I’m an enemy of unity and a harborer of prejudice. During the election, I was told that all Republicans are, and I’ve come to accept it as true. I’d run for county water commissioner (drain commissioner) as a Republican, see web-site, and the charge is fair. I wasn’t happy to that George Will write to not for any Republicans because, in his opinion, we’re all prejudiced, and thus a Democrat is better for all jobs. When George, or anyone else, talks about getting rid of the prejudiced, it sounds to me like he wants to get rid of me and those who think like me. We’re to be replaced by those who think like him, or (since he has few solid ideas) whose ideas are gleaned as an average of those running the respectable media (It turns out there are only a fairly few people running the respectable media).
Biden seems to have fallen into the presidency. He didn’t campaign, but the press and a lot of people didn’t like Trump, and could not settle on anyone with opinions.
I didn’t like how the Water department was run, or how the costs were distributed, and some of this has to do with prejudice — engineering aesthetics, I call it. After living with these prejudices or aesthetics, I’ve come to think of them as part of me. I worked to form my opinions — opinions of what was fair, and who was likely to do good work, and what was good engineering. My prejudices and opinions were developed over many years. They’re not perfect, but I like them. I don’t want to have to exchange my opinions and prejudices for the government’s. If I felt otherwise, I would not have run for office. I also resent sensitivity training — the person running them rarely shows any sensitivity, IMHO.
One of the things that anti-racists hate, and I support is zionism. It’s a founding principle of Black Lives Matter that black people in the US can’t be free so long as the zionist state (Israel) exists. Why is this? There is an assumption that all black peoples are one, and that zionists are oppressors. Not that you could tell a Palestinian from a zionist by skin color, but it’s a truth that the faculty of Princeton endorses.
Not long ago the faculty of Princeton University voted unanimously for BDS including a ban on any zionist speaker from speaking on campus. The faculty also picked George Will as the graduation speaker in 2020. Most of the professors chose to not vote, but of those who did (1/7 of the total including many Jews) the pro-BDS vote was unanimous. As a result, if Einstein were to rise from the grave, with the unified field equations finally worked out, he’d have to speak off-campus because he was a zionist, and the university is committed to BLM and anti prejudice. (Tell me again, how does anti-zionism help black lives to matter?; how does BLM help you get clean water or good sewage treatment?)
In terms of sewage treatment or bringing clean water, I’ve found that the sort of person willing to do the work is usually someone with an opinion, and that usually it’s a rough opinion. My sense is to let people have their opinions and to say, if you treat the sewage right, I treat you right. Good work isn’t cheap, and people who do it can’t be culled from those with the right views and political opinions.
While campaigning I told leaders of the pipe-fitters union that I could tell that the Pontiac sewage plant was badly run just by smelling the air around the plant — you shouldn’t be able to smell a sewage plant from miles away. They said that was a racist statement. I then told them that the boilers were rusty, and that at the roof of the digester cad caved in, at least a year ago. They said they’d already endorsed the Democrat, and only spoke to me as a courtesy.
For the last several years it has been claimed that some 98% of legitimate scientists believe it is a major need to reduce CO2 output so as to stop the world from getting warmer. When Trump visited the pope 4 yers ago, the pope would not speak to him expect to hand him his anti-global warming letter he’d written, “Laudato Si” and to tell Trump to get on board to stop global warming. Trump said he would read the letter.
Trump visits the pope, and the pope does not look happy
I’m not a fan of science established by Papal dictate based on an informal poll of experts, especially here where the minority includes some of the greatest minds of the 20th century, and the poll is taken by Al Gore’s science expert, but that’s where we are when it comes to science and politics. I also find it that the pope blames the US for global warming but not China when the the majority of CO2 came from China, a country committed to increasing its use of coal. But be this as it may be — the pope doesn’t blame China for imprisoning Catholics either, most recently the editor of Hong Kong’s most widely read newspaper.
So I thought I take a step back to look at the desirability of making the world colder. Is a colder world a better world? Sad pictures of polar bears are presented in favor of the colder world, but for all I know, polar bears prefer it warm. Their numbers are increasing.
Paul McCarthy lyrics; Hey Jude.
If we had a global climate adjustment knob somewhere, a magic knob allowing you to make the world warmer or colder by turning it right, or left, I doubt the consensus would be to turn the knob left. There is no real logic to cold being good, but there is a line in “Hey Jude”: “…It’s a fool who plays it cool, by making his world a little colder.” And Svente Arrhenius, one of the great scientists of 100 years ago, said he preferred a warm earth to a cold one to avoid disease and starvation. When the climate turns colder, the result is disease and famine as crops fail and animals freeze. It’s not an option that I’d think most people would prefer. given my choice, I would prefer things a little warmer.
