Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Friday, April 24, 2020

A Post-News World

Why are most of the media misquoting Trump?

Right. And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number (INAUDIBLE) interesting to check that so that you are going to have to use medical doctors with but it sounds interesting to me so we will see but the whole concept of the light the way it kills it in one minute that's--that's pretty powerful. Steve, please.

I had to go to RealClearPolitics to find this because so many of the "news" sources are eliminating the bolded bit.

Now, I don't feel it changes the statement too much, but it sure makes me look foolish if I'm misquoting him to people I'm arguing this statement with.

What the hell is wrong with the "news?"

This is why I've mostly unplugged from it all.

Run RealClearPolitics against your favorite "bias checker" - and if I'm right it comes out as right wing.

While almost every left leaning or traditional media source misquotes him.

Now, call me crazy, but even minor misquotes like this being run by nearly everybody in the "news" gives Trump ammunition against the press.

The press has every reason to avoid this nonsense right now. They need the moral high ground here and they can't get it by taking shortcuts, like aggregating each other from a single source instead of sitting and transcribing his actual words independently. I'm assuming this happened that way, out of expedience rather than malice but how did one misquote get such wide circulation without the press being lazy?


Wednesday, April 22, 2020

Earth Day at 50: 'There is no Planet B'

COVID-19 makes this year's day of action different, but also is a reminder that a concerted response is still needed. 


