winsor

Wait! Are you suggesting the I may have made a mistake?!!! If I ever did, I don't know how I could live with myself.

Gee, if I ever want to know what I'm thinking I'll be sure to ask you.

Badly phrased, I agree, but when I consider the responses I am often left wondering quite to what is being responded. If I never said or meant what is being refuted, it is not as likely a straw man as it is that what was said was not understood in the first place. I make no claim at being smart. I do, however, note that some people are remarkably stupid (according to some sources I fall into that category).

The problem with many of the policies I find objectionable is they it's all been done before, with the outcome being rather consistent. The old doing the same thing and expecting different results scenario. What constitutes 'good' and 'bad' often depends on how you phrase the question. There are some things that are (almost) universally seen as good or bad, though the details can get a bit muddled. For example, being well-fed is largely seen as better than being hungry, though having your arteries clogged by an unlimited amount of foods likely to cause that condition has its down side. Also, quite what constitutes a 'solution' can be problematic, the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Some of the worst ecological and humanitarian disasters have been set in motion by people with the best of intentions. We are given to authoring one Schlimmverbesserung (~the cure is worse than the disease) after another, since 'the greatest source of problems is solutions.' I've read enough of Baldwin's work to appreciate his genius, though I don't fully identify with him and differ with rather a few of his conclusions. In the context of this thread, I am much closer to Thomas Sowell's stance. BSBD, Winsor

Somehow he reminds me of 'Michael Myers,' what with Halloween coming up and all. Any Schadenfreude that came from seeing Hillary defeated is largely outweighed by having had The Donald do it. I welcome any event that puts a stake through his political heart - short of putting Hillary in charge.

Given the Law of Unintended Consequences, 'change' does not necessarily mean 'improve.' In all too many cases, vociferous opponents of one regime or another have generated a reaction from said regime that was exactly the opposite of what was intended, and things were that much worse thereafter.

*We're from the Government and we're here to help!"

I'm sure you do.

If you have a semester to spare, I could walk you through it. Strike that - you're right, as far as you can tell.

Out of curiosity, what leads you to the conclusion that I don't do everything in my power to contribute to a sustainable future?

Feasting on the seed corn. Clever idea, that!

None that is either workable or palatable. It has been my longstanding observation that our only inexhaustible natural resource is stupidity, and Woke is but symptomatic of that reality. I suppose a competing bit of mental malware that is less catastrophic would help, but you'd need a neurotypical with sufficient insight, motivation, cynicism and a sense of humor to pull it off. Unfortunately, the Elron Hubbards and Joseph Smiths of the world are generally too fucked up themselves to be of much use. Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think... BSBD, Winsor

The initial motivation was in response to an ideology that is both idiotic and pathological Is anything for which the Woke crowd demands 'justice' currently or historically just peachy? Not hardly. Does anything espoused by the Woke crowd constitute a solution? Fuck no. It's ALL been tried before, and the results have been uniformly disastrous. Being a lifelong atheist, I judge religions by the extent of their pathology. Time spent in Socialist Workers' Paradises put Communism and similar ideologies into the religion bracket. If we were actually talking about social ills and effective ways to address them, cool. When people choose to parrot the patent nonsense that underpins Social Justice stance, I can't see the benefit of pretending it isn't simply an exercise in stupidity. Given what I'm accused of being or thinking, I don't have a high level of confidence that those who decry my points actually understand them. Too many ten dollar words? A discussion akin to the impact of Black Muslim influence on Chicago neighborhoods, where prostitution, drug dealing, gambling and alcoholism were reduced greatly by a seriously fucked up ideology, would be of interest regarding Woke. Unfortunately, I keep finding myself in that courtyard of a University in Berlin where zealous young students burned books that were anathema to the ism du jour. I wish I could see much difference between them and the"largely peaceful' protesters of today. When in other countries where I can't escape the conclusion that "you people are seriously fucked up," I pretty much keep it to myself and go elsewhere. Unfortunately, the bright eyed young students in Boston with the most dull witted ideas I knew those many years ago turn out to be but a harbinger of things to come. I don't expect anything to change for the better, and see Woke as the canary in the coal mine, telling us just how screwed we are. As you were, Winsor

Correct.

I thought it was, but I've been wrong about what was and was not legal in the past. In any event, I got the third shot the first day it was available.

Thanks, I would love it if I could elicit a coherent response more often than not. It would certainly be refreshing.

I'm not sure what I did that wounded you so deeply, but it was not my intent. I am somewhat surprised to find how thin skinned you are, I can think of no reason you should be so insecure. I hope you get over whatever is wrong with you. All the best, Winsor

Nope, just venting my spleen. People likely to get it have already figured it out. Those who think Woke is a Good Thing are sure to view anything I say as heresy. What else is new? BSBD, Winsor

I didn't. I have been wearing an N-95 as a matter of course since well before it became fashionable. My point is that the WHO, CDC and Dr, Fauci went back and forth as to whether or not or by whom or when or quite why should masks be worn. As far as medical professionals being in perfect agreement, to some extent they are. According to the old advert, "9 out of 19 Doctors recommend Chesterfield cigarettes..." (I think that was the brand). As far as providing unsafe medical advice goes, I can't recall recommending anything more dangerous than to do everything possible to avoid exposure, to minimize the inoculum if exposed, to maximize immunity and resistance by any means possible and to get the best treatment available. BSBD, Winsor

I'm sure there are some specifics with which we would agree. Over the course of the pandemic you've had a lot of back and forth about: masks yes or no, cloth, surgical or N-95, indoors only or outdoor as well; sneeze guards good or bad; natural origin or CRiSPR; ventilators or not; contaminated surface spread or primarily aerosol; vaccinated and you're in the clear or you may still get it and be infectious; human only or animal reservoir; herd immunity or not; so on ad nauseum. All of these issues have been contested by personnel and/or organizations claiming expertise. If you are either unaware of these things or consider them unimportant, xin loi. BSBD, Winsor

Yo' mama.

What makes you think I didn't read every word of it? I'm vaccinated all to hell, and use every arrow in the quiver to reduce the likelihood that I will either contract the disease or suffer a bad outcome if I somehow do. My point is that people who are fervent believers in the efficacy of the various vaccines should rethink their stance. The statement from the White House to the effect that getting vaccinated guaranteed a positive outcome and eliminated the spread of disease, "full stop," is demonstrably bullshit. How well does it work? It rather depends on who you ask. Right now the opinions of the various 'experts' are akin to those of Rabbis (put 4 Rabbis together and you'll get 6 opinions). Anyhow, the data in the paper are interesting, and fly in the face of the blanket statements that have been proffered regarding immunization rates for 'herd immunity,' the level of protection afforded by immunization and so forth. The fact that the societies with the highest immunization rates have higher infection rates than do societies with the lowest immunization rates proves nothing by itself, but is an interesting datum. Lighten up. BSBD, Winsor

Oh, I don't think it's so much a matter of not knowing everything as not being particularly worked up about it one way or another. I don't expect someone from, say, Lhasa to be all that concerned about what I, my family and people like me have gone through. It's rather an abstraction, eliciting at best a 'that's nice' or 'that's too bad.' Nothing personal. Brother Duane put it well:

Or think they do, as the case may be.

Most assuredly, but I don't aspire to 'Woke' status in the first place. It is my experience that people who presume to 'educate' me by and large consist of fatuous assholes who know slightly less than nothing themselves. There are, of course, exceptions.