I should also note that our ability to fine tune the climate is not what we’d think. The world climate is chaotic, and there is no reliable knob. Historically, the most common setting is ice-age, and that’s a setting that most people really don’t like.
I’m not crazy about the COVID isolation, but there are up-sides that I’ve come to appreciate. You might too. Out of boredom, I was finally got into meditation. It was better than just sitting around and doing nothing.
It’s best not to look at isolation as a problem, but an opportunity. I’ve developed a serious drinking opportunity.
And it’s an opportunity to talk to myself. I told myself I’ should quit drinking. Then I figured, why should I listen to a drunk who talks to himself.
A friend of mine was on drugs, but then quit. Everyone in his house is happy, except for the lamp. The lamp won’t talk to him anymore.
The movies are closed, and the bars, and the gyms. It gives me another reason not to go to the gym.
Did you know that, before the crowbar was invented, crows used to drink at home.
The real reason dogs aren’t allowed in bars: lots of guys can’t handle their licker.
There’s time to spend with my children. And they look like me.
I like that I don’t commute. Family events are over zoom, funerals (lots of funerals), meetings, lectures. They come in via the computer, and I don’t have to dress or attend. No jacket, no pants… no travel …. no job.
My children are spending more time with us at home. We have virtual meals together. I discovered that I have a son named Tok. He seems to like my dad-jokes.
My wife is finding it particularly tough. Most every day I see her standing by the window, staring, wondering. One of these days, I’ll let her in.
I asked wife why she married me. Was it for my looks, or my income, or my smarts. She smiled and said it was my sense of humor. 🙂
My wife is an elementary school teacher. She teaches these days with a smart board. If the board were any smarter, it would go work for someone else. It’s necessary, I guess. If you can’t beat them, you might as well let the smart board teach. I think the smart board stole the election. It began by auto-correcting my spelling. Then it moved to auto correct my voting. The board is smarter and better than me (Hey, who wrote this?)
I’ve learned to love masks, though some of them are hot.
You’d think they’d reduce the number of administrators in the schools, given that it’s all remote. Or reduce the price of college. It would be nice if they’d up the number of folks who can attend. So far no. Today the Princeton alumni of Michigan is sponsoring video-talk by Princeton alumnus, George Will. I wanted to attend, but found there was limited seating, so I’m on the waiting list (true story). By keeping people out, they show they are exclusive. Tuition is $40,000 / year, and they keep telling us that the college is in service of humanity. If they were in the service of humanity, they’d charge less, and stream the talk to whoever wants to listen in. I have to hope this will change sooner or later.
Shopping for toilet paper was a big issue at the beginning of the pandemic, but I’ve now got a dog to do it for me. He goes to the store, brings it back. Brings back toothpaste too. He’s a lavatory retriever. (I got this joke from Steve Feldman; the crowbar joke too.)
I don’t mind that there are few new movies. There are plenty of old movies that I have not seen, and old TV shows too.
This fellow is the new head of Biden’s COVID-19 task force. He’s got a science-based plan for over-population and the disease.
I like that people are leaving New York and LA. It’s healthy, and saves on rent. Folks still travel there, mostly for the rioting, but lockdowns are nicer in Michigan.
More people are hunting, and hiking, and canoeing. These are active activities that you can do on lockdown. The old activities were passive, or going out to eat. Passive activities are almost a contradiction in terms.
We’re cooking more at home, which is healthier. And squirrel doesn’t taste half bad. If I live through this, I’ll be healthy.
I’m reading more, and have joined goodreads.com. I’ve developed a superpower: I find can melt ice cubes, just by looking at them. It takes a while but they melt.
A lot more folks have dogs. And folks have gotten into religion. Wouldn’t it be great, if after death we fond that dyslexic folks were right. There really is a dog.
Let’s love the virus. If we don’t, the next crisis will be worse.
There was an election last week. My uncles voted for Biden, which really surprised me. They were staunch Republicans when they were alive. My aunt got the ballot and convinced them. She was a Democrat when she was alive.
Before COVID, the other big crisis was global warming. Al Gore and Greta Thunberg claimed we had to shutter production and stop driving to save the planet. COVID-19 has done it. The next crisis is over-population. COVID is already curing that problem — not so much in China, but in the US, Europe, and South America.
