Reply to Michael Walzer on Israel’s Pager Attack and Just War Theory

The moral of the story seems to be that democratic countries can't win wars, because they are held to impossibly high standards:

Reply to Michael Walzer on Israel’s Pager Attack and Just War Theory

Michael Walzer has argued in a New York Times opinion piece that Israel’s “pager attack” on thousands of Hezbollah operatives throughout Lebanon was “an act of terrorism,” since it failed to respect “the distinction between combatants and civilians” crucial to the rules of just war. This is strange, because this attack was, as a matter of fact, one of the most “targeted” that a state can possibly launch against a terrorist or guerilla force operating amongst a civilian population. With greater precision than is usually possible, it was clearly aimed at actual enemy combatants, with far less risk of “collateral damage” and indeed inflicting much less actual damage than most such operations. Nevertheless, Walzer insists that “the attacks … came when the operatives were not operating; they had not been mobilized and they were not militarily engaged.” He stresses that the pagers exploded when the Hezbollah operatives were at home or in various public places, among innocent people. However, this criterion, “when the operatives were not operating,” if accepted, would make it impossible not only for Israel, but for any state, to effectively fight a terrorist/guerilla force engaged in killing its citizens from within a civilian environment, in an area outside its jurisdiction, and under the protection of a foreign government. This holds true even in the case of an ordinary terrorist group, far less powerful than Hezbollah, and which, unlike Hezbollah, does not possess tens of thousands of rockets aimed at the heart of the country it is fighting, is not committed to its destruction, and does not operate in the service of a hostile regional power – Iran. In fact, Walzer’s suggested rules of engagement are every terrorist’s paradise.

Nobody in Lebanon probably uses pagers nowadays except for Hezbollah operatives. If anyone does, theirs did not explode, because only those pagers distributed by Hezbollah to its operatives, which opted for this antiquated technology for security reasons, had been compromised. Those targeted were not merely political supporters or even members of the movement, but people belonging to Hezbollah’s network of operatives. According to the figures of casualties provided by Hezbollah, there were thousands of people wounded and dozens killed. The ratio of fatalities to wounded was much lower than the normal one, by a huge margin. Obviously, the reason for this is that the power of the explosion was very limited, thereby limiting the danger to surrounding people. It is unclear whether this limitation was only for technical reasons, because it was not possible to insert a larger quantity of explosive material into those pagers without it being detected, or because there was also a deliberate decision to limit the power of the explosion in order to limit collateral damage. If the latter was the case, then this consideration came at a heavy operational price. Some of the Hezbollah commanders killed in a subsequent bombing in Beirut are said to have been wounded by the pagers, and had already been released from hospital. So, the limited force of the pager explosions meant that many of the Hezbollah operatives hurt remained “un-neutralized,” not merely “un-killed.”

This means that in the vast majority of cases, those standing near the person in whose hands, or pockets, the pagers exploded would not have been harmed – although inevitably there were several such cases among the thousands of explosions. There is no comparison between the rate of “collateral damage” in this case and any other form of military attack aimed at terrorists operating among civilians. Of course, there were many explosions in public places filled with uninvolved civilians, such as markets, etc. They caused panic, and some people were also directly hit by the explosions. But the images that have become an “iconic” representation of the event – those from a food market, with people buying fruits – show a man falling to the ground while those in close proximity to him run away in panic, apparently unharmed physically. The person in question was obviously a Hezbollah operative, who was targeted very specifically through the pager in his possession. Contrary to the impression that many people get when they hear that markets and other public places were “targeted” by the explosions, there was no “indiscriminate attack” on the market just because there was a Hezbollah operative there. Aesthetically, this was surely not a pretty sight. Ethically, it was much less problematic than most attacks against terrorists, which ordinarily employ much greater firepower and tend to lead to much greater civilian casualties, as in the U.S. “War on Terror.” War is ugly, but the point of jus in bello is to minimize civilian casualties, not to avoid unpleasant sights or to guarantee chivalrous treatment to terrorists.

And yet, Walzer believes that an attack on those Hezbollah operatives was illegitimate because “the operatives were not operating; they had not been mobilized and they were not militarily engaged.” This would mean that a Hezbollah operative who has just fired a rocket from or near a house full of civilians and then leaves his position, as such operatives routinely do, and goes home, or to a café, cannot be targeted there, even if this is done in a relatively “surgical” way. Supposedly, he can only be attacked either when he is engaged in firing rockets, from this or some other house, the next time, or if the IDF knows for sure that he is on his way to his “military post.” The first and main scenario, most clearly a classic combat situation, is the one which will usually mean killing and wounding civilians on a much greater scale (not to mention the danger to Israelis if the rockets are fired). What is the logic of such a precept, and what is its morality?

