there's a different story like this every few years. what it seems like is that the stones have multiple origin points.
these megaliths are all over the place, and one wonders if that is generally true, and maybe provides fresh evidence for the hypothesis that the purpose of the monuments was as a meeting point. if there were multiple origin points, it could be that there were multiple groups involved in making the monuments, and they could recognize a place where related clans came together for celebration or trade, or even be treaty or territorial markers.
let's take a step back.
most people probably don't realize that stonehenge is merely one example of a type of very ancient building structure that seems to have originated with the neolithic revolution and spread with farming from modern turkey across europe. a wide variety of evidence suggests that a caucasian, but not indo-european, people migrated into europe many thousands of years before the kurgan invasion brought the existing languages and r1* genotypes into the region. these people would have held out on britain longer than anywhere else, but the functions of the megaliths they built on the island are foreign in origin and purpose.
if it could be established that the stones came from many places, it could provide for a loose model as to how different communities in this farming culture, which spread over the entire area that caucasians are indigenous to today, carried out certain relations with each other.
https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/world/2020/07/30/stonehenge-discovery-origins-large-sarsen-stones-finally-traced/5547629002/
Saturday, August 1, 2020
ok.
so, i got most of the cleaning i wanted done and picked up a bit more pot yesterday, to smoke through the rest of the rolling tobacco with. i also picked up some edibles to experiment with - and these are for experimenting, not for storing, so i will consume them relatively soon. the strain i picked up was royal highness by good supply, which is a company that has been selling the cheapest pot in the store for a while now, but always had slightly lower thc numbers; not this time, so i tried it. it's actually a little closer to the kind of buzz i'm used to, which is a bit of a nice surprise. it's good to know that the price tag is really not a market mechanism (and it rarely is, in reality).
the edibles i picked up were a chocolate bar sectioned into 4 pieces, with 2 mg each, and 2 gummies, at 5 mg each. that will allow me to try the 2s a couple of times to get used to it, before deciding if i think the 5s are a good idea or not - and ultimately whether i think looking at 10s is a good idea.
i'm approaching edibles more like i'd approach mushrooms, for now, which means i need to make sure i'm in a comfortable space before i try it. that may be overly cautious (my experience with edibles has been that it has knocked me out, but i don't know what doses i consumed), and i may end up wasting some of the chocolate, but i think it's best to ease my way in.
if this works out, i'll be happy about it; pot has been my last excuse for lingering levels of smoking for years. i've been waiting for a better solution for a long time, now. let's hope it's this easy.
so, i got most of the cleaning i wanted done and picked up a bit more pot yesterday, to smoke through the rest of the rolling tobacco with. i also picked up some edibles to experiment with - and these are for experimenting, not for storing, so i will consume them relatively soon. the strain i picked up was royal highness by good supply, which is a company that has been selling the cheapest pot in the store for a while now, but always had slightly lower thc numbers; not this time, so i tried it. it's actually a little closer to the kind of buzz i'm used to, which is a bit of a nice surprise. it's good to know that the price tag is really not a market mechanism (and it rarely is, in reality).
the edibles i picked up were a chocolate bar sectioned into 4 pieces, with 2 mg each, and 2 gummies, at 5 mg each. that will allow me to try the 2s a couple of times to get used to it, before deciding if i think the 5s are a good idea or not - and ultimately whether i think looking at 10s is a good idea.
i'm approaching edibles more like i'd approach mushrooms, for now, which means i need to make sure i'm in a comfortable space before i try it. that may be overly cautious (my experience with edibles has been that it has knocked me out, but i don't know what doses i consumed), and i may end up wasting some of the chocolate, but i think it's best to ease my way in.
if this works out, i'll be happy about it; pot has been my last excuse for lingering levels of smoking for years. i've been waiting for a better solution for a long time, now. let's hope it's this easy.
so, that's my new diet, that i'm going to try. officially, this will be my daily intake, but i'm sure i won't be able to actually eat this much.
a) fruit bowl:
- 1 kiwi
- 1 banana
- 10-11 raspberries
- 20-25 blueberries
- 5-6 strawberries
- 1 medium-to-large scoop of cherry ice cream
- 250-350 ml of high-fortification vanilla soy milk
b) omelette:
- 4 eggs, cooked in olive oil margarine
- 50 g of wholesale genoa salami, pre-microwaved in slices and chopped
- 1 medium tomato (smaller than the ones for spaghetti, so that's a cost factor i didn't consider)
- 1/2 a red pepper
- 50 g of full fat marble block cheese
- 2 slices of rye or pumpernickel toast, with olive oil margarine
- 350-450 ml of real, but fortified, apple juice
in practice, i will probably make the omelette 4-5 times a week, and have fruit bowls daily.
a) fruit bowl:
- 1 kiwi
- 1 banana
- 10-11 raspberries
- 20-25 blueberries
- 5-6 strawberries
- 1 medium-to-large scoop of cherry ice cream
- 250-350 ml of high-fortification vanilla soy milk
b) omelette:
- 4 eggs, cooked in olive oil margarine
- 50 g of wholesale genoa salami, pre-microwaved in slices and chopped
- 1 medium tomato (smaller than the ones for spaghetti, so that's a cost factor i didn't consider)
- 1/2 a red pepper
- 50 g of full fat marble block cheese
- 2 slices of rye or pumpernickel toast, with olive oil margarine
- 350-450 ml of real, but fortified, apple juice
in practice, i will probably make the omelette 4-5 times a week, and have fruit bowls daily.
you know, i'm just looking at the components of these two meals and wondering why i don't just eat omelettes every day. this is eggs v tomato sandwiches....
bread <-------> bread
margarine <-----> mayo
salami <------>salami
cheese <----->cheese
tomato <------->tomato
red pepper
eggs
all i'm doing is cutting out the eggs & red peppers, which are two of the more nutritious components of the omelette.
i started eating tomato sandwiches in early 2013 because i was getting some truly delicious, firm, bright red greenhouse tomatoes in these plastic containers at the giant tiger on wellington, in ottawa. i just got hooked on them and brought the habit to windsor where the tomatoes are much bigger but a little less tasty. i eventually decided to move to the pasta to boost the calorie count (which didn't work out, and just led to me eating less and screwing up my calculations). so, i decided to go back to the tomato sandwiches, to get back to eating more eggs.
but, why bother?
i have to finish the open package of pasta first, but i think i'm going to omelettes full time.
what's the cost of this meal?
1) bread - $0.50
2) salami - $0.50 [wholesale]
3) cheese - $0.50
4) tomato ~ $0.50
5) 1/2 red pepper ~ $1.00
6) 4 eggs - $1.03
7) margarine - $0.10
========================
$4.13
hrmmn.
& i do recall the price being an issue, now that i think about it. the fried eggs i've been eating would be $1.50 less, which is $2.63
tomato sandwich costs:
1) bread - $0.50
2) mayo - $0.25
3) salami - $0.50
4) cheese - $0.50
5) tomato ~ $0.50
6) hot sauce - $0.25
=================
$2.50
pasta costs:
1) pasta - $0.20
2) red pepper ~ $1.00
3) tomato ~ $0.50
4) salami - $0.50
5) caesar - $1.00
6) cheese - $2.00
7) hot sauce - $0.25
=============
$5.75 ~ 2*2.88
if i had pasta six days of the week and eggs once a week it would be 6*2.88 + 2.63 = $19.91/week.
19.91/4.13 = 4.82.
so, if i were to have eggs five days a week (and just fruit the other two), that's $20.65, not including the cost of fruit. 7*4.13 =$29. while i know i'm not going to actually eat seven days a week for any lengthy period, this applies to the other numbers, as well. so, this would be a 50% increase in the cost of food, for me.
if i alternate every day, i'd have seven of each over a two week period, so 0.5*7*(2.50+4.13) =$23.21/week; (7/2)*(2.5+2.63) = $17.96. the second number is no doubt why i did it. and, if you take the salami out of the sandwich (or alternate between tomato sandwiches and salami melts, as i did initially) that $17.96 will go down even more, too.
i've been thinking about this all day now, and i think it really is a contradiction - there's not really a good way to move to this for nutritional reasons without paying for it. if i want to do this, it's going to cost me a bit; it's the unavoidable trade-off. i'm good at finding sneaky tricks to absolve contradictions via dialectic, but there isn't one this time. good food costs money; that's how it is.
so, i'm going to give moving to a full egg diet a shot and see what the outcome is. for right now, at the height of the summer, i'm only eating anything at all every day or two. and, i'll see how i'm feeling about this in a month or two - if it's working out, if i want to tweak it.
bread <-------> bread
margarine <-----> mayo
salami <------>salami
cheese <----->cheese
tomato <------->tomato
red pepper
eggs
all i'm doing is cutting out the eggs & red peppers, which are two of the more nutritious components of the omelette.
i started eating tomato sandwiches in early 2013 because i was getting some truly delicious, firm, bright red greenhouse tomatoes in these plastic containers at the giant tiger on wellington, in ottawa. i just got hooked on them and brought the habit to windsor where the tomatoes are much bigger but a little less tasty. i eventually decided to move to the pasta to boost the calorie count (which didn't work out, and just led to me eating less and screwing up my calculations). so, i decided to go back to the tomato sandwiches, to get back to eating more eggs.
but, why bother?
i have to finish the open package of pasta first, but i think i'm going to omelettes full time.
what's the cost of this meal?
1) bread - $0.50
2) salami - $0.50 [wholesale]
3) cheese - $0.50
4) tomato ~ $0.50
5) 1/2 red pepper ~ $1.00
6) 4 eggs - $1.03
7) margarine - $0.10
========================
$4.13
hrmmn.
& i do recall the price being an issue, now that i think about it. the fried eggs i've been eating would be $1.50 less, which is $2.63
tomato sandwich costs:
1) bread - $0.50
2) mayo - $0.25
3) salami - $0.50
4) cheese - $0.50
5) tomato ~ $0.50
6) hot sauce - $0.25
=================
$2.50
pasta costs:
1) pasta - $0.20
2) red pepper ~ $1.00
3) tomato ~ $0.50
4) salami - $0.50
5) caesar - $1.00
6) cheese - $2.00
7) hot sauce - $0.25
=============
$5.75 ~ 2*2.88
if i had pasta six days of the week and eggs once a week it would be 6*2.88 + 2.63 = $19.91/week.
19.91/4.13 = 4.82.
so, if i were to have eggs five days a week (and just fruit the other two), that's $20.65, not including the cost of fruit. 7*4.13 =$29. while i know i'm not going to actually eat seven days a week for any lengthy period, this applies to the other numbers, as well. so, this would be a 50% increase in the cost of food, for me.
if i alternate every day, i'd have seven of each over a two week period, so 0.5*7*(2.50+4.13) =$23.21/week; (7/2)*(2.5+2.63) = $17.96. the second number is no doubt why i did it. and, if you take the salami out of the sandwich (or alternate between tomato sandwiches and salami melts, as i did initially) that $17.96 will go down even more, too.
i've been thinking about this all day now, and i think it really is a contradiction - there's not really a good way to move to this for nutritional reasons without paying for it. if i want to do this, it's going to cost me a bit; it's the unavoidable trade-off. i'm good at finding sneaky tricks to absolve contradictions via dialectic, but there isn't one this time. good food costs money; that's how it is.
so, i'm going to give moving to a full egg diet a shot and see what the outcome is. for right now, at the height of the summer, i'm only eating anything at all every day or two. and, i'll see how i'm feeling about this in a month or two - if it's working out, if i want to tweak it.
see, i'm pretty soft on crime in general, but when i say i don't believe in punishment, and that incarceration should be a mental health concern, you have to realize this comes with a wholesale discarding of much of the existing legal precedents.
iirc, the literature suggests four valid reasons to incarcerate somebody, but i can only really accept one of them, and that is to protect the safety of the community. yet, in doing so, i take that single reason extremely seriously.
while i understand that the existing precedent suggests that punishment for multiple crimes should not be excessive, if we flip the issue over and look at it from a community safety perspective, multiple crimes of the same sort over a period of time becomes an issue of grave concern. this person does not appear to have made a mistake, but rather repeatedly carried out the same behaviour. that suggests some habituation to it, and the need for exceedingly strong intervention to correct it.
permanent incarceration via locking somebody in a cage is not a particularly good way to correct for behaviour, granted. but, in situations where it is decided that intervention is unlikely to be successful, it becomes necessary to protect the community.
that said, i would envision the prisons of the future to look more like enclosed communities than torture chambers. if we decide that people need to be removed from society to prevent them from harming others, that should not prevent them from being able to exist in some kind of relative comfort.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-reduced-sentence-for-serial-sex-offender-matthew-mcknight-spurs-uproar/
iirc, the literature suggests four valid reasons to incarcerate somebody, but i can only really accept one of them, and that is to protect the safety of the community. yet, in doing so, i take that single reason extremely seriously.
while i understand that the existing precedent suggests that punishment for multiple crimes should not be excessive, if we flip the issue over and look at it from a community safety perspective, multiple crimes of the same sort over a period of time becomes an issue of grave concern. this person does not appear to have made a mistake, but rather repeatedly carried out the same behaviour. that suggests some habituation to it, and the need for exceedingly strong intervention to correct it.
permanent incarceration via locking somebody in a cage is not a particularly good way to correct for behaviour, granted. but, in situations where it is decided that intervention is unlikely to be successful, it becomes necessary to protect the community.
