Oh, and let me dance in these ashes

 Lockdowns didn't work.  

According to the analysis, the lockdowns of 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by a mere 0.2 percent.

“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote in their analysis.

It was never about health, it was always about power.  Period.  Full Stop.  POWER.  And they Marxist tyrants got it.  In some states like Kalifornia, they're holding on to it like their lives depend on it, which they just might.

LOCKDOWNS DO NOT WORK.  THEY NEVER WORKED.  THEY NEVER WILL WORK.  VIRUS GONNA VIRUS.

And Marxists gonna Marxist, all the way up until either they die or you do.

Dr. Ben Carson lays it out short and sweet.

 This guy is an actual doctor who has treated actual patients, unlike Mini-Mengele who hasn't done anything but suck up money and produce failure after failure.

The fact of the matter is, the mortality rate for children from COVID-19 is 0.025, which is very similar to the rate for seasonal flu. And we haven't been for years and years going through all these things for seasonal flu.

Plus, we don't know what the long-term impact of these vaccines is. So this is really sort of a giant experiment. Do we want to put our children at risk, when we know that the risk of the disease to them is relatively small, but we don't know what the future risks are? Why would we do a thing like that? It makes no sense whatsoever.

If you stick your kids with this vaccine, you deserve to be beaten about the head and shoulders with a clue-by-four.  There is absolutely no reason to jab your kids.  They're not at risk.  They have a higher chance of dying by falling off a ladder than they do from the Rona.  STOP FUCKING UP YOUR KIDS WITH AN EXPERIMENTAL COCKTAIL!

More confirmation of what we already knew

 At least half of the liberal harpies are mentally ill.

That’s exactly what Pew Research has found — and all politics aside, the shocking diagnosis of over 50% of liberal women with some form of mental health medical diagnosis is a public health concern that no one seems to be discussing, let alone taking seriously. 

Personally, I think these are mental illnesses that have been trained into them.  They've been told that they have to act like men.  They've been told that their only use is as corporate drones, working until they're past their child-bearing years.  They've been indoctrinated to ingest or inject hormones to prevent pregnancy that skews their mental and physical well-being out of balance.

The study, which examined white liberals, moderates, and conservatives, both male and female, found that conservatives were far less likely to be diagnosed with mental health issues than those who identified as either liberal or even “very liberal.” What’s more, white women suffered the worst of all. White women, ages 18-29, who identified as liberal were given a mental health diagnosis from medical professionals at a rate of 56.3%, as compared to 28.4% in moderates and 27.3% in conservatives.

It's also possible that people with mental illnesses are drawn to Leftist ideologies, but that would make it seem that there are a whole lot more women with mental illnesses now than there was years ago.  It also would not explain how women become more conservative as they get married and have a family.  Does the mental illness go away after you say "I do?"  Seems implausible to me.  I think it's more that these mental illnesses are created by Leftism rather than existing in the first place.

There's also the unrelenting focus on oppression, verbal violence, and micro-aggressions. We know that building resiliency against hardship is the best weapon against depression and anxiety, yet progressive ideology forces its followers to wallow in feelings of helplessness and victimhood. Instead of empowering women and minorities with self-knowledge, strength of character, and resilience to hardship, progressivism encourages victims to stay in a place of fear and helplessness.

And there you have it.

Leftist women are cray-cray.  The best way for a woman to be happy and healthy is to be a conservative.  Hey, it's SCIENCE!  BELIEVE IN SCIENCE, right?  Isn't that what the current narrative is?

In all seriousness - Leftism causes mental illness.  The science proves it.

Take your Kung Flu passport, fold it sideways, and shove it up your ass

 But of course, that drooling halfwit wants more government control over private citizens.  Well, not him specifically, but his puppet masters sure do.

Government lusts to control and destroy, and this idea embodies everything we fear about government. The civil liberties concern about the PATRIOT Act is Sesame Street compared to this unholy idea. It’s being mulled, and you will not be able to do anything without one. Want to add a cherry on top of this authoritarian sundae? Yeah, it’ll be tracking us too. 