Such a rule can reasonably be applied to an armed group that fights a government within its own country in an area under their government’s (more or less) effective control. An armed band of “mobilized” partisans can roam a forest or a mountainous area and be a legitimate target for a military attack when it is on the march. However, when a partisan goes out of the forest and sits in a pub, enjoying his drinks, he is, at that moment, not a combatant that can be targeted but rather a suspect who should be arrested. By contrast, if an operative of Hezbollah sits in a café in Beirut, which of course they often do, the State of Israel cannot arrest him, and he can only be targeted. It is a great pity that the late Nasrallah did not have a habit of taking a rest from his labors in one of those cafés from time to time, relying on the immunity prescribed by Walzer. If the aim is to avoid killing innocent people as far as possible, then taking him out in a place like that would have been much preferable to bombing his underground headquarters, deeply entrenched within an urban civilian environment. The more “mobilized” the operative is, as Walzer requires, in a dense civilian environment, the greater will be the risk to civilians in attacking him. It is when the operative “is not operating,” and thus, according to Walzer, should enjoy immunity, that it is often possible to target him personally and as precisely as possible, as was done in the pager attack. When applied to an organization like Hezbollah, the rules prescribed by Walzer would mean that what is legitimate is far more costly in terms of civilian casualties, and what helps minimize civilian casualties is illegitimate.

The crux of the problem is this: Those who fear the abuses to which the notion of “war against terror” can lead say, “Give us a situation as close as possible to a real military combat before we allow you to treat alleged terrorists like combatants rather than suspects.” This line of thought is understandable, but it harbors a cruel paradox: In a hostile territory where no law enforcement is possible, and given the way Hezbollah and similar organizations work, the “cleanest” case of combat will usually be the most lethal one for uninvolved civilians.

Walzer seems to believe further that attacking a legitimate target at the risk of causing collateral damage can only be justified to the extent that the armed group that is being targeted has a deliberate “strategy of putting civilians at risk for political gain,” as he points out that Hamas has been doing in Gaza. Not so in the case of the exploding pagers according to Walzer: “They were not distributed by Hezbollah in order to put its people at risk. This was not a plot to force Israel to kill or injure civilians. The plot was Israel’s, and the plotters had to know” that innocent people would be hurt. Indeed, Hezbollah was plotting to kill Israelis, and Israel was plotting to kill those plotting to do so.

However, if terrorists operate in a civilian environment not because they actually want to put civilians in harm’s way for political gain, but simply due to their operative considerations and constraints, then what difference does it make for the state that is fighting them? It still faces the same dilemma: It can either attack them in this environment, or allow them to operate undisturbed, thereby rendering them undefeatable. One of us once had an argument with a British journalist about dilemmas of collateral damage regarding Israel’s attacks on Palestinian terrorists in Lebanon. The journalist exclaimed, in response to the argument that Palestinian militants put their bases and headquarters in refugee camps, making civilian casualties inevitable, “Where do you expect them to put the goddamn headquarters?!”

“Well,” answered the Israeli interlocutor, “you have a point … but then, where do you expect us to bomb them?”

Osama bin Laden surely did not plot to put his youngest wife and their children in harm’s way for political gain when he was hiding in his compound in Pakistan, where American forces attacked and killed him, together with one of his daughters, as “collateral damage.” President Obama, who ordered this operation and took pride in it, must have known that civilian casualties could be expected. There is no proof at all that Bin Laden was engaged in, or actively planning, some military activity when he was attacked. It is a moot point whether he presented, at that point of time, a graver continuous threat to American lives than Hezbollah operatives in Lebanon to Israeli lives right now – there might even be, God forbid, a suspicion of an element of revenge in his killing. Although not “shopping in a food market,” he was definitely “at home with his family,” in Walzer’s words. Can an unarmed old man in the bosom of his family be considered a combatant? Indeed, Amnesty International strongly condemned this “extra-judicial execution” – as if the U.S. could have done anything “judicial” in such a case. Perhaps Amnesty thought Obama should have dispatched U.S. marshals to that compound with an arrest warrant. From Amnesty International we expect nothing less. Is Michael Walzer now adopting similar views?

A further criticism is directed by Walzer against the killing of Ismail Haniyeh, chairman of Hamas Political Bureau, without any harm to civilians, in a high security compound in Tehran: “But when a government authorizes the killing of men it is directly or indirectly negotiating with, such as the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in July, we have to conclude that the government isn’t committed to the negotiations’ success … That is politically and morally wrong.”

In fact, Israel has been indirectly negotiating with Sinwar rather than Haniyeh, and there is not the slightest reason to think that the killing of Haniyeh affected negatively Sinwar’s readiness – very dubious in any case, at least according to the Biden administration – to close a deal. But really, can it be seriously maintained that negotiations between Israel and Hamas after Oct.7 – and while Hamas is holding, and occasionally murdering, Israeli hostages – can be or should be based on mutual trust and goodwill that must not be undermined by one side targeting, in an ungentlemanly way, another side’s leaders?

Are talks in a hostage situation typically based on mutual trust? Israel was having indirect negotiations with the hijackers in Entebbe, while also planning a rescue operation. The government of the time was willing to go ahead with an exchange of hostages for prisoners in case there would in the end be no viable military option available; to this extent it was genuinely interested in a positive outcome of the talks. Eventually the IDF killed the very people Israel was negotiating with. Was it wrong? The German-Palestinian terrorists in Entebbe, just like Sinwar in his tunnel in Gaza today, had no illusions about Israeli goodwill, and their readiness to negotiate was not based on any such expectations. Of course, in the present case there is also the wider issue of the conditions for putting an end to fighting. But there is no reason to think that the killing of Haniyeh harmed the prospects of agreement on either side of the talks.