that said, i would envision the prisons of the future to look more like enclosed communities than torture chambers. if we decide that people need to be removed from society to prevent them from harming others, that should not prevent them from being able to exist in some kind of relative comfort.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-reduced-sentence-for-serial-sex-offender-matthew-mcknight-spurs-uproar/
listen, there's no doubt that trump has made some terrible foreign policy decisions as well, but i'd view pulling out of the who as less concerning than redeploying to the middle east; you gotta take a weighted average, here. biden will do some things i'm ok with, but he's also going to do some things that enrage me.
but, what jumped out at me reading the article was to wonder if a biden presidency might actually be best implemented if it reverses the contemporary roles of presidency and vice presidency. that is, maybe biden is better off letting the vp do the speeches and appearances and stuff, while he tends to legislative priorities. maybe the vp with senatorial experience that he really wants is actually himself.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7243577/joe-biden-foreign-policy/
but, what jumped out at me reading the article was to wonder if a biden presidency might actually be best implemented if it reverses the contemporary roles of presidency and vice presidency. that is, maybe biden is better off letting the vp do the speeches and appearances and stuff, while he tends to legislative priorities. maybe the vp with senatorial experience that he really wants is actually himself.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7243577/joe-biden-foreign-policy/
due to how small most of the numbers are on the chart, it would probably be more useful for him to present the data not as probabilities but as upper bounds.
so, if he says the probability is 0.6%, and the margin of error is 6%, then he should present the chart as <6.6%.
but, he might find, then, that essentially all of the entries look the same.
so, if he says the probability is 0.6%, and the margin of error is 6%, then he should present the chart as <6.6%.
but, he might find, then, that essentially all of the entries look the same.
i think if you saw the margins of error here, you'd be a little concerned.
i toyed with doing a little bit of this at the start, but the amount of data available here hasn't really allowed for me to put much confidence in it. we know the numbers we're getting are pretty flawed. that said, it is reasonable to consult a variety of sources when you make a decision - just draw in the error bars, yourself, when you do.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/statistician-worried-back-to-school-plan-risky-1.5671012
i toyed with doing a little bit of this at the start, but the amount of data available here hasn't really allowed for me to put much confidence in it. we know the numbers we're getting are pretty flawed. that said, it is reasonable to consult a variety of sources when you make a decision - just draw in the error bars, yourself, when you do.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/statistician-worried-back-to-school-plan-risky-1.5671012
with the fat shaming, my main irritant is people that find it very important to try to undo a general media bias against the acceptability of being overweight. this is a movement that seems to have come out of attempts to minimize unrealistic advertising to young girls, which i agree with to a degree, but in this case has been taken too far, and flipped over on it's axis; in a misguided attempt to stop girls from being coerced into being underweight, they've embraced an even more unhealthy lifestyle, and an even more negative message. media messaging should be focused on promoting healthy bmis as normal, and encouraging everybody to remain healthy.
it follows that media biases that demonstrate an aversion to obesity ought to be as welcome as media biases that reject the anorexic images we once saw dominate media, that these things should be seen as equivalently undesirable.
some coercion, here, is to be desired, i think.
it follows that media biases that demonstrate an aversion to obesity ought to be as welcome as media biases that reject the anorexic images we once saw dominate media, that these things should be seen as equivalently undesirable.
some coercion, here, is to be desired, i think.
see, in principle, the question is if this works or not. it's an informal means of social control, and i'm in principle in favour of that.
perhaps i should clarify some of the remarks i made about fat shaming. i would certainly not recommend randomly attacking fat people walking by on the street for no reason; if my comments were misinterpreted to suggest i am proposing that we all go out and yell "fatass!" at every behemoth that comes across our path, i do apologize, as that was not my intent. rather, i would advocate that fat shaming be done in more intimate settings, by loved ones and health professionals, that have the person's best interests in mind. further, something that utilizes a little bit of wit is probably helpful; you don't want to depress this person too much, as that will just lead to more eating.
i think there's a different psychology to mask wearing, though. it's sort of a reversal of the situation, as it's usually going to be healthy people that don't want to wear the masks, and people more likely to catch it that want to enforce mask wearing. as a non mask-wearer, i can tell you that i'm not particularly concerned about the opinions of people that want me to wear a mask, and i'm just as happy to avoid them; part of the calculus built into my decision to not wear a mask is that i'm reasonably distant from people to begin with, and reality at the moment is that i'm just not walking into many high risk situations.
but, in the hypothetical scenario where i was living with a high risk individual and refused to wear a mask (in fact, if i was living with a high risk individual, i would without question be considerate enough to take all relevant precautions), due to some temporary deficit in thought, i would be likely to respond to an emotional plea that laces into me for putting that person at risk.
as with any means of informal social control, execution and context are key.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/31/bill-gates-suggests-calling-out-non-mask-wearers.html
perhaps i should clarify some of the remarks i made about fat shaming. i would certainly not recommend randomly attacking fat people walking by on the street for no reason; if my comments were misinterpreted to suggest i am proposing that we all go out and yell "fatass!" at every behemoth that comes across our path, i do apologize, as that was not my intent. rather, i would advocate that fat shaming be done in more intimate settings, by loved ones and health professionals, that have the person's best interests in mind. further, something that utilizes a little bit of wit is probably helpful; you don't want to depress this person too much, as that will just lead to more eating.
i think there's a different psychology to mask wearing, though. it's sort of a reversal of the situation, as it's usually going to be healthy people that don't want to wear the masks, and people more likely to catch it that want to enforce mask wearing. as a non mask-wearer, i can tell you that i'm not particularly concerned about the opinions of people that want me to wear a mask, and i'm just as happy to avoid them; part of the calculus built into my decision to not wear a mask is that i'm reasonably distant from people to begin with, and reality at the moment is that i'm just not walking into many high risk situations.
but, in the hypothetical scenario where i was living with a high risk individual and refused to wear a mask (in fact, if i was living with a high risk individual, i would without question be considerate enough to take all relevant precautions), due to some temporary deficit in thought, i would be likely to respond to an emotional plea that laces into me for putting that person at risk.
as with any means of informal social control, execution and context are key.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/31/bill-gates-suggests-calling-out-non-mask-wearers.html
he has a conflict of interest on this issue and should avoid making policy prescriptions.
i would vote for bill gates, though. this was posted on dec 12, 2016.
---
bill gates v donald trump?
i'm in.
revenge of the nerds.
this would be epic.
"i come forward to represent the interests of rationality and science against the dark forces of magical thinking. i bring forth realism; i champion data. we shall always follow the evidence."
meanwhile, trump gets to play high school bully to his most advanced desires.
"look at him. he's a fucking loser. he's got four-eyes glasses. maybe we could hire him to run our email servers, or something? i hear he's good at that. loser. i bet i know what's microsoft about him."
he would then proceed to place an L over his head, and walk menacingly towards him.
and, you could imagine the speech you'd get from gates.
"i've been called a loser my whole life. and, yet look at what i've accomplished?"
i'm not sure the nerds will win, in the end. but, i'd still like to watch the game.
i would vote for bill gates, though. this was posted on dec 12, 2016.
---
bill gates v donald trump?
i'm in.
revenge of the nerds.
this would be epic.
"i come forward to represent the interests of rationality and science against the dark forces of magical thinking. i bring forth realism; i champion data. we shall always follow the evidence."
meanwhile, trump gets to play high school bully to his most advanced desires.
"look at him. he's a fucking loser. he's got four-eyes glasses. maybe we could hire him to run our email servers, or something? i hear he's good at that. loser. i bet i know what's microsoft about him."
he would then proceed to place an L over his head, and walk menacingly towards him.
and, you could imagine the speech you'd get from gates.
"i've been called a loser my whole life. and, yet look at what i've accomplished?"
i'm not sure the nerds will win, in the end. but, i'd still like to watch the game.
it should be noted that bill gates is both intellectually and financially invested very heavily in distance learning.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-gates-explains-how-he-would-fight-coronavirus-if-he-was-president-dont-mislead-people-130857486.html
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-gates-explains-how-he-would-fight-coronavirus-if-he-was-president-dont-mislead-people-130857486.html
wait.
so, they're lacing the opiates with an agent that counters the effect of the antidote, now?
so, they're trying to kill you? doesn't sound good for business....well, unless the model is to steal your money quickly, and snuff you out before they get busted.
there's been rumours for as long as opiates have existed that the whole thing is a population control scheme, and the whole crux of the opium wars, as driven by the harriman family, provides the only leaked model for how such a thing may be implemented. i remember my stomach sinking, the first time i read this:
In May 2007, Anthony Harriman, the senior director for Afghanistan at the National Security Council....
so, they're lacing the opiates with an agent that counters the effect of the antidote, now?
so, they're trying to kill you? doesn't sound good for business....well, unless the model is to steal your money quickly, and snuff you out before they get busted.
there's been rumours for as long as opiates have existed that the whole thing is a population control scheme, and the whole crux of the opium wars, as driven by the harriman family, provides the only leaked model for how such a thing may be implemented. i remember my stomach sinking, the first time i read this:
In May 2007, Anthony Harriman, the senior director for Afghanistan at the National Security Council....
so, i've noticed this happen a couple of times, now.
if i logout for a few hours, the posts start broadcasting again for a short period, and then they stop.
are they getting intercepted? is that what's happening?
listen, pigs - i broadcast the posts to myself (that is, email them to myself, from the blogger interface; there's a "send updates" feature at the site) to ensure i have a record of them. if anybody else is receiving the broadcasts, i'm not aware of them. but, this is very useful to me for record-keeping purposes.
i actually don't care if you want to receive updates. it's set up that way - that's the point. subscribe here:
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
or, send me an email address to add to the updates list. it's not necessary to physically intercept the transmission; i'm intending for it to reach an audience.
but, if you must be a spy, realize that you're not only copying the information for your own records, but also preventing me from receiving the email; that is, i'm not getting copies of these updates because whatever you're doing is not letting them through to me.
i would appreciate it if you'd correct your surveillance software, so it's not preventing emails from reaching me.
as an aside, if i was actually some kind of bad person, the fact that you're making it so obvious would not be working out for you - i'd have dropped this line of communication, by now.
if i logout for a few hours, the posts start broadcasting again for a short period, and then they stop.
are they getting intercepted? is that what's happening?
listen, pigs - i broadcast the posts to myself (that is, email them to myself, from the blogger interface; there's a "send updates" feature at the site) to ensure i have a record of them. if anybody else is receiving the broadcasts, i'm not aware of them. but, this is very useful to me for record-keeping purposes.
i actually don't care if you want to receive updates. it's set up that way - that's the point. subscribe here:
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
or, send me an email address to add to the updates list. it's not necessary to physically intercept the transmission; i'm intending for it to reach an audience.
but, if you must be a spy, realize that you're not only copying the information for your own records, but also preventing me from receiving the email; that is, i'm not getting copies of these updates because whatever you're doing is not letting them through to me.
i would appreciate it if you'd correct your surveillance software, so it's not preventing emails from reaching me.
as an aside, if i was actually some kind of bad person, the fact that you're making it so obvious would not be working out for you - i'd have dropped this line of communication, by now.
let's talk about kids, as one example.
we know that the initial strains of the virus have had very little effect on kids - they're not invincible, but, compared to more lethal threats like the flu, this virus is of least concern. that is, if you have kids, you should be more concerned about them getting the flu than you are about them getting covid-19, so long as your sole concern is the kids.
for now.
now, let's say that a mutation appears that makes the virus more lethal in kids. maybe it's producing virus at a faster rate. maybe it's killing cells at a faster rate. maybe it finds a better way to trick the immune system. the opposite may happen too, but let's suppose the worst case - let's say the next wave starts killing kids at a rate more comparable to the flu, even.
and, let's say your kid gets hit with the second wave, without having defended itself against the first one.
if, at that point, your child had already defended itself against the initial strain of the virus, it would have developed some level of immunity to the new strain; as it is, your child is now being forced to defend itself against a greater threat, without any defenses at all.
now, you can argue that this isn't a fair argument, because we could have stamped the thing out if we had tried better, but the level of naivete underlying that is too great to accept as reasonable error, and we are nonetheless past that point, now. we should all be able to agree, with confidence, that this virus will not be stamped out, now.
as an adult nearing the age of 40, i'm getting to that middle point. i don't have another 40 years to bump into this thing and beat it effortlessly; i have 10-20, depending on my health. give it to me now, please.
we know that the initial strains of the virus have had very little effect on kids - they're not invincible, but, compared to more lethal threats like the flu, this virus is of least concern. that is, if you have kids, you should be more concerned about them getting the flu than you are about them getting covid-19, so long as your sole concern is the kids.
for now.
now, let's say that a mutation appears that makes the virus more lethal in kids. maybe it's producing virus at a faster rate. maybe it's killing cells at a faster rate. maybe it finds a better way to trick the immune system. the opposite may happen too, but let's suppose the worst case - let's say the next wave starts killing kids at a rate more comparable to the flu, even.
and, let's say your kid gets hit with the second wave, without having defended itself against the first one.
if, at that point, your child had already defended itself against the initial strain of the virus, it would have developed some level of immunity to the new strain; as it is, your child is now being forced to defend itself against a greater threat, without any defenses at all.
now, you can argue that this isn't a fair argument, because we could have stamped the thing out if we had tried better, but the level of naivete underlying that is too great to accept as reasonable error, and we are nonetheless past that point, now. we should all be able to agree, with confidence, that this virus will not be stamped out, now.
as an adult nearing the age of 40, i'm getting to that middle point. i don't have another 40 years to bump into this thing and beat it effortlessly; i have 10-20, depending on my health. give it to me now, please.
so, it's not that i don't think proper mask use is going to work to some minimal effect if all the sufficient clauses are met, although i'll argue they're overrated, and their efficacy is being overstated. it's that i don't want to protect myself from the virus - i want to expose myself, and develop immunity naturally.
and, it's not that i don't think that vaccines will be effective, up to the most recent strain of the virus. it's that i want to beat the virus on my own.
and, it's not that i don't think that vaccines will be effective, up to the most recent strain of the virus. it's that i want to beat the virus on my own.
so, the messaging around the situation is finally starting to change to what analytically-minded people realized was obvious from the start. i'm starting to hear more talking heads talk about the permanency of the existence of the virus, and the who is warning to think in terms of decades when planning.
so, we're not going to get rid of this. ever. it's here, forever, and you have to get used to it.
now, i want you to carefully listen to what i'm going to say next because it really is crucial in understanding how this is going to affect your health moving forwards.
this was my argument from the start:
1) you can't wipe out a virus with social distancing or mask use, and it was crazy to ever think you could. no, they have not wiped it out in asia, they've just postponed the inevitable, and now they're stuck - they have no way out of lockdown, and will be in fascism forever. but, they don't have a cultural history of barbarism and anarchy like white people do. they just don't. they really will tolerate all kinds of tyranny that we just won't stand for, here. so, it's not that asia has won the fight against anything, it's that they decided they're happy enough to live in a fascist reality, anyways - they will still be in this lockdown 40 years from now, if they don't find some kind of breaking point. and, new zealand is in the same mess (although australia has now been hit.).