Just As a final thought, let’s look at the bright side of the virus. If we don’t, the next crisis will be worse. Take Monty Python’s advice and Always look at the bright side of life.
Last night a CNN reporter was going around a Trump rally asking ‘When was America ever great?” It’s a legitimate question for anyone wearing a MAGA hat. “Make America Great AGAIN” suggests that America was once great and is no more. The answer the reporter pushed for, I think, was the one given by NY’s Governor Cuomo: “America was never that great.” Alternately, the answer of Michelle Obama, who claimed in 2008, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.” The attendees attempted other answers, like 1776, but the reporter shot them down, saying that people were enslaved in 1776, and telling the home audience that even later, women didn’t have the right to vote, or the LGBT community was denied the rights to which it was entitled. I was not there, and might have got shot down too, but I suspect the question deserves an exact answer: the last time America was great was just before October 24, 1945, United Nations Day, the day we submitted to be part of a world government.
Jackie Robinson, the first black American in major league baseball. Signed October 23, 1945.
By October 23, 1945 WWII was over. We had peace and plenty, the most powerful military, and the most powerful economy. Besides this, we had a baby boom (Children are a bedrock of success, IMHO). Also, on October 23, 1945, the Brooklyn Dodgers signed Jackie Robinson, the first black, major Leaguer since the late 1800s. We thus took a major step against the greatest of our original sins. These were aspects of US greatness, but they were were not guaranteed. They were based on two pre-requisites: a national dedication to self-improvement, and the sovereign control we had over our self-improvement. Total control ended on October 24, 1945 when we joined with the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China, France, and several other nations accepting (limited) control by the United Nations organization.
By accepting United Nations oversight, we gave over a significant chunk of sovereignty to other countries whose desire, mostly, was that the US should not be greater than them, and largely that it should not be great at all. To that end they endeavored to insure that we did not have the most powerful economy, the most powerful military, or a baby boom. From tat day on, other countries would sit in judgment on our behaviors and goals. More and more, they would demand remedies that served their interests and diminished US greatness, its exceptionalism. To the patriot this is a disaster. The New York Times declares that anti-exceptionalism is the road to world peace and prosperity. The MAGA crowd disagree.
The United Nations officially came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China, France ratify the UN Charter. The charter, once signed, was handed to Truman’s assistant, Alger Hiss.
It’s not that the MAGA Republicans are against world peace or prosperity. No sane person is, but they claim that the best way to achieve these things is for us to be exceptional and work in our own best interests. It is only a sad peace that is achieved by having a foreign body decide that we are at fault in every conflict, and that we should pay reparations to all who lag. There are many poor, socialist countries choosing judges, and these judges tend to rule that the US, as a rich nation, is always at fault and should always pay — both for “development” of the poor nations -overseen by them — and for the the UN too. We knew that their judges would rule this way, but likely didn’t care, or realize how much of our greatness rested on sovereignty. Without sovereignty, even the greatest of world powers will be brought down. Alger Hiss, the person Truman handed the signed UN charter to, was a spy for the Soviet Union. It was a telling beginning.
One of the big promises of Donald Trump is that he will limit the reach of the UN and of its ability to reach into our pockets. He already renegotiated or rejected trade agreements, like TPP that would have sent our jobs and technology abroad. Trump also placed import taxes (tariffs) on some foreign goods. The MAGA folks approve, but the Obama internationalists are scandalized. As depicted in the book “Fear”, long time (Obama) staffers at the White House stole tariff bills from the president’s desk to save the world by keeping them from Trump’s signature. Tariffs have been used throughout American history, and can be a benefit for jobs, and diplomacy and for American manufacturers. They are not radical, but some people lost out. Larely, those were US consumers of foreign goods who suffered. Things improved most for black and hispanic workers though. The intellectual class who claim to represent black and hispanic interests have removed Trump and supporters from social media. It’s their way of winning the argument.
Henry Cabot Lodge, Wilson’s main opponent ito the US joining the League of Nations,.
Trump also limited the power of the world trade organization and of the world court. It’s something that Henry Kissinger recommended In the Journal “Foreign Affairs 2001. Kissinger wrote that “The danger [in too much power for the world court] consists of substituting the tyranny of judges for that of governments; historically, the dictatorship of the virtuous has often led to inquisitions and even witch-hunts.” Trump also built up the military, and claims he will eliminate a postal agreement that gives low, subsidized rates, to China and poor countries so they can mail goods to the US for far less than we can to ourselves. Joe Biden has pushed for “the dictatorship of the virtuous” and promises to raise taxes to pay for it. He’s also suggested packing the supreme court. To me, this is far more radical than tariffs.