In the Haniyeh case, there is no question of innocent civilians being harmed – but still, Israel is, according to Walzer, “politically and morally wrong.” If liberal sensibilities are to be associated, in the mind of the Israeli public, with such claims, what chance is there for any kind of liberalism in Israel – or anywhere else, under similar conditions? 

In a conference in New York attended by one of us some years ago, Walzer expressed his view that “if the bad guys are going to win, then, sure, they must be prevented from doing so by far-reaching means.” Apparently, Israel attacked from all sides by fanatical forces that not only aim at its destruction, but believe, today more so than in the past, that this is a realistic goal, is so strong that it is in no grave danger. Walzer’s theory of just war has a justified reputation of being eminently sensible, and he holds a life-long record of commitment to the existence and well-being of Israel. So, one must ask: In terms of his theory of just war, do his precepts advance or imperil the safety of civilians? And in terms of the real world in which clouds of catastrophe are gathering everywhere along the borders of the Axis of Evil, has Walzer not noticed that there is some danger that the bad guys might actually win?

Links - 18th October 2024 (1 - Covid-19)

Meme - Supervaccinated person and normal person both thinking: "Why aren't they dead yet?"

Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics? - "The present coronavirus crisis caused a major worldwide disruption which has not been experienced for decades. The lockdown-based crisis management was implemented by nearly all the countries, and studies confirming lockdown effectiveness can be found alongside the studies questioning it. In this work, we performed a narrative review of the works studying the above effectiveness, as well as the historic experience of previous pandemics and risk-benefit analysis based on the connection of health and wealth. Our aim was to learn lessons and analyze ways to improve the management of similar events in the future. The comparative analysis of different countries showed that the assumption of lockdowns’ effectiveness cannot be supported by evidence—neither regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic, nor regarding the 1918–1920 Spanish Flu and other less-severe pandemics in the past. The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save. It is suggested therefore that a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be performed before imposing any lockdown for either COVID-19 or any future pandemic."
In July 2024, a covid hystericist still claimed that the IFR for covid was 4% and that "A totally dispassionate, objective and scientific response to a respiratory pandemic would involve essentially the same measures". Covid hystericists don't learn.

Did the Covid inquiry just admit lockdown was a mistake? - "The Covid inquiry has this afternoon published a full report on its first module, assessing the resilience and preparedness of the UK’s pandemic response. It has so far been met with apparently predetermined headlines of how the UK Government failed its citizens by “preparing for the wrong pandemic”, and that the country was “ill-prepared”. The impact of austerity meant that this was certainly true — but the currently unreported and biggest story in the report is its wholesale attack on the lockdown approach itself.  Baroness Hallett’s full report contains remarkable criticisms of the Government’s preferred lockdown policy, which was also adopted across the world. Far from stating that the UK should have locked down sooner and harder, as many predicted, Hallett’s team has concluded that “the imposition of a lockdown should be a measure of last resort […] indeed, there are those who would argue that a lockdown should never be imposed.” Strikingly, the initial media reactions have barely anything to say about the report’s conclusions on lockdowns, just as the word “lockdown” was not mentioned once in the WHO’s September 2019 report on non-pharmaceutical interventions in pandemics. This is because, though it’s long been an article of faith in these circles that earlier and harder lockdowns were the solution, this is not the conclusion that the report comes to. Instead, Baroness Hallett has concluded that there were devastating failings in imposing lockdown in the first place. First, the report highlights the fact that lockdowns were untested as a means for responding to a pandemic. One section notes that former chancellor George Osborne “said that no one had thought that a policy response up to and including lockdowns was possible until China had commenced one in 2020, and so there was no reason for the Treasury to plan for it”. This confirms the initial reports in outlets such as the Washington Post that China’s response was “unprecedented”. There is also extensive weight given to the evidence of epidemiologist Professor Mark Woolhouse of Edinburgh University, who is quoted as telling the inquiry that lockdown “was an ad hoc public health intervention contrived in real time in the face of a fast-moving public health emergency. We had not planned to introduce lockdown […] there were no guidelines for when a lockdown should be implemented and no clear expectations as to what it would achieve.”  Even more importantly, the report for the first module emphasises that one of the failures of the “ad hoc” lockdown approach was that its novelty meant there was no time to interrogate its consequences. The inquiry notes that “if countermeasures in the form of non-pharmaceutical interventions are not considered in advance […] their potential side effects will not be subject, in advance, to rigorous scrutiny.” In other words, the imposition of ill-prepared policies meant that there was no chance for politicians and the public to interrogate what the consequences would be, a weakness the UK Government has only acknowledged since the end of the pandemic.   The report goes on to refer to the work of the new UK-wide Pandemic Diseases Capabilities Board (PDCB), which noted the upshot of this failure of a cost-benefit analysis. Hallett’s team quotes the PDCB’s summary that the current assessments “do not include a full risk assessment for the use of [non-pharmaceutical interventions]. Given that the imposition of lockdown in part accounted for a 25% drop in GDP between February and April 2020, the largest drop on record, and numerous secondary and tertiary impacts on all sectors, this represents a significant gap in the UK’s assessment of pandemic risk.”  And so the real story of Hallett’s report is not that the UK was prepared for the “wrong pandemic”, but that it resorted to a hitherto-unimaginable policy, on no evidence-base, where the risks were not fully assessed. The real story is the report’s analysis that lockdowns should only be resorted to in future as “a last resort”, and quite possibly should never be resorted to at all. While there are gaps — the UK government’s own evidence that its Test and Trace system reduced Covid infections by at most 5% at a cost of UK£29.3 billion isn’t discussed — today’s report of Module 1 delivers a devastating blow to the lockdown consensus. It offers an admirable discussion of the many factors to be balanced in a health emergency, citing former chief medical officer Sally Davies and her advocacy of a need to “balance the biomedical model”, so that Government decision-makers receive advice from a wider range of perspectives. This would include economic impact, social wellbeing, and the effect on children and young people in education.  The report pulls the rug from under those whose declamations were taken as quasi-religious pronouncements throughout the terrible years of the pandemic. The real question to emerge is whether the media will honestly report what Hallett’s team has actually said — and what the consequences of this should be."