2) because you can't wipe out the virus, you are better getting it when you are young, and perhaps fight off a few mutations of it. that way, it won't kill you 50-60 years from now.
3) i've always supported vaccination for the elderly, but due to how widespread this disease is, the vaccines will have short shelf-lives. maybe it's not exactly seasonal like the flu; maybe it's every 2-3 years. but, if you just to do this via vaccination, you're going to have to get vaccinated over and over and over and....which is going to create a culture of dependency on the vaccine, like exists with the flu. you know those healthy 23 year olds that insist on getting flu vaccines, then die from the common cold at 28? the state got mixed up in it's projection, but it shouldn't be encouraging this kind of thing - it should be sending young people out to get sick.
the logic you need to follow is this:
if you are weak, protect yourself and wait for the vaccine; otherwise, preventing yourself from exposure is just harming yourself in the long run. you will run into this virus eventually, and if you've never seen it before at 75, it will likely kill you. if you've fought off ten different strains by the time you get there, you'll have a far better chance of winning in the long run.
it's a perfect example of the tendency we've developed to coddle, and we don't want to see the ramifications of that play out.
for the zillionth time, protect the weak.
but, otherwise?
you need to think of this more like throwing your kids or yourself in the deep end, and sinking or swimming.
you don't want to deny yourself exposure to this when your immune system can handle it. you want to get this now, not when you're too old to fight it.
so, we're not going to get rid of this. ever. it's here, forever, and you have to get used to it.
now, i want you to carefully listen to what i'm going to say next because it really is crucial in understanding how this is going to affect your health moving forwards.
this was my argument from the start:
1) you can't wipe out a virus with social distancing or mask use, and it was crazy to ever think you could. no, they have not wiped it out in asia, they've just postponed the inevitable, and now they're stuck - they have no way out of lockdown, and will be in fascism forever. but, they don't have a cultural history of barbarism and anarchy like white people do. they just don't. they really will tolerate all kinds of tyranny that we just won't stand for, here. so, it's not that asia has won the fight against anything, it's that they decided they're happy enough to live in a fascist reality, anyways - they will still be in this lockdown 40 years from now, if they don't find some kind of breaking point. and, new zealand is in the same mess (although australia has now been hit.).
2) because you can't wipe out the virus, you are better getting it when you are young, and perhaps fight off a few mutations of it. that way, it won't kill you 50-60 years from now.
3) i've always supported vaccination for the elderly, but due to how widespread this disease is, the vaccines will have short shelf-lives. maybe it's not exactly seasonal like the flu; maybe it's every 2-3 years. but, if you just to do this via vaccination, you're going to have to get vaccinated over and over and over and....which is going to create a culture of dependency on the vaccine, like exists with the flu. you know those healthy 23 year olds that insist on getting flu vaccines, then die from the common cold at 28? the state got mixed up in it's projection, but it shouldn't be encouraging this kind of thing - it should be sending young people out to get sick.
the logic you need to follow is this:
if you are weak, protect yourself and wait for the vaccine; otherwise, preventing yourself from exposure is just harming yourself in the long run. you will run into this virus eventually, and if you've never seen it before at 75, it will likely kill you. if you've fought off ten different strains by the time you get there, you'll have a far better chance of winning in the long run.
it's a perfect example of the tendency we've developed to coddle, and we don't want to see the ramifications of that play out.
for the zillionth time, protect the weak.
but, otherwise?
you need to think of this more like throwing your kids or yourself in the deep end, and sinking or swimming.
you don't want to deny yourself exposure to this when your immune system can handle it. you want to get this now, not when you're too old to fight it.
Friday, July 31, 2020
i'm not dr. fauci's peer, and i'm not going to pretend i am.
but, this is my opinion of his position.
this isn't a situation where a randomized study makes any sense. the study itself indicates that multiple treatments were used, and assigns the different results to that fact; fauci seems to think that's a bad thing, but it actually represents real-world use, as this drug probably wouldn't work as a sole treatment option. it's only going to be useful when you see patients fall into the cytokine storms. randomized trials are just going to lead to the drug being used in situations that are not actually appropriate.
so, his claim may sound convincing, but it isn't - it demonstrates that he doesn't really understand the situation very well. it seems like he's trying to rebut the second study rather than the first - but, as stated, i would expect the second study (the prophylactic one.) to fail.
i don't know what he's doing. maybe he's embarrassed and humiliated and digging in and hoping it works out. maybe he's legitimately confused.
but, i think an analysis and deconstruction by his actual peers would be highly useful, in context.
but, this is my opinion of his position.
this isn't a situation where a randomized study makes any sense. the study itself indicates that multiple treatments were used, and assigns the different results to that fact; fauci seems to think that's a bad thing, but it actually represents real-world use, as this drug probably wouldn't work as a sole treatment option. it's only going to be useful when you see patients fall into the cytokine storms. randomized trials are just going to lead to the drug being used in situations that are not actually appropriate.
so, his claim may sound convincing, but it isn't - it demonstrates that he doesn't really understand the situation very well. it seems like he's trying to rebut the second study rather than the first - but, as stated, i would expect the second study (the prophylactic one.) to fail.
i don't know what he's doing. maybe he's embarrassed and humiliated and digging in and hoping it works out. maybe he's legitimately confused.
but, i think an analysis and deconstruction by his actual peers would be highly useful, in context.
can we peer review dr fauci's testimony?
thanks.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/house-committee-coronavirus-1.5670440
thanks.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/house-committee-coronavirus-1.5670440
our school systems are failing to teach basic science, and the media is just taking advantage of it to maximize profit - while the social media gatekeepers and government agencies tell us to relax and trust their lies.
it's a perfect dystopia, isn't it?
there's only one way out - educate yourself. do your own research. use critical reasoning; do not suspend disbelief.
only you are in charge of your mind.
be vigilant.
it's a perfect dystopia, isn't it?
there's only one way out - educate yourself. do your own research. use critical reasoning; do not suspend disbelief.
only you are in charge of your mind.
be vigilant.
it took way too long for them to write this article, but it's better late than never.
read that and then compare it to the bullshit you've been reading in your twitter feed, for what? weeks? months?
my stepmother is (was? i don't even know. i guess she's over 65 now, anyways.) a bone marrow specialist with the red cross for some time, working specifically in the oncology department at the cbs. she ended up getting fired for harassing a colleague; i guess she couldn't throw the colleague out of the house. so, i admit i cheated a little. but, it's, like, introductory bio, guys...
i have a tendency to attack people for being ignorant fucking idiots, but i'm a patient person. you don't know this; maybe you should, but you don't. fine.
but, how some of this garbage got published at big sites like cnn, with no apparent attempt to bother checking the facts before generating the clickbait, is beyond me. there's dozens of articles by big organizations that made somebody a lot of money, but really, really just shouldn't exist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/opinion/coronavirus-antibodies-immunity.html
read that and then compare it to the bullshit you've been reading in your twitter feed, for what? weeks? months?
my stepmother is (was? i don't even know. i guess she's over 65 now, anyways.) a bone marrow specialist with the red cross for some time, working specifically in the oncology department at the cbs. she ended up getting fired for harassing a colleague; i guess she couldn't throw the colleague out of the house. so, i admit i cheated a little. but, it's, like, introductory bio, guys...
i have a tendency to attack people for being ignorant fucking idiots, but i'm a patient person. you don't know this; maybe you should, but you don't. fine.
but, how some of this garbage got published at big sites like cnn, with no apparent attempt to bother checking the facts before generating the clickbait, is beyond me. there's dozens of articles by big organizations that made somebody a lot of money, but really, really just shouldn't exist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/opinion/coronavirus-antibodies-immunity.html
so, if biden picks a black woman called karen, how long before black america spontaneously combusts, in a warp in space-time?
i'm imagining the speech. after five or ten minutes of empty pandering and talking about how important black americans are to the campaign, he stops and says.
so, i've picked my candidate, and we think that black americans will love her. her name is....
(pause)
KAREN....
...and, then all of a sudden, the earth starts shaking, the lights start blinking, and anybody that were to look towards the sky at that exact moment would have seen swirls of colours in the night sky, for that split second.
and, then that's it.
biden is gone. and, black america has imploded, gone to some other dimension within our vast & poorly understood cosmos.
i'm imagining the speech. after five or ten minutes of empty pandering and talking about how important black americans are to the campaign, he stops and says.
so, i've picked my candidate, and we think that black americans will love her. her name is....
(pause)
KAREN....
...and, then all of a sudden, the earth starts shaking, the lights start blinking, and anybody that were to look towards the sky at that exact moment would have seen swirls of colours in the night sky, for that split second.
and, then that's it.
biden is gone. and, black america has imploded, gone to some other dimension within our vast & poorly understood cosmos.
well, this is nice to see.
hey, you give me some good news every fucking once in a while, and i'll post it, eh?
https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2020/07/canada-and-ontario-invest-in-affordable-housing-in-kingston.html
hey, you give me some good news every fucking once in a while, and i'll post it, eh?
https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2020/07/canada-and-ontario-invest-in-affordable-housing-in-kingston.html
one thing that is probably true, though, is that the babylonians had more actual raw data than we do.
we have actual sunspot data, for example, going back a few hundred years.
they probably had thousands of years worth of observation, by the end of the process. those observations are probably lost, but (ignoring errors, like procession) they may have helped them understand cycles that we're really only able to guess with math. they probably recorded celestial objects we've never seen, and saw them come through more than once.
it's actually one of the great tragedies of history, and we can only hope we find something useful, eventually.
we have actual sunspot data, for example, going back a few hundred years.
they probably had thousands of years worth of observation, by the end of the process. those observations are probably lost, but (ignoring errors, like procession) they may have helped them understand cycles that we're really only able to guess with math. they probably recorded celestial objects we've never seen, and saw them come through more than once.
it's actually one of the great tragedies of history, and we can only hope we find something useful, eventually.
it's a fair enough critique; i may have been a little anachronistic in my language. i guess this clarifies what i meant to say.
but, this also helps to explain two things:
1) why the islamic authorities were so uncomfortable with the math & astronomy going on
2) the existence of certain strains of islam (like sufi.) that are kind of kabbalistic in scope. that is, there has continually been a synthesis of islam with astrology happening under the radar, and that's what they were trying to stop.
we had the same bullshit in europe. it's known now that newton, for example, was an avid alchemist - and that he spent a large amount of his life trying to convert base metals into gold. but, he had to keep it underground, or he'd have ended up dead.
and, if you look into it, the whole kepler/copernicus crowd had astrological streaks of it's own.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/02/babylonians-scientists/462150/
but, this also helps to explain two things:
1) why the islamic authorities were so uncomfortable with the math & astronomy going on
2) the existence of certain strains of islam (like sufi.) that are kind of kabbalistic in scope. that is, there has continually been a synthesis of islam with astrology happening under the radar, and that's what they were trying to stop.
we had the same bullshit in europe. it's known now that newton, for example, was an avid alchemist - and that he spent a large amount of his life trying to convert base metals into gold. but, he had to keep it underground, or he'd have ended up dead.
and, if you look into it, the whole kepler/copernicus crowd had astrological streaks of it's own.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/02/babylonians-scientists/462150/
ei is in need of reform and has been for a very long time; it's stuck in the 50s, in a lot of ways.
so, this is beyond necessary, and i hope they make it better.
but, my confidence is fairly low. let's hope they prove me wrong.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7239834/cerb-recipient-move-ei/
so, this is beyond necessary, and i hope they make it better.
but, my confidence is fairly low. let's hope they prove me wrong.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7239834/cerb-recipient-move-ei/
i highly advise against downloading this or otherwise interacting with it in any way at all.
in the end, you might get arrested for alcohol consumption.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/07/31/health-canadas-covid-alert-app-goes-live-friday/
in the end, you might get arrested for alcohol consumption.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/07/31/health-canadas-covid-alert-app-goes-live-friday/
according to the official tallies, cases are supposedly going down. so, why are they targeting bars & restaurants, at this point in the process?
well, they just passed a hijab law for kids, with the apparent purpose of habituating them to mask use. i mean, just think about you're doing - you're telling 10 to 15 year-old kids to wear masks at school. what's going to happen?
1) they're only going to wear them when there are adults looking over them.
2) they're going to grab the front of the mask repeatedly (defeating the point)
3) they're going to grab each other's masks and play games with them. there will be kids that have their masks stolen.
..and you can follow my train of thought from there.
these are actually exactly the reasons that health experts hesitated to even talk about masks for so long - if you don't wear them right, they'll make things worse.
on top of that, you're talking about kids in very close quarters. if actual medical masks may have some marginal benefit in stopping spread in spaces like malls, hijab-type cloth masks are going to be entirely useless in stopping the spread amongst kids in close proximity to each other.
and, you're not going to succeed in keeping kids apart from each other without exceedingly strict measures that nobody is going to tolerate.
it's a crazy idea, for any reason other than to try to habituate. that's what they're doing. deal with it.
and, what's next on the list?
alcohol.
muslims forbid any consumption of alcohol.
are you starting to get it yet?
well, they just passed a hijab law for kids, with the apparent purpose of habituating them to mask use. i mean, just think about you're doing - you're telling 10 to 15 year-old kids to wear masks at school. what's going to happen?
1) they're only going to wear them when there are adults looking over them.
2) they're going to grab the front of the mask repeatedly (defeating the point)
3) they're going to grab each other's masks and play games with them. there will be kids that have their masks stolen.
..and you can follow my train of thought from there.
these are actually exactly the reasons that health experts hesitated to even talk about masks for so long - if you don't wear them right, they'll make things worse.
on top of that, you're talking about kids in very close quarters. if actual medical masks may have some marginal benefit in stopping spread in spaces like malls, hijab-type cloth masks are going to be entirely useless in stopping the spread amongst kids in close proximity to each other.
and, you're not going to succeed in keeping kids apart from each other without exceedingly strict measures that nobody is going to tolerate.
it's a crazy idea, for any reason other than to try to habituate. that's what they're doing. deal with it.
and, what's next on the list?
alcohol.
muslims forbid any consumption of alcohol.
are you starting to get it yet?
lol.
props to the first person that shits his pants in his seat in protest of the requirements.
they're breaking their own laws.
doug ford needs to resign, immediately. by breaking the rule of law in such an absurd fashion, he has defaulted on his previous mandate. he no longer has any authority, and no laws he passes have any force.
we need an election, immediately.
in the mean time, how do you deal with this kind of fascism?
1) non-compliance, in whatever form it takes.
2) civil disobedience.
3) targeted legal action.
while i have no interest in sitting in a bar without live music, i will not be abiding by these rules, and i dare you to do something about it.
and, why do i call the "islamic golden age" a "babylonian renaissance"?
because that's what it was.
while muslims like to take credit for this now, the islamic authorities were actually not particularly impressed by all of the star gazing and astronomy that was going on and acted more to suppress it than to support it. the names that have come down to us are almost all kurdish. the contribution that islam played into this was really on the level of ending the damn war, which allowed the ancestral populations (which were semitic, not persian) to kind of regain themselves.
so, they built a city called baghdad on top of the ruins of babylon, but it just turned back into babylon, and picked back up where the babylonians had left off, in staring out at the stars and trying to figure it out.
the babylonians were, in their day, master astronomers, and we have stories of pythagoras traveling to babylon to meet the "sages" there for good reason; large amounts of what we call greek math are probably ultimately babylonian, in origin. we just can't trace it back; instead, we get these dead ends at the greek. more often than not, those dead ends are going to go back to babylon.
and, that's what happened - a return of babylonian science, in the city they built on top of the wreckage.
baghdad was eventually decimated by a grandson of genghis khan, and brother of kublai khan, and i'm in the camp that argues they never fully recovered.
because that's what it was.
while muslims like to take credit for this now, the islamic authorities were actually not particularly impressed by all of the star gazing and astronomy that was going on and acted more to suppress it than to support it. the names that have come down to us are almost all kurdish. the contribution that islam played into this was really on the level of ending the damn war, which allowed the ancestral populations (which were semitic, not persian) to kind of regain themselves.
so, they built a city called baghdad on top of the ruins of babylon, but it just turned back into babylon, and picked back up where the babylonians had left off, in staring out at the stars and trying to figure it out.
the babylonians were, in their day, master astronomers, and we have stories of pythagoras traveling to babylon to meet the "sages" there for good reason; large amounts of what we call greek math are probably ultimately babylonian, in origin. we just can't trace it back; instead, we get these dead ends at the greek. more often than not, those dead ends are going to go back to babylon.
and, that's what happened - a return of babylonian science, in the city they built on top of the wreckage.
baghdad was eventually decimated by a grandson of genghis khan, and brother of kublai khan, and i'm in the camp that argues they never fully recovered.
i've been over this before, but briefly.
while there have been some attempts to link kurdish ethnogenesis further back in time, both the origin of the term (which means 'tent-dweller' or 'wanderer'.....which i'm interpreting as refugee) and the proposed date of linguistic differentiation from persian suggest that kurdish ethnogenesis did not actually take place until well after the islamization of the fertile crescent. stated very tersely, when the dust settled after the major shift in power that happened after the arabs moved north and (1) kicked the romans out and (2) flat out conquered the persians, there were all of a sudden all of these iraqi persians living in the mountains, and there's really not a story as to how that happened - kind of like how there's really not a story about how we ended up with a really large amount of jews in eastern europe.
we know that there was nobody called kurds in the region during the classical period, and we know that persians had been in control of iraq almost continually at that point for roughly 1500 years, with the only substantive break occurring in alexander's lifetime; the post-alexandrian seleucid state was eventually overrun by parthians from central asia, but it was essentially a continuation of the achaemenid state. so, the persians had a very deep history in iraq at the time of what was initially an arabic military occupation. so, we know that there was no such thing as a 'kurd' in any of the literature from the time of cyrus (c. 550 bce) until roughly the year 900 ce, and we know that the persians dominated the region for almost all of that period, until about 650 ce (roughly, and the dates are actually a little blurry).
then, we have these kurds living in the mountains like refugees, speaking a new dialect of persian that just pops into history just right then. further, we have a lot of muslims in mesopotamia, all of a sudden, living in baghdad rather than ctesiphon or seleucia (initially babylon). over time, we see these kurds develop as a kind of ruling elite, as well. if you look into it, you realize that the entire babylonian renaissance that was centered on baghdad was really kurdish, rather than arabic, in origin.
i don't even know how you'd convincingly prove the hypothesis, but it just seems obvious to me to put two and two together and deduce that quite a lot of iraqi persians must have ended up in the mountains around the time, as a way to evade what was happening in the city, and surrounding areas. and, all you have to do is look at what happened in the isis invasion to get a kind of rough idea of how that must have happened - the arab groups come in from the south in a rage, and the persians must have sought higher ground to get out. a few hundred years later, they have a new dialect and a new identity. or, sort of; if you can interpret being called a refugee as an identity.
what that means is that, if i'm right, the kurds are essentially a 1300 year old iraqi persian refugee population.
yes...
1300 years of being refugees in the mountains.
while there have been some attempts to link kurdish ethnogenesis further back in time, both the origin of the term (which means 'tent-dweller' or 'wanderer'.....which i'm interpreting as refugee) and the proposed date of linguistic differentiation from persian suggest that kurdish ethnogenesis did not actually take place until well after the islamization of the fertile crescent. stated very tersely, when the dust settled after the major shift in power that happened after the arabs moved north and (1) kicked the romans out and (2) flat out conquered the persians, there were all of a sudden all of these iraqi persians living in the mountains, and there's really not a story as to how that happened - kind of like how there's really not a story about how we ended up with a really large amount of jews in eastern europe.
we know that there was nobody called kurds in the region during the classical period, and we know that persians had been in control of iraq almost continually at that point for roughly 1500 years, with the only substantive break occurring in alexander's lifetime; the post-alexandrian seleucid state was eventually overrun by parthians from central asia, but it was essentially a continuation of the achaemenid state. so, the persians had a very deep history in iraq at the time of what was initially an arabic military occupation. so, we know that there was no such thing as a 'kurd' in any of the literature from the time of cyrus (c. 550 bce) until roughly the year 900 ce, and we know that the persians dominated the region for almost all of that period, until about 650 ce (roughly, and the dates are actually a little blurry).
then, we have these kurds living in the mountains like refugees, speaking a new dialect of persian that just pops into history just right then. further, we have a lot of muslims in mesopotamia, all of a sudden, living in baghdad rather than ctesiphon or seleucia (initially babylon). over time, we see these kurds develop as a kind of ruling elite, as well. if you look into it, you realize that the entire babylonian renaissance that was centered on baghdad was really kurdish, rather than arabic, in origin.
i don't even know how you'd convincingly prove the hypothesis, but it just seems obvious to me to put two and two together and deduce that quite a lot of iraqi persians must have ended up in the mountains around the time, as a way to evade what was happening in the city, and surrounding areas. and, all you have to do is look at what happened in the isis invasion to get a kind of rough idea of how that must have happened - the arab groups come in from the south in a rage, and the persians must have sought higher ground to get out. a few hundred years later, they have a new dialect and a new identity. or, sort of; if you can interpret being called a refugee as an identity.
what that means is that, if i'm right, the kurds are essentially a 1300 year old iraqi persian refugee population.
yes...
1300 years of being refugees in the mountains.
are ashkenazi jews really jews though?
the y-dna says that, yes, they are. the mt-dna suggests some admixture with indo-european types, although that's also true of mizrahi jews, due to the massive influence of the persian empire on hebrew ethnogenesis.
the science on this advanced rapidly about 15 years ago or so, when the technology finally allowed for it, and it's not really an open question. but, it's never really been clear how so many jews got so far north, and i'll admit having looked into the khazar thing...
there really does appear to have been a jewish empire parked roughly around the ukraine in the dark ages, and the story as to how they became jewish has not come down to us in any form other than myth. the story is that the khazar king converted to judaism to act as a buffer between the recently converted christian russians (they didn't actually convert for a long time after that) and the more seriously muslim caliphate to the south of the caucasus. i can't prove that didn't happen, but nobody really takes the legend all that seriously. so, nobody really knew for sure until they did the testing...
the thing is that eastern european jews don't actually look turkish, either. the turks are a central asian people that really have strongly eastern phenotypes. so, while the jewish empire was there, and for several centuries, it was actually observationally obvious that all these eastern european jews couldn't really be all that turkish, either.
they must have just migrated north sometime around the year 700. that would have been about the same time that the caliphate came in, and introduced coercive rules to stimulate conversion.
i have a similar hypothesis with the kurds, who show up out of nowhere at the same time, and the curiously close genetic relationship we've uncovered between kurds and jews is maybe kind of illuminating in that respect. both populations seem to have become migrant at about the same time, and apparently as refugees of the muslim takeover, after the conclusion of the lengthy roman-persian wars that ended the classical period.
but, yes - they are genetically jewish, even if they really don't look like it. and, it's just that curve tending to the limit, over time.
i used the example because it was the most obvious i could find...
the y-dna says that, yes, they are. the mt-dna suggests some admixture with indo-european types, although that's also true of mizrahi jews, due to the massive influence of the persian empire on hebrew ethnogenesis.
the science on this advanced rapidly about 15 years ago or so, when the technology finally allowed for it, and it's not really an open question. but, it's never really been clear how so many jews got so far north, and i'll admit having looked into the khazar thing...
there really does appear to have been a jewish empire parked roughly around the ukraine in the dark ages, and the story as to how they became jewish has not come down to us in any form other than myth. the story is that the khazar king converted to judaism to act as a buffer between the recently converted christian russians (they didn't actually convert for a long time after that) and the more seriously muslim caliphate to the south of the caucasus. i can't prove that didn't happen, but nobody really takes the legend all that seriously. so, nobody really knew for sure until they did the testing...
the thing is that eastern european jews don't actually look turkish, either. the turks are a central asian people that really have strongly eastern phenotypes. so, while the jewish empire was there, and for several centuries, it was actually observationally obvious that all these eastern european jews couldn't really be all that turkish, either.
they must have just migrated north sometime around the year 700. that would have been about the same time that the caliphate came in, and introduced coercive rules to stimulate conversion.
i have a similar hypothesis with the kurds, who show up out of nowhere at the same time, and the curiously close genetic relationship we've uncovered between kurds and jews is maybe kind of illuminating in that respect. both populations seem to have become migrant at about the same time, and apparently as refugees of the muslim takeover, after the conclusion of the lengthy roman-persian wars that ended the classical period.
but, yes - they are genetically jewish, even if they really don't look like it. and, it's just that curve tending to the limit, over time.
i used the example because it was the most obvious i could find...
"but skin pigment is caused by latitude and sun exposure"
well...
if you were to take sequential samples of italians over many thousands of years, you may find that they have a tendency towards a browner skin colour, as that phenotype repeatedly wins in that latitude.
but, if you were born in modern day germany, and your ancestors were from russia, and you migrate south to italy in a very large group of other similar looking people, you're bringing in dna that adapted to a very different climate, and it's going to take quite a while for that to get absorbed.
it works the other way, too - if you take darker skinned people and plonk them on the booted peninsula, their descendants may lighten up eventually, if they're lucky, but it's going to take quite a long time.
italians and spaniards seem to be roughly about where they ought to be, in terms of pigmentation, relative to other people at the same latitude, at this time. but, i believe the last major waves of migration to the peninsula were vikings and arabs, both pushing 1000 years ago, at this point.
immediately before the roman period, there would have been a large scale migration of very light-skinned people from over the alps, and that migration would be responsible for what we call the roman republic. when rome fell apart, you had germans from the north and arabs from the south meeting each other at that latitude, and the result would have been an infusion of darker skin, which has actually since lightened up - which is why it is both true that italians from the classical period look whiter than they do today and south italians from the dark ages look darker than they do, today.
if you look at a map more closely, you see this kind of thing all over the place, even with indigenous groups. people in the area north of china look more like people to the south of china than the chinese, themselves, because that was the direction of that migration. if you check back in a thousand years, that might change, but it takes some time to adjust....
likewise, european-americans are going to end up with the same skin tone as native americans, eventually. but, we're a few hundred years in, so far, and still waiting.
so, you need to be careful with that - the curve tends to a limit over time, but it's always going to be short-term migration that is dominant, overall.
well...
if you were to take sequential samples of italians over many thousands of years, you may find that they have a tendency towards a browner skin colour, as that phenotype repeatedly wins in that latitude.
but, if you were born in modern day germany, and your ancestors were from russia, and you migrate south to italy in a very large group of other similar looking people, you're bringing in dna that adapted to a very different climate, and it's going to take quite a while for that to get absorbed.
it works the other way, too - if you take darker skinned people and plonk them on the booted peninsula, their descendants may lighten up eventually, if they're lucky, but it's going to take quite a long time.
italians and spaniards seem to be roughly about where they ought to be, in terms of pigmentation, relative to other people at the same latitude, at this time. but, i believe the last major waves of migration to the peninsula were vikings and arabs, both pushing 1000 years ago, at this point.
immediately before the roman period, there would have been a large scale migration of very light-skinned people from over the alps, and that migration would be responsible for what we call the roman republic. when rome fell apart, you had germans from the north and arabs from the south meeting each other at that latitude, and the result would have been an infusion of darker skin, which has actually since lightened up - which is why it is both true that italians from the classical period look whiter than they do today and south italians from the dark ages look darker than they do, today.
if you look at a map more closely, you see this kind of thing all over the place, even with indigenous groups. people in the area north of china look more like people to the south of china than the chinese, themselves, because that was the direction of that migration. if you check back in a thousand years, that might change, but it takes some time to adjust....
likewise, european-americans are going to end up with the same skin tone as native americans, eventually. but, we're a few hundred years in, so far, and still waiting.
so, you need to be careful with that - the curve tends to a limit over time, but it's always going to be short-term migration that is dominant, overall.
when the romans started off, they would have looked more like modern day swiss or austrians than modern day italians. the italic languages are thought to have evolved alongside the celtic languages in modern day switzerland, before moving south into italy. but celtic and italic actually are thought to have split rather late, so the wide swath of western europe including spain, france, southern germany, italy and the british isles would have emerged from the bronze age roughly homogeneous in culture and language.
over time, the pax romana, which set in after augustus, led to large scale migration all over the place. the romans also brought in massive numbers of slaves from everywhere they conquered, and freed a large number of them in the end. genetic studies have demonstrated a major footprint from the orontes, which was noted in the classical literature as well.
so, rome changed over time. but, for the proper roman period, ending in 476, the emperors would have mostly been startlingly, pasty white.
if you want to know what a roman proper looked like, zuckerberg is actually pretty much spot on.
https://www.quora.com/Were-Roman-emperors-all-white
over time, the pax romana, which set in after augustus, led to large scale migration all over the place. the romans also brought in massive numbers of slaves from everywhere they conquered, and freed a large number of them in the end. genetic studies have demonstrated a major footprint from the orontes, which was noted in the classical literature as well.
so, rome changed over time. but, for the proper roman period, ending in 476, the emperors would have mostly been startlingly, pasty white.
if you want to know what a roman proper looked like, zuckerberg is actually pretty much spot on.
https://www.quora.com/Were-Roman-emperors-all-white
listen, though.
i'm an advocate of democracy, and in ways so intense you've probably never even imagined it, but history teaches us fairly clearly that the type of fake "democracy" that exists in the united states always ends up in dictatorship, in the end.
the american system almost seems like it intended for an augustus to take over, eventually.
i don't think trump's the guy, though. too old. past his due date...
i'm an advocate of democracy, and in ways so intense you've probably never even imagined it, but history teaches us fairly clearly that the type of fake "democracy" that exists in the united states always ends up in dictatorship, in the end.
the american system almost seems like it intended for an augustus to take over, eventually.
i don't think trump's the guy, though. too old. past his due date...
i want to flip the conspiracy theory over, though.
trump talks about the opposition rigging the election when he's in the process of rigging it, himself. it's a deflection tactic.
the thing is that we just watched biden steal the primary.
Everyone knows it. Smart people know it. Stupid people may not know it
he's right.
this is going to end up as two old, corrupt white guys trying to steal the election by outcheating each other.
trump talks about the opposition rigging the election when he's in the process of rigging it, himself. it's a deflection tactic.
the thing is that we just watched biden steal the primary.
Everyone knows it. Smart people know it. Stupid people may not know it
he's right.
this is going to end up as two old, corrupt white guys trying to steal the election by outcheating each other.
well......
just watch him, right?
if he were to delay the election by executive order or presidential proclamation (probably the latter.) at more or less the last minute, then challenge it at every level, he would no doubt be able to delay it for months.
1) the court is going to eventually rule on an election date. who knows when. but, that might be all he wants.
2) i couldn't imagine him winning an election that he delays by executive order, and then has overturned by the courts.
the more pressing issue is how self-identified conservatives are going to react to such a thing, and it would no doubt be pyrrhic, to say the least.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-united-states-election-delay-voter-fraud-1.5669270
just watch him, right?
if he were to delay the election by executive order or presidential proclamation (probably the latter.) at more or less the last minute, then challenge it at every level, he would no doubt be able to delay it for months.
1) the court is going to eventually rule on an election date. who knows when. but, that might be all he wants.
2) i couldn't imagine him winning an election that he delays by executive order, and then has overturned by the courts.
the more pressing issue is how self-identified conservatives are going to react to such a thing, and it would no doubt be pyrrhic, to say the least.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-united-states-election-delay-voter-fraud-1.5669270
would i have supported the american revolution?
no, i probably wouldn't have.
the american revolution is a little more complicated to me than the french revolution, which i would have supported very strongly (i may have even written a book tearing down edmund burke). i suspect i would have found myself in canada fairly quickly, but i can't say for sure; it may have depended a lot on what class i found myself born into.
france & russia are no brainers, for me, though - i would have been fully in support of all of the death and all of the carnage, as necessary to overthrow the ancien regime.
no, i probably wouldn't have.
the american revolution is a little more complicated to me than the french revolution, which i would have supported very strongly (i may have even written a book tearing down edmund burke). i suspect i would have found myself in canada fairly quickly, but i can't say for sure; it may have depended a lot on what class i found myself born into.
france & russia are no brainers, for me, though - i would have been fully in support of all of the death and all of the carnage, as necessary to overthrow the ancien regime.
if i was in england in the 16th & 17th centuries, would i have argued in favour of bombing the puritan settlers?
i'd have a hard time making that argument....because bombs hadn't been developed yet.
cannons, maybe.
but, given the context, i'd have been more likely to encourage as many of them to leave england as possible; i'd have been more concerned about just getting rid of them first.
and, then, maybe, once every single puritan had been banished from england, then maybe we could start thinking about laying siege to them.
i'd have a hard time making that argument....because bombs hadn't been developed yet.
cannons, maybe.
but, given the context, i'd have been more likely to encourage as many of them to leave england as possible; i'd have been more concerned about just getting rid of them first.
and, then, maybe, once every single puritan had been banished from england, then maybe we could start thinking about laying siege to them.
if only it was that easy, right?
if we could just hit delete and end religion forever, right?
*sigh*.
the difference between the bountiful colonies that i will again say i would support carpet bombing and...mennonitism?....is that in bountiful we're talking about one colony and with the mennonites there's many, many of them.
so, i can't uphold an example of rape as a reason to bomb all of the mennonite colonies. there may be the odd one that's ok; the point is i can't generalize like that, and i know it.
but, i'd certainly support bombing the bad ones.
if we could just hit delete and end religion forever, right?
*sigh*.
the difference between the bountiful colonies that i will again say i would support carpet bombing and...mennonitism?....is that in bountiful we're talking about one colony and with the mennonites there's many, many of them.
so, i can't uphold an example of rape as a reason to bomb all of the mennonite colonies. there may be the odd one that's ok; the point is i can't generalize like that, and i know it.
but, i'd certainly support bombing the bad ones.
what do i think of these weirdo mennonites, though, anyways?
not much, frankly.
they're very quiet. i guess we all know they're there, but we don't hear much from them, so it's kind of like they're not. and, that's probably better for both of us.
i don't really know much about them, what they believe or how they live. i get the idea that they don't really like technology, and i guess they probably live in very patriarchal societies that are rooted by threats of violence, but i've really never thought about it much. if they were to ever show up with guns and try to take over the government, i guess i'd have a reason to look into them a little more. as it is, the fact that they're so quiet means i have essentially no reason to really care about them much, one way or the other.
i know i've been very critical of the mormon groups up in the mountains, like in bountiful. that was a case that they very badly screwed up. "religious freedom" is hardly a valid excuse for rape, and i'd be just as happy if they carpet-bombed the place.
i frankly don't know if that kind of thing goes on in these mennonite colonies or not, but i would support a crackdown on them if there is any evidence or suggestion that it does.
if not, the existing arrangement - where we barely acknowledge each other's existence in any way at all - is fine with me. so, carry on...
not much, frankly.
they're very quiet. i guess we all know they're there, but we don't hear much from them, so it's kind of like they're not. and, that's probably better for both of us.
i don't really know much about them, what they believe or how they live. i get the idea that they don't really like technology, and i guess they probably live in very patriarchal societies that are rooted by threats of violence, but i've really never thought about it much. if they were to ever show up with guns and try to take over the government, i guess i'd have a reason to look into them a little more. as it is, the fact that they're so quiet means i have essentially no reason to really care about them much, one way or the other.
i know i've been very critical of the mormon groups up in the mountains, like in bountiful. that was a case that they very badly screwed up. "religious freedom" is hardly a valid excuse for rape, and i'd be just as happy if they carpet-bombed the place.
i frankly don't know if that kind of thing goes on in these mennonite colonies or not, but i would support a crackdown on them if there is any evidence or suggestion that it does.
if not, the existing arrangement - where we barely acknowledge each other's existence in any way at all - is fine with me. so, carry on...
the issue is explicitly and specifically within the mennonite community and explicitly and specifically tied to the religious and cultural aspects of that community.
the media should not be referring to them by the language or ethnicity they may share with people of other faiths, or of no faith at all.
the media should not be referring to them by the language or ethnicity they may share with people of other faiths, or of no faith at all.
i saw this in a different paper and couldn't figure out what the hell they were talking about, what is a "low german speaking" population?
it turns out that the term is used to refer to people from the low countries that speak germanic languages. but, like....is there some dutch community out there that got hit? did it spare the walloons, specifically?
it turns out that by "low german speaking", what they mean is mennonite/hutterite, and this actually appears to be a case of political correctness that has gone full retard. that is, as far as i can tell, they're trying to avoid mentioning the religious character of the community so as to not create some kind of stigma.
but, if you see this term come up, that's what it means - the isolated mennonite communities that do indeed exist throughout canada, and apparently in essex county, and that have been experiencing heightened rates, indeed as a consequence of their religious practices.
and, i'm actually sort of uncomfortable with this. when i talk about muslims or christians or whatever else, i ensure that it's the religion i'm mentioning, because i know there are plenty of arabs that have abandoned islam and plenty of italians that have abandoned christianity (and whole swaths of hebrews that have abandoned judaism). like, there is a difference between a religion and a language.
i would actually consider it racist to use arab and muslim interchangeably - these are different concepts, and i'm very careful to separate them.
i would really like to see this use of language discontinued, and denounced as the racism that it really is - there's not an outbreak in the dutch-speaking community, whatever that might even mean. rather, there is a developing problem with outbreaks in religious mennonite communities.
https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/health-unit-reports-covid-19-cases-among-low-german-speaking-community
it turns out that the term is used to refer to people from the low countries that speak germanic languages. but, like....is there some dutch community out there that got hit? did it spare the walloons, specifically?
it turns out that by "low german speaking", what they mean is mennonite/hutterite, and this actually appears to be a case of political correctness that has gone full retard. that is, as far as i can tell, they're trying to avoid mentioning the religious character of the community so as to not create some kind of stigma.
but, if you see this term come up, that's what it means - the isolated mennonite communities that do indeed exist throughout canada, and apparently in essex county, and that have been experiencing heightened rates, indeed as a consequence of their religious practices.
and, i'm actually sort of uncomfortable with this. when i talk about muslims or christians or whatever else, i ensure that it's the religion i'm mentioning, because i know there are plenty of arabs that have abandoned islam and plenty of italians that have abandoned christianity (and whole swaths of hebrews that have abandoned judaism). like, there is a difference between a religion and a language.
i would actually consider it racist to use arab and muslim interchangeably - these are different concepts, and i'm very careful to separate them.
i would really like to see this use of language discontinued, and denounced as the racism that it really is - there's not an outbreak in the dutch-speaking community, whatever that might even mean. rather, there is a developing problem with outbreaks in religious mennonite communities.
https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/health-unit-reports-covid-19-cases-among-low-german-speaking-community
there's another foundational difference underlying the gap between how the americanized spectrum views these terms through colloquial language and what the terms actual mean, in the context of the theories they exist within, and that's this dichotomy around the individual v the collective.
what the americanized spectrum wants to do is set individualism (which it speciously associates strictly with hyper-capitalism) off against collectivism (which it equally speciously associates strictly with communism). so, in the americanized spectrum, you have individualists on one side and collectivists on the other and they're just always in struggle.
but, any european politico would acknowledge the centrality of hegel in the development of the politics of the left, and realize that the entire point of the left for the last 200 years has been about finding a way to synthesize the individual and collective into a dialectic, not set them off against each other in a fight. on the left, we fight about class, not about this individualist/collectivist canard.
the individual is more free when the collective takes control of private property; socialism maximizes personal freedom, it doesn't struggle against it. there is no contradiction, at all.
as an aside, one of the fun ways that left-libertarians like to piss off right-libertarians is to remind them that market theory is inherently collectivist in nature, and that the great ricardo was a total pinko. it's also fun to remind them that one of the defining traits of contemporary capitalism is the trivialization of individuality into market choice.
what the americanized spectrum wants to do is set individualism (which it speciously associates strictly with hyper-capitalism) off against collectivism (which it equally speciously associates strictly with communism). so, in the americanized spectrum, you have individualists on one side and collectivists on the other and they're just always in struggle.
but, any european politico would acknowledge the centrality of hegel in the development of the politics of the left, and realize that the entire point of the left for the last 200 years has been about finding a way to synthesize the individual and collective into a dialectic, not set them off against each other in a fight. on the left, we fight about class, not about this individualist/collectivist canard.
the individual is more free when the collective takes control of private property; socialism maximizes personal freedom, it doesn't struggle against it. there is no contradiction, at all.
as an aside, one of the fun ways that left-libertarians like to piss off right-libertarians is to remind them that market theory is inherently collectivist in nature, and that the great ricardo was a total pinko. it's also fun to remind them that one of the defining traits of contemporary capitalism is the trivialization of individuality into market choice.
most people that call themselves socialists nowadays don't seem to care a lot about human rights in the face of government authority, and would probably be better off calling themselves conservatives, in the actual meaning of the word. what they want is an ordered, top down society where everybody has a defined role and rules are enforced relatively strictly. like star trek, or something. they think that's socialism.
they should read up on edmund burke; that's where they really are, and that is really where their movement is.
but, of course, the people that call themselves conservatives today are actually mostly classical liberals. so that's not their tribe, either.
they should read up on edmund burke; that's where they really are, and that is really where their movement is.
but, of course, the people that call themselves conservatives today are actually mostly classical liberals. so that's not their tribe, either.
i realize i just used a term i used to use more often but don't use as much anymore.
left libertarian.
nowadays, i usually just call myself an anarchist, but i haven't clarified the point in a while. due to the co-option of the term by hard-right classical liberals, anarchism has become kind of a damaged label - i know that, i get that. but, i guess at some point i stopped caring. or, maybe i decided there was enough writing out there at that point to make the distinction unnecessary.
but, as i'm ranting about masks in a way that is not that different than the ancaps are (and, this is the rare scenario where our shared libertarianism overpowers our diametrically opposed economic views), maybe it's a good time to remind you of the point: when i call myself an anarchist or a libertarian, i use the term in a mostly french/european context, just as i use the terms liberal and conservative in very british/canadian ways. i insist that i'm using the language correctly, and that i am right to use the language correctly, but i realize that the fact that americans are hopelessly lost in backwards colloquialisms may make my writing a little hard to follow if you watch too much tv.
this is a succinct quote:
anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State.
that's me, isn't it? spot on.
i realize that it's a contradiction within the americanized spectrum to simultaneously argue for individual liberty and the socialization of production at the same time, but that's where we are here on the libertarian left, and we don't see it as a contradiction at all but as two halves of a greater vision for a society where people are freer to live in less statist restrictions because they've socialized the means of production.
the last thing to point out is that a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that the word socialism, itself, is so warped in the americanized spectrum. in this highly colloquial americanized spectrum, the words liberal and conservative have almost perfectly reversed meaning and libertarianism has been co-opted by what most of the world calls liberals (and americans call conservatives). so, it's only natural that the world socialism has been colloquialized as well to mean a reference to big government, when socialism has always been about abolishing government everywhere else in the world.
so, of course you're confused - you don't really understand what any of the words i use mean, because you've managed to destroy the meaning of virtually all of them.
but, i'm not going to conform to your colloquialisms, i'm going to insist on the proper terminology and demand you try harder to keep up.
left libertarian.
nowadays, i usually just call myself an anarchist, but i haven't clarified the point in a while. due to the co-option of the term by hard-right classical liberals, anarchism has become kind of a damaged label - i know that, i get that. but, i guess at some point i stopped caring. or, maybe i decided there was enough writing out there at that point to make the distinction unnecessary.
but, as i'm ranting about masks in a way that is not that different than the ancaps are (and, this is the rare scenario where our shared libertarianism overpowers our diametrically opposed economic views), maybe it's a good time to remind you of the point: when i call myself an anarchist or a libertarian, i use the term in a mostly french/european context, just as i use the terms liberal and conservative in very british/canadian ways. i insist that i'm using the language correctly, and that i am right to use the language correctly, but i realize that the fact that americans are hopelessly lost in backwards colloquialisms may make my writing a little hard to follow if you watch too much tv.
this is a succinct quote:
anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State.
that's me, isn't it? spot on.
i realize that it's a contradiction within the americanized spectrum to simultaneously argue for individual liberty and the socialization of production at the same time, but that's where we are here on the libertarian left, and we don't see it as a contradiction at all but as two halves of a greater vision for a society where people are freer to live in less statist restrictions because they've socialized the means of production.
the last thing to point out is that a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that the word socialism, itself, is so warped in the americanized spectrum. in this highly colloquial americanized spectrum, the words liberal and conservative have almost perfectly reversed meaning and libertarianism has been co-opted by what most of the world calls liberals (and americans call conservatives). so, it's only natural that the world socialism has been colloquialized as well to mean a reference to big government, when socialism has always been about abolishing government everywhere else in the world.
so, of course you're confused - you don't really understand what any of the words i use mean, because you've managed to destroy the meaning of virtually all of them.
but, i'm not going to conform to your colloquialisms, i'm going to insist on the proper terminology and demand you try harder to keep up.
Thursday, July 30, 2020
when i sorted through this in 2016, the argument i made that i felt was most compelling was to point out that i had about an equal level of agreement with hillary and trump, which you might think is insane, but from a libertarian-left perspective (that opposes corporate globalization, the "free trade" system, imperialist wars and a number of other things that are central to the core messaging of contemporary neo-liberalism) it's really not if you look at it carefully.
so, i said something like that i agreed with about 40% of what clinton said and disagreed without about 60% of what she said - which is probably not all that different than your average fake-left "progressive". but, how many of them sat down and carefully sorted through what trump said and really carefully quantified it? they may have been surprised to realize that they probably agreed with more than 30% of what he said, anyways - and specifically regarding his opposition to this core neo-liberal agenda, some of which has actually panned out better than i actually expected (and some of which hasn't).
yes, it's sad that so many of us disagree with 60% of what the candidate we dislike less has to say, but...
unlike a lot of people, i would actually prefer clinton to biden, overall. she's at least bright; biden isn't. but, with clinton the problem was that she was ultimately evil to her core. biden's problem is that he's just kind of a dipshit.
so, i'm still basically in the same place with both of them - i agree with roughly 35% of what either of them say, and disagree with most of what both of them say, it's just over different specific issues. trump pisses me off on the climate the most; biden's going to piss me off the most with his foreign policy.
but, i might agree with 3% of what mike pence says, and it will mostly involve clauses that utilize the word puppy. he's pretty much the perfect personification of everything i hate about the world.
if trump actually quits, all bets are off on this.
as it is, i'm stuck trying to figure out what the least bad option is, who i think is going to die first, etc.
but, i'd vote for a warm pile of shit before i voted for mike pence.
i wouldn't even brake for mike pence if i saw him crossing the street. really.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/07/30/why-trump-might-quit-387681
as it is, i'm stuck trying to figure out what the least bad option is, who i think is going to die first, etc.
but, i'd vote for a warm pile of shit before i voted for mike pence.
i wouldn't even brake for mike pence if i saw him crossing the street. really.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/07/30/why-trump-might-quit-387681
again: the spanish flu mutated. twice.
that's why there were waves.
will there be multiple waves of this, too?
if it mutates a couple times, you should expect that, yes. and, over time, because it's not going away, you would expect it to become seasonal - which is what happened to the spanish flu.
if it's very slow to mutate, the difference between a "wave" and a "season" will likely get blurry.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-is-one-big-wave-not-seasonal-who-expert-suggests-1.5044839
that's why there were waves.
will there be multiple waves of this, too?
if it mutates a couple times, you should expect that, yes. and, over time, because it's not going away, you would expect it to become seasonal - which is what happened to the spanish flu.
if it's very slow to mutate, the difference between a "wave" and a "season" will likely get blurry.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-is-one-big-wave-not-seasonal-who-expert-suggests-1.5044839
to be clear, though: because the ruling has to do with the quebec charter, the supreme court will be interpreting the situation from a civil law (that is, a franco-roman) perspective, and not the common law (that is, germanic law) that i was talking about.
i don't have a lot of patience for civil law (yuck.), and don't really want to get into this. i find the premise that law is void of interpretation to be too authoritarian for my tastes. that's one of the things i don't like much about quebec; i wish they'd come face-to-face with their franco-german origins and embrace the superiority of common law.
but, when the supreme court takes on these quebec-specific issues, and uses quebec-specific rules, they only apply within quebec. that is, any ruling or precedent that comes out of this will be in a civil law context and not be binding in the rest of the country.
i don't have a lot of patience for civil law (yuck.), and don't really want to get into this. i find the premise that law is void of interpretation to be too authoritarian for my tastes. that's one of the things i don't like much about quebec; i wish they'd come face-to-face with their franco-german origins and embrace the superiority of common law.
but, when the supreme court takes on these quebec-specific issues, and uses quebec-specific rules, they only apply within quebec. that is, any ruling or precedent that comes out of this will be in a civil law context and not be binding in the rest of the country.
if the case was in ontario, or probably anywhere else in canada, the complainant just wouldn't have grounds to file and if it made it to court at all it'd get thrown out almost immediately. you can't just sue people for being mean, that's crazy. no duty exists.
yet, such a duty does seem to have been erected in quebec statute, bizarrely - and i think it clearly would infringe on freedom of expression, to the point that it's not constitutional.
but, quebec never signed the constitution, and doesn't consider itself bound by it.
so, who knows what they do.
i would:
1) scratch out 10.1 (& 2, while i'm at it)
2) allow that the statements were discriminatory, but discrimination by private citizens is covered by federal free speech legislation.
3) award $0 in damages to the complainant
4) award costs to the defendant
yet, such a duty does seem to have been erected in quebec statute, bizarrely - and i think it clearly would infringe on freedom of expression, to the point that it's not constitutional.
but, quebec never signed the constitution, and doesn't consider itself bound by it.
so, who knows what they do.
i would:
1) scratch out 10.1 (& 2, while i'm at it)
2) allow that the statements were discriminatory, but discrimination by private citizens is covered by federal free speech legislation.
3) award $0 in damages to the complainant
4) award costs to the defendant
ok, so i just took a flip through this and it's really quite a bizarre document.
generally, human rights legislation wouldn't have clauses like this in it:
Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason.
that's not a right, it's actually more or less the opposite of one - and something that the supreme court has actually explicitly rejected on multiple occasions.
this is the specific rule:
No one may harass a person on the basis of any ground mentioned in section 10.
section 10 is the usual list of prohibited grounds.
that's not a right, either - that's a law. and, frankly, it's in direct contradiction to the federal charter.
so, my initial analysis was a canada-wide analysis (well, it was an ontario-specific analysis that is applicable in probably every other province) based on a combination of ontario and federal law. federal law still applies in quebec, but it's a delicate thing.
can the court rule the charter unconstitutional? because that clause shouldn't exist, subject to the federal constitution (which quebec never signed).
that case could actually get quite messy.
http://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-12
generally, human rights legislation wouldn't have clauses like this in it:
Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason.
that's not a right, it's actually more or less the opposite of one - and something that the supreme court has actually explicitly rejected on multiple occasions.
this is the specific rule:
No one may harass a person on the basis of any ground mentioned in section 10.
section 10 is the usual list of prohibited grounds.
that's not a right, either - that's a law. and, frankly, it's in direct contradiction to the federal charter.
so, my initial analysis was a canada-wide analysis (well, it was an ontario-specific analysis that is applicable in probably every other province) based on a combination of ontario and federal law. federal law still applies in quebec, but it's a delicate thing.
can the court rule the charter unconstitutional? because that clause shouldn't exist, subject to the federal constitution (which quebec never signed).
that case could actually get quite messy.
http://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-12
yeah, i'd have to look into this more specifically, but the premise underlying the discrimination tort is based on a duty of care that a comedian does not have to an audience member. there's no relationship there.
what does it mean for a comedian to discriminate against a private citizen? there's no contract involved. there's no commercial activity at hand. the comedian has no authority over the audience.
so, i don't really think it matters if it's discrimination or not, because a comedian does not have any legal obligation to avoid discriminatory jokes.
of course, if you don't like his jokes, you don't have to let him perform in your venue and etc. but to establish damages, the tort has to be built on a duty to the person claiming them that was not met by the person being accused, and i just don't see how that exists, here.
rather, it seems like the judges were just enforcing their moral opinions, and that shouldn't be happening, at all.
you could consequently potentially see a ruling that agrees that the comedian was discriminatory in his remarks, but awards damages to $0 and even gives him backs costs for wasting his time.
doug ford won most minority votes in the last election; it's the reason he won. they like him; he's popular in immigrant communities. he's the kind of leader they actually want.
but, he mostly got elected by swinging the muslim vote over the sex ed curriculum, which was key in specific ridings.
and, what has he done?
- banned sex ed
- passed a hijab law
i mean, what's next? mandatory praying? banning evolution?
but, he mostly got elected by swinging the muslim vote over the sex ed curriculum, which was key in specific ridings.
and, what has he done?
- banned sex ed
- passed a hijab law
i mean, what's next? mandatory praying? banning evolution?
my primary concern as a parent right now would be to ensure that my children do not become habituated to covering their faces in public, and that they don't develop the bad habit of putting faith in an idea over the realities of empirical science.
you may have faith in the idea of cloth face coverings reducing spread, but that's exactly what you're being conditioned to, and that's exactly why you need to pull the rug out from under the idea altogether.
you may have faith in the idea of cloth face coverings reducing spread, but that's exactly what you're being conditioned to, and that's exactly why you need to pull the rug out from under the idea altogether.
Students in Grades 4 through 12 will be required to wear a non-medical mask or cloth face covering while at school. Younger children will be encouraged, but not required, to do so.
that needs to be fought.
what if, as a parent, i find it revolting, humiliating, embarrassing and appalling to force my child to cover their face in public like a fucking religious idiot and refuse to do it?
and, let's be clear, here - there's no meaningful science underlying the idea that a hijab law (which is what this actually is. face the facts - your kids are being forced to wear religious gear at school.) is going to reduce the spread of anything amongst children except for self-confidence. this is not science; this is religion masquerading as science, and it's increasingly appearing as though it's actually a specific religion trying to enforce itself, underlying the issue.
if i had kids i would send them to school without face coverings and challenge the system to take me on. if they send the kids home that's fine - i'd rather home school them than send them to a fucking madrassa.
as it is, i find this law shameful, and it is just another reason that this government has given me to be ashamed and embarrassed about being an ontarian.
how do i get out of this collapsing society, that is heading into a dark age?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-coronavirus-ontario-july-30-back-to-school-1.5668495
that needs to be fought.
what if, as a parent, i find it revolting, humiliating, embarrassing and appalling to force my child to cover their face in public like a fucking religious idiot and refuse to do it?
and, let's be clear, here - there's no meaningful science underlying the idea that a hijab law (which is what this actually is. face the facts - your kids are being forced to wear religious gear at school.) is going to reduce the spread of anything amongst children except for self-confidence. this is not science; this is religion masquerading as science, and it's increasingly appearing as though it's actually a specific religion trying to enforce itself, underlying the issue.
if i had kids i would send them to school without face coverings and challenge the system to take me on. if they send the kids home that's fine - i'd rather home school them than send them to a fucking madrassa.
as it is, i find this law shameful, and it is just another reason that this government has given me to be ashamed and embarrassed about being an ontarian.
how do i get out of this collapsing society, that is heading into a dark age?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-coronavirus-ontario-july-30-back-to-school-1.5668495
i can't, for a second, understand why the government decided to take this approach of trying to force everybody to follow a set of draconian rules instead of taking the people most vulnerable and isolating them until the thing passes.
but, they made a decision to take a stupid approach, and we're going to have to suffer through it.
so, do i blame a "recalcitrant" citizen for the crime of asserting his inalienable rights?
no.
i blame a government that was arrogant enough to think it had the prerogative to take those inalienable rights away in a "health emergency".
https://o.canada.com/news/case-of-ontario-man-who-ignored-covid-19-quarantine-order-shows-challenges-of-crucial-contact-tracing
but, they made a decision to take a stupid approach, and we're going to have to suffer through it.
so, do i blame a "recalcitrant" citizen for the crime of asserting his inalienable rights?
no.
i blame a government that was arrogant enough to think it had the prerogative to take those inalienable rights away in a "health emergency".
https://o.canada.com/news/case-of-ontario-man-who-ignored-covid-19-quarantine-order-shows-challenges-of-crucial-contact-tracing
science cannot operate in a climate of totalitarianism and fear.
science relies on a free exchange of information, without censorship.
and, science does not make claims that are absolute truth - science is subject to modification, to alteration, to evolution, to change.
twitter's lost the plot.
clearly.
science relies on a free exchange of information, without censorship.
and, science does not make claims that are absolute truth - science is subject to modification, to alteration, to evolution, to change.
twitter's lost the plot.
clearly.
we've seen this sort of scenario come up a few times, now, and it really has to go back to the point.
who exactly is twitter hiring to determine what is "disinformation" and what is not?
i'm going to guess it's a bunch of 19 year-olds working from their parents' basements, because they tend to label things as "disinformation" that are actually true fairly often.
and, what do you do when you have this organization like twitter that thinks it knows the truth well enough to censor others, but is in truth actually usually wrong, itself?
because that's what we're seeing over and over - twitter label valid science or perfectly legitimate debate as "disinformation" or "propaganda", and free-thinking people the world over wondering "how did we get to this point?".
but, it's a tendency of authoritarianism, isn't it?
just ask galileo.
or turing.
who exactly is twitter hiring to determine what is "disinformation" and what is not?
i'm going to guess it's a bunch of 19 year-olds working from their parents' basements, because they tend to label things as "disinformation" that are actually true fairly often.
and, what do you do when you have this organization like twitter that thinks it knows the truth well enough to censor others, but is in truth actually usually wrong, itself?
because that's what we're seeing over and over - twitter label valid science or perfectly legitimate debate as "disinformation" or "propaganda", and free-thinking people the world over wondering "how did we get to this point?".
but, it's a tendency of authoritarianism, isn't it?
just ask galileo.
or turing.
dr. fauci is wrong.
he seems to be wrong a lot, doesn't he?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/29/dr-fauci-says-all-the-valid-scientific-data-shows-hydroxychloroquine-isnt-effective-in-treating-coronavirus.html
he seems to be wrong a lot, doesn't he?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/29/dr-fauci-says-all-the-valid-scientific-data-shows-hydroxychloroquine-isnt-effective-in-treating-coronavirus.html
i started writing this last night before i fell asleep.
=========
so, the msm is really going full gotcha on this hydroxycholoroquine thing, even going so far as to delete a tweet by madonna, who does not like being censored.
it's my job to weigh in on this bullshit and correct the shoddy journalism. so, let's survey the results on this drug here in a way that people can properly understand. and, i won't hold my breath that the idiots will get it through their numbskulls.
so, let's take a quick look through this:
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
that is not a small scale trial in a sketchy field hospital in nigeria, it's a major study at a major medical institution that was published in a leading medical journal. and, this is what they say, rather clearly:
In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.
they conclude there is some reason to think that the treatment was effective.
“The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”
.
.
.
“Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped saves lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”
they make an important caveat, though:
Dr. Zervos also pointed out, as does the paper, that the study results should be interpreted with some caution, should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings and require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19.
“Currently, the drug should be used only in hospitalized patients with appropriate monitoring, and as part of study protocols, in accordance with all relevant federal regulations,” Dr. Zervos said.
so, why is this peer-reviewed study by a major institution in a leading academic journal being ignored in favour of some now-ancient preliminary studies at medrxiv?
well, it's at least 40% politics, surely. i can't correct your mistake if you're just being dishonest and know better anyways, and this seems to be something that is driving ratings at the news networks. so, they don't want to destroy a good story, i guess.
but, i can point out what the confusion no doubt is if the bad articles are being produced in good faith, and it's the question of what the drug does.
while the ford results actually don't surprise me, the same center is currently doing a prophylactic trial, and i don't expect this trial to produce positive results, in the end. that is, that while the science underlying the efficacy of the drug as a treatment in very specific scenarios may be compelling, the idea that it's going to ward the disease off certainly isn't. this is the study you probably imagine is underlying the science and yet hasn't even been done yet:
https://www.henryford.com/whip-covid-19
why are they experimenting with this drug? the answer is that it's an immunosuppressor. something that seems to happen with very sick covid patients is that their immune system starts attacking itself. the clinical purpose of this drug - as it is used for autoimmune disorders like lupus, rather than parasites like malaria, a confusion i ran into as well due to bad msm coverage - is to weaken the immune system, to stop it from attacking itself. when successful, this allows the patient to recover enough to seek other treatments.
then, does this drug cure the disease? no. but, it was never suggested by anybody (except trump, apparently) that it should be used for the purpose of curing the disease. what it does is eliminate a symptom, and that makes it a lot easier for doctors to help you beat it yourself. remember: at this stage, the only defense you have remains your own body. the best the doctors can do is help your body work, right now, and this drug does that by stopping it from attacking itself, just like it does with lupus patients.
so, let's be clear: no credible person ever argued that the hydroxy is an antiviral drug, or that it would help clear the disease from the system. what credible people suggested, and tested, and have found to be true, is that the drug has an effect on calming the immune system down, and preventing your immune response from killing you.
so, what is probably going to happen if you give random people the drug out in the wild? the answer is that they're going to be more likely to get sick, due to their immune system weakening, which is what the drug does. not only will the drug fail in warding off the disease, but it will likely increase the likelihood of serious infection.
that's what happens when you use medication wrong, but we don't usually blame it on the medicine. generally, we blame it on the person who consumed the dose at the wrong time, or on the doctor for malpractice.
well what about the study that showed it kills people?
that actually got retracted:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
i don't expect this to end any time soon; the ignorance of the general public, combined with the dishonesty of the mainstream press (and their own ignorance, feigned or real) has created a perfect storm of gotcha politics. but, nobody knows what the fuck they're even talking about.
there have been some other drugs brought in in the same class that are being utilized for the same reason, and there may be good reasons to use those drugs on some patients, instead. side effects would be one reason. that's fine, and i'm not going to second guess the doctors, or question why they pick one representative of a class of drugs over others, and there are lots, including price, availability and corporate interconnectedness.
and, again: the drug will neither cure you if you have it nor protect you from getting it. i don't need to wait for that study.
but, the actual science underlying this drug as a treatment option in specific scenarios has actually been established for many, many years, and the people you need to "get" are actually the mainstream media, for disseminating truly disastrous levels of disinformation around it.
everybody is a liar.
trust noone.
=========
so, the msm is really going full gotcha on this hydroxycholoroquine thing, even going so far as to delete a tweet by madonna, who does not like being censored.
it's my job to weigh in on this bullshit and correct the shoddy journalism. so, let's survey the results on this drug here in a way that people can properly understand. and, i won't hold my breath that the idiots will get it through their numbskulls.
so, let's take a quick look through this:
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study
that is not a small scale trial in a sketchy field hospital in nigeria, it's a major study at a major medical institution that was published in a leading medical journal. and, this is what they say, rather clearly:
In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.
they conclude there is some reason to think that the treatment was effective.
“The findings have been highly analyzed and peer-reviewed,” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for Henry Ford Health System, who co-authored the study with Henry Ford epidemiologist Samia Arshad. “We attribute our findings that differ from other studies to early treatment, and part of a combination of interventions that were done in supportive care of patients, including careful cardiac monitoring. Our dosing also differed from other studies not showing a benefit of the drug. And other studies are either not peer reviewed, have limited numbers of patients, different patient populations or other differences from our patients.”
.
.
.
“Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped saves lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”
they make an important caveat, though:
Dr. Zervos also pointed out, as does the paper, that the study results should be interpreted with some caution, should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings and require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19.
