration to plug holes in labour demand, while insisting that labour laws for unskilled labour are strictly upheld, to prevent employers from taking advantage of immigrant labour.
however, bringing in unskilled labour will generally have minimal effects, as they are paid so poorly as to only be able to subsist, if they aren't sending their excess wages out of the country. if they aren't occupying jobs that domestic workers can do directly, they are at least setting the wage floor much lower than it otherwise would be.
it would follow that you would want to put a focus on skilled immigration to plug holes in labour demand, while insisting that labour laws for unskilled labour are strictly upheld, to prevent employers from taking advantage of immigrant labour.
again: you're going to have a hard time pinning me down into a partisan position on this, because i denounce both parties equally. i don't believe in borders, and i'd like to erase them from the map. but, i'm staunchly critical of the democrats for upholding what is essentially a system of slavery, designed to maximize profits for corporate farmers, while keeping prices low for consumers. this is not a just system, and should not be maintained.
if you think you're standing in solidarity with migrant workers by standing with their employers, you're either a delusional idiot or you're a fascist asshole. these people are underpaid, they're not protected by labour rights, they face massive abuses and they are often void of basic civil rights in the process. i don't use the term lightly - they are enslaved.
making the issue about immigration is a cop-out. the issue is about labour rights, and standing in solidarity with the workers - not with the employers - means standing up for their rights to collective bargaining, to fair wages, to safe workplaces and to everything else that workers fight for and largely get in the united states and in canada. they are not lesser than us, and they should not be treated as though they are - they deserve the same rights as us.
now, it follows that if you were to actually enforce all of these things then mexican labour would lose it's absolute advantage. if employers had to pay all of the same things for imported labour that they do for domestic labour, imported labour would just have added costs attached to it. this would increase the competitiveness of domestic applicants; it would even the playing field.
but, that's just a corollary to the basic point, which is that a legitimately leftist position means standing in solidarity with the rights of workers, and not with the rights of corporations or the rights of consumers.
i don't know what he's doing, so it's hard to analyze. but, it's not clear to me that a ban on foreign workers is a worse idea than the status quo is.
if you think you're standing in solidarity with migrant workers by standing with their employers, you're either a delusional idiot or you're a fascist asshole. these people are underpaid, they're not protected by labour rights, they face massive abuses and they are often void of basic civil rights in the process. i don't use the term lightly - they are enslaved.
making the issue about immigration is a cop-out. the issue is about labour rights, and standing in solidarity with the workers - not with the employers - means standing up for their rights to collective bargaining, to fair wages, to safe workplaces and to everything else that workers fight for and largely get in the united states and in canada. they are not lesser than us, and they should not be treated as though they are - they deserve the same rights as us.
now, it follows that if you were to actually enforce all of these things then mexican labour would lose it's absolute advantage. if employers had to pay all of the same things for imported labour that they do for domestic labour, imported labour would just have added costs attached to it. this would increase the competitiveness of domestic applicants; it would even the playing field.
but, that's just a corollary to the basic point, which is that a legitimately leftist position means standing in solidarity with the rights of workers, and not with the rights of corporations or the rights of consumers.
i don't know what he's doing, so it's hard to analyze. but, it's not clear to me that a ban on foreign workers is a worse idea than the status quo is.
this is a different issue in canada, which does not share a border with a third-world country, but actually flies in migrant workers who exist under a specialized place in the labour code. we've essentially legalized paying them under-the-table. it's a program that is an absolute affront to any concept of labour rights, is unreformable and should be outright abolished.
in the united states, you could just enforce the laws, and that would most likely be good enough to end the abuses.
in the united states, you could just enforce the laws, and that would most likely be good enough to end the abuses.
so, they seem to be adopting a marxist argument about surplus labour depressing wages, which i don't dispute in specific contexts, but seems a little weird to bring up, in context.
yes, it is true that if you increase the supply of labour while reducing it's demand or otherwise holding it steady then you will suppress wages. that's economics 101. arguments against this rely on the question of what effect immigration has on demand, which is variable by sector. and, demand for labour is indeed rather low right now. but, wouldn't it make more sense to lift the lockdown? as demand is low for labour across the board right now, it's hard to see how banning immigration would have much of an effect on wages.
while i acknowledge that immigration is a factor in reducing wages in the southwest, i don't generally support policies intended to slow or ban migration into these regions. rather, i tend to point fingers at employers that hire people under the table, and a system that is erected to look the other way at it. so, i would rather see increased enforcement of the labour laws than bans on immigration. in the end, i would actually support a schengen-style agreement for the nafta countries that upholds free movement across the borders, but it has to be accompanied with stricter enforcement of labour laws, and the mexicans have to up their game on union rights.
if we actually enforced the labour laws properly, then mexican labour would be more expensive, and the issue would resolve itself.
could he do it?
if he decides that immigration is a threat to national security, he would have the power to ban immigration via executive order, whether that's enforceable in reality or not. i still don't know how you do it, besides completely shutting the border down altogether, which would quickly lead to an economic and social catastrophe.
as was the case previously, the proper way to fight the order is to question it's efficacy, not to argue it's "racist". given that the united states has more cases and deaths than anywhere else in the world, it does not seem as though it would be a particularly rational policy. if somebody challenges it in the right way, they'd no doubt win the case. but, what we've seen from groups like the aclu recently is pretty disappointing, and i don't have a lot of confidence in them to make the right legal arguments.
if he decides that immigration is a threat to national security, he would have the power to ban immigration via executive order, whether that's enforceable in reality or not. i still don't know how you do it, besides completely shutting the border down altogether, which would quickly lead to an economic and social catastrophe.
as was the case previously, the proper way to fight the order is to question it's efficacy, not to argue it's "racist". given that the united states has more cases and deaths than anywhere else in the world, it does not seem as though it would be a particularly rational policy. if somebody challenges it in the right way, they'd no doubt win the case. but, what we've seen from groups like the aclu recently is pretty disappointing, and i don't have a lot of confidence in them to make the right legal arguments.
that's not to say that the grading systems are perfect, or that i don't have criticisms about the way that grading is done, right now. i certainly do, actually.
but, if we want to live in a complicated society then we need to have some way to ensure that the people that are administering it have the qualifications to do so.
otherwise, we end up living in the film idiocracy.
but, if we want to live in a complicated society then we need to have some way to ensure that the people that are administering it have the qualifications to do so.
otherwise, we end up living in the film idiocracy.
arguments against the division of labour came out of a nineteenth century context, where specialization was less pronounced and factory work was particularly vicious - people died in factories all of the time, after having been relegated to the working class, and therefore discarded as expendable. these arguments need to evolve with the technology, and the realities created by it.
holding to the crux of what the anarchists were trying to say on the point means the following:
(1) we should abolish the feudal idea that people are born to perform certain tasks. in a modern context, that would mean something closer to abolishing foreign workers on farms than it would to abolishing grades. the point is that people need a way out.
(2) none of us should be assigned to accomplish the same task for our whole lives. that is, we need to be able to change careers, sometimes. that is something that is normal now, and was quite esoteric 200 years ago, where your entire identity was defined by the task that was assigned to you.
arguing that we should be allowed to change our role in society, which is the point of arguing against the division of labour, does not imply that we should be waiving requirements to demonstrate that you're qualified to do the job in the first place. it just means we shouldn't force people into menial roles for life, which we do continue to do.
holding to the crux of what the anarchists were trying to say on the point means the following:
(1) we should abolish the feudal idea that people are born to perform certain tasks. in a modern context, that would mean something closer to abolishing foreign workers on farms than it would to abolishing grades. the point is that people need a way out.