The MAGA divide between Trump and Obama/ Biden is not new. It’s existed to a greater or lesser extent between most Democrats and Republicans as far back as the civil war. One major cause of the civil war was tariffs. Then as now, tariffs benefit the manufacturer and worker, and hurt the aristocrat.
In 1918, the MAGA divide played flared because of Wilson’s support of the League of Nations. Republican, Henry Cabot Lodge opposed joining the League of Nations over the same complaints that Trump has raised. Trump’s MAGA claim is that he’ll make US agreements serve US interests. Also that he’s making the US military strong again, and making the US economy strong again. For all I know, the plan for the next four years is to try to ignite another baby boom, too. This, as I understand it, is the MAGA message.
As a side issue, I note that virtually every rapper is for Trump, and virtually every orthodox rabbi too. Yet the internationalist claim he’s racist. His approval among black voters is polled at 46%. Unless you hold that Jewish and black voters don’t understand their own interests. it would seem that Trump is not the racist he’s claimed to be. A recent, “jews for Trump” parade in NY was attacked with rocks, eggs, fists, and paint thrown on participants by white Democrats. The racists who run the NY Justice Department decided not to prosecute.
There have been a dozen attempts to tear down the statue of Andrew Jackson outside the Whitehouse. Most of these appear to have been done by white people, supporters of “Black Lives Matter,” or BLM. BLM vandals were more successful destroying statues of Columbus, Lee, Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Saint Louis, and Christian Heg, an anti-slavery activist of the 1800s, — he was a white guy. Graves are spray painted BLM, stores have been vandalized and looted, people have been killed, and at least one “cop free autonomous zone” set upin Seattle. No police allowed, no fire fighters allowed. At least one murder. Policing by a BLM warlord. So who are the BLM vandals running these activities, and who are their supporters?
Graves vandalized with Black Lives Matter, and with BLM Floyd. The vandals prepared, bringing spray paint to the cemetery, but there is no sense they were helping black people.
To my observation the BLM activist-vandal is not typically black, nor illiterate, nor disadvantaged; nor do they act in a fit of anger. The tools of destruction, bricks, spray paint, chains torches, and firebombs are brought home, often many miles away. Bricks are left in buckets are key locations for ready use in the demonstration. Many of the activists are white, often women, literate, liberal, socially secure, and self-satisfied. Two lawyers, one a Princeton graduate, were among those throwing firebombs in a Jewish section of Brooklyn, last week. They were acting for social justice in Palestine, they say. Another pair of bomb-throwers were two sisters white, from upstate NY who traveled to Brooklyn to throw a gasoline bomb into a police care with four officers. Her motivation, she says, social injustice — certainly not for the innocent policemen.
There is rarely any connection between the destruction and any positive help to black people nor is there any direct relationship to George Floyd, killed by cruel police. Why behead the statue of Columbus, or burn this statue of an elk? Even the fire-bombing lawyers had trouble explaining the relationship between their bombing of a police car in Brooklyn and the motivating causes, police brutality and ending the zionist presence in Palestine, for these particular two. So why burn a car, topple a statue, or loot a store, or burn an elk? As best I can tell, it’s because these things are big, available, and minimally guarded. If someone steps out to defend their property, the vandals leave, or snuck around to sucker-punch from behind, leaving quickly afterward, before the police get there.
The vandals do not act out of rage either, but with malice and fore-thought. It takes a lot of organization to show up with working fire-bombs, bricks, or with spray paint for that matter. Neither of these items is available at stores near the demonstrations. And taking down a statute requires more. The vandals bring strong ropes, chains, and cutting torches. Check out this video of an attempt on the Andrew Jackson statue, and note the organization of labor and that virtually everyone here is white.
Samantha Shader, traveled to Brooklyn with gasoline bombs and through one into a police car with 4 officers inside. None died. She’s not black, uneducated, or oppressed, Just bored, and angry.
Whether they succeed or not, the vandals are proud of their activities. They brag to the press and often post videos. Publicity is part of the motivation, but it sometimes leads to capture. Samantha Shader, throwing a gasoline bomb, was caught because of her own bragging video.
When caught, the BLM vandal immediately appeals for his or her rights, and is often bailed out by the politicians who claim to deplore violence. They blame the very folks they’d harmed too, and claim it was justice to destroy the statue, or the Jewish or black-owned store. The black store owner is an uncle Tom, the Jewish synagog a symbol of oppression, and they see themselves as white saviors, white knights and revolutionaries, destroying offensive symbols of other folks success. It’s only other people’s stuff that’s offensive to them, by the way. I’ve yet to see any of the BLM vandals destroy their own cars or homes.