Jay Bhattacharya on X - "In Fall 2020, German ethics professor @chluetge  pointed out the obvious immorality of lockdown for the lives of children and the poor. German state authorities, in the grip of a zero-covid delusion, fired the ethics professor from its ethics board.  Sweden protected human life better than Germany without locked and with less collateral damage. The German authorities should have listened to the ethics professor rather than narrow minded virologists like @c_drosten  who lacked expertise and judgement."

High rates of COVID are causing outbreaks, rising hospitalizations and deaths heading into the school year : r/ottawa - "Honestly, wouldn't mind covid lockdowns again. Empty roads, wfh, chill environment.  Any based redditors feel the same?"
Clearly, inflation is the result of corporate greed

High rates of COVID are causing outbreaks, rising hospitalizations and deaths heading into the school year : r/ottawa - "Swiss cheese theory! Add in masking, sanitization, social distancing, capacity limits during peak COVID months, changing work and social culture to be more inclusive instead of isolationist and all of these things would greatly increase our health and help minimize COVID. Every room should have a screen indicating its CO2 levels to help you make informed decisions, and companies should be held to high standards to keep the cleanest air possible.  This wouldn't just help with COVID but many airborne illnesses like the flu and cold."
The covid hystericists are still at it

Autopsy findings in cases of fatal COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis - "COVID-19 vaccines have been linked to myocarditis, which, in some circumstances, can be fatal. This systematic review aims to investigate potential causal links between COVID-19 vaccines and death from myocarditis using post-mortem analysis. We performed a systematic review of all published autopsy reports involving COVID-19 vaccination-induced myocarditis through 3 July 2023. All autopsy studies that include COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis as a possible cause of death were included. Causality in each case was assessed by three independent physicians with cardiac pathology experience and expertise. We initially identified 1691 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 14 papers that contained 28 autopsy cases. The cardiovascular system was the only organ system affected in 26 cases. In two cases, myocarditis was characterized as a consequence from multisystem inflammatory syndrome. The mean age of death was 44.4 years old. The mean and median number of days from last COVID-19 vaccination until death were 6.2 and 3 days, respectively. We established that all 28 deaths were most likely causally linked to COVID-19 vaccination by independent review of the clinical information presented in each paper. The temporal relationship, internal and external consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis, its pathobiological mechanisms, and related excess death, complemented with autopsy confirmation, independent adjudication, and application of the Bradford Hill criteria to the overall epidemiology of vaccine myocarditis, suggests that there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death from myocarditis."

Meme - "REMEMBER WHEN THEY OUTLAWED FRESH AIR & SUNSHINE BECAUSE THEY CARED ABOUT YOUR HEALTH? *Park bench with tape on it*"
One cope is that it was a pandemic. Clearly during a pandemic, any measure supposedly taken in the name of public health - even one contradicted by the science - is justified
Other copes include mocking people who criticise this as covidiots or selfish

Chinese lab linked to Covid leak may have also released ANOTHER deadly virus, new research claims - "A bombshell new study suggests that this polio strain, which infected a four-year-old boy amid a wider viral outbreak in China's Anhui province, is '99 percent' identical to a polio variant that was stored 200 miles away, during that same time period, at the infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology. Researchers at France's Pasteur Institute cannot say with certainty where this strain, dubbed 'WIV14,' originated. But they insisted two possibilities 'must be explored' — including the chance that WIV14 polio originated within the Wuhan institute itself."