(2) none of us should be assigned to accomplish the same task for our whole lives. that is, we need to be able to change careers, sometimes. that is something that is normal now, and was quite esoteric 200 years ago, where your entire identity was defined by the task that was assigned to you.
arguing that we should be allowed to change our role in society, which is the point of arguing against the division of labour, does not imply that we should be waiving requirements to demonstrate that you're qualified to do the job in the first place. it just means we shouldn't force people into menial roles for life, which we do continue to do.
i might support a pass/fail system if you decided that you need 90+% to pass. that's probably a better reflection of reality, nowadays, anyways.
but, evaluating technical students on what they learned is necessary to ensure that they're actually able to do the job they want to do, in the end. that's a hierarchy that we need to maintain to ensure that our bridges don't collapse, and our doctors are able to do what they're expected.
i want to make my position clear on this.
if you're a classical civilization major, then going to school is an experience. you're there to meet people, to have discussions, to take part in debates, etc. your letter grade is ultimately somebody's opinion on your arguments and writing style, and doing away with it isn't such a big deal.
but, if you're an engineering student then you need to be evaluated on what you actually learned, which means you need to be tested. a pass/fail system for engineers or doctors or (...) would be reflective of total societal collapse, and this virus really isn't bad enough to be talking like this. so, these people have to be evaluated somewhere at some point, they can't just be passed and moved along. the students will mostly agree with me on this point - they don't want bullshit on their transcripts.
the policy should be centered on what stem students need, not what is convenient for arts majors.
if you're a classical civilization major, then going to school is an experience. you're there to meet people, to have discussions, to take part in debates, etc. your letter grade is ultimately somebody's opinion on your arguments and writing style, and doing away with it isn't such a big deal.
but, if you're an engineering student then you need to be evaluated on what you actually learned, which means you need to be tested. a pass/fail system for engineers or doctors or (...) would be reflective of total societal collapse, and this virus really isn't bad enough to be talking like this. so, these people have to be evaluated somewhere at some point, they can't just be passed and moved along. the students will mostly agree with me on this point - they don't want bullshit on their transcripts.
the policy should be centered on what stem students need, not what is convenient for arts majors.
if you're a good student and you've been keeping up then you probably don't need in-class instruction anyways and you can probably just write the exams like nothing happened. the schools should have that option available, allowing the best students to still get letter grades based entirely on their exam scores. if they're lucky - and next year isn't cancelled anyways - then they should get over this without much more than a hiccup.
slower students that require attention from the teachers, and/or haven't been keeping up, and can't pass an exam in these circumstances should be given the opportunity to repeat without it affecting their gpa.
so, what should it say on the transcripts?
it should say something like CANCELLED.
and, where necessary, students should be refunded entirely.
i know that i wouldn't want to pay for a grade that says PASS. i'd feel ripped off...
slower students that require attention from the teachers, and/or haven't been keeping up, and can't pass an exam in these circumstances should be given the opportunity to repeat without it affecting their gpa.
so, what should it say on the transcripts?
it should say something like CANCELLED.
and, where necessary, students should be refunded entirely.
i know that i wouldn't want to pay for a grade that says PASS. i'd feel ripped off...
see, as maclean's is the asshole of canadian journalism, it is no doubt looking at the situation from a liberal arts perspective, where grades are more important than knowledge. but, if you're studying something technical, you would have actually learned something in the period of classes that were cancelled, and you can't just waive that aside with a pass/fail option.
at some point, these kids have to write exams. that could be done at the high school level, by setting up online testing, which surely wouldn't be particularly difficult.
"but, i didn't study. classes were out."
well, i guess you'll fail the exam then, won't you?
awww.
or, the universities may set up a qualifying process.
but, we can't collapse into the fairy tale reality of a pass/fail system. such nonsense would permanently impugn the credibility of our academic system, and if i was an employer, i wouldn't even look at students that graduated in this period.
i know it's a bitter pill, but i would actually recommend that everybody cut their losses and repeat the year. if you're a high school student, you might have to skip that year off that's become standard. if you're a university student, you should just repeat the courses.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/pass-fail-grades-should-be-the-only-option-during-the-coronavirus/
at some point, these kids have to write exams. that could be done at the high school level, by setting up online testing, which surely wouldn't be particularly difficult.
"but, i didn't study. classes were out."
well, i guess you'll fail the exam then, won't you?
awww.
or, the universities may set up a qualifying process.
but, we can't collapse into the fairy tale reality of a pass/fail system. such nonsense would permanently impugn the credibility of our academic system, and if i was an employer, i wouldn't even look at students that graduated in this period.
i know it's a bitter pill, but i would actually recommend that everybody cut their losses and repeat the year. if you're a high school student, you might have to skip that year off that's become standard. if you're a university student, you should just repeat the courses.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/pass-fail-grades-should-be-the-only-option-during-the-coronavirus/
the initial reports were that this disease didn't cause gastric or intestinal problems, but then there was a slew of evidence suggesting it actually did.
how many of those cases were patients that tested for multiple pathogens?
i know this is a can, but i'm at least pointing to a valid source of error that i hadn't thought of previously. under normal circumstances, just assuming the new virus is the cause of death would be a massive medical error. correlation doesn't imply causality. people may be being a little sloppy on that point, right now, because the resources to work it out are so stretched.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/researchers-report-21-covid-19-co-infection-rate
how many of those cases were patients that tested for multiple pathogens?
i know this is a can, but i'm at least pointing to a valid source of error that i hadn't thought of previously. under normal circumstances, just assuming the new virus is the cause of death would be a massive medical error. correlation doesn't imply causality. people may be being a little sloppy on that point, right now, because the resources to work it out are so stretched.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/researchers-report-21-covid-19-co-infection-rate
it makes you wonder.
correct me if i'm wrong, but i do believe that the assumption right now is that anybody that dies after having tested positive for the new virus died from it. they're not doing autopsies, or otherwise rigorously attempting to determine exact causes of death.
if flu deaths are unusually low, it opens up the question - how many deaths that we're assigning to covid-19 are actually in people that tested positive for covid-19, and actually died of the flu?
what kind of comorbidity is there? are they doing testing for it?
we could just be having a weak flu year. it happens. it was warm this year in europe, right?
but, i'm exceedingly skeptical that the reason flu deaths are down is due to distancing; i'd consider it far more likely that we're not getting the cause of death right in a lot of cases.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/world/remember-the-flu-coronavirus-sent-it-into-hiding-but-at-a-cost-439681/
correct me if i'm wrong, but i do believe that the assumption right now is that anybody that dies after having tested positive for the new virus died from it. they're not doing autopsies, or otherwise rigorously attempting to determine exact causes of death.
if flu deaths are unusually low, it opens up the question - how many deaths that we're assigning to covid-19 are actually in people that tested positive for covid-19, and actually died of the flu?
what kind of comorbidity is there? are they doing testing for it?
we could just be having a weak flu year. it happens. it was warm this year in europe, right?
but, i'm exceedingly skeptical that the reason flu deaths are down is due to distancing; i'd consider it far more likely that we're not getting the cause of death right in a lot of cases.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/world/remember-the-flu-coronavirus-sent-it-into-hiding-but-at-a-cost-439681/
why did i go to a christian school if i'm so axiomatically opposed to judeo-christian morals?
i've told this story before, and a few times, actually. so be it.
back in the 80s in ontario, the public school system didn't have kindergarten. if you're my age, or a little younger, you might be aware of the political struggle around full day kindergarten without being fully cognizant of the reality that it wasn't available at all when you were at that age. however, because i was born in january, i wouldn't have been able to attend pre-school for another year.
my mother, and it was my mother's choice, had two options in front of her:
1) i could skip what would amount to two years.