As bad as the actual vandals are, in a sense the politicians who support them are worse, spurring them, then sitting judgement on the BLM wrongs. The politicians, liberal, often white women, praise the BLM vandal leaders, and help the raise money for them. They ascend the podium with the worst of the BLM vandal leaders, proclaiming, “We’re with you.” “You are right to be angry, and your cause just.” “We are inspired by you.” They say they are against violence, but they eagerly remove the statues that the BLM vandals spray painted — The statue of Columbus in front of Columbus city hall for example, They defund the police — their salaries, retirements, etc. — and give the money to BLM-run organizations. The Biden campaign does more and provides bail money. All this helps honest black people not at all, nor is it good for the cities, but it does provide good press for the politicians, and so far the support for BLM seems to make up for Biden’s habit of touching and sniffing girls’ hair. As for where the BLM money goes, we have little information, but this is what we know. Some will go back to the Democratic party via a BLM program called #WhatMatters2020. Some will go toward Black Liberation education. None is slated to help victims of BLM vandalism, black or white. And this is what passes for political accountability.
Columbus Ohio; Vandals spray paint the statue of Columbus in front of city hall, then the Mayor cleans the statue, and removes it. Which one is the bigger vandal? Do either help black people?
I imagine that I do more for black lives than what BLM does, by my efforts to provide clean water and better sewage, for example. Another thing we might do, if we thought black lives really mattered would be to change the laws that put black people behind bars for minor crimes, e.g. pot sales. Recreational pot use is legal in much of the US, but black people are emprissoned in large numbers, because the sale is illegal unless you have special licenses. and black people never can get the license to sell legally. I don’t think defunding the police is a road to help black people, certainly not when the money goes to Black Liberation education and statue removal. It seems that black lives don’t matter at all to either the BLM vandals, or the fire-bombers, or to the politicians,, and they never did.
Readers of this blog know that I am not a fan of very harsh punishments for crime, in particular for crimes that have no direct victim, e.g. drug possession and sales. Prostitution is another crime with no direct victim. One could argue that society as a whole is the victim, but my sense is that punishments should be minimal and targeted, e.g. to prevent involuntary human trafficking and disease. Our current laws, depicted here, are clearly not designed for this, but there was a brief period where prostitution laws did make more sense. During the civil war, civil war, prostitution was legal and regulated to prevent disease.
In 1862, Union forces captured the southern cities of Nashville and Memphis, Tenn. Major Gen. William Rosecrans set up headquarters in Nashville. Before the war, Nashville was home to 198 white prostitutes and nine “mulatto,” operating in a two-block area known as “Smoky Row.”
By the end of 1862, Smokey row had grown and these numbers swelled to 1,500 “public women”. White southern women turned to prostitution out of poverty, largely. Their husbands were dead, or ill paid, and they were joined by recently freed slaves. Benton E. Dubbs, a Union private, reported a saying that “no man culd [sic] be a soldier unless he had gone through Smokey Row,” … “The street was about three-fourths of a mile long and every house or shanty on both sides was a house of ill fame. Women had no thought of dress or decency. They say Smokey Row killed more soldiers than the war.”
By 1863, venerial disease was becoming a major problem. The Surgeon General would document 183,000 cases of venereal disease in the Union Army alone, “…the Pocks and the Clap. The cases of this complaint is numerous, especially among the officers.”
Permit for Legal prostitution signed by Col George Spaulding.
At first General Rosecrans directed his assistant, Colonel Spaulding, to remove the women by sending them to other states, first by train, and then by boat commandeering the ship, Idaho for the purpose. The effect was horrible, not only was the ship turned back by every city, but the departure of these ladies just resulted in the appearance of a new cohort of sex-workers. By the time the Idaho had returned, Rosecrans had been relieved of command following embarrassing defeats at Chickamauga and Chattanooga . Col. Spaulding now tried a new technique to stop the plague of VD: legalized prostitution. It worked.
Women’s hospital during the war, Nashville.
For a $5/month fee a “public woman” could become a legal prostitute, or “Public Woman” so long as she submitted to monthly health inspections for a certificate of her soundness. If found infected, she was to report to a hospital dedicated to this treatment, was subject to imprisonment if she operated without the license and certificate. The effect was a major decline in sexually-transmitted disease, and an improvement (so it is claimed) in the quality of the services. The fees collected were sufficient to cover the cost of the operation and hospital, nearly.