China 'carried out disinformation campaign to force world economy into lockdown', says US lawyer in extraordinary theory - "Michael Senger suggested the Communist Party promoted nationwide shutdowns in a bid to "cripple rival economies" amid the coronavirus pandemic... Senger however claims the Communist Party may have weaponised social media in an aggressive psy-op to spread hysteria to push for the lockdowns. The campaign may have pushed nations into committing economic suicide. He points to thousands of tweets which were encouraging world governments to try out the draconian rules first adopted by China. Senger even alleges Prime Minister Boris Johnson was targeted by Chinese disinformation after he first suggested herd immunity rather than a lockdown. The lawyer, from Atlanta, Georgia, laid out his theory in an article for Tablet Magazine titled "China's Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign". Writing on Twitter, he said: "By promoting fraudulent data, aggressively deploying disinformation, and flexing its institutional clout, Beijing transformed the snake oil of lockdowns into ‘science’, crippling rival economies, expanding its influence and sowing authoritarian values." He argued lockdowns "might not even be science it all" and claimed they are based on brutal policies used by Chinese leader Xi Jinping... Senger claimed it was a "domino effect" of country's following China's policy after Italy became the first nation to lockdown. Senger said: "Is there something more sinister behind this? Was this actually planned so it would crash rival economies and spread authoritarian values?" WHO described the lockdown of Wuhan as "unprecedented" in January, before actively encouraging other nations to follow China's lead just one month later. Senger claims the "smoking gun on the genesis of the coronavirus lockdown" is the fact Twitter removed tens of thousands of fake accounts promoting China's message. Twitter confirmed in June it had took down 23,750 accounts which were "highly engaged" in disinformation - and 150,000 which were engaged in amplification. The social media giant confirmed the accounts were deleted as they were promoting China's response to the coronavirus outbreak. Tweets included videos of Chinese workers disinfecting streets - each of which were accompanied by suspiciously similar messages praising in China. Senger writes much of this campaign was focused on bombarding Italy as it went into lockdown - sparking much of the rest of the world to follow. He also brands videos began emerging from China earlier in the pandemic, including people collapsing in the street with scenes reminiscent of apocalypse movies as "fake". Speaking of Sky News Australia, Senger said: "The only purpose behind these is to spread fear. To show this virus is really, really scary." And the lawyer accuses China of having "fake numbers" over the virus, with its figures "manifestly forged"... Senger claims the Britain's Prime Minister may have been targeted by misinformation when he suggested using herd immunity to beat the virus. He wrote: "On March 13, suspicious accounts began storming his Twitter feed and likening his plan to genocide. "This language almost never appears in Johnson’s feed before March 12, and several of the accounts were hardly active before then." FBI officials also revealed in July that US politicians had been approached by the Communist Party to endorse China's strategy on coronavirus. Chris Wray, FBI director, said: "We have heard from federal, state and even local officials that Chinese diplomats are aggressively urging support for China’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis. "Yes, this is happening at both the federal and state levels. Not that long ago, we had a state senator who was recently even asked to introduce a resolution supporting China’s response to the pandemic."... "The most benign possible explanation for the CCP’s campaign for global lockdowns is that the party aggressively promoted the same lie internationally as domestically – that lockdowns worked. "And then there’s the possibility that by shutting down the world, Xi Jinping, who … envisions a socialist future with China at its centre, knew exactly what he was doing.""

Richard Hanania on X - "People who took Wegovy were 33% less likely to die from Covid, and the effect kicked in before they even lost weight. They were 19% less likely to die of all causes. Incredible. The evidence is accumulating that it might be a good idea for everyone to be on this."
Obesity Drug Wegovy Prevents Covid Deaths, Study Suggests - The New York Times

Man, 34, died of cancer after GPs dismissed concerns, inquest hears - "Oliver Philpott, 34, called his GP practice at least six times during the Covid 19 lockdown complaining of severe pain in his back and long-term fatigue. Instead of being seen by a doctor in a face-to-face appointment, he was repeatedly assessed over the phone. He finally saw his GP at the medical centre four months after he first reported symptoms, but tragically died three days later. A post mortem later found the 34-year-old had a large 20cm tumour wrapped around his heart and lungs. The aggressive sarcoma had infiltrated his right lung and had eventually caused pulmonary emboli which caused a heart attack that killed him. In a double family tragedy, his father, Anthony - wracked by guilt and grief over the death of his son - took his own life. Today at an inquest into Oliver's death in Hastings, his doctor, Fiona Warner, said Covid 19 had restricted the number of patients doctors could see face-to-face."
Monsters! Why do they want grandma to have died?!

Meme - "While he locked you down, this communist czar was spreading aids"
"WATCH: NYC'S FORMER CORONAVIRUS ADVISER SAYS HE ATTENDED SEX PARTIES DURING PANDEMIC TO 'BLOW OFF STEAM'"
WATCH: NYC's Former Coronavirus Adviser Had Sex Parties During Pandemic - "New York City’s former coronavirus adviser, Dr. Jay Varma, apparently had parties involving sex and drugs during the pandemic, according to secretly recorded footage of him speaking about the instances...   Varma said he was the one who convinced de Blasio to issue the vaccine mandate... It is important to note that a New York State judge ruled in October 2022 the city employees fired for not taking the coronavirus vaccine must be reinstated and given backpay because the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional, according to Breitbart News.  Per the recent Post article, Varma has said he takes responsibility for not using the “best judgment” while also saying the private conversations were taken out of context."

The Real Lesson of Jay Varma's COVID Sex-Party Scandal - The Atlantic (aka "Public-Health Officials Should Have Been Talking About Their Sex Parties the Whole Time")
Right on cue...