Well, given that the DNC morphed into the National Socialist Democrat Worker's Party, it should be no surprise that they're all about demanding your papers before they let you travel.   Of course, New York's own Governor Granny Killer is all about the papers.  Hey, he can track whoever he wants now, right?  That sexy girl he groped in a bar who turned him down?  He knows where she's going, right?

Too add even more shit on top of that sundae, even MIT is being to admit that the anti-maskers are using that pesky "evidence" to prove their points that the pandemic is coming to a close.

We are making headway though, albeit frustratingly slower than we would like. And while our gains may be snail-like for us, the other side has been paying attention, and they are NOT happy about it. So, how SHOULD the powers-that-be deal with us rebellious, meddling upstarts who refuse to know our place, especially when we happen to have the data on our side and are using it effectively? One team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) did a whole lot of research to find out.

The Kung Flu was never as deadly as they told us, it came from a lab in Wuhan, China and not from some bat in a wet market, and the main damage it caused was the loss of freedom and prosperity because politicians loved them some lockdowns and tyrannical power grabs.  And don't think that's just a hit against the Dems.  Most of the states instituted some kind of lock-down for a period of time, and it was all for bullshit reasons.  Although, thank goodness, local officials did their best to ignore the mandates when they could do so.  But the politicization of "SCIENCE" has leveled any kind of trust that public officials ever had.  

“As a subculture, anti-masking amplifies anti-establishment currents pervasive in U.S. political culture,” the paper reads. “Data literacy, for anti-maskers, exemplifies distinctly American ideals of intellectual self-reliance, which historically takes the form of rejecting experts and other elites. The counter-visualizations that they produce and circulate not only challenge scientific consensus, but they also assert the value of independence in a society that they believe promotes an overall de-skilling and dumbing-down of the population for the sake of more effective social control. As they see it, to counter-visualize is to engage in an act of resistance against the stifling influence of central government, big business, and liberal academia … Most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution.”

Read that again.  And then understand that the douchetools wrote that paragraph to be a negative reflection on the anti-mask groups.

Gah.  I'm off to the salt mine.

Rather academic, but informative

 I love this quote:  Energy is the messenger, momentum is the message.  

It also helps explain why the 45 ACP is still so popular a cartridge.  Yes, it's slow.  But it's also heavy, which means that the power expressed on the target is much more than the 9mm.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy both calibers, but for different reasons.  

When it all boils down, energy=massXvelocity.  Physics never lies.

Leftists: Why don't you right wingers trust science? Also Leftists: THAT SCIENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT OUR NARRATIVE! BURN THE WITCH! BURRRRRRN HIM!

Gosh, tell me about how much the Left just f**king loves science again?

Michigan State University leaders have successfully pressured Stephen Hsu to resign from his position as vice president of research and innovation after the Graduate Employees Union launched a campaign to oust him from his role. 

This came after the union, which represents teaching and research assistants, crawled through years of blog posts and interviews Hsu had conducted and criticized him for sharing content on genetic differences among different races. 

But the main thrust to oust Hsu came because the professor touted Michigan State research that found police are not more likely to shoot African-Americans.

If you want to know why so many Americans are ignoring and rejecting the so-called "experts", all you have to do is look at the actions of said so-called "experts".  Opera, non verba.  Deeds, not words.  And the deeds of these Marxist, anti-American parasites is anything but scientific.

But sure, trust the government and listen to their "experts"

Because they would never falsify data, would they?

 A report from the New York Times on Tuesday suggests that as bad as the situation in New York City is even worse now—with one caveat. According to their report, New York City "sharply increased its [coronavirus] death toll by more than 3,700 victims on Tuesday, after officials said they were now including people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have died of it." 

What? People who never tested positive for the coronavirus are being counted in the official death toll? Why would they do that?

Folks, our entire country is being shut down, with numbers out of New York Fucking City being cited as a reason why we all have to stay in our homes while business after business gets destroyed, and they are FUCKING LYING TO YOU ABOUT THE REAL NUMBERS!

This is fake data, being used to push draconian measures to deal with a virus that doesn't kill nearly as many people as you are being told it does.