In fall 1968, the first Whole Earth Catalog reproduced on its cover a NASA composite photograph never before seen in public — Earth floating in the arid blackness of space, beautifully blue and alone and fragile.
In January 1969, a runaway oil rig blowout in the Santa Barbara Channel in California devastated local wildlife and alarmed the nation with images of oil-soaked beaches, seabirds and seals. Then in June, the Cuyahoga River, an industrial sewer running through downtown Cleveland, caught fire. In fact the river had combusted many times before, and some of these fires were bigger, but Time magazine reported on this one and the story went national.
In 1969, U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, flying back to Washington from an inspection of the California spill, read an article about “teach-ins” created by activists opposed to the Vietnam War and thought: Why not create a teaching event for the environment? He hired young organizer Denis Hayes to run a national environmental teach-in out of his D.C. office. He and a handful of staff organized what became, on April 22, 1970, an estimated 20 million people taking action for what was by then firmly labeled “Earth Day.”
Citizens and their representatives in Washington were galvanized, the policy results transformative. President Richard Nixon deserves credit for proposing, on July 9, 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency, and later signing pioneering environmental legislation protecting clean air and water, although he did so in part to outflank potential Democratic opponent Sen. Henry Martin “Scoop” Jackson of Washington — both were consummate politicians who heard the citizenry’s howl and responded.
This April 22, the 50th anniversary of what is now the largest secular holiday worldwide, it is useful to recall these founding stories: an inspirational image of fragile earth, omnipresent now as the “big blue marble” photograph taken from Apollo 17; fossil-fueled calamities, now all too familiar; Earth Day’s organized citizen action, and determined political response.
The 50th anniversary will be the strangest, as the COVID-19 pandemic will require most citizens to demonstrate at home and online. Yet this is an all-hands-on-deck moment, requiring the urgent, game-changing response COVID-19 received. This year is forecast to be the hottest on record, after 2019’s frightening and costly fires, floods and storms that devastated the Australian bush and Midwestern farms. The melting of the ice caps and glaciers accelerates as temperatures soar, a record 64.9 degrees Fahrenheit recorded in Antarctica on Feb. 8, the same temperature as Los Angeles that day. Already 90 American cities experience some flooding, while officials in low-lying cities like Manila consider how to move.
Yet good news is also plentiful. Wind and solar energy are booming at a scale and cost unimaginable even a few years ago, with electric cars, buses, trucks and charging stations rolling out fast around the world. In September, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power accepted a bid for electricity produced by renewable energy, including storage capacity for round-the-clock supply, at 2 cents a kilowatt-hour, far cheaper than any other source. And Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands are building an island to house 7,000 wind turbines to provide electricity for 80 million Europeans. The green-energy revolution is now.
Meanwhile, the global fossil-fuel industry is reeling from falling demand, a price war and withdrawal of the global finance system from further investment. The fossil-fuel divestment movement begun in 2012 has surpassed $12 trillion in public commitments to divest from fossil-fuel stocks and investments. And in January the CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest financial firm, wrote to global CEOs that his company will be considering climate change in investment decisions: “I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.”
Still, none of these changes is moving remotely fast enough given the pandemic of fossil-energy excess. On a typical day, the global economy still dumps the heat equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs into the atmosphere.
Yet the Trump administration, abetted by coal-state Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other fossil-fueled representatives and talk show advisers who reflexively denied the severity of COVID-19 just as they derided the climate “hoax,” daily unravels not only longstanding environmental protections but subverts any responsible clean climate policy, most recently cutting clean car-mileage standards against the wishes of much of the auto industry.
But it is fair to remember that, 50 years ago, the nation was also facing a wide swath of environmental calamities and did not despair. Citizens raised hell, took action, changed practices and elected leaders who enacted strong, effective laws that produced dramatic improvement in health and quality of life, all without the economic calamity forecast by naysayers — in fact, with major economic benefits. Modern industrial America has blue skies and clean lakes and rivers not by accident but by design, a legacy of 50 years of Earth Days.
Today’s global response to the COVID-19 pandemic offers a valuable lesson in concerted action. The formerly unimaginable $2.2 trillion in federal funding is an example of what support the climate crisis also calls for. Meanwhile, the air over China is temporarily clear and breathable due to COVID-19’s forced reduction in fossil-energy intensity.
Will that lesson be learned? Or after the pandemic passes will fossil-fueled economies again fire up all cylinders of their 19th-century internal combustion machine, leaving in its exhaust today’s vision of a cleaner, safer planet?
“There is no Planet B” is a phrase that has appeared spontaneously on placards waved at climate crisis demonstrations around the world and is now the title of a book. Its wisdom is twofold. Earth, that “beautiful blue marble” floating in space, has the water, air and renewable energy we need. And there is a viable green economic future.
As the nation fights through the COVID-19 pandemic toward the November elections, voters need to remember two facts. When asked in a Democratic debate if climate change is an existential crisis, every candidate answered yes without hesitation. Meanwhile, the Trump administration and its allies, including Russia and Saudi Arabia, do everything they can to prop up the struggling fossil-fuel industry while undoing regulations aimed at curbing the climate crisis. Planet Earth is on the ballot this November.
James P. Lenfestey is a former editorial writer for the Star Tribune covering education, energy and the environment.

Coronavirus Update 7

Various sources, e.g., CNN and the Washington Post, are reporting about a small pilot study to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine to treat the coronavirus infection. Hydroxychloroquine is approved for use to treat malaria, a parasite infection. The reported data is not from a randomized clinical trial. It is also not yet peer-reviewed. This data is only anecdotal, not the kind of evidence that constitutes solid evidence of safety or efficacy.

Two critically important thoughts to keep in mind are these:

1. Randomized, double- or triple-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trials are needed to assess safety and efficacy.

2. That an approved drug is safe enough for treating a specific disease does not mean that it is safe to treat a different disease. I will explain this in the context of hydroxychloroquine and coronavirus.


The data
The study included 368 male VA patients with coronavirus infections. That is considered to be a small study by experts, not a large study as Fox News is falsely reporting. This study is larger than past studies reported so far, but that doesn't make it a large study. Ninety-seven patients received hydroxychloroquine, 113 received hydroxychloroquine in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin, and 158 did not not receive hydroxychloroquine.


As reported by the WaPo, rates of death in both drug-treated groups were worse than the 158 who did not receive the drugs. The drugs produced no benefit for patients who were on ventilators in either drug-treated group.

The observed death rates were as follows:
No drug treatment: 11.4%
Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin treated: 22%
Hydroxychloroquine treated: 27%


Failed pandemic politics
The president has politicized an weaponized the pandemic to serve his personal political re-election agenda. CNN's broadcast last night played about six short clips of the president repeatedly urging people to use hydroxychloroquine because he claims that ‘he heard good things about the drug’, or that ‘he heard very good things about the drug’. His ‘scientific rationale’ is based on posing questions such as, ‘what do you have to lose?’ and ‘why not try it because you have nothing to lose?’.

Unfortunately, it may turn out to be the case that people have their lives to lose.

Presumably, some people took the president’s idiotic advice and doing so could have killed some of them. If that turns out to be true, the president should be impeached and jailed for medical malpractice, gross incompetence and inexcusable arrogant stupidity. Dr. Trump’s unsound medical advice would have literally killed some people.


How hydroxychloroquine might be lethal in coronavirus infections 
The following is personal speculation about why it might turn out to be the case that hydroxychloroquine is lethally toxic for some coronavirus-infected patients. One study reported that when hydroxychloroquine is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, it appears that it works by inducing a form of immune suppression, i.e., “down-regulation of the immune response against autoantigenic peptides.” Other research indicates that hydroxyquinoline modulates biological pathways that regulate immune responses by other mechanisms including  blocking inflammatory responses, e.g., “there is some evidence that antimalarials decrease secretion of monocyte‐derived pro‐inflammatory cytokines, such as tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα).”

Based on that, I speculate that it is possible that hydroxychloroquine-induce causes an immune suppression that (1) unleashes the virulence or replication capacity of coronavirus in lungs to a point that it becomes lethal, and/or (2) allows bacteria in the lungs to replicate and cause a lethal bacterial pneumonia. Anecdotal evidence for that is in the different death rates of the two drug-treated groups. People who also received the antibiotic azithromycin may have had a lower death rate than the group treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. If that turns out to be true, then the azithromycin may have prevented a lethal pneumonia in some of the patients, leading to a lower death rate. Azithromycin is used to treat various bacteria, including ones that that can cause pneumonia.

Again, all of this is personal speculation. I'm not an expert and thus my speculation may turn out to be completely wrong, e.g., because we still do not know much about coronavirus pathology at the molecular level. 

Tuesday, April 21, 2020

The Failing Media is Failing Dismally, Yet Again

An opinion columnist for the New York Times has written a piece arguing that the media should stop airing the president's briefings. For over a year it seemed reasonable to me to stop broadcasting almost everything the president says to the American people. The reason is obvious: His rhetoric consists mostly of socially damaging and immoral, dark free speech.[1] What social value is there in his lies, deflections and disinformation that outweighs the damage? I see none.

The NYT opinion piece comments:
“Around this time four years ago, the media world was all abuzz over an analysis by mediaQuant, a company that tracks what is known as ‘earned media’ coverage of political candidates. Earned media is free media. 
The firm computed that Donald Trump had ‘earned’ a whopping $2 billion of coverage, dwarfing the value earned by all other candidates, Republican and Democrat, even as he had only purchased about $10 million of paid advertising. 
The Hollywood Reporter in February of 2016 quoted CBS’s C.E.O. as saying, ‘It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS,’ because as The Reporter put it, ‘He likes the ad money Trump and his competitors are bringing to the network.’”

The editorial points out that the daily coronavirus briefings over the last 5 weeks or so have been aired extensively. They are are full of misleading and false statements, deceptions, deflections of blame from his own failures and assertions of no responsibility for his own crucial role in the failed US response to the virus. The president has scientists and officials on stage with him to lend a false appearance of credibility to his dark free speech. People trapped indoors due to coronavirus are nervous and tune into the daily dark free speech blizzard.

