Yusef, commenting on an earlier post, pointed out that if reported US Covid-19 deaths relative to population were similar to the numbers reported for the rest of the world:
"we would have 4% of the covid-related deaths. Instead we have 20%, or 5X what we "should" have"
But I see no reason to believe the US stats.
The US has clearly superseded the Soviet Union as the world's biggest liar.
The US doesn't merely lie about important things such as the reasons for "bombing the shit out of" this or that country (to use President Trump's idiom), but about almost everything.
Like the dying Soviet Union, the US teaches lies in its schools and universities.
Indeed, lies are the only essential part of the US educational curriculum, hence America's continuing decline in the ratio of educational attainment per dollar expended, which must be about the lowest in the world.
Americans, like the citizens of Russia in the days of the Soviet Union are living with lies.
Lies about almost everything. From Black lives matter, meaning all white people are racists who deny that black lives matter, to a seemingly endless list of mind-numbing bullshit from micro-aggressions to triggering, pussy hats, cultural appropriation, and the demand for less whiteness, aka European cultural and racial genocide.
Which means that Americans get more lies and sheer nonsense for their educational dollar than anyone else. As the inevitable result, Americans have the lowest rate of academic achievement per dollar invested than any other country in the world, although the Brits are right up there along with the people of Canada where, to quote a national newspaper headline, Universities have become cesspools of political correctness.
What to do?
Well obviously when you are in the throws of a Communist takeover your chances of doing anything to counter the menace other than hurt yourself are slight. But here's how to make a start in transforming "education" from a process of Communist indoctrination to a process of productive learning.
Enact legislation that:
Embodies in education the old English principle that "Sticks and stone may break my bones but words can never hurt me;"
Makes academic achievement the driving principle of education at all levels;
Pays teachers according to student achievement, and pays the best teachers more than the top educational bureaucrats.
But nothing of the kind, obviously, will be done.
We are all doomed. Doomed to live under the increasingly tyrannical rule of fools and scoundrels.
Related:
Philip Giraldi: The Decline of the West: American Education Surrenders to ‘Equity’
Reuters: White House working with Facebook and Twitter to tackle anti-vaxxers
I think you're making some very important points here, CS. In a very succinct and eloquent way.
ReplyDeleteAs a point of clarification: when I made the quoted statement, I merely meant to comment on Otis Brawley's assumptions when he quoted those figures. I consider his assumptions absurd.
There were a bunch of assumptions Brawley made, and undoubtedly some are demonstrably false, and he should have known it or suspected it.
The specific one I think is absurd. He seems to believe if everything was A-OK, there would be something resembling an "equitable" distribution of disease. 4% of the world's population would have 4% of the world's corona virus disease. Every salient scientific aspect of the crisis is masked by this nonsense.
We could have more than our "fair" share of disease due to factors having nothing to do with our response per se. Otis made clear in his other quoted statements he solely attributed the US disease grab as being due to our poor response and deviations from "the basics." (The basics: hand washing, masking, social distancing, and vaccines "as soon as possible".)
We could and would have more than our "fair" share of disease due to having a relatively aged population. In fact, this is, as far as I frigging know, a proven factor in the way the disease mortality has played out here AND EVERYWHERE ELSE in the world. It isn't how we responded to the disease, exactly, because, correct me if I am wrong, we and the others had aged populations prior to corona virus.
I want to go on, but this is enough.
I've thought a lot more about the discrepancy between predicted and actual deaths. These guys want to imply-- but not explicitly state-- the corona virus response accounts for it.
The more I think about it, the more I realize the 135% number is real, but the number of deaths due to "unintended" consequences, collateral damage, of lock downs and the rest, IS STAGGERING.
We never had an MSM reporting on ANY OF IT. People do die of starvation and malnutrition, even in the US. People tend to starve when they don't have food. Even in the US. We have indirect reports of hungry Americans. They got hungrier as time went on, which could account for the otherwise inexplicable "second wave" death explosion in the last third of 2020.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqPltMpWIwo
Thank you for your kind commendation of my post, which is, I suppose, no more than the exasperated expression of a widely held view.
DeleteHere in Canada, a 2019 poll found 52% of those responding considered this to be a can't do, "broken" society, and Canada's response to the Covid epidemic seems to confirm that.
"We could and would have more than our "fair" share of disease due to having a relatively aged population."
Exactly. That is a reason advanced for the relatively low death toll in India where only 5.6% of the population is over 65, versus 26% in the US.
"We never had MSM reporting on ANY OF IT."
Yes, which makes one wonder if the epidemic is not an exercise in induced mass hysteria, the better to adjust the Western world to (a) a lower living standard, (b) the introduction of an "iron rice bowl," aka universal basic income, etc., the main factor making totalitarian Communism acceptable, even comfortable to a large majority of those who lived under it in the Soviet Union, and (c) a regimented life under constant surveillance and technology enforced discipline.