The Surgisphere Scandal: What Went Wrong? - "It sounds absurd that an obscure US company with a hastily constructed website could have driven international health policy and brought major clinical trials to a halt within the span of a few weeks. Yet that’s what happened earlier this year, when Illinois-based Surgisphere Corporation began a publishing spree that would trigger one of the largest scientific scandals of the COVID-19 pandemic to date. At the heart of the deception was a paper published in The Lancet on May 22 that suggested hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug promoted by US President Donald Trump and others as a therapy for COVID-19, was associated with an increased risk of death in patients hospitalized with the disease. The study wasn’t a randomized controlled trial—the gold standard for determining a drug’s safety and efficacy—but it did purportedly draw from an enormous registry of observational data that Surgisphere claimed to have collected from the electronic medical records of nearly 100,000 COVID-19 patients across 671 hospitals on six continents.  The study was a medical and political bombshell. News outlets analyzed the implications for what they referred to as the “drug touted by Trump.” Within days, public health bodies including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) instructed organizers of clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment or prophylaxis to suspend recruitment, while the French government reversed an earlier decree allowing the drug to be prescribed to patients hospitalized with the virus.  Before long, however, cracks started appearing in the study—and in Surgisphere itself. Scientists and journalists noted that the Lancet paper’s data included impossibly high numbers of cases—exceeding official case or death counts for some continents and coming implausibly close for others. Similar data discrepancies were also identified in two previous studies that had relied on the company’s database. Inquiries by The Scientist and The Guardian, meanwhile, failed to identify any hospital that had contributed to the registry. It also emerged that, for a company claiming to have created one of the world’s largest and most sophisticated patient databases, Surgisphere had little in the way of medical research to show for it. Founded by vascular surgeon Sapan Desai in 2008 and employing only a handful of people at a time, the company initially produced textbooks aimed at medical students. It later dabbled in various projects, including a short-lived medical journal, before shooting to fame this year with its high-profile publications on health outcomes in COVID-19 patients.   The provenance of Surgisphere’s database—if it even exists, which many clinicians, journal editors, and researchers have questioned—has yet to become clear. Most of Desai’s coauthors admitted to having only seen summary data, and independent auditors tasked with verifying the database’s validity were never granted access, leading to the June 4 retractions of the Lancet study and a previous paper based on the database in The New England Journal of Medicine. Over the following days, The Scientist and other media outlets pointed out inaccurate claims made on Surgisphere’s website, which it had launched in February and gradually erased as accusations of fraud mounted. Desai, who spoke to The Scientist at the end of May, is no longer responding to requests for comment... While a heightened sense of urgency during the pandemic undoubtedly contributed to the problem, there were many people and institutions that theoretically could have prevented Surgisphere’s effects on science and public health, notes Rachel Cooper, the director of the Health Initiative at the nonprofit organization Transparency International.  Desai’s astonishing influence on COVID-19 policy was dependent on multiple parties, Cooper notes, from the institutions that employed him to the coauthors on his research studies, the journals that published the work, and the organizations that issued public health decisions based on his research. Seen that way, the scandal represents “a perfect storm of issues that have always been there”"
From 2020. If you don't Trust the Science (and we all know that the Science is Settled), you are a conspiracy theorist, science denier and spreading misinformation

Trump Promoted Hydroxychloroquine, A Drug Now Linked To 17,000 Deaths
Those Published “17,000 Hydroxychloroquine Deaths” Never Happened - "The CDC describes HCQ as “a relatively well tolerated medicine” and that “HCQ can be prescribed to adults and children of all ages. It can also be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers” referring to its long-term use in chronic diseases.   Basic logic dictates that, if a drug is safe for long-term use, it would also be safe for short-term use, including (and especially) in Covid-19 early treatment/pre-exposure prophylaxis type indications.   These are pharmacology fundamentals that ought to be known by any pharmacist or physician – let alone to a professor serving as a Journal Editor-in-Chief at a taxpayer-funded state College of Pharmacy.   Did not even one person on her editorial board of over 50 “peer-reviewers” and staff ponder the celebrated and storied history of HCQ (and its predecessors) and how incongruent this study’s findings were before choosing to publish data denigrating HCQ safety?   The correct answer to that might actually be: “no”…  The publishing editorial board all seem to be laboratory bench (non-clinical) research scientists, per their biographies. Although the board does promote itself as meeting DEI requirements of being “gender diverse,” a more important question might be is if they have the appropriate credentials and experience to review and opine on clinically complex drug safety/epidemiology subject matters in the first place... there were never “17,000 deaths;” it was always a hypothetical extrapolation of people that could have died, based on “unreliable” (eg, actually, fraudulent) databases on top of the previously mentioned, problematic late-stage RECOVERY-trial-type dosing and timing.   Still, Josh Cohen, a Forbes.com PhD senior healthcare columnist, used this publication to headline an absurdly biased op-ed against HCQ, stating that Trump’s HCQ proposal was “Linked To 17,000 Deaths.” Forbes’ Tufts, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania- trained “healthcare analyst” misrepresented or appeared to not understand the now-retracted study methodology or projections.   It went downhill from there. Mere hours following the publication, very similar, now objectively inaccurate, highly politicized, and seemingly coordinated attacks on HCQ and Trump were published by: The Hill, Politico, Frontline News, Scripps News, the Guardian, KFF Health News, News Nation, Newsweek, AOL.com, Yahoo News, and Daily Kos, in addition to a multitude of prominent regional, international, and US federal news outlets, many falsely estimating that 17,000 deaths had already taken place and that the (imaginary) victims’ blood was already on Donald Trump’s hands... Here are some screenshots of headlines referencing non-existent deaths based on a now-retracted study... Almost immediately following the January 2, 2024 publication, its critical flaws including basic miscalculations among many other deficiencies were brought to the attention of Dr. Townsend by Xavier Azalbert and non-profit BonSens.org attorneys starting on Jan 7, 2024. In fact, a total of 9 communications were sent by the above individuals, but none of them were ever shared as “Letters to The Editor” by Dr. Townsend in good faith to inform readers of specific potential shortcomings, as is otherwise commonly done.   Dr. Townsend seemed to forget that bad medical data and publications can do actual patient harm, and kept legitimate and important study criticisms to herself. Instead of taking responsibility and making a leadership decision, she passed the buck to a Committee on Publication Ethics, delaying the needed retraction. It appallingly took 234 days (~7 months, from the January 2nd publication to August 26th) for Dr. Townsend’s Journal of Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy to finally retract the “unreliable” article. But at that point, untold millions around the world had already been (and continue to be) polluted with outrageously incorrect information about non-existent HCQ deaths. This raises some questions about Dr. Townsend’s duties and responsibilities as the Editor in Chief"