“Currently, the drug should be used only in hospitalized patients with appropriate monitoring, and as part of study protocols, in accordance with all relevant federal regulations,” Dr. Zervos said.
so, why is this peer-reviewed study by a major institution in a leading academic journal being ignored in favour of some now-ancient preliminary studies at medrxiv?
well, it's at least 40% politics, surely. i can't correct your mistake if you're just being dishonest and know better anyways, and this seems to be something that is driving ratings at the news networks. so, they don't want to destroy a good story, i guess.
but, i can point out what the confusion no doubt is if the bad articles are being produced in good faith, and it's the question of what the drug does.
while the ford results actually don't surprise me, the same center is currently doing a prophylactic trial, and i don't expect this trial to produce positive results, in the end. that is, that while the science underlying the efficacy of the drug as a treatment in very specific scenarios may be compelling, the idea that it's going to ward the disease off certainly isn't. this is the study you probably imagine is underlying the science and yet hasn't even been done yet:
https://www.henryford.com/whip-covid-19
why are they experimenting with this drug? the answer is that it's an immunosuppressor. something that seems to happen with very sick covid patients is that their immune system starts attacking itself. the clinical purpose of this drug - as it is used for autoimmune disorders like lupus, rather than parasites like malaria, a confusion i ran into as well due to bad msm coverage - is to weaken the immune system, to stop it from attacking itself. when successful, this allows the patient to recover enough to seek other treatments.
then, does this drug cure the disease? no. but, it was never suggested by anybody (except trump, apparently) that it should be used for the purpose of curing the disease. what it does is eliminate a symptom, and that makes it a lot easier for doctors to help you beat it yourself. remember: at this stage, the only defense you have remains your own body. the best the doctors can do is help your body work, right now, and this drug does that by stopping it from attacking itself, just like it does with lupus patients.
so, let's be clear: no credible person ever argued that the hydroxy is an antiviral drug, or that it would help clear the disease from the system. what credible people suggested, and tested, and have found to be true, is that the drug has an effect on calming the immune system down, and preventing your immune response from killing you.
so, what is probably going to happen if you give random people the drug out in the wild? the answer is that they're going to be more likely to get sick, due to their immune system weakening, which is what the drug does. not only will the drug fail in warding off the disease, but it will likely increase the likelihood of serious infection.
that's what happens when you use medication wrong, but we don't usually blame it on the medicine. generally, we blame it on the person who consumed the dose at the wrong time, or on the doctor for malpractice.
well what about the study that showed it kills people?
that actually got retracted:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
i don't expect this to end any time soon; the ignorance of the general public, combined with the dishonesty of the mainstream press (and their own ignorance, feigned or real) has created a perfect storm of gotcha politics. but, nobody knows what the fuck they're even talking about.
there have been some other drugs brought in in the same class that are being utilized for the same reason, and there may be good reasons to use those drugs on some patients, instead. side effects would be one reason. that's fine, and i'm not going to second guess the doctors, or question why they pick one representative of a class of drugs over others, and there are lots, including price, availability and corporate interconnectedness.
and, again: the drug will neither cure you if you have it nor protect you from getting it. i don't need to wait for that study.
but, the actual science underlying this drug as a treatment option in specific scenarios has actually been established for many, many years, and the people you need to "get" are actually the mainstream media, for disseminating truly disastrous levels of disinformation around it.
everybody is a liar.
trust noone.
fwiw, i've now read in multiple sources that "north americans" don't put tobacco in their marijuana.
well, i grew up in ottawa, and everybody put lots of tobacco in their marijuana; it's the idea of smoking it pure that sounds weird, and sort of wasteful, to me. i guess i can imagine americans lighting their phillies with $100 bills sort of thing, but that is not the norm, here in canada - we mix.
and, while i've found that people in detroit don't use filters very often (something i find odd.), they do at least roll with tobacco in michigan.
and, i mean, don't tell me that marijuana is less dangerous; it might be less addictive, and that might be my concern, but it's just as bad for you, overall.
inhaling the smoke of any plant will increase your cancer risk, because it's not any specific chemical that is increasing the risk but the cellulose in the actual plant. there is no plant that is more safe to smoke than any other.
well, i grew up in ottawa, and everybody put lots of tobacco in their marijuana; it's the idea of smoking it pure that sounds weird, and sort of wasteful, to me. i guess i can imagine americans lighting their phillies with $100 bills sort of thing, but that is not the norm, here in canada - we mix.
and, while i've found that people in detroit don't use filters very often (something i find odd.), they do at least roll with tobacco in michigan.
and, i mean, don't tell me that marijuana is less dangerous; it might be less addictive, and that might be my concern, but it's just as bad for you, overall.
inhaling the smoke of any plant will increase your cancer risk, because it's not any specific chemical that is increasing the risk but the cellulose in the actual plant. there is no plant that is more safe to smoke than any other.
yeah, this makes sense and is more or less what i'm feeling just right now.
the pot might not be addictive, but if you smoke it with tobacco then you're turning it into a concoction that actually is. and, you may end up with people that are less talented with intuitive approaches to primary component analyses than i am, and just think they're addicted to the marijuana.
no.
it's the two-three cigarettes that go into every j that have got you hooked.
https://www.royalqueenseeds.com/blog-smoking-tobacco-with-your-weed-increases-risk-of-addiction-n361
the pot might not be addictive, but if you smoke it with tobacco then you're turning it into a concoction that actually is. and, you may end up with people that are less talented with intuitive approaches to primary component analyses than i am, and just think they're addicted to the marijuana.
no.
it's the two-three cigarettes that go into every j that have got you hooked.
https://www.royalqueenseeds.com/blog-smoking-tobacco-with-your-weed-increases-risk-of-addiction-n361
i'm going to try the edibles, first.
https://www.royalqueenseeds.com/blog-top-10-replacements-for-tobacco-in-spliffs-n858
https://www.royalqueenseeds.com/blog-top-10-replacements-for-tobacco-in-spliffs-n858
why don't i just smoke the pot without the tobacco?
it's a lot more expensive and it's not really practical. if i roll a quarter of a gram, that's a potent persie, and it'll end up knocking me right out. but, short of getting a pipe, that's about as small a j as you can get without throwing something else in there.
do they sell, like, empty hemp that you can roll with or something? hrmnn.
so, why not get a pipe? well, why not get a pipe?
i'd rather try the edibles first, but that might be the next step.
it's a lot more expensive and it's not really practical. if i roll a quarter of a gram, that's a potent persie, and it'll end up knocking me right out. but, short of getting a pipe, that's about as small a j as you can get without throwing something else in there.
do they sell, like, empty hemp that you can roll with or something? hrmnn.
so, why not get a pipe? well, why not get a pipe?
i'd rather try the edibles first, but that might be the next step.
i mean, i think i've been pretty clear in this space that i don't really want to smoke anymore, except when i'm in specific social scenarios, and i suspect that that itself may fade a little in a reality where i have easier access to pot and kind of don't have to buzz around the edges of social groups anymore.
i think i've been pretty clear that i don't want to habituate back into the smoking of anything, and that the chances of that happening are precisely zero.
so, when i tell you i'm looking forward to getting past the delivery mechanism, i think it should be clear that i'm really actually feeling that. like, i legit don't want to. but, i also legit want to get baked once in a while....
i'll admit this snuck up on me, and i didn't actually expect it. that's fine; i'll get through it.
the weather forecast for august is petty uninspiring, so it seems like the hot part of the summer is more or less over. don't misunderstand me: getting stoned in sweaty, hot weather is one of my favourite things in the world to do, and i don't regret it. but, it's been six weeks now of smoking more days than not, and i'm reminding myself why i quit.
if the edibles are a shitty buzz or whatever else, in the end, then i'll need to go back to the headcave model - twice a year, in binges. but, if they actually work, i may be within a few weeks of the last time i smoke any tobacco, ever.
i think i've been pretty clear that i don't want to habituate back into the smoking of anything, and that the chances of that happening are precisely zero.
so, when i tell you i'm looking forward to getting past the delivery mechanism, i think it should be clear that i'm really actually feeling that. like, i legit don't want to. but, i also legit want to get baked once in a while....
i'll admit this snuck up on me, and i didn't actually expect it. that's fine; i'll get through it.
the weather forecast for august is petty uninspiring, so it seems like the hot part of the summer is more or less over. don't misunderstand me: getting stoned in sweaty, hot weather is one of my favourite things in the world to do, and i don't regret it. but, it's been six weeks now of smoking more days than not, and i'm reminding myself why i quit.
if the edibles are a shitty buzz or whatever else, in the end, then i'll need to go back to the headcave model - twice a year, in binges. but, if they actually work, i may be within a few weeks of the last time i smoke any tobacco, ever.
so, to be clear.
i'm not buying another package of rolling tobacco. i'm not going to throw it away, i will get a little more pot to smoke through it, but that will be the end of that. i was hoping i could just leave it in the cupboard and hit it once in a while, but that idea isn't working out. i need to keep the tobacco out of the house....
that 26er of vodka is still untouched from march, though. it's weird. i'd have to have a deep conversation with my subconscious to kind of get my head around it entirely, but i feel like it's actually the tobacco that is driving me here, not the pot. see, and the trick is that of these three things, it's only tobacco that gets you physically hooked. it is the most damaging and the most dangerous of the three.
so, i think i'm at the point where i'm getting the urge to smoke more pot as an excuse to smoke more cigarettes. if that's the end result of leaving pot in the house, i can't leave pot sitting in the house. so, we're going to smoke through it...
but, i might react to a chocolate bar the same way i react to the 26er, because i can't put tobacco in it and smoke it. you see? so, i'm going to try that, instead.
but, the reality just right now is that i've been smoking a lot of tobacco with the pot, that i am actually feeling it and that i'm going to have to spend a week or two flushing it out. again. that is what i need to kind of clue into, and react to and actually come to terms with and move past.
i'm not buying another package of rolling tobacco. i'm not going to throw it away, i will get a little more pot to smoke through it, but that will be the end of that. i was hoping i could just leave it in the cupboard and hit it once in a while, but that idea isn't working out. i need to keep the tobacco out of the house....
that 26er of vodka is still untouched from march, though. it's weird. i'd have to have a deep conversation with my subconscious to kind of get my head around it entirely, but i feel like it's actually the tobacco that is driving me here, not the pot. see, and the trick is that of these three things, it's only tobacco that gets you physically hooked. it is the most damaging and the most dangerous of the three.
so, i think i'm at the point where i'm getting the urge to smoke more pot as an excuse to smoke more cigarettes. if that's the end result of leaving pot in the house, i can't leave pot sitting in the house. so, we're going to smoke through it...
but, i might react to a chocolate bar the same way i react to the 26er, because i can't put tobacco in it and smoke it. you see? so, i'm going to try that, instead.
but, the reality just right now is that i've been smoking a lot of tobacco with the pot, that i am actually feeling it and that i'm going to have to spend a week or two flushing it out. again. that is what i need to kind of clue into, and react to and actually come to terms with and move past.
that was a lot of posting, huh?
i seem to be "coming down" from too much marijuana use. so, i'm drinking too much coffee, kind of fidgety, wide awake, kind of distracted and smoking too much rolling tobacco....
i guess that's obvious.
i have managed to convince myself that i can't leave rolling tobacco in the cupboard, i'll end up smoking it. i should have known that - that idea isn't likely to work out well. and, frankly, i'm kind of looking forward to getting past the delivery mechanism. i'm going to have to smoke through it, which means buying a little more, but let's hope that i've turned the corner into some kind of edible by the start of next month.
i think i'll find it a lot easier to put some chocolate in the cupboard than to put anything i can smoke in the cupboard.
did i get some cleaning done? i got one of three piles of dishes done and spent some time washing my face. so, a little, but not much.
the temperature in here has been more pleasant over the last few days, which is better. i think he did have something running under the floor, and he's turned it off. regardless, that seems to be the big difference - the floor is much less cold than it was, which is letting the unit retain much more of the heat. temperature is weird when converted to language; i think my idea is getting across. it's maybe a little more humid, too, which is making the ambient air seem less winterish.
i'll get those last 2013-2014 posts up soon, i just need to clear my head and sort through the list of things.
i seem to be "coming down" from too much marijuana use. so, i'm drinking too much coffee, kind of fidgety, wide awake, kind of distracted and smoking too much rolling tobacco....
i guess that's obvious.
i have managed to convince myself that i can't leave rolling tobacco in the cupboard, i'll end up smoking it. i should have known that - that idea isn't likely to work out well. and, frankly, i'm kind of looking forward to getting past the delivery mechanism. i'm going to have to smoke through it, which means buying a little more, but let's hope that i've turned the corner into some kind of edible by the start of next month.
i think i'll find it a lot easier to put some chocolate in the cupboard than to put anything i can smoke in the cupboard.
did i get some cleaning done? i got one of three piles of dishes done and spent some time washing my face. so, a little, but not much.
the temperature in here has been more pleasant over the last few days, which is better. i think he did have something running under the floor, and he's turned it off. regardless, that seems to be the big difference - the floor is much less cold than it was, which is letting the unit retain much more of the heat. temperature is weird when converted to language; i think my idea is getting across. it's maybe a little more humid, too, which is making the ambient air seem less winterish.
i'll get those last 2013-2014 posts up soon, i just need to clear my head and sort through the list of things.
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
this is useful. you see those dips? those are the results of openly anti-black immigration policies.
they weren't allowed in the country. for decades....
and, you see the giant change between 1971 and 1981 and the high rate of growth since.
and, this is another stat that floors people.
we saw that there were 1,198,540 black canadians in the 2016 census.
749,155 identify as "caribbean canadians", meaning they came here not from the united states but from countries like jamaica. that's 63%.
384,875 were actually born in africa. that's 32%.
so, 95% of african canadians either came from the caribbean, or from africa directly.
well, surely some are american, right?
not many. not for a long time. in fact, as a source of immigration, the united states is folded into the "rest of the americas" category, which, as you can see, is statistically very small.
if you're bad at geography and prefer a picture:
in fact, 623,195 were born in their country of origin. that is, a whopping 52% of black canadians were born elsewhere, and migrated here in their existing lifetimes. and almost all the rest are their kids...
these are just the facts.
they weren't allowed in the country. for decades....
and, you see the giant change between 1971 and 1981 and the high rate of growth since.
and, this is another stat that floors people.
we saw that there were 1,198,540 black canadians in the 2016 census.
749,155 identify as "caribbean canadians", meaning they came here not from the united states but from countries like jamaica. that's 63%.
384,875 were actually born in africa. that's 32%.
so, 95% of african canadians either came from the caribbean, or from africa directly.
well, surely some are american, right?
not many. not for a long time. in fact, as a source of immigration, the united states is folded into the "rest of the americas" category, which, as you can see, is statistically very small.
if you're bad at geography and prefer a picture:
in fact, 623,195 were born in their country of origin. that is, a whopping 52% of black canadians were born elsewhere, and migrated here in their existing lifetimes. and almost all the rest are their kids...
these are just the facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)