It's driving me nuts. "I only know what I read in the papers," Will Rogers said. Yeah, and as you say, "The US has clearly superseded the Soviet Union as the world's biggest liar." Our journalists are at most entertainers, not journalists. At worst they are propagandists. Our scientists appear to have adopted Lysenkoist methodology, in which case they aren't scientists, but liars. None can be trusted, but flying through life blind is nightmarish.
DeleteCuomo being investigated for his (mis-)handling of the pandemic:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nationalreview.com/2021/02/the-cuomo-investigation-confusion/?utm_source=recirc-%5BSCREENSIZE%5D&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=second
Maybe we should create a Lysenko award. I'll donate five bucks toward the prize, maybe a medal cast in lead showing a bust of ol' Trof' together with his master, Joe. Nominations invited.
DeleteI nominate whomever is responsible for continuing to ignore the age-stratification of the virus's victims. Probably our dear Fauci. Certainly he's on any shortlist.
DeleteAbout the NYT article: I couldn't help noticing the reference to Robert F. Kennedy,Jr. "a prominent anti-vaccine activist" making demonstrably false claims.
ReplyDeleteMuch, much earlier-- last year-- somehow or other I went to a site where RFK,Jr. claimed he was going to file a lawsuit against one of the pharma companies for over-hyping their progress on vaccine development. The idea was they were reporting overly-optimistic results in order to get a pop in their share price. Do you recall this?
Anyway, I bothered to contact him to get further information.
It would have been so easy for him to have a secretary give me a short response. Failing that, maybe he could have had someone in his office prepare an automatic response. I couldn't have been the only one out there genuinely curious. It would have been enough to say there would be further information forthcoming as the situation developed.
I got nothing. In the meantime, nothing has developed.
What is this stuff?
I swear part of our problem is we think we have a few friends and heroes in the system doing their best to crusade on our behalf, but we don't. I don't think the guy is stupid or incompetent. He becomes, in effect, an important element in promoting vaccination and eliminating criticism if his highly visible criticisms are bogus. Fake news. Fake opposition. It does seem endless. I do agree with the article "normal" critical thinking is thwarted here. (I'm less sure lateral reading and so on is the remedy.)
ReplyDeleteFrom the NYT piece:
"...just investigate the source,” Mr. Caulfield said. He copied Mr. Kennedy’s name in the Instagram post and popped it into Google. “Look how fast this is,” he told me as he counted the seconds out loud. In 15 seconds, he navigated to Wikipedia and scrolled through the introductory section of the page, highlighting with his cursor the last sentence, which reads that Mr. Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist."
Mr. Kennedy is tagged as an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist. Mr. Caulfield seems to think this label alone is enough to discredit Mr. Kennedy. "See how easy this is," he says. That's probably the appeal of thinking this way, Mr. Caulfield. It's easy. It makes a blithe assumption anti-vaccine activists and conspiracy theorists are wrong about everything. It also makes the blithe assumption people are always accurately tagged. That no one gets smeared. That no one is ever targeted with a smear campaign in order to discredit their valid claims.
“Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the best, unbiased source on information about a vaccine? I’d argue no. And that’s good enough to know we should probably just move on,” he said."
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is not a scientist. He's a lawyer and politician. He is also a Congressman. He's elected to office. He's elected to office to advocate certain positions--without any pretense to objectivity or being free of bias. In fact, to represent the INTERESTS of the electorate he serves. Kennedy has a duty to be as objective as possible in determining the truth. If it turns out he is deliberately lying or falsifying information, he is not fit to lead. I would put him in jail. This has nothing to do with him being a best source of unbiased information. That is not his role! It probably is worth observing (or it should be) a Congressman of his stature has enough concern about viruses, the role of big for-profit pharma in vaccinations, and so on. It is in itself "information". Just moving on...Sure, investigate further. But dismiss? Nope. This is dumb.
"He probed deeper into the method to find better coverage by copying the main claim in Mr. Kennedy’s post and pasting that into a Google search. The first two results came from Agence France-Presse’s fact-check website and the National Institutes of Health. His quick searches showed a pattern: Mr. Kennedy’s claims were outside the consensus — a sign they were motivated by something other than science."
A little problem here, Mr. Caulfield. Science is not decided by consensus. For you to say that shows you are not qualified to be pronouncing on science. Being outside the consensus indicates one is outside the consensus, not wrong. Not necessarily. Often enough, being outside consensus indicates a correct view. Or a piece of the puzzle which must be carefully considered even if ultimately rejected. "Outside consensus" is the critical voice which whatever way the investigations break MUST be heeded. It is crucial for the progress of science. The dissenting voice. What is this-- an article on critical thinking oblivious to the nature of ALL critical thinking. I'm pissed. Typical NYT piss water.
It doesn't help, CS, I have my own niggling doubts about Mr. RFK, Jr's credibility. These questions of RFK, Jr's credibility also lack credibility.