Kevin Bass PhD MS on X - "Deborah Birx from her memoir, explaining how "two weeks to flatten the curve" was just marketing for harsh, months-long lockdowns that she was really planning:  "On Monday and Tuesday [March 9th and 10th, 2020]…we worked simultaneously to develop the flatten-the-curve guidance I hoped to present to the vice president at week’s end. Getting buy-in on the simple mitigation measures every American could take was just the first step leading to longer and more aggressive interventions. We had to make these palatable to the administration by avoiding the obvious appearance of a full Italian lockdown. …  No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it. Fifteen Days to Slow the Spread was a start, but I knew it would be just that. I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.""
The "myth" of the slippery slope strikes again

Thread by @GeauxGabrielle on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - " The revisionist history of COVID is crazy but I was there. I journaled through it. I screenshot through it. We were (and still are) living through history. And as an epidemiologist I want future generations to know how fucking stupid and selfish you dumb sons of bitches were Don’t talk to me about a goddamn fucking thing I’m doing. Y’all do not know me. People who DO know I be COVID conscious down."
From 2024. Covid hysteria is still raging

Kevin Bass PhD MS on X - "2023 meta-analysis of 40 high-quality studies:  COVID death rate in 2020 for people younger than 70 was 0.07%.  1-in-1500.  We locked down for that?  We created massive learning loss in children for that?  We forced everyone to take a novel mRNA vaccine, that didn't stop transmission, for that?  We destabilized our society and economy and created runaway inflation for that?  We destroyed countless small businesses and participated in the largest wealth transfer to elites in history for that?  We implemented mass censorship for that?  We fired and canceled hundreds of thousands of people for that?  We decimated trust in medicine and public health for that?"
Mankosmash on X - "At the time, I was getting banned on Reddit for pointing to evidence that the case fatality rate was about 0.2%. The media was saying the CFR was over 2% to scare people. Supposedly credible "experts" were "conceding" that it was over 0.5%. We knew this all AT THE TIME."
As usual, the covid hystericists got very upset by peer reviewed research exposing their delusions
Ironic. Even Fauci knew this in 2020, that "the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively"

Meme - Puritans burning witches at the stake: "Oops, turns out the masks and vaxes were pointless"
Puritans to fire (the witches are dead): "Mistakes were made on both sides"

Links - 17th October 2024 (2)

FCC approves controversial radio station deal involving Soros-backed group - "The Federal Communications Commission has approved a controversial deal: it gives control of more than 200 radio stations to a group funded by Democratic mega-donor George Soros.  Some of those stations are in Texas...  Carr says whenever foreign ownership is involved the process takes months so that national security agencies can do a review.  “It's very much out of the ordinary, we'll be creating a special shortcut just for this one entity that is backed ultimately by this George Soros group," Carr said. In a letter Friday, the House Oversight Committee accused FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and other commissioners of "bypassing an established process to do a favor for George Soros and facilitate his influence over hundreds of radio stations before the November election.""
Billionaires controlling the media are only bad when they don't push the left wing agenda

Archaeologists Discover World's Oldest Break-Up Letter at Neo-Babylonian Site - "King Nabonidus wasn’t a fan of being stood up, says a new finding by archeologists at Liberty University. Researchers have unveiled that the 6th-century BCE Neo-Babylonian king sent what is thought to be the first break-up letter ever discovered... “News has reached me via the Upper Euphrates that you were visiting with my childhood friend Nisaba. I am devastated by this betrayal, as you are one of my favorite concubines. You have until the end of the month to pick up your flax shawls and sandals or else I will donate them to the temple of the moon god.”"

Meme - *Nursing Director, Chief Medical Officer, Hospital Administrator, Healthcare IT Specialist. Pharmacy Manager. Health Policy Analyst, Health and Safety Officer, Medical Records Supervisor, Clinical Research Manager, Patient Care Coordinator sitting around looking at frontline staff dig hole*
Frontline staff: *digging hole alone*
"Due to budget constraints, we're going to have to let our frontline staff go."