2) i could get baptized.
so, my mother baptized me at the age of four in order to send me to the catholic school so i didn't have to skip the year. i've heard rumours that they were planning on switching me after, but it never happened.
my father was never religious, but his mother was, and my mother had to really put her foot down to stop me from being baptized as an infant - a decision that is likely at the root of the fact that i have never had a relationship with my paternal grandmother. my mother was basically afraid of the priests, and the reputation they have for molesting young boys, so she wouldn't let me anywhere near a church under real fears that i'd get assaulted. she has some mental issues, but it doesn't mean she didn't actually believe the threat was real, and i don't doubt that she did.
i remember the event - it was scary. i didn't know this guy, i didn't know what he was doing and i found the surroundings to be unsettling. my mom's strict instructions to not go anywhere alone with the priest made me wonder what the fuck was happening. so, it was actually kind of a traumatic experience.
it says a lot about the role that religion played in my mother's life, and by extension my own, though - not only did she refuse to have me baptized when i was an infant, but she had such little concern for the sanctity of the ritual that she cynically performed it on me out of no religious conviction and simply to send me to school when i was a toddler.
there are two other reasons why my mother baptized me at that age besides so that i didn't skip the year:
1) while canada's school system is not explicitly segregated, the catholic schools are about 95% white.
2) my mother was and remains an angry, violent & frequent drunk. i seem to be the only antidote that ever worked - something i'm self-aware of. but, sending me to school would give her an opportunity to drink during the day when i was gone.
i did not participate in the other sacraments, and would not be considered a catholic relative to their own admission criteria.
in hindsight, i wish i had switched, by high school if not earlier. in later years, my dad insisted on the superior quality of the catholic system, but i'm not sure how true the claim actually was.
i've told this story before, and a few times, actually. so be it.
back in the 80s in ontario, the public school system didn't have kindergarten. if you're my age, or a little younger, you might be aware of the political struggle around full day kindergarten without being fully cognizant of the reality that it wasn't available at all when you were at that age. however, because i was born in january, i wouldn't have been able to attend pre-school for another year.
my mother, and it was my mother's choice, had two options in front of her:
1) i could skip what would amount to two years.
2) i could get baptized.
so, my mother baptized me at the age of four in order to send me to the catholic school so i didn't have to skip the year. i've heard rumours that they were planning on switching me after, but it never happened.
my father was never religious, but his mother was, and my mother had to really put her foot down to stop me from being baptized as an infant - a decision that is likely at the root of the fact that i have never had a relationship with my paternal grandmother. my mother was basically afraid of the priests, and the reputation they have for molesting young boys, so she wouldn't let me anywhere near a church under real fears that i'd get assaulted. she has some mental issues, but it doesn't mean she didn't actually believe the threat was real, and i don't doubt that she did.
i remember the event - it was scary. i didn't know this guy, i didn't know what he was doing and i found the surroundings to be unsettling. my mom's strict instructions to not go anywhere alone with the priest made me wonder what the fuck was happening. so, it was actually kind of a traumatic experience.
it says a lot about the role that religion played in my mother's life, and by extension my own, though - not only did she refuse to have me baptized when i was an infant, but she had such little concern for the sanctity of the ritual that she cynically performed it on me out of no religious conviction and simply to send me to school when i was a toddler.
there are two other reasons why my mother baptized me at that age besides so that i didn't skip the year:
1) while canada's school system is not explicitly segregated, the catholic schools are about 95% white.
2) my mother was and remains an angry, violent & frequent drunk. i seem to be the only antidote that ever worked - something i'm self-aware of. but, sending me to school would give her an opportunity to drink during the day when i was gone.
i did not participate in the other sacraments, and would not be considered a catholic relative to their own admission criteria.
in hindsight, i wish i had switched, by high school if not earlier. in later years, my dad insisted on the superior quality of the catholic system, but i'm not sure how true the claim actually was.
i'm not the person that is struggling with my faith, but is essentially a christian in my views.
rather, i'm the person that vehemently rejects every word that is written in the bible and even identifies historically and culturally with groups that fought wars against christianity, all of the way into the enlightenment.
it's not my history, it's not my culture and i won't be smeared as though it is.
rather, i'm the person that vehemently rejects every word that is written in the bible and even identifies historically and culturally with groups that fought wars against christianity, all of the way into the enlightenment.
it's not my history, it's not my culture and i won't be smeared as though it is.
so, it's like...
i can't stop you from building up and tearing down strawmen about me. whatever.
but, if you have a legitimate interest in what i actually think, you should realize that my rejection of christianity is both constant and total and that i've stated my views on these topics rather clearly for a rather long period. nothing i've said recently is inconsistent with my previous views, and if you think it is then you misunderstood me previously.
i can't stop you from building up and tearing down strawmen about me. whatever.
but, if you have a legitimate interest in what i actually think, you should realize that my rejection of christianity is both constant and total and that i've stated my views on these topics rather clearly for a rather long period. nothing i've said recently is inconsistent with my previous views, and if you think it is then you misunderstood me previously.
i just flat out refused to do this - not because i was lazy, but because i strongly hold to the principle that all labour should be compensated for.
it's true that i was working two jobs and had a full course load, so trying to make space for it was nearly impossible. but, that wasn't the reasoning underlying my position - it was a labour rights position, defined by leftist ideology.
and, while i'm thinking about it, i will call on the province to abolish this requirement immediately. nobody should ever be forced to perform unpaid labour, ever, no matter what.
https://www.ocsb.ca/community-involvement/
it's true that i was working two jobs and had a full course load, so trying to make space for it was nearly impossible. but, that wasn't the reasoning underlying my position - it was a labour rights position, defined by leftist ideology.
and, while i'm thinking about it, i will call on the province to abolish this requirement immediately. nobody should ever be forced to perform unpaid labour, ever, no matter what.
https://www.ocsb.ca/community-involvement/
i completed five years of high school at st. pius x in ottawa, and used those credits to get into three different universities (i settled on carleton because it was close) but i don't think i technically have a high school diploma. the reason is that i resisted the community service requirements, under an argument that i felt unpaid labour was unjust. in the end, i decided that holding to my principles in resisting forced service was more important to me than having the diploma was.
so, i've been consistent on the point for a long time.
so, i've been consistent on the point for a long time.
if there's one constant in my public persona for as long as i've been typing for, it's a total rejection of religion. so, nobody should be surprised that i don't have time for sacrifice as a concept, and that i don't see it as a redeeming trait.
so, if that wasn't clear previously, i'll make it clear now: when i talk of solidarity, it is always about advancing self-interest through numbers and power. that's how we win, we work together. it's never about making sacrifices for others, or giving back to the community - those are religious ideas, not anarchist concepts, and they are ideas that i thoroughly reject.