Mr. Caulfield,
ReplyDeleteEver consider Google may be stacking and filtering those results which come up so quickly and easily? Ever consider Google has nearly unrestricted powers to determine what you see and don't see? Ever consider Google is hideously biased?
Yours Truly,
Yusef
A Concerned Citizen
I didn't notice until now you had added the "don't think for yourself, just do what they tell ya" to the NYT link provided.
ReplyDeleteThe piece does criticize critical thinking and offers a bogus alternative claiming it is a superior, revamped form of critical thinking (a.k.a thinking for yourself) so at first I was confused both by it and by your intentions in providing the link.
The problems are ultimately political and will only be solved politically. Political action leading to a solution will require concerted and coordinated efforts by average citizens.
It is a political problem if our educational systems have been diverted away from one of their primary missions, preparing young minds for the daunting intellectual tasks of citizenship. A political decision to effect this diversion was made and it will take political action to reverse and end it.
Similarly with the enormous power of Big Tech. A political decision was made to allow this power to be concentrated in those hands (and then to consecrate the decision as being merited by the Tech Moguls "earning" this power). Only a political movement will reverse it.
This has to be emphasized over and over again because individual actions (and critical thinking is an individual action, maybe the sine qua non of individual action) seem to be emphasized over and over to the point where individual actions begin to seem the only ones conceivable or possible. They are surely necessary but will never be sufficient.
Critical thinking is likely impossible under the current conditions. We have to know something for sure about what's currently happening, and usually for anything politically important, we know little or nothing truly reliable. We have a pretty good idea what's necessary to restoring the conditions of critical thinking. That'll help, but unless we can invent and develop political actions to effect the restoration, this alone will not be sufficient.
I hope this makes sense.
"We have a pretty good idea what's necessary to restoring the conditions of critical thinking. That'll help, but unless we can invent and develop political actions to effect the restoration..."
DeleteYes, that makes sense. And here in Canada, the only real political leadership as almost always, is from Quebec, currently in the form of the People's Party of Canada, the flavor of which is revealed here, and here.
B-b-b-but... Justin likes Sleepy Joe. Or anyway just said so.
DeleteSeriously, I was curious about all the energy people getting thrown out of work because of Biden's damfool "emissions targets" and what shows up on my search engine today (February 23) is several articles in the US MSM saying how happy Mr. Trudeau is that America is showing "real leadership" again. He was talking to Biden in Washington via video.
Worse, they agree to throw more people out of work, sorry, reduce carbon emissions. Is it the "no people, no carbon" program?
God I miss the old man. Elliot Trudeau made fun of Nixon and Kissinger at the drop of a hat. I was with the family in Ontario when Pierre Elliot made his famous "wallet check" after shaking Kissinger's hand. Nice and sly.
Somebody needs to throw Justin a hint that we could all use some of that now. Especially us, but it wouldn't hurt Canada either.
Yeah, I knew when I said the only political wit in Canada was from Quebec someone would immediately cite Justin.
DeleteJustin is a worthy scion of Pierre and Margaret Trudeau: good looking, devious, and stupid -- a disaster waiting to happen, for Canada if not for himself and his friends.
But Maxime Bernier, .whose conversation with Prof. Salim Mansur is so much more intelligent than any other discussion you are likely ever to see in public in Canada, confirms my point.
Bernier, is a genuine heavyweight (a former Canadian foreign minister, Industry Minister, etc, etc.) who unwisely hitched his wagon to the Conservative Party.
Thing is, there is no Conservative Party in Canada: merely a second liberal party, i.e., a bunch of opportunists intent on seizing the middle ground to use a Blairite notion, while stuffing their pockets at public expense.
Trudeau, incidentally, was not the first choice for the Liberal leadership after Prime Minister Jean Chrétien stepped down, that was Paul Martin.
DeleteMartin, soon to be dubbed Mr. Dithers, easily lost the next election.
The Liberals' second choice was Stephan Dion, who easily lost the next election to Machiavellian control-freak Stephen Harper.
After that, the Libs went for ex-patriot, Harvard Prof. and Soros stooge, Michael Ignatieff.
Ignatieff returned briefly to Canada to blow the next election before returning to Harvard via the University of Toronto.
Only then did the Libs conclude that they'd have to settle for the big name and pretty face of Justin Trudeau, a lightweight opportunist with a love of Communist dictators, and fancy dress.
It's a formula that seems to work well for most Canadians.
Speaking of. I mean, I'm sure you've seen enough of these to want to scream. But the pictures of Father and Son are uncanny:
Deletehttps://medium.com/@leibowitt/of-course-fidel-castro-is-justin-trudeaus-dad-nobody-has-debunked-anything-4db6fc8a9042
Actually, no. I'd never before seen those pictures, which are certainly remarkable, and suggest a reason for Justin's love of Commie dictators.
DeleteSomewhat on topic since the main post deals with lies, here is a comprehensive thread about the origins of the great panic:
ReplyDeletehttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1364954548427702281.html
Thanks for that URL, which I have added to the list of links in the current post.
Delete