Does Liberalism cause mental illness?

I think it's the other way around.  Being mentally ill makes you more "liberal", politically speaking.  That's why you see hoards of Leftists melting down mentally and emotionally on college campuses around the country.  Because they're mentally ill first, and Leftist second.

They have charts and graphs.  Go look.

OK, yeah, but.....

So Boeing's Starliner's failure is being touted as some grand horrible failure that will end the world or something.

Boeing's new Starliner spacecraft landed in the New Mexico desert on Sunday morning — days after the NASA mission failed because the capsule's clock was improperly set, and the capsule ended up in the wrong orbit.

Yes, things didn't go quite right, but the spacecraft landed.  It was recovered.  Folks, space flight is hard.  It's not easy to do what we're trying to do.  And in case anyone wants a little context, the crew of the Apollo 1 mission died.  We've had two Space Shuttles disintegrate; one on take off, and one on landing.  The Ruskies had space craft blow the fuck up with people inside.

So we got a spacecraft that made orbit, landed and was recovered but didn't quite accomplish what people had hoped?  Dude, I'll take it.  Learn from the mistakes and move on to bigger and better things.  Finally.

Not mentioned in this article: The Obvious

Doctors are seeing more and more cases of drug-resistant HIV.

Health authorities have uncovered an alarming surge in resistance to crucial HIV drugs. 

Surveys by the World Health Organization (WHO) reveal that, in the past 4 years, 12 countries in Africa, Asia and the Americas have surpassed acceptable levels of drug resistance against two drugs that constitute the backbone of HIV treatment: efavirenz and nevirapine.

There is much weeping and wailing about this fact, with much speculation as to why it's happening.  And not one single mention of the most obvious reasons:

The vast majority of people who contract HIV/AIDS do so through risky behaviors.  Promiscuous sex and IV drugs.  Giving people the anti-virals doesn't automatically stop the risky behavior.  And that's not even touching the fact that these people have contracted a virus that is known for mutating rapidly enough that the human body can't keep up with it. 

Drug-resistant HIV is around for the same reason that drug-resistant gonorrhea is around:  Because people refuse to modify their behavior in order to avoid catching the disease.  And it will eventually catch up and kill them, and all I will be able to say is "Well, sucks to be you, doesn't it?"  Gonorrhea, like AIDS, is not non-selective.  It's very selective.  It's not airborne.  You cannot catch it from a toilet seat.  You can't get it from being around an infected person.  You have to engage in a swap of body fluids with an infected person, and those activities that would transmit the disease are well known and highly researched.  And if people once again start dying from these diseases, well...  it's a horrible death, and I wouldn't want to die that way.  But I'm not sticking my willie into anything that moves, either.  In fact, I'm monogamous with my wife, and she's monogamous with me, which means the chance of either of us coming down with any STD is zero.  We will never catch AIDS, we will never catch gonorrhea, we won't have the clap, we won't have syphilis.  That's how it works.

Which means we will not be contributing to the drug-resistance of HIV.  Because we don't engage in those behaviors.

Huh. A good hard look at "social costs".

A long but interesting and very informative read, right here.

And this brings me back to the question of cost/benefit analyses and the idea of the “social benefit of carbon”. As noted above, people put the “social cost of carbon” (actually carbon dioxide) at “roughly $40 per ton”. 

Now, remember that corresponding to the “social cost of carbon”, the “social benefit of carbon” is: 

… the dollar value of the total benefits from emitting one ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 

As Figure 6 shows, the benefit that we get from emitting that additional tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is an increase in goods and services of $4,380 … which dwarfs the assumed social cost of carbon of $40. When we do an actual cost/benefit analysis, the result is almost all benefit.

I'm a big fan of CO2.  Plants can't exist without it.  If you freeze it and drop it into root beer, you have an awesome holiday drink for kids that makes them all think you're a genius.  But mostly the plant food thing, because my food eats plants, and without plants, my food couldn't be turned into, well, MY FOOD.

Also, asparagus.  I do eat asparagus.  Which also cannot grow without CO2.