so, if that wasn't clear previously, i'll make it clear now: when i talk of solidarity, it is always about advancing self-interest through numbers and power. that's how we win, we work together. it's never about making sacrifices for others, or giving back to the community - those are religious ideas, not anarchist concepts, and they are ideas that i thoroughly reject.
it is probably the case that a lot of people have the concepts of solidarity and sacrifice intertwined with each other, for the reason that they interpret the world through a religious filter.
when you don't see the world through the filter of a religion because you could never be bothered with it, these ideas are not just separate but largely contradictory. solidarity is mutual aid, which is about advancing shared self-interests - it has nothing to do with sacrificing for others, which is just flat out irrational.
it's important to recognize these linguistic and conceptual subtleties when dealing with the left, which is starkly irreligious. we may perhaps use some of the same words, but they don't always mean the same thing to leftists that they do to religionists.
when you don't see the world through the filter of a religion because you could never be bothered with it, these ideas are not just separate but largely contradictory. solidarity is mutual aid, which is about advancing shared self-interests - it has nothing to do with sacrificing for others, which is just flat out irrational.
it's important to recognize these linguistic and conceptual subtleties when dealing with the left, which is starkly irreligious. we may perhaps use some of the same words, but they don't always mean the same thing to leftists that they do to religionists.
standing with the weak is not an opinion, it's not a feeling, it's not a conviction. it's not an opportunity to be self-righteous, or demonstrate you're a part of the elect.
standing with the weak means designing and implementing policies that will actually be effective in protecting them, and it is nothing more and nothing less than that.
nothing that our governments have forced us to do has been effective, and it is therefore not real solidarity - real solidarity is promoting policies that actually work.
standing with the weak means designing and implementing policies that will actually be effective in protecting them, and it is nothing more and nothing less than that.
nothing that our governments have forced us to do has been effective, and it is therefore not real solidarity - real solidarity is promoting policies that actually work.
yeah.
this is maybe so obvious that i missed it altogether, but, obviously, solidarity cannot be a universal value shared across humanity. how does a slave stand in solidarity with it's master? rather, solidarity requires an external force to act against. so, anybody interpreting solidarity as a universal truth would be kind of missing the plot.
slave owners would stand in solidarity with each other against slave revolts, as bankers would stand in solidarity with each other against regulatory agencies. that's not any less real than working class solidarity, or any other type of it.
so, rather than being some kind of universal truth, individuals need to pick who they are in solidarity with and who they are in solidarity against. so, for example, as an openly transgendered person, i cannot stand in solidarity with religious groups, as they do not acknowledge that i exist - they are my political opponents, and i must stand in opposition to them, not in solidarity with them. to suggest otherwise would be for me to act against my own self-interest.
and, no, solidarity is not the abstention of self-interest, it's the realization that self-interest is best obtained by working together with those that have the same self-interests.
are we all in this together with this disease? no, we're not. this isn't about working together to achieve common goals at all, it's about forcing through laws by gunpoint that only benefit 1% of the population. and, pointing that out is not right-wing, it's left-wing. i am not under any threat from this disease at all, so i am being forced to suffer dramatically from these measures, with absolutely no benefit. none of this is in my self-interest. so, why would i stand in solidarity with something that harms me, and i gain nothing from? you can assign romanticized concepts to such behaviour, but it just strikes me as stupidity. there needs to be reciprocity, or what's the point?
worse, what we've done has been brutally ineffective in protecting the people that require it. this is supposed to be about protecting the elderly, and the fact is that they're still getting killed by this thing at high rates. so, not only is supporting these policies at my expense not in my self-interest, but the fact is that it's not even smart policy - it's not working, and it was predictable that it wouldn't work.
solidarity should be measured by results, not by intentions. supporting very targeted measures to actually protect the weak that would actually work, which is what i argued for, is a stronger level of solidarity with the weak than supporting these ineffective lockdowns that it was obvious from the start would be pointless.
maclean's is the asshole of canadian journalism, and everybody knows that. but, let's not reduce solidarity to stupidity. let's try to be a little more thoughtful than this.
https://www.utoronto.ca/news/what-solidarity-during-coronavirus-and-always-it-s-more-we-re-all-together-u-t-expert
this is maybe so obvious that i missed it altogether, but, obviously, solidarity cannot be a universal value shared across humanity. how does a slave stand in solidarity with it's master? rather, solidarity requires an external force to act against. so, anybody interpreting solidarity as a universal truth would be kind of missing the plot.
slave owners would stand in solidarity with each other against slave revolts, as bankers would stand in solidarity with each other against regulatory agencies. that's not any less real than working class solidarity, or any other type of it.
so, rather than being some kind of universal truth, individuals need to pick who they are in solidarity with and who they are in solidarity against. so, for example, as an openly transgendered person, i cannot stand in solidarity with religious groups, as they do not acknowledge that i exist - they are my political opponents, and i must stand in opposition to them, not in solidarity with them. to suggest otherwise would be for me to act against my own self-interest.
and, no, solidarity is not the abstention of self-interest, it's the realization that self-interest is best obtained by working together with those that have the same self-interests.
are we all in this together with this disease? no, we're not. this isn't about working together to achieve common goals at all, it's about forcing through laws by gunpoint that only benefit 1% of the population. and, pointing that out is not right-wing, it's left-wing. i am not under any threat from this disease at all, so i am being forced to suffer dramatically from these measures, with absolutely no benefit. none of this is in my self-interest. so, why would i stand in solidarity with something that harms me, and i gain nothing from? you can assign romanticized concepts to such behaviour, but it just strikes me as stupidity. there needs to be reciprocity, or what's the point?
worse, what we've done has been brutally ineffective in protecting the people that require it. this is supposed to be about protecting the elderly, and the fact is that they're still getting killed by this thing at high rates. so, not only is supporting these policies at my expense not in my self-interest, but the fact is that it's not even smart policy - it's not working, and it was predictable that it wouldn't work.
solidarity should be measured by results, not by intentions. supporting very targeted measures to actually protect the weak that would actually work, which is what i argued for, is a stronger level of solidarity with the weak than supporting these ineffective lockdowns that it was obvious from the start would be pointless.
maclean's is the asshole of canadian journalism, and everybody knows that. but, let's not reduce solidarity to stupidity. let's try to be a little more thoughtful than this.
https://www.utoronto.ca/news/what-solidarity-during-coronavirus-and-always-it-s-more-we-re-all-together-u-t-expert
Monday, April 20, 2020
i have no earned income. therefore, i've experienced no loss in income.
what's the worst thing that can happen if i apply?
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/04/20/ontario-to-allow-people-on-social-assistance-to-keep-part-of-emergency-benefits.html
what's the worst thing that can happen if i apply?
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/04/20/ontario-to-allow-people-on-social-assistance-to-keep-part-of-emergency-benefits.html
you are not a child, and the government is not your guardian. you will not be rewarded for good behaviour, and if that's what you're thinking then you need to snap out of it.
if social distancing is working, it means that the more you comply, the longer you will need to comply for.
you won't get a reduced sentence for good behaviour, here; it's the opposite - if we all comply perfectly, we'll be stuck with this for the next two years.
if you want to speed this up, you should be supporting policies that increase social interaction, not those that reduce it.
do you understand that?
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/03/30/should-governments-give-an-end-date-for-social-distancing-covid-19-study-says-theres-a-catch.html
if social distancing is working, it means that the more you comply, the longer you will need to comply for.
you won't get a reduced sentence for good behaviour, here; it's the opposite - if we all comply perfectly, we'll be stuck with this for the next two years.
if you want to speed this up, you should be supporting policies that increase social interaction, not those that reduce it.
do you understand that?
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/03/30/should-governments-give-an-end-date-for-social-distancing-covid-19-study-says-theres-a-catch.html
ok.
it would be impossible to find stats on deaths due to the "common cold" because there's no such thing as the common cold - that's a term we use to describe dozens of disparate viruses that create similar symptoms.
but, any of these viruses might kill you if you're 110 years old, or if you have aids.
the comparison is not that bad, actually. but, nobody thinks the numbers are that low. or, not yet, anyways.
we don't have flu-like coronaviruses, though; coronaviruses are the common cold, and that's the best comparison we have to this one, as well, even if it's in it's beginning stages. a number that low might be realistic in a few years, once it's really run it's course.
for now, the correct answer is "no".
it would be impossible to find stats on deaths due to the "common cold" because there's no such thing as the common cold - that's a term we use to describe dozens of disparate viruses that create similar symptoms.
but, any of these viruses might kill you if you're 110 years old, or if you have aids.
the comparison is not that bad, actually. but, nobody thinks the numbers are that low. or, not yet, anyways.
we don't have flu-like coronaviruses, though; coronaviruses are the common cold, and that's the best comparison we have to this one, as well, even if it's in it's beginning stages. a number that low might be realistic in a few years, once it's really run it's course.
for now, the correct answer is "no".
to be clear...
if what we've done is working after all, then the intent of the policy was to push the peak forward along the axes of the graph, meaning we'll need to wait even longer to peak.
so, i'm suggesting that toronto will peak at the end of may, because i don't think these policies are working. but, if they are working then that means that we'll be pushing the peak to a later point in time - july or perhaps august.
does those make sense to you?
do you understand?
do you understand why what the premier said today is complete rubbish?
if toronto were actually at a peak - and they are not. - then the proper conclusion would be that social distancing had no effect at all, and the virus has a mortality rate that's drastically lower than 0.1%,.
we can calculate that.
if we're at peak, that means we're at herd immunity. no, that's what the peak is - there's no other way to peak.
if we have 600 deaths with .666 infection, what is the mortality rate?
let x be the mortality rate.
15 million*.666*x = 600 <----> x= 600/(.666*15 million) <---> x= 0.00006006006
so, if we're at a peak than the mortality rate is .0006%.
that's comparable to what? the common cold?
we're not at peak, and the mortality rate is not that low. the premier is just an ignorant buffoon.
we can calculate that.
if we're at peak, that means we're at herd immunity. no, that's what the peak is - there's no other way to peak.
if we have 600 deaths with .666 infection, what is the mortality rate?
let x be the mortality rate.
15 million*.666*x = 600 <----> x= 600/(.666*15 million) <---> x= 0.00006006006
so, if we're at a peak than the mortality rate is .0006%.
that's comparable to what? the common cold?
we're not at peak, and the mortality rate is not that low. the premier is just an ignorant buffoon.
what the ford government is claiming is that social distancing rules had the effect of accelerating the peak.
this is perhaps the single most ignorant statement i've yet to hear in regards to the situation.
i'll repeat my own position, which i think is the consensus position - community spread in ontario doesn't appear to have started until march, weeks after italy or new york. if we are ~6 weeks behind new york, we shouldn't expect to see death tolls in toronto that are comparable to the peak in new york, which happened at the beginning of april, until the middle of may or the beginning of june.
you should expect toronto to peak at the end of may or the start of june.
but, what if social distancing is working? would you expect it to accelerate the peak?
no. the purpose of social distancing was to slow down the peak, in order to protect health care resources.
if you wanted to accelerate the peak, you should have increased transmission rates.
it's just a constant stream of anti-science bullshit from queen's park. and, this man needs to go. now.
this is perhaps the single most ignorant statement i've yet to hear in regards to the situation.
i'll repeat my own position, which i think is the consensus position - community spread in ontario doesn't appear to have started until march, weeks after italy or new york. if we are ~6 weeks behind new york, we shouldn't expect to see death tolls in toronto that are comparable to the peak in new york, which happened at the beginning of april, until the middle of may or the beginning of june.
you should expect toronto to peak at the end of may or the start of june.
but, what if social distancing is working? would you expect it to accelerate the peak?
no. the purpose of social distancing was to slow down the peak, in order to protect health care resources.
if you wanted to accelerate the peak, you should have increased transmission rates.
it's just a constant stream of anti-science bullshit from queen's park. and, this man needs to go. now.
it's very strange what we're seeing happening, here, even if we've had forewarning with russiagate and a few other things.
across the country, it's the democrats that are giving into fear mongering and ignoring the science, and republicans that are following the data.
i'd like to pretend i'm baffled, but it's really a continuation of an existing trend - republicans are becoming more science-oriented; democrats, less so.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/covid-19-u-s-floridamorons-trends-after-people-flock-to-reopened-florida-beaches
across the country, it's the democrats that are giving into fear mongering and ignoring the science, and republicans that are following the data.
i'd like to pretend i'm baffled, but it's really a continuation of an existing trend - republicans are becoming more science-oriented; democrats, less so.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/covid-19-u-s-floridamorons-trends-after-people-flock-to-reopened-florida-beaches
so, how will we know if this is done before we get a vaccine?
we're getting decent bounds on the mortality rate, now.
we'll need to calculate herd immunity based on mortality - that's how we'll know it's done.
and, we'll measure the body count in ontario by thousands, not hundreds, when it is.
unless you want to live like this until we get a vaccine, that is.
the initial modelling had a death rate around 1% of those infected. we know now that that's about ten to twenty times too high.
it also had r-not values around 1 or 2. we know now that that's 2-3 times too low.
those are the sources of error in the models, and we can fix that to come up with better projections.
but, the focus of these policies was never to burn the virus out, it was only to slow it down.
we were never going to save anybody, we were only going to prolong their death by weeks or months.
it also had r-not values around 1 or 2. we know now that that's 2-3 times too low.
those are the sources of error in the models, and we can fix that to come up with better projections.
but, the focus of these policies was never to burn the virus out, it was only to slow it down.
we were never going to save anybody, we were only going to prolong their death by weeks or months.
"but, social distancing is working."
even if it was working, that wouldn't suggest a lower total death count, in the end, unless we stay locked down until (if.) we get a vaccine.
remember, there's only two ways to stop this: mass vaccination or herd immunity.
and, there's no way to get to herd immunity without experiencing a lot of death, because it's going to work via trial and error.
so, even if social distancing was working, that wouldn't imply that you could cut the death rate to a tenth of what it would be, otherwise. it would just mean you could slow it down....
even if it was working, that wouldn't suggest a lower total death count, in the end, unless we stay locked down until (if.) we get a vaccine.
remember, there's only two ways to stop this: mass vaccination or herd immunity.
and, there's no way to get to herd immunity without experiencing a lot of death, because it's going to work via trial and error.
so, even if social distancing was working, that wouldn't imply that you could cut the death rate to a tenth of what it would be, otherwise. it would just mean you could slow it down....
if they were to run the models with a case count that was derived from the death toll, which is going to be a better metric than the testing anyways, then they'd get very different results.
guessing parameters is messy, and nobody is going to nail this. you need to expect large amounts of error.
but, this is certain: if you feed the model bad data by suppressing the testing, you're going to get the same garbage out that you put in.
and, it will not be the models that will be wrong. it will be the government that botched the response...
guessing parameters is messy, and nobody is going to nail this. you need to expect large amounts of error.
but, this is certain: if you feed the model bad data by suppressing the testing, you're going to get the same garbage out that you put in.
and, it will not be the models that will be wrong. it will be the government that botched the response...
the ford government has refused to test, thereby limiting the number of known cases to a few thousand.
but, we've had almost 600 deaths, here. the observed mortality rate in ontario is over 5%, which is nowhere close to reality.
we know, now, that the actual mortality rate is under .1%.
that would suggest that there are more than 600,000 cases in ontario, already. but, that's not the end - that's just the start.
so, the ford government's focus has been to distort the numbers by refusing to test. it seems to be afraid that it's going to face bad media if too many cases are uncovered. then, they argue that the deficit of observed cases implies the epidemic has passed, when the truth is that they just haven't tested for it.
then, they put the bad data into the model, and conclude it's not happening.
no, you fucking idiots. you're not testing...
but, we've had almost 600 deaths, here. the observed mortality rate in ontario is over 5%, which is nowhere close to reality.
we know, now, that the actual mortality rate is under .1%.
that would suggest that there are more than 600,000 cases in ontario, already. but, that's not the end - that's just the start.
so, the ford government's focus has been to distort the numbers by refusing to test. it seems to be afraid that it's going to face bad media if too many cases are uncovered. then, they argue that the deficit of observed cases implies the epidemic has passed, when the truth is that they just haven't tested for it.
then, they put the bad data into the model, and conclude it's not happening.
no, you fucking idiots. you're not testing...
ok, i'll bring out my crystal ball.
abracadabra! oopa loompa!
what's going to happen here is that they're going to reopen before the epidemic even starts. then, when the epidemic starts here on time, we'll blame it on reopening too early - when the reality is that we shut down too early, and then reopened before it even hit.
i don't think we should have shut anything down at all - i think we should have put the vulnerable in lockdown camps until it passed. but, if we were going to shut down, we should have shut down starting now, not starting last month.
it's a confusing mess, i get it. so, what should we do? we should reopen, yes. but, not only have we not peaked, we haven't even started. so, when we reopen, we should not get jittery about it.
but, we will.
hey, if their attempt to suppress the data just makes idiots out of them, i guess there's an upside of that.
but, it hasn't peaked. it hasn't started....
abracadabra! oopa loompa!
what's going to happen here is that they're going to reopen before the epidemic even starts. then, when the epidemic starts here on time, we'll blame it on reopening too early - when the reality is that we shut down too early, and then reopened before it even hit.
i don't think we should have shut anything down at all - i think we should have put the vulnerable in lockdown camps until it passed. but, if we were going to shut down, we should have shut down starting now, not starting last month.
it's a confusing mess, i get it. so, what should we do? we should reopen, yes. but, not only have we not peaked, we haven't even started. so, when we reopen, we should not get jittery about it.
but, we will.
hey, if their attempt to suppress the data just makes idiots out of them, i guess there's an upside of that.
but, it hasn't peaked. it hasn't started....
the response in ontario has been bungled on purpose.
first, they don't do enough testing to pull out anything meaningful from the data. then, they put that fragmented data into the models, which just produces garbage results. then, they base their policies on the garbage they got out, by putting garbage in.
sadly, the sitting ontario government is so stupid that it seems to think the primary issue in front of it is limiting the number of cases that are reported, in order to skew the reporting - because they think you're too stupid to figure it out. and, if you voted for these fucking idiots, then maybe you are.
the data on cases is of limited value much of anywhere; it's absolutely worthless in a jurisdiction that refuses to do enough testing. if you can't see it, it's not there, right doug? you fucking idiot...
that said, given that the infectiousness of the disease was dramatically underestimated, and that it's mortality rate was dramatically overestimated, i don't think that shutting down society is helping minimize the spread of the disease at all. so, i don't oppose reopening.
but, has the data peaked?
the initial response from the federal government was the correct one, which limited spread in the community by encouraging openness. community spread does not appear to have sunk in here until they brought in counterproductive authoritarian measures to stop it. as such, we are months behind the curve in the united states.
in ontario, i don't think the epidemic has even started yet - all we've seen is background. those numbers are likely set to ramp up in a week or two.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-begins-working-on-plan-to-reopen-as-modelling-data-suggests-cases-have-peaked-1.4904027
first, they don't do enough testing to pull out anything meaningful from the data. then, they put that fragmented data into the models, which just produces garbage results. then, they base their policies on the garbage they got out, by putting garbage in.
sadly, the sitting ontario government is so stupid that it seems to think the primary issue in front of it is limiting the number of cases that are reported, in order to skew the reporting - because they think you're too stupid to figure it out. and, if you voted for these fucking idiots, then maybe you are.
the data on cases is of limited value much of anywhere; it's absolutely worthless in a jurisdiction that refuses to do enough testing. if you can't see it, it's not there, right doug? you fucking idiot...
that said, given that the infectiousness of the disease was dramatically underestimated, and that it's mortality rate was dramatically overestimated, i don't think that shutting down society is helping minimize the spread of the disease at all. so, i don't oppose reopening.
but, has the data peaked?
the initial response from the federal government was the correct one, which limited spread in the community by encouraging openness. community spread does not appear to have sunk in here until they brought in counterproductive authoritarian measures to stop it. as such, we are months behind the curve in the united states.
in ontario, i don't think the epidemic has even started yet - all we've seen is background. those numbers are likely set to ramp up in a week or two.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-begins-working-on-plan-to-reopen-as-modelling-data-suggests-cases-have-peaked-1.4904027
again: don't be surprised if you see a small uptick in cases in new york tomorrow, because there's a pattern of underreporting on sundays. we haven't reached the social pinnacle of full secularism in this society, just yet.
and, we still need to wait for the effects of easter to show up in the data.
but, yes - these new numbers are in line with my projections.
and, we still need to wait for the effects of easter to show up in the data.
but, yes - these new numbers are in line with my projections.
Sunday, April 19, 2020
so, i decided to get through the concerts (that i can't go to.) for the rest of the month, first. there wasn't much after the rachmaninov show this weekend. and, may actually looks a little bit boring, although it could be that the best stuff already got rebooked.
back to the vlog updates, now. let's hope i can get this done by sunrise and have a highly productive week after that.
back to the vlog updates, now. let's hope i can get this done by sunrise and have a highly productive week after that.
...and then you get mad at me for telling you the facts of the matter.
and, i say - "no". not on my watch...
we're going to talk about reality, or we're not going to talk at all. we're going to talk about the real hillary clinton, as best we know her. and, we're going to come to some unexpected and painful realizations as we do it.
if you want to run off and cry, i can wait. if you want to yell, i'll walk away, or shrug it off.
but, i'm not conceding to fantasy.
i'm going to burst your bubble, and make you see reality, whether you like it or not.
and, i say - "no". not on my watch...
we're going to talk about reality, or we're not going to talk at all. we're going to talk about the real hillary clinton, as best we know her. and, we're going to come to some unexpected and painful realizations as we do it.
if you want to run off and cry, i can wait. if you want to yell, i'll walk away, or shrug it off.
but, i'm not conceding to fantasy.
i'm going to burst your bubble, and make you see reality, whether you like it or not.
clinton was raised a republican. she's a conservative - across the board.
but, the cultural perception of hillary clinton is largely a strawman created by rush limbaugh, newt gingrich and rupert murdoch that is designed to smear her as "too liberal". even her supporters seem to be overwhelmingly voting in favour of the strawman created by the right, rather than the candidate's actual policies.
they've completely defined the debate - you probably voted for or against the strawman.
think about that.
but, the cultural perception of hillary clinton is largely a strawman created by rush limbaugh, newt gingrich and rupert murdoch that is designed to smear her as "too liberal". even her supporters seem to be overwhelmingly voting in favour of the strawman created by the right, rather than the candidate's actual policies.
they've completely defined the debate - you probably voted for or against the strawman.
think about that.
the more substantive point i'm trying to make is that when i have these arguments, my opponents rarely seem to be properly informed about the issues, and this holds across the spectrum. they get very angry at me, without realizing that their anger is largely rooted in false perceptions of what reality actually is - that their perception of clinton is a projection, and they'd have been sorely disappointed by what they'd get.
i don't have the appropriate studies to cite, and i don't think it's likely i'll get them unless somebody specifically studies the issue, directly. but, what i've hypothesized in the past is that the fake left's perception of clinton is actually indirectly defined by fox news and other right-wing media, who have created this strawman of clinton as this extreme leftist - much as they did for obama. but, people know better with obama, i think. with clinton, the smears have been going on for so long that even people that define themselves as leftists have lost their grip on the truth of it.
certainly, if you got your information from right-wing media, you'd think clinton was pro-choice, because that's one of the things they use to smear her with, and have been for many, many years. but, she's been trying to correct the point since at least the 90s - she's opposed late trimester abortions her entire political career. she's on record for this as late as mid-2016 - at townhalls, in debates. they don't want you to know that, though, so they pick up their bullhorns and they yell and scream the opposite, and that yelling and screaming has defined the skewed perception of the reality of it, both in their own audience and amongst their opponents.
yes, i would like to see that more rigorously examined, or at least for somebody to examine the point a little bit more clearly. the fact is that clinton's political position for many years has been to support a constitutional amendment to permanently end late term abortions. that's the fact. why do so many democrats think otherwise?
i don't have the appropriate studies to cite, and i don't think it's likely i'll get them unless somebody specifically studies the issue, directly. but, what i've hypothesized in the past is that the fake left's perception of clinton is actually indirectly defined by fox news and other right-wing media, who have created this strawman of clinton as this extreme leftist - much as they did for obama. but, people know better with obama, i think. with clinton, the smears have been going on for so long that even people that define themselves as leftists have lost their grip on the truth of it.
certainly, if you got your information from right-wing media, you'd think clinton was pro-choice, because that's one of the things they use to smear her with, and have been for many, many years. but, she's been trying to correct the point since at least the 90s - she's opposed late trimester abortions her entire political career. she's on record for this as late as mid-2016 - at townhalls, in debates. they don't want you to know that, though, so they pick up their bullhorns and they yell and scream the opposite, and that yelling and screaming has defined the skewed perception of the reality of it, both in their own audience and amongst their opponents.
yes, i would like to see that more rigorously examined, or at least for somebody to examine the point a little bit more clearly. the fact is that clinton's political position for many years has been to support a constitutional amendment to permanently end late term abortions. that's the fact. why do so many democrats think otherwise?
is it possible that clinton would have found herself at war with her own party, and had to concede on so many of these points that i'm concerned about, where she's just about as far right as a democrat can get and still be a democrat?
that's an empirical question. i don't know.
she could just as well have succeeded in shifting the centre even further to the right, which is what both obama and bill clinton did, and the most substantive legacy of both of them...
i'll concede that some of these things that i'm citing - like her abortion policy - seem too abstract to be of any real concern. her position on abortion is a matter of the public record, and it's just the simple truth that she's never been properly defined as seeing the issue as being about choice, as being about autonomy - she's been clear for many years that she sees the issue as a health concern. legal, safe and rare. she always underlines and asterisks the rare. and, unlike many other issues, she's never obfuscated on this point because she seems to think that unwavering support for abortion rights is unpopular and hurting the party's chances to appeal to the centre; any legislation from her, any judicial appointments from her, would have the strict focus on ensuring the rarity of the procedure. but, could she actually get the amendment in place? she'd need a republican legislature to do it as a first assumption, and it would probably destroy the party. so, i point to her actual position on the matter as a reality check, but that doesn't mean she'd have a realistic path to doing any of it. but, the same analysis holds for trump, who is hardly a pro-life republican, and it is well known has stated support for pro-choice policies in the past.
i'm keying on abortion, because it's the best argument i've seen to hold your nose and vote for her. but, a careful analysis largely even debunks this - trump is hardly jerry falwell, and clinton is well to the right of her own party on this issue, and may very well have found herself fighting against it.
that's an empirical question. i don't know.
she could just as well have succeeded in shifting the centre even further to the right, which is what both obama and bill clinton did, and the most substantive legacy of both of them...
i'll concede that some of these things that i'm citing - like her abortion policy - seem too abstract to be of any real concern. her position on abortion is a matter of the public record, and it's just the simple truth that she's never been properly defined as seeing the issue as being about choice, as being about autonomy - she's been clear for many years that she sees the issue as a health concern. legal, safe and rare. she always underlines and asterisks the rare. and, unlike many other issues, she's never obfuscated on this point because she seems to think that unwavering support for abortion rights is unpopular and hurting the party's chances to appeal to the centre; any legislation from her, any judicial appointments from her, would have the strict focus on ensuring the rarity of the procedure. but, could she actually get the amendment in place? she'd need a republican legislature to do it as a first assumption, and it would probably destroy the party. so, i point to her actual position on the matter as a reality check, but that doesn't mean she'd have a realistic path to doing any of it. but, the same analysis holds for trump, who is hardly a pro-life republican, and it is well known has stated support for pro-choice policies in the past.
i'm keying on abortion, because it's the best argument i've seen to hold your nose and vote for her. but, a careful analysis largely even debunks this - trump is hardly jerry falwell, and clinton is well to the right of her own party on this issue, and may very well have found herself fighting against it.
if you think hospitalizations in new york plateaued rather than peaked, i'd like to see your definition of a peak.
the deaths look like a plateau and rapid fall, at this point. there's ways to analyze that to determine if there was really a distorted peak or not.
the hospitalizations - like most of the other metrics - went straight up and down.
hey, we're all guessing, still. we'll need antibody testing to prove the case, one way or the other. but, there is a very strong argument right now that this thing just ripped through new york without a passing concern to our behaviour. unlike the governor, i don't get paid for this, so i'm not going to repeat myself.
three caveats.
one - reporting on sundays seems to be a little lower. so, don't be surprised if you get a very steep drop tomorrow, followed by a small increase on tuesday and a return to the general shape on wednesday.
two - we're still waiting to see if we get a boost from easter. we should be able to indirectly estimate immunity & exposure levels from the data we see next week, regardless, and see which hypothesis it's most consistent with.
three - the data has only begun to be reported daily recently, but deaths in nursing homes seem to be ticking up, as total deaths fall.
i think we're very close to this thing falling down to background levels. for now, please continue to keep the weak inside and away from danger.
one policy that harper pushed that i agreed with was a massive subsidy program for greenhouses to grow food locally, which is not just useful for food security, but also for carbon reduction, due both to reducing transportation to bring food to canada and reducing the reliance that outdoor produce has on oil-based pesticides.
it was a pleasant surprise, and evidence that you will inevitably agree with even your most strongly held opponents if you examine a large enough number of concerns.
it was a pleasant surprise, and evidence that you will inevitably agree with even your most strongly held opponents if you examine a large enough number of concerns.
this sort of wishful thinking about the democrats and where they actually stand on the spectrum and what positions they're likely to actually promote is widespread and deep-seated and goes back to at least the 1992 election, where clinton appears to have been elected on the perception that we would do exactly the opposite of what he actually did. i do remember that election, but i have no memory of carter, and my weak analysis of his presidency is that it was kind of the last gasp of the old solid south. he later distanced himself from it, but carter was initially successful by running as a racist old southern democrat - and that appears to be what people expected from him. those voters went to perot in the 90s. so, the 1992 election opened up a new era in the democratic party.
one of the worst examples i can think of is this delusional perception that al gore, the leading congressional hawk on actions against iraq throughout the 80s and 90s, would have somehow acted differently, had he been elected. this position is not based on an absence of evidence, but a negation of it; all evidence suggests he would have been more aggressive than bush was. he'd been aggressively pushing for an invasion of iraq for 20 years, and he was the architect of the situation that made it such an immediate cakewalk, namely the sanctions and the no-fly zone.
so, the idea that al gore would have spared saddam hussein is absurdly ignorant and just deeply delusional. however, it's almost ubiquitous in certain circles.
one of the worst things about trump is his environmental policy, and i'm hardly going to defend his record on the point. he's been a disaster on that file. but, would clinton have been better? the best evidence we have for the issue is her handling of the keystone xl pipeline, and it's not very inspiring.
so, i want you to be fully cognizant of where i'm coming from on this - i'm trying to look at the actual data in front of me, rather than draw partisan conclusions, or buy into specious media narratives. the general direction of this administration is pretty terrible, but it has truly come with a few positive surprises, too. but, that's inevitable; i'm sure i agreed with reagan on two or three things, too, even if i can't think of them, right now. what i'm more concerned about is comparing what we've seen from trump to what a sober analysis would have expected from clinton, and the stark conclusion is that i don't see a lot of reasons to think that i'd be happier about existing policy if she had won.
but, i still can't answer the general question, and i don't expect i'll be able to until years after trump leaves office.
let me be as clear as i can.
do i really think clinton would have been worse than trump? what i've been trying to say for years now is i don't know.
i know that when people present clear criticisms of trump to me, they're often misinformed about clinton's positions on the matter. the most substantive argument i've heard is about abortion, but most of these people are deeply misinformed about clinton's position on abortion, which is not at all aligned with the pro-choice movement. she wants a constitutional amendment to ban late trimester abortions!
so, you can throw all of this stuff about how terrible trump is at me, but my general response is "ok. i agree with you. but, your argument is rooted in the perception that clinton has a different policy, when the reality is that she actually has basically the same position."
and, there are some counter-arguments, too. i'm still opposed to nafta and still want to eventually get rid of it, but the amendments to it do have some major victories that the left has been trying to accomplish for 35 years. these are foundational victories, that most people probably thought would never happen. clinton would have followed her private position on nafta once elected, not her public one. further, while trump has committed some war crimes like all of his recent predecessors, we haven't started a new war, yet. how long do you think it would have taken clinton to bomb somebody in order to prove that she's "tough"? a week?
do you know what clinton's immigration policy was?
there's not any value in relitigating this, but i don't feel i have any clarity, here, yet.
i did endorse clinton, but it was an exceedingly weak endorsement, and i've stated repeatedly that i'm not convinced i was right to do it - which means that i have this nagging feeling that i should have endorsed jill stein under the argument that clinton was worse, and not given clinton a weak endorsement with the intent to block trump.
but, i don't think i'll be able to answer these questions for years to come, still.
all i can state with clarity is that it is probably the worst set of choices americans have ever had - with the possible exception of the one they're going to have in november.
do i really think clinton would have been worse than trump? what i've been trying to say for years now is i don't know.
i know that when people present clear criticisms of trump to me, they're often misinformed about clinton's positions on the matter. the most substantive argument i've heard is about abortion, but most of these people are deeply misinformed about clinton's position on abortion, which is not at all aligned with the pro-choice movement. she wants a constitutional amendment to ban late trimester abortions!
so, you can throw all of this stuff about how terrible trump is at me, but my general response is "ok. i agree with you. but, your argument is rooted in the perception that clinton has a different policy, when the reality is that she actually has basically the same position."
and, there are some counter-arguments, too. i'm still opposed to nafta and still want to eventually get rid of it, but the amendments to it do have some major victories that the left has been trying to accomplish for 35 years. these are foundational victories, that most people probably thought would never happen. clinton would have followed her private position on nafta once elected, not her public one. further, while trump has committed some war crimes like all of his recent predecessors, we haven't started a new war, yet. how long do you think it would have taken clinton to bomb somebody in order to prove that she's "tough"? a week?
do you know what clinton's immigration policy was?
there's not any value in relitigating this, but i don't feel i have any clarity, here, yet.
i did endorse clinton, but it was an exceedingly weak endorsement, and i've stated repeatedly that i'm not convinced i was right to do it - which means that i have this nagging feeling that i should have endorsed jill stein under the argument that clinton was worse, and not given clinton a weak endorsement with the intent to block trump.
but, i don't think i'll be able to answer these questions for years to come, still.
all i can state with clarity is that it is probably the worst set of choices americans have ever had - with the possible exception of the one they're going to have in november.
we've been focusing on boomer retirement so long that....
you do realize that gen x is actually starting to retire now, right?
most people that study this cut the boomers off before 1955, and introduce a transitional generation from 1955-1965 where people could self-identify either way. and, if you were born in 1955, you are now 65 years old.
both of my parents were born in that transitional period, but they're both clearly boomers, if tail-end boomers. i'm also a cusper (1981), and i strongly identify as the last gen xer. the cusp breaks in the other direction; my grandmother, who had two children before she turned 20 years old, is also a boomer, meaning she's of the same cultural generation as her children. my dad's parents were not boomers. and, both of my sisters are quite clearly millennials.
i have a legit gen x aunt who isn't far from retirement, but that's about it.
you do realize that gen x is actually starting to retire now, right?
most people that study this cut the boomers off before 1955, and introduce a transitional generation from 1955-1965 where people could self-identify either way. and, if you were born in 1955, you are now 65 years old.
both of my parents were born in that transitional period, but they're both clearly boomers, if tail-end boomers. i'm also a cusper (1981), and i strongly identify as the last gen xer. the cusp breaks in the other direction; my grandmother, who had two children before she turned 20 years old, is also a boomer, meaning she's of the same cultural generation as her children. my dad's parents were not boomers. and, both of my sisters are quite clearly millennials.
i have a legit gen x aunt who isn't far from retirement, but that's about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)