The press is not obligated by any law to broadcast any, some or all of what a president says. Journalism requires editing and commentary on content, including the pointing out of lies and deceit. Simply broadcasting the president’s self-serving propaganda isn't journalism. It is abdication of journalism. It is anti-journalism.

The president’s open contempt for and denial of inconvenient facts, truths and reasoning is undeniable and of staggering proportions. As of April 3, 2020, the president had made 18,000 false or misleading statements. That qualifies him as a chronic liar, which is something he has probably been at least his entire adult life.

In essence, the media has learned nothing. Once again, the for-profit American broadcast media is one of the president’s most important sources of campaign exposure, lies, deceit and deflections. The media is simply giving him hundreds of millions or billions of free, unrebutted air time.

The NYT editorial ends with this accurate characterization of the situation:
“Trump has completely politicized this pandemic and the briefings have become a tool of that politicization. He is standing on top of nearly 40,000 dead bodies and using the media to distract attention away from them and instead brag about what a great job he’s done.”


Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism, and (4) ideologically-driven motivated reasoning and other ideologically-driven biases that unreasonably distort reality and reason. (my label, my definition)

WITH PERMISSION from Germaine, a SNOWFLAKE RANT.

WHAT THE F IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE??

I keep reading comments from some contributors on various channels,  that are anti-government.

I keep hearing about protestors who claim that the government has no right to tell them to stay home during Covid 19, because they have a "constitutional right" to keep their shops open or go to work.

EXAMPLE:

I was listening to a radio call in show, where a caller raged about being told he can't open his business because of his "constitutional rights" and when the host of the show reminded the caller that "rights" aren't absolute, that you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater, carry an AK 27 through a mall, or punch your own kid on the side of the head, the caller retorted that he was not about to give up his "constitutional rights" for the sake of some geriatrics who are going to die anyways.

SAY WHAT?

This canard that the government should stay out of your business, that less government is the best way to go, is SO OLD it is laughable.

This lack of responsibility is what has led to the crisis we have in the U.S. now where Trump says testing is up to the States, and State governors are being ridiculed for stay-at-home orders, while the death toll climbs.

What these folks are really saying, is I don't want government interfering in what I consider important, but please interfere when I want something done my way.

Outlaw abortion, close abortion clinics, isn't this government interference?

Collect my garbage, bring me my mail, police my streets, isn't that government interference?

Keep government out of my healthcare, because I don't want health care for all, because dontcha know, that is socialism.

YET every other civilized country in the world has some form of health care for all, delivering better health care, at a lower per capita cost than what we have in the good ole U.S. of A.

AND don't even try to deflect or argue semantics, it is A FACT. When you have thousands of people in a civilized nation going broke because of medical bills, you know something is wrong.

WE have laws to protect our property and lives, who wrote those laws? GOVERNMENT!

And yet the same people who cry to the high heavens about getting government out of our lives, love it when that same government engages in gerrymandering, voter suppression, closing of voting booths (primarily in black districts), and purges voter rolls - because the simple idea of anyone who can produce a birth certificate or proof of citizenship can not get a federal ID card because THAT is government interference?????

Almost everyone who has ever argued with me on the subject of government involvement into our lives keeps citing the Constitution, yet - here is the irony - WHO WROTE THE CONSTITUTION? I am guessing some government types. 

Interviews With a Few of the President's Supporters

The human condition in politics
“. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.” -- Democracy For Realists: Why Elections do not Produce Responsive Governments, Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, 2016

This 13-minute interview with a series of the president's supporters shows the level of reasoning that a small sample appears to operate with. Not all of the president's supporters think like this, but at least some, maybe most, clearly do. This mindset looks to be much more ideological and tribal than fact-based and rational.





How can one enter into a rational dialogue with people like this? How does one respond to a person who flat out rejects facts and sound reasoning in favor of dark free speech and tribe loyalty?