And I still want to kick every eco-freak I meet straight in the twig and berries, in the hope that they won't reproduce and spread their stupidity genes.

For all the idiots out there saying that Climate Change is going to kill us all

Well, maybe, maybe not, but it's not like it was for the majority of this planet's history.



I know I'm preaching to the choir on a lot of this, but take the time to educate the people around you.

File this under "No shit!"

When kids stop smoking pot, their cognitive functions improve.

Marijuana, it seems, is not a performance-enhancing drug. That is, at least, not among young people, and not when the activity is learning.

A study published Tuesday in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry finds that when adolescents stop using marijuana — even for just one week — their verbal learning and memory improve. The study contributes to growing evidence that marijuana use in adolescents is associated with reduced neurocognitive functioning.

How much money was spent on this study?  It's not like anyone who was forced to hang around the stoners in high school couldn't have told you this for much less.

*sigh*

The Left wishes to bring about the Endarkenment.

This is probably now the top hot-button issue at Canadian universities - the move to replace ‘European-based knowledge’ as exclusionary, inadequate and subjective, and to replace it in some cases with “indigenous knowledge,” and even something called “indigenous science”… what some might say is superstition or magical beliefs… The idea that “indigenous knowledge” is not to be questioned, that it has value equal to supposedly ‘European’ science… is an incredibly worrisome and strange idea.

I might be less inclined to roll my eyes at this piece of idiocy if the "indigenous knowledge" was advanced enough to encompass such objects as...  the wheel.

I think they managed levers.  But not the wheel.

I didn't expect the legal pot up in Canada to hit them this hard this soon.

I can't remember if I posted this or not

But it's funny enough to share twice.

A group of scholars has been getting bogus studies published in peer-reviewed journals to make the point that many in academia no longer value reason when it comes to gender issues. 

Helen Pluckrose, a researcher and author; James Lindsay, who has a doctorate in math and is also an author, and philosophy professor Peter Boghossian noticed that “Something has gone wrong in the university – especially in certain fields within the humanities.” The trio set out to prove just how easy it would be to publish various studies of a dubious nature in respected journals.

I think it's safe to say that liberalism has destroyed the credibility of academic institutions in a way that they won't ever get back.

For one year, the three submitted academic papers to journals covering “cultural studies,” “identity studies” – such as gender studies – and “critical theory.” They submitted 20 papers to relevant journals. So far, seven have been accepted (four of which have already been published online), seven more are under review, and six were rejected. The scholars also say they received four offers to peer-review other papers because of their own studies.

"BUT IT WAS PEER REVIEWED IN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL!"  My respect for "peer reviewed" has plummeted in recent years, but it's pretty much hit rock bottom now.  I still respect the STEM fields, as you can't get away with bullshit nearly as easily as you can with the humanities.

The accepted but not yet published studies included a paper explaining that the critique of social justice is unethical, one that was nothing more than “bitter, divorced feminist” ramblings created using a “teenage angst poetry generator,” and one that rewrote part of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” with “fashionable buzzwords.”

Now see, that last one doesn't surprise me one bit - the left is in love with National Socialism, they just won't admit it until they have the manpower for the camps and the cattle cars.

No, the US does not lead the world in mass shootings.

We're actually below-average, which is a good thing in these cases.

A paper on mass public shootings by Adam Lankford (2016) has received massive national and international media attention, getting coverage in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, plus hundreds of other news outlets spanning at least 35 different countries. Lankford’s claim was that over the 47 years from 1966 to 2012, an enormous amount of the world’s mass public shooters -- 31% -- occurred in the United States. Lankford attributed this to America’s gun ownership. 

Lankford claims to have “complete” data on such shooters in 171 countries. However, because he has neither identified the cases nor their location nor even a complete description on how he put the cases together, it is impossible to replicate his findings.

Emphasis mine.  This is not how you do science.  This is not how you publish information.  This is how you build a crack-pot theory to justify your political beliefs.

And of course, it's not limited to just this political hack.  Less than 40% of published studies can be replicated.  As the world of science gets more and more politicized, it's no shock that it gets shoddier and shoddier as so-called "scientists" push to confirm their bias rather than find the truth. 

When you hear people blather on about how the US leads the world in mass shootings, point out to them that they are wrong, and they're not doing themselves any favors.

Out today

At a graduation ceremony for a family member.  Lots of shouting and "PLATOON!  A-tenSHUN!" being shouted.  With that being said, let me leave you with this:

Two-thirds of all Alzheimer’s patients are female; 

Seventy-five percent of people with autoimmune disorders are female; 

Females are less likely to develop Parkinson’s disease; 

Adult females have twice the rate of depression as adult males; 

Females have outbreaks of genital herpes at higher rates than males; 

Male and female brains respond differently to early childhood neglect, with males losing gray matter in areas governing impulse control and females losing gray matter in areas governing emotion; 

Women are more likely to abuse alcohol after trauma; 

Males and females smoke for different reasons and have correspondingly different success rates with the nicotine patch; 

The X and Y sex chromosomes, whose pairing determines a person’s sex, influence how the other 23 chromosomes in each cell read the genetic instructions contained in DNA.  

This is what we in reality like to call "basic biological differences between the sexes".  Anyone who has spent time around actual human beings know that men and women are different.  We react differently to stimuli; we act differently to various circumstances, and we have different interests in the world around us.  But when arguing with a Leftist, you cannot simply point up and say "Look, the sky is blue."  You need a researched paper explaining why the sky is blue before they'll believe it. 

The Left loves #SCIENCE! like Ike loved Tina

Can't get the data to fit your narrative?  Just erase the data!

Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has been caught red handed erasing record-breaking cold temperatures from its data records. 

The BOM has now been shamed by media investigations into ordering a review of its procedures. But it has yet to provide an explanation as to why it made these “adjustments” in the first place.

Fire them all.  Fire them and get actual, real scientists in their place.  Fire everyone involved with this, from top to bottom, and start over.

For #SCIENCE!

I'm not a big fan of many things that end in "-cide"

Herbicide being one of those.  That being said, it appears that the Left has done what it will do, and lied its ass off about RoundUp.

Hundreds of cancer patients promptly sued Monsanto, claiming the company had concealed the danger of carcinogenicity, notwithstanding the fact that it would be hard to find a farmer who hadn’t been exposed to glyphosate. The European Union said it would consider IARC’s finding when deciding whether to continue to allow glyphosate to be used in Europe. “Environmentalists” had scored a major coup. 

But the whole thing turned out to be a fraud. Reuters has investigated, aided by access to deposition testimony in one or more of the lawsuits against Monsanto, which evidently was not subject to a protective order. Briefly put, the author of the IARC’s carcinogenicity study, Aaron Blair, an epidemiologist from the U.S. National Cancer Institute, covered up his own research showing that exposure to glyphosate did not lead to a higher incidence of cancer in humans.

As Powerline points out, you cannot trust any "scientific" studies from a Leftist organization anymore.  Their politics win out over truth, reality, and facts.

B-b-b-but it's been PUBLISHED! In a PUBLICATION!

I salute these people.  I truly do.

NYU physicist Alan Sokal thought very little of the research performed by his colleagues in the social sciences. To prove his point, he wrote a paper that used plenty of trendy buzz words but made absolutely no sense. As he later explained, Dr. Sokal wanted to find out if a humanities journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions." 

It would. His paper, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," was published in the journal Social Text in 1996, and his hoax has earned him a place in scientific history.

And the newest entry:

In their tell-all article in Skeptic, the authors admit they jammed the paper full of jargon and made it purposefully incoherent. They said, "After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn't say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success." Finally, they made this particularly damning observation: 

We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal. 

It worked. That's the state of social science in 2017.

That's science today, folks.  THERE IS A CONSENSUS!  Or something.  It's becoming perfectly clear that "peer reviewed" and "published in a science journal" has become the newest cargo cult mentality.  It's "SCIENCE!" because it's been peer reviewed, but the reviewers have absolutely no idea what actually constitutes science, and so we get junk.  Flat out junk, as proven by the people in the article.