At the end of the war, Col Spaulding and the union soldiers left Nashville, and prostitution returned to being illegal, if tolerated. One assumes that the VD rates went up as well.
George Spaulding, Congressman..
Colonel Spaulding and Maj. General Rosecrans are interesting characters beyond the above. Spaulding had entered the war as a private and rose through the ranks by merit. The rise didn’t stop at colonel. After the war, he became postmaster of Monroe Michigan, 1866 to 1870, US Treasury agent, 1871 to 1875, Mayor of Monroe, 1876 to ?, President of the board of education, a lawyer in 1878, and congressman for the MI 2nd district (Republican) 1894 -1898. He also served as board member of the Home for Girls 1885 to 1897, and postmaster of Monroe, 1899 to 1907.
William Rosecrans was a Catholic, engineer-inventor from West Point. Before the war, in 1853, he designed St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church, one of the largest US churches at the time, site of the wedding of John Kennedy and Jacqueline Bouvier. He also designed and installed one of the first lock systems in Western Virginia. He and two partners built an early oil refinery. He patented a method of soap making and the first kerosene lamp to burn a round wick, and was one of the eleven incorporators of the Southern Pacific Railroad. After the war, he served as Ambassador to Mexico, 1868-69 and was congressman from California, 1st district (Democrat) 1880 – 1884. A true Democrat, Rosecrans could not stand either Grant or Garfield, and fought against Grant getting a retirement package.
Robert Buxbaum, June 5, 2020. There are other ways to stop the spread of sexual diseases. During the AIDS epidemic, condoms were the preferred method, and during the current COVID crisis, face masks are being touted. My preference is iodine hand wash. All methods work if they can reduce the transmission rate, Ro below 1.
Ex VP, Joe Biden has a long history of touching people in uncomfortable ways. He does it with men and women, and has a particular problem with children. As bad as it is to grab a sheriff on the leg, or Hillary Clinton when she clearly does not want to be grabbed, it’s quite a lot worse to fondle the hair and face of a child you are not related to (above). An expert reviewing the video of his many grabs, pats, and hair sniffs, came to conclude that Biden behaves like a predator.
Biden grabs a sheriff in a ways that most find inappropriate. He says’s its just his way to make a connection. Others say it’s ‘his power move.’
Adding to Biden’s touching problems, Tara Reade, one of Biden’s staffers has come forward to say that Biden not only made her feel uncomfortable, but pinned her to a wall at the capital building, penetrated her with his hand, and asked for sex. When a panel of experts went over her testimony and Biden’s denial, they came away believing Tara, and not believing Biden. Here is a video with them discussing the various tells that cause them to doubt Biden. Here is another video with the same individuals discussing Reade’s accusation.
Biden applies his power move on Secretary of State Clinton.
What’s to be done? There are still may in the Democratic party who would like to see Biden drop out in favor of someone less tainted, like Bernie. Others, like Illan Omar have concluded that despite Biden being a predator, she supports him as providing the best chance to defeat Donald Trump.
Brazil has decided to go its own route in response to the Corona virus pandemic. They’re using minimal social distancing with a heavy reliance on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap drug that they claim is effective (as has our president). Brazil has been widely criticized for this, despite so far having lower death rate per million than the US, Canada, or most of Europe. In an open letter, copied in part below, 25 Brazilian scientists speak out against the politicalization of science, and in favor of their approach to COVID-19. The full letter (here). The whole letter is very worth reading, IMHO, but especially worthwhile is their section on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), copied below.
….. Numerous countries such as the USA, Spain, France, Italy, India, Israel, Russia, Costa Rica and Senegal use the drug (HCQ) to fight covid-19, whereas other countries refrain from using HCQ as one of the strategies to contain the pandemic, betting on other controversial tactics.
Who then speaks here in the name of “science”? Which group has a monopoly on reason and its exclusive authorization to be the spokesperson of “science”? Where is such authorization found?One can choose an opinion, and base his strategy on it, this is fine, but no one should commit the sacrilege of protecting his decision risking to tarnish with it the “sacred mantle of science”.
Outraged, every day I hear mayors and governors saying at the top of their lungs that they “have followed science”. Presidents of councils and some of their advisers, and of academies and deans in their offices write letters on behalf of their entire community, as if they reflect everyone’s consensual position. Nothing could be more false.Have they followed science? Not at all! They have followed the science wing which they like, and the scientists who they chose to place around them. They ignore the other wing of science, since there are also hundreds of scientists and articles that oppose their positions and measures.
Worse, scientists are not angels. Scientists are people, and people have likes and dislikes, passions and political party preferences. Or wouldn’t they? There are many scientists, therefore, who do good without looking at whom, I know and admire many of them. But there are also pseudoscientists who use science to defend their opinion, their own pocket, or their passion. Scientists have worked and still work hard and detached to contribute to the good of humanity, many of whom are now in their laboratories, risking their lives to develop new methods of detecting coronavirus, drugs and vaccines, when they could stay “safe at home”. But, to illustrate my point, I know scientists who have published articles, some even in major journals such as “Science” or “Nature”, with data they have manufactured “during the night”; others who have removed points from their curves, or used other similar strategies. Many scientists were at Hitler’s side, weren’t they? Did they act in the name of “science”? Others have developed atom bombs. Others still develop chemical and biological weapons and illicit drugs, by design.
The Manaus’ study with chloroquine (CQ) performed here in Brazil and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) [1], is emblematic to this discussion of “science”. Scientists there used, the manuscript reveals, lethal doses in debilitated patients, many in severe conditions and with comorbidities. The profiles of the groups do not seem to have been “randomized”, since a clear “preference” in the HIGH DOSE group for risk factors is noted. Chloroquine, which is more toxic than HCQ, was used, and it seems that they even made “childish mistakes” in simple stoichiometric calculations, doubling the dosage with the error. I’m incapable of judging intentions, but justice will do it. The former Brazilian Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta quoted this study, supported it, and based on it, categorically stated: “I do not approve HCQ because I am based on ‘science, science, science’!”.
Another study published by Chinese researchers in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and which is still persistently used against HCQ was also at least revolting [2]. In it, the authors declared: “we administer 1,200 mg for 3 days, followed by 800 mg for 12 to 21 days, in patients with moderate to severe symptoms”. In other words, they gave a huge dosage of the drug that could reach the absurdity of 20 grams in the end, and it given was too late to patients (HCQ should be administered in the first symptoms or even earlier). And even worse, overdosing on HCQ or any other drug for severe cases is poisonous. What do you think, was it good science? The recommended dosage in Brazil, since May 20th, 2020, by the new Ministry of Health, for mild symptoms is 2 times 400 mg in the first day (every 12 hours) and 400 mg for 5 days for a total of 2.8 grams.
In other published studies, also in these internationally renowned journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and BMJ [3-5], once again, “problems” are clearly noted, since or the patients were randomized in irregular ways, placing older, more susceptible or most severe and hypoxemic patients in the higher (lethal) dose groups, or more men (almost 3 times more deadly by covid than women), or more black people (in the USA, black people have displayed higher mortality) and more smokers, and where most of the deaths occurred in the first days of the studies (signs that were deaths of critically ill patients, who at this stage would be more “intoxicated” than “treated” with HCQ), or they administered HCQ isolated, when it is known that it is necessary to associate HCQ at least with azithromycin. One of these studies [5] administered HCQ only on the sixteenth day of symptoms (for really early treatment, HCQ administration should be started up to fifth day), in other words, at the end of the disease, when the drug can do little good or nothing to the patient.
These studies indicate that some scientists either forgot how “science” is done or that there is a huge effort to disprove, whatever it takes, that HCQ works. How can someone or even Councils and Academies of Medicine cite such studies as the “science” of their decisions? How can that be?
On the contrary, the study published – and today with more than 3 thousand patients tested – and carried out by Dr. Didier Raoult in France [6], using the correct dosage and at the right time, with a very low mortality rate (0.4%), and the Prevent Senior’s clinical experience in Brazil – also quite encouraging – are disqualified with very “futile” arguments such as: “Didier Raoult is a controversial and unworthy researcher”, “At Prevent Senior Clinic they were not sure of the diagnosis” (but none of the hospitalized patients with clear COVID symptoms died), “Placebo effect” (what a supernatural power of inducing our mind that reduces mortality from 40% to zero, I want this placebo!), “Study performed by a health plan company” (I do not doubt that this people indeed want to save lives, because the patients were their customers who pay their bills), and similar ephemeral arguments.…
I admire the spunk of these fellows going agains the doctors, WHO. Beyond being a critique of bad research on a particular drug, it is a defense of science. Science is a discussion, a striving for truth. It is not supposed to demand blind allegiance to a few politically appointed experts. They’ve convinced me that the tests sponsored by the world health organization seem designed to show failure, and reminded me that there is rarely a one-size-fits-all for problems and all times.
I also find striking the highly critical response of my local newspapers and TV reporters. While they both like to highlight efforts by South America as they try entering the first world, with help from Bill gates and leftist politicians, they have been uniformly condemned Brazil for its non-left approach and now for use of HCQ. They want Sous Americans to think, but only if their conclusions are no different from those of their favorite, liberal thinkers.
The following is Elizabeth Warren’s law registration for the state of Texas, 1986 claiming she is an American Indian. There was very little evidence for it and an genetic test showed she was somewhere between 1/256 and 1/1000 Indian. My son was determined to have 1/1000 Indian blood in a similar test, and we have no Indian ancestors at all, as best as I can tell. Still, as an Indian Ms. Warren is entitled to affirmative action; she’s to get preferential hiring financial, and educational treatment over someone more qualified, but without Indian blood. Affirmative action was institute as a way to redress the suffering of Indians and other minorities, but it is not clear that is serves this purpose when someone with so little, or no blood can take the advantage. There is no requirement of proof that you are at all Indian by blood, and even if you are 1/1000 Indian, what about the other 999/1000? Why don’t they count to give yo lower standing than someone who is 1/10 Indian, say. How indian should you have to be to get benefits.
Related to the question of how much Indian blood you should have to have to get benefits is the question of making other folks suffer to provide this benefit. Many of the people who suffer because of affirmative action are dependents of immigrant minorities, Jews, Italians, and Chinese, and these folks have not had it that well. The Italians were discriminated against in hiring, as mandated by the city council, see announcement below, and Chinese immigrants had very limited migration and work rights, as specified under The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This act was not repealed until 1943 as part of our war against Japan.
In the late 1800s anti Italian discrimination was common. In part this was the Tammany Hall Irish doing their best to keep out an upstart immigrant group. Should Italians have affirmative action preferences?
At maximum Ms. Warren is less than 1% indians and thus over 99% Texan. This is to suggest that the majority of her bloodline is descent is from those who displaced the Indians, but her preferential hiring was likely in preference to other minorities who suffered too, and who likely have a purer bloodline to that suffering and exclusion than Ms Warren has. Is this what we want from affirmative action? The form we’ve got benefits, for the most part, only the most crooked, connected members of society. People like Ms Warren. I think this has to change.
Water costs vary greatly about Oakland county, and around the US, and I have struggled in vain to find out why. In part the problem is that each city gets to add as much maintenance and management costs as the city government thinks appropriate. High management and infrastructure fees can increase to the cost of water, but I also not that different cities about Oakland County Michigan get their water at different rates from the multi-county organization that oversees water in South East Michigan: GLWA, The Great Lakes Water Authority.
$112 water bill for zero usage. The base charge is so large that prices are essentially independent of useage.
I’ve attended meetings, both local and multi county and have tried to find out why one town gets its water at a far lower rate than another, near by. Towns get lower rates if they have a water tower, but it is not at all clear what the formula is. It also helps to separate the storm sewage from the sanitary sewage — something that I have proposed for all of Oakland county, but if there is fixed formula of how that affects rates, I’ve not seen it. And I wonder how well communities monitor the amount of storm sewage they generate.
The water itself is free. For the most part, in this county, we pump it from the Detroit river. Some of the rest of the water is pumped from wells. None of this costs anything. There is a pump cost, but it is manicure. Pumping 1 gallon of water up 75 feet, costs about 0.002¢ in pumping cost. The rest of the cost is infrastructure: the cost of the pumps, the pipes, the treatment, the billing and sewage. Among the sewage fees is a pollution penalty, and Oakland county pays plenty of pollution penalties. When it rains, we generate more sewage than the system will handle, and we dump the rest into the rivers and lakes. This results in closed beaches and poisoned fish, and fines too. The county pays the EPA when we do this, and the county passes the cost to the cities. I don’t know what the formula for fee distribution is, and don’t even know what it should be. What I do know is that we do this vastly too often.
Another oddity is that we bill on a per gallon basis. For my home, the bill is about 2¢/ gallon — 100 times the pumping cost. Though the city can claim that we are paying for infrastructure, both clean water infrastructure and sewage infrastructure, it seems odd to bill on a per-gallon used basis, and 1000 times the true per-gallon price. Since most of the price of water is the infrastructure and management cost, it seems like a regressive tax to charge people on the basis of per-gallon used. I also find it odd that cities do a propaganda campaign to tell folks to use less water. Why? I’d much prefer to charge a far lower base charge, and then bill significantly per-gallon. As with much that is socialist, the current system is inefficient, but pleasant for the management.
