19 thoughts on “🂡🃘🂨🃑🂽

    1. @3:12, [doctor visiting man with leg bitten off] “Yes, there’s a lot of it about, probably a virus…”

      Also, has anyone checked the coronavirus pockets for wild roaming tigers?

      Like

  1. Should we have a humane discussion on weather “Black Lives Matter” should be:

    Black Lives Matter
    Negro Lives Matter
    Colored Lives Matter

    Listen, it has evolved over time, thus proving itself to be very “fluid”… In other words, what is proper today may not be proper tomorrow.

    Like

  2. What to make of CDC’s current report on excess mortality? It comes with pages and pages of difficult explanation of their methodology— the different parameters for making estimates, regional reporting differences, statistical algorithms used. Too much for me to unpack. It does have a visual graph showing a 200k spike beginning this year.

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

    What happened to the one we saw here once that was just “all cause mortality”? Is there a current version of THAT chart for comparison, or is this link the extent of their all cause reporting at present.

    Like

  3. Many rumors are circulating and the new one is about this coming Friday Sept 18th.
    Of course Friday will come and go with hopefully nothing or very little happening.
    However the # 9-18 is a dead man’s date.
    9, 1+8=9, then 9×9=81 8+1=9…An upside down 666, with the 6’s added =18. multiplied =216, 2+1+6=9.
    Whether added or multiplied, the sequences give a 9 or 18.
    It would be a good date for the Elite to slam the hammer down.

    http://tapnewswire.com/2020/09/september-18th-flagged-as-next-lockdown-date-a-second-time-called-under-the-dome/

    Like

  4. Please excuse a long comment; I was going to submit it for consideration as a post, but could not find an email address to send to.

    &&&&&&&&
    Brief Notes on “Talking to Strangers” (2019) by Malcolm Gladwell

    Has anyone else read this? He discusses several social scientists whose work would probably be of interest to readers here, as they deal with “lie detection” and the limits of human ability in this area. The book is actually structured as a series of (brief) case studies of big media news stories (and a couple historical events or meetings.) The social science is interspersed throughout, as though it can illumine these (probable) pseudo-events and scripted dramas. (Who knows, perhaps the social science came first, and the dramas were designed using their conclusions?)

    It’s a quick, interesting read. Though rather naive of course in its credulous acceptance of all these media narratives. But what to make of the “social science” it reports on? Much of it SEEMS credible, even when it’s surprising or unexpected. He gives enough context to make a convincing case.

    But the studies do have subtle red flags, and invite closer scrutiny, especially if coming from a POM perspective. For instance, the chapters about the social science and experiments that led to a revolution in policing tactics. In the original study, the researchers concluded that crime was closely “coupled” to very limited areas— not just neighborhoods, but certain blocks or even street segments. In a landmark Kansas City experiment, these tiny areas were targeted for aggressive policing. Stopping cars for minor infractions, as a pretext to confiscate guns or pick up on actual criminal behavior. The experiment was allegedly a stunning success, leading to greatly reduced crime rates in those areas, and hence the larger city.

    Was the study and experiment real and successful as claimed? Well, whether it was or not, it was promoted as such and rapidly adopted by police chiefs around the country (and world.) With one key difference— according to Gladwell, scientific illiteracy on the chiefs’ part led to rejection of the “coupling” thesis, and adoption of just the “aggressive policing” tactic(!) (This was in the mid to late ‘90s that it was adopted.)

    Then again— could suspicious minds wonder if the Rutgers-based, Yale-trained social scientists were providing a fig leaf rationale for a predetermined change in policing tactics? They needed to convince the chiefs, or at least give them PR cover if they were criticized? “This is based on recent research that crime will be reduced by xx%, see this study…”

    The profs, in Gladwell’s telling, were somewhat distressed by this misuse of their research, but powerless to bring the nectar of enlightenment to those hard-headed, scientifically illiterate cops. The cops liked the experiment’s results, but “knew” that crime wasn’t “coupled.” “Get outta here with your pantywaist ‘coupling’ talk! I’VE walked a beat, I know the criminal mind. They’ll just move a block over.” Sounds reasonable. But disregards the work of the “science gods”…

    (Random wild speculation: is it possible that these “coupled” areas of high crime in every city, demonstrated by the same social researchers, coincide with high concentrations of “fakery”? Are there scattered city blocks/streets designated for such use? To keep the “fear of crime” alive and well? Areas where the trapped, low income elderly residents hunker down behind barred windows and drawn curtains, as fortnightly theatricals play out in their midst?)

    “Coupling” also applied, Gladwell says, in the case of the AIDS epidemic. Fifty census zones out of 5000 (IIRC) provided most cases. Curious, although I suppose we could be talking the most population dense areas.

    Anyway, this is just one interesting detour in his book that raises many questions and offers much food for thought. His discussion of “truth default tendency” (people need overwhelming evidence to distrust others) and “transparency” (people assume visible expressions correlate with internal states, despite a large percentage of people on either end of the scale— innocent people who act guilty, guilty people who can feign innocence) are also of interest.

    Like

  5. Ah, i was also just thinking to submit something as a consideration for a post (about the same length as yours) but could find no email address.

    Like

      1. I wasn’t sure what the topic was… The Latin phrase is over my head, maybe that’s why I’m lost.

        No opinion on the cdc suddenly claiming 200k excess deaths…? Thats off topic too?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s