winsor

The Right Wing source I could be accused of parroting is Irving M. Copi, author of "An Introduction to Logic" - a rather good read. Many of the pertinent concepts may be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Formal_fallacies Anyone who espouses Marxism I hold suspect, mainly because I have seen "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in action, up close and in person, and I am unimpressed to say the least. BSBD, Winsor

I am sorry to hear that we have miserable experiences in common along with some wonderful ones. I am seeing too many people go from a picture of health to being debilitated or dead, and it is disquieting. Oscar Pistorius comes to mind in that his prosthetic legs appear to give him, if anything, an advantage. People with intact legs can run MUCH faster with the addition of prostheses such as Oscar's. I actually read the whole article, but did not have to look far for flawed logic (the piece is rife with valid data and invalid correlation). If someone writes a piece that is superficially in agreement with what I have figured out already, but they do so on the basis of one fallacy after another, I don't give them a pass on their garbled thinking. I am aware of the bulk of the data they cite, but take exception to the context in which much of it is presented. The soft sciences often seem to make presumptions on what constitutes 'good' and 'bad,' apparently on the assumption that the whole good/bad thing is universal. I have yet to see anything to suggest that that is the case. Tom Walker is a comedian and dedicated Liberal, but often his bits point out the flaws in the popular thought process: I am not a follower of anyone, politically or philosophically. If someone can demonstrate the effectiveness of an approach I had not considered, fine. If the gist of their argument boils down to 'you're wrong and you're a poopyhead,' suffice it to say that I am not swayed. Many decades ago, some hippie types in Boston wanted my help in breaching the fence around the Seabrook nook-you-ler power plant so they could get in, protest and generally cause havoc. I pointed out that their showing up on camera looking like idiots would only convince them that opponents of nuclear power were fools, and reinforce their support of glow in the dark technology. I said that the way to end investment in nuclear power was to make it unprofitable - rather than running around and making a lot of noise, they should show up in three piece suits with briefcases and litigate the industry out of existence. Needless to say, that's pretty much what happened. Since my neighbors and coworkers have been from all social strata and from all over the world, it offends me to no end when I come across an ideology that entrenches the US vs. THEM divide, and the article you provided does just that. Anything that detracts from equal rights and equal responsibilities - no more and no less (MY personal criteria), whether it be from CRT academia or stormtrooper.com (if there is such a website...), I find unacceptable. The whole of CRT is based on Petito Principii (Begging the Question), where the form of the answer is mandated by the form of the question. I call bullshit. BSBD, Winsor

The commonality between hard sciences and soft sciences appears largely limited to the use of the term 'science' in both. Having been paralyzed with the prospect of never walking again, and later spending a fair amount of time stuck in a wheelchair, I guess I have some insight regarding being disabled. Having said that, I am all for keeping the Olympics, the Paralympics and the Special Olympics separate entities. BSBD, Winsor

Thanks, I appreciate actually referencing a source. Unfortunately, I call bullshit on the first sentence of the tenets of "Principles of the CRT Practice" to wit: "Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed..." If that's true, let's all just 'identify' as 'people of color' and be done with it. Humoring people who wish to relabel themselves may be polite, but it doesn't change much: On the one hand CRT disputes that 'race' even exists, OTOH the sole consideration is race. I'm not sure if this is the result of irony or stupidity, but suspension of disbelief is necessary to proceed much further. I guess the problem we have here is that I dispute the basis of CRT ideology. From a semantic standpoint, their position if FUBAR. Like any other religion, if it makes you happy, knock yourself out. If you want me to pretend that CRT has fundamental merit (beyond agreeing that racial discrimination of ANY sort is bad), you're SOL. BSBD, Winsor

Could you provide source material? If so, please do. Your version is greatly downplayed from what the supposed founders of CRT have said on interviews. You also seem knowledgeable of what does or does not show up on Fox - please fill me in, I don't watch it. What I pick up is from such alt-right sources as CBS, NBC and Googling the interwebs. The definitions I have found for 'Inclusivity, Equity and Diversity' are all pretty much the same, regardless of the source. If you are right and they are wrong, you should not worry about me but set millions of other misled people straight. BSBD, Winsor

One of the keys to project management is scope - define at the outset the parameters by which the project is deemed complete. Thus I am curious what are the criteria we must meet in order to declare Mission Accomplished! and move on? Like the pandemic, it will be nice if and when we can just get over it. BSBD, Winsor

CRT by any definition I can find is about as well balanced as recommending Chemo for acne. With what definition of CRT are you working? Since I am strongly in favor of discrimination - discrimination I tell you! - on the basis of ability and integrity, I suppose that makes me the very worst kind of racist. BSBD, Winsor

Mostly just having seen the movie before. The guy buying 'drinks' for an attractive lady that didn't get the slightest bit intoxicated is the example I cited. I never said I was smart. I never finished High School (for real). BSBD, Winsor

When I was much, much younger, when I encountered people who were apparently oblivious to things that were glaringly obvious, I felt I was doing them a favor by pointing out their oversight. I discovered that, far from being grateful, they were often furious that all the effort they put into denying unpleasant realities was for naught. An example was a colleague plying a lady at the bar with drinks. I noted to him that she was consuming tea rather than cognac, was an employee of the bar, and was absolutely not going home with them. That did not go over well. I have since found that people find solace in fantasy and ritual, and I have nothing to replace the 'knowledge' that dying with a sword in one's hand is a ticket to Valhalla. Some people find skepticism/cynicism frightening, and scared people are dangerous. Gaslighting? Not hardly - I'm serious as a heart attack. BSBD, Winsor

When dealing with a system of belief, it does not make any difference how accurate is a point that flies in the face of said belief. It is a matter of pride amongst True Believers to hold fast to their beliefs when confronted with facts that demonstrate the invalidity of their belief system. I'll cite references if this concept is new to you. Since True Believers have the tendency to treat heretics harshly, it is safer that you have no idea what I'm talking about than to decide that I have Dangerous Ideas that must be Dealt With (that doesn't usually end well). My underlying thesis is that the Woke belief system, like most systems of belief, appeals to those with a cognitive vulnerability, are hard of thinking or both. The level of delusion necessary to seriously ponder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is a classic example. I understand that the safest way to deal with Largely Peaceful True Believers is to appear to agree with them, and a lot of corporations go to great lengths to avoid drawing fire from the strident Social/Racial Justice Warriors. Beats getting burned to the ground or otherwise put out of business, I suppose. Beyond the self-righteous indignation and name calling, I don't get a lot out of what people have to say contrary to any point I have made. Then again, one shouldn't go through the Monkey House if they're not braced for having poo thrown at them. Thus, I suspect there are people who are in agreement with me who know better than to stand up and draw fire. I don't blame them. BSBD, Winsor

Gee, you don't think I might read accounts of history from various sources, do you? Some years back a group of amateur historians at the office mentioned within earshot of me that "you'll never see a history of the Second World War in German!" The next day I brought in a copy of "Zweiter Weltkrieg im Bildern." Of course the Laendser were the good guys, and the war in the Pacific lasted two pages. Barbara Tuchman, a nice Jewish girl, did a marvelous job of background on a variety of key epochs, going with the treasury's records instead of the accounts provided to the King. She exemplifies the Historian as skeptic. Thomas Sowell is male and white haired, but not white, and his treatment of the nonwhite experience in the Americas, as well as his history of slavery, is brilliant. It has been said that Progressives vigorously defend people's right to different opinions - and are horrified by the fact that people hold different opinions. When the fundamental tenet of an investigation is "everything is, first and foremost, all about race," it is hardly surprising that everything that results is, first and foremost, all about race (kind of a coincidence there). My Rabbi in Texas was a degreed Historian before his Rabbinical studies. Torah study was great, since he would go through the Hebrew account, then point out that Egyptian accounts of the same event had been translated, and that (strangely enough) they took a slightly different position on what happened, who won and so forth. If I read something that is dripping with racism, I try to filter it out to get to the heart of the matter, which can be difficult when the source is so biased. Mein Kampf is a dreadful read. No apologies, but I don't give anyone a pass. I don't buy the concept of 'good racism,' and CRT, while they don't go for burning crosses and whatnot, is every bit as racist as the Klan (you'll forgive me if I greatly dislike the KKK, not simply because they killed Jews with as much enthusiasm as Blacks). BSBD, Winsor

I can't see how it makes any difference. As I pointed out earlier, we are talking past each other - which may, indeed, be for the best. I don't recall you seeking to clarify much, and I am not holding my breath that you are likely to consider what I have to say under the assumption that I mean what I say ("Dittohead?!" Jesus...). BSBD, Winsor

In general, clinical trials are exhaustive, take years and cost an insane amount of money. For an EUA the process is massively truncated. Safety concerns crop up all too frequently thereafter, and it is not unusual for the EUA to be yanked when it turns out it is not statistically effective. There is no way the long term effects of the vaccine could be evaluated, given its existence can be conveniently measured in minutes. I've worked on the approval of rather a few pharmaceuticals that worked like magic, but turned out to have effects that weren't optimal during clinical trials. I got the Pfizer vaccine, but expect that our picture of its effects will be different when it's been around as long as it would have taken to get through the normal approval process. FWIW, our EUA is based on the full EU approval process and years of safe and effective use. We also recommend that you do everything you can not to get sick enough to need us. With COVID-19, we can keep you undead rather than being you back to health. It's a bad bug. BSBD, Winsor

Your turn.

I have no idea what you think you're talking about. I wasn't referring to this website at all, and, if it is, in fact, all about you, that's news to me. BSBD, Winsor

I look at sources such as: https://criticalrace.org/what-is-critical-race-theory/ and am simply appalled. CRT is 100% racist. Period. I doubt if the KKK is as blatant about their stance that it is ALL about race. 'Equality' is a worthwhile goal but 'equity' is discrimination in practice. Similarly 'diversity' is a racial metric, and entirely racist in practice. When the Wall fell, East Germans concept of 'Capitalism' was what they had 'learned' from their teachers (academics?), and some of them moved West to cash in on the gold mine that was now open to them. Having limited useful skills and a Socialist work ethic ('"we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"), success was elusive for many. Finding out that simply being German wasn't the key to instant wealth, and seeing that even Turks were doing better - driving new BMWs and dressing well - many called foul and formed the core of the 'skinhead' movement. The point that largely escaped them about why (some) Turkish Gastarbeiter were successful and they were not is that the successful Turks were hard working, reliable, honest and did a great job at menial tasks the West Germans were happy to hand off. The unsuccessful Ossies, OTOH, were unreliable drunken louts who seemed to think there was a 'trick' to success. The idea that 'it is all about race' overlooks the influence of culture - among other things. There has been great pushback amongst CRT adherents about including pretty much any group of Asians (Asia's a pretty big place, and all Asians are not the same as I recall) as a minority, since it blows out of the water the principle that being subject to discrimination guarantees mediocrity of outcome. Harvard has been taken to task for their limit on Asian admissions. I caught an interview with Ibram X. Kendi, and when asked to define 'racism' his response used the term 'racist' three times. Thus, when people refer to CRT as 'academic' I am underwhelmed. There are Professors at Big Name Institutions of my acquaintance who are not where they are because of their intellect - they can blather endlessly without a coherent thought to slow them down. I find racism offensive and always have. I can see no reason why I should have any more respect for CRT than for KKK ideology; I see them as flip sides of the same coin. My standpoint does not come from 'following' much of anyone. I listen to as much Rush Limbaugh now as I did when he was alive (okay, so I caught maybe half an hour of his 'entertainment' over the years), and made it through only a couple of pages of some book by Ann Coulter that somebody gave me. I needed earplugs to read her stuff, and am not sure if I agree or disagree with her since I couldn't get past her screaming on paper. It concerns me that people are fine with CRT. If racism is okay then it's okay, if racism is evil it's evil. I kind of stick with the latter view. A quick search for a definition of 'racism' yields the following: Racism noun a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. Since this flies in the face of my preference for equal rights, equal responsibilities, no more, no less I am not okay with it in any guise, whether the version espoused by CRT or the KKK. BSBD, Winsor

According to Aldous Huxley, "The perfect dictatorship would have the appearance of a democracy, but would basically be a prison without walls in which the prisoners would not even dream of escaping. It would essentially be a system of slavery where, through consumption and entertainment, the slaves would love their servitudes." Thus the absence of a 'Hitler' figure is no assurance of anything resembling an egalitarian system. My contention that nobody sees themselves as evil is in keeping with the observation that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' Back to the EUA, having committed to vaccines 100%, making mention of any potential alternate has resulted in the source of the claim disappearing. Exactly why I don't know, but I have watched it in practice since the early days of the pandemic. Oh, I suppose it's for the best... BSBD, Winsor

Please point to the section of the article that recommends anything like censorship. I've gone through it a few times and can't quite spot the recommendation you reference. What 'lies' are these? Calling something a lie does not make it untrue. Who in particular is the Alt-Right? Anyone who calls bullshit on notions the Left calls dear? If you have a coherent stance, by all means submit it. If all you have is abuse, I suppose that will have to do in the meantime. BSBD, Winsor

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that we are on such different wavelengths, and I can't get too hung up because the level of communication is thus zero. My guess is that we are doomed to talk past each other. I have witnessed rather a few videos and posts that made no unfounded accusations and simply referenced research that was not in accordance with the prevailing orthodoxy disappear. These were not antivax or whatever, and did not call anyone names or recommend anything dangerous or ill considered, but they were swept up in the ban. Yes, I know Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. are private companies, and understand that your censorship is always justified and noble, but I am referring to the prevailing tendency to tune out or drown out anything that calls into question a narrative that differs from the current liturgy. I know there are people who miss the DDR and the USSR and the like, but when I was there my personal impression was "this really blows." That doesn't make them wrong and me right - or that 'capitalism' is good, for that matter, it's just my take. I stand by my observation that Orwell was an optimist. BSBD, Winsor

Your most eloquent criticism has been noted and considered for its merits. Regarding clinical trials as a function of the EUA process. do your homework and get back to me. BSBD, Winsor

This: https://anestesiologia.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-EVMS-COVID-19-Management-Protocol.pdf is the pdf file for EVMS' COVID protocol. The 386 references they cite are not hyperlinks, but rather a few can be tracked down, and they are interesting. The references to work that does not show up on a Google search of the subject are hardly comprehensive. The point here is that there is a lot more going on besides vaccination. What concerns me is the level of censorship afoot. If someone wants to publish a work that does not stand up to scrutiny, it seems to be a lot less damaging to subject the thesis to scrutiny than it is to censor the work outright. I suppose Godwin's law applies if I suggest that Kristallnacht was 'largely peaceful' and that burning books in the Bebelplatz was just a harmless bit of venting by students. I still am concerned by censorship, which is the hallmark of totalitarian ideologies. Anything on Facebook, YouTube or other popular social media that points out less than optimal features of vaccination tends to disappear in short order, regardless of the credibility of the source. A logical 'proof' generally involves failing to disprove the theorem under consideration rather than denigrating the attempt to disprove it. Scientific theories that are put forth with religious fervor are all the more suspect - when someone says "The Science is SETTLED!," the only thing they achieve is to convince me that they have a poor understanding of the scientific process. From such data as I can obtain, it makes sense to get vaccinated, though I'd avoid the Astra-Zenica and J&J products as a matter of course. Given studies of unexpected migration of lipid nanoparticles, I'd want more reliable data before giving the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines to a kid. Balancing long-term immunity against long term side effects is why we conduct clinical trials - which have been bypassed for these vaccines. Since autopsies of COVID-19 fatalities show vitamin D deficiency across the board, 4,000 IU a day of D3 can't hurt. Zinc (no more than 50 mg/day) with an appropriate ionophore such as Quercetin seems to improve the odds. Ascorbic acid (1,000 mg/day of Vitamin C) appears related to better resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection as well. There are other supplements associated with an improved outcome, but this is a start. As with most viruses, keeping the inoculum low improves one's odds. Life is by its very nature a stochastic process (a crapshoot). Thus, loading the dice in one's favor to the extent possible improves the odds and is strongly advised. Though I hear various sources saying 'let them die' with regard to anti-vaxers or others with whom they disagree, I do not wish this disease on anyone. It is a bad bug, and the damage inflicted by microthrombi is of the permanent sort, where even if you 'get better' your life trajectory has been permanently altered for the worse. I don't ask that anyone 'believe' me, but that they do their homework and do everything in their power to avoid getting sick in the first place - even those who are generally mad at me. Good luck, Winsor

The article on "The Hedgehogs of Critical Race Theory" nails it rather succinctly: https://johnnotesandessays.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-hedgehogs-of-critical-race-theory.html This concept applies equally to any popular notion of "Justice" as well. For example, our 'System of Justice' is actually a 'Legal System;' as J. Edgar Hoover noted "Justice is incidental to Law and Order." Having seen the results of all too many utopian 'theories' when put into practice, I tend to view them as I do 'Perpetual Motion' - if one claims to violate the Clausius Inequality, their work can be dismissed out of hand. I again cite one of my favorite cynics, Henry L. Mencken (the Bard of Baltimore): "For every complex problem there exists a solution that is simple, elegant - and wrong." While I agree that many of the issues raised by the Woke are indeed significant, the 'solutions' they propose are anything but. BSBD, Winsor

You're right, 3 grams a day is off the charts, and there are better choices late in the game. I grabbed the wrong article, but read this one first: https://www.palmerfoundation.com.au/journal-of-medicine-says-hcq-zinc-reduces-covid-deaths/ This article seems to address the mechanism whereby HCQ is effective in conjunction with Zinc, as well as the politics behind the censorship of anything HCQ related. I know the orange man touted HCQ, and all too many people would rather die than agree with him. All things being equal I hope something occurs that takes him out of the equation (he enters a monastery or prison or whatever), but do not accept or reject anything just because he said it. Come to think of it, about the only time I hear anything from him is when he is quoted. If I can come up with a printout of the references that EVMS published I will post them. They did a pretty good job of coming up with worthwhile research. Live long and prosper, Winsor

Prophylaxis.

You're right, at least the same extent as usual. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/06/09/hydroxychloroquine-study-n2590700