How Where You’re Born Influences the Person You Become
This makes no attempt to correct for genetics, despite giving it a passing mention

In the 2024 Democratic Party Platform, the word Women appears 82 times, the word Men, 4 times. Why don't the Democrats pay more attention to male voters since they trail among them in the vote? : r/MensRights - "They don't care about our vote."
"They don't care about our issues or concerns. They do want our votes and expect to get them by guilting."
"This. I was pretty enthusiastic about Harris until I started trying to talk about improving the quality of life for men and they acted like I was crazy. I'm convinced their version of feminism means women get everything, not equality."
"They want our votes for now, but hope either way for them to become unnecessary; women make a slim majority at present and are more easily swayed by their rhetoric than men when removed from social support structures like family and religion. Their work for some time now has been tearing down every conceivable social support and replacing it with their politics."
"More bluntly, they don't care about men. If they have any feeling towards men and boys, its toleration at best, outright hate and resentment more frequently."

Meme - "MEN LOOK AT BOOBS FOR THE SAME REASON A LITTLE KID LOOKS AT PUPPIES IN A CAGE. WE JUST WANT TO SET THEM FREE AND PLAY WITH THEM."

Meme - "YOU'LL BE A BIG MOVIE STAR, BABY! I SEE OSCARS AND TONYS IN YOUR FUTURE!"
"WHERE DO I SIGN!?"
"OKAY OSCAR AND TONY, YOU'RE UP"
"SUPER BUM LOVE 7" *worried man on bed exposing ass*

Meme - "When you're at an airport security check and they pull out an Uno reverse card *Muslim woman in hijab screening white lady*"

Meme - "The fact Bill Clinton may have bombed a country so Hillary Clinton would resume missionary sex with the lights off has ruined my entire week."
"A biography of Hillary Clinton, written by Gail Sheehy and published in late 1999, stated that Mrs. Clinton had refused to talk to the president for eight months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. She resumed talking to her husband only when she phoned him and urged him in the strongest terms to begin bombing Serbia; the president began bombing within 24 hours. Alexander Cockburn observed in the Los Angeles Times,"

In the 18th Century, Pineapples Were a Symbol of Wealth and Power - "Originally from South America, pineapples were discovered by Christopher Columbus on one of his voyages to the New World. When he brought them back to Spain, many Europeans — royalty in particular — were completely taken by the delicacy. It was a rare, beautiful fruit most people had never encountered before and artists began incorporating pineapples in their work — whether lavishly depicted in  a painting or elegantly carved into wooden furniture.  The pineapple made its way to England in the 17th century and by the 18th century, being seen with one was an instant indicator of wealth — a single pineapple could cost the equivalent of $8,000 today. In fact, the fruit was so desirable and rare that consumers often rented a pineapple for the night to show off to fellow party-goers."

Montreal bylaws: Man fined for tying dog to parking meter - "A Montreal man who tied his dog to a parking meter while he entered a bakery is now facing a hefty fine for breaking a law he had no idea existed.  He's warning other pet owners who may face similar fines.  "It's something that I've seen other people do, myself included," said Dimitar Beshkov, with his four-year-old mutt Indy.  On Thursday, Beshkov popped in for a croissant on Rachel Street and tied Indy to a meter outside.  When he came out, less than five minutes later, a Montreal police (SPVM) officer was waiting to give him a ticket for $664...  According to the City of Montreal's website, tying a dog to a tree or street furniture is prohibited under provincial law.  At all times, a dog must be under the control of a person capable of controlling it.  It is a law the SPCA supports.  "Though it may seem ridiculous, in these particular circumstances, very strictly regulating when dogs can be tied outside is actually sound policy in terms of animal welfare and public safety," said SPCA lawyer Sophie Gaillard."

I found the stupidest way to find a job and it’s given me more results than 300 online applications. : r/GenZ - "It’s so fricken simple, but it’s worked 3 times last month. If you work at a retail store or some job where you meet customers/clients on a regular basis. All you have to do is get everyone talking about the economy then wiggle into the conversation about “how no one wants to work”. Really get them talking and eventually you’ll run into someone complaining about how one of their employees or coworkers quit or doesn’t want to work. Just agree with their circumstances. Then let them know how you’re looking for a job.  I did this to everyone for a month and so far I got 3 job offers as an insurance sales associate, HR recruiter, and a factory worker all paying 25 dollars or more."

That Time William McKinley Gave Away His Lucky Flower—And Then Died - "Early in his political career, an opponent of William McKinley’s gave him a red carnation boutonniere to wear during a debate. McKinley went on to win that debate and then the congressional election in 1887 (he served in the Ohio House of Representatives for 14 years), and he saw this red carnation as his good luck charm. He began wearing one during all election cycles, including his two gubernatorial wins and his 1896 presidential campaign. After his first presidential win, McKinley started wearing a single carnation in his lapel at all times. He even kept a bouquet of them on his desk in the Oval Office and would gift them to visitors.  McKinley—who was born on January 29, 1843—was also known to give people the flower from his lapel, though he would replace it as quickly as possible. In 1901, months after his second term in office began, he was in Buffalo, New York for the Pan-American Exposition. While greeting the public, he met a 12-year-old girl named Myrtle Ledger who was there with her mother. Years later, Myrtle recalled that President McKinley said, “I must give this flower to another little flower,” and then he gave her his lucky carnation.  Minutes later, McKinley greeted another person in line—his assassin, Leon Czolgosz. The president was shot twice and died the following week from gangrene. Three years later, the Ohio General Assembly named the scarlet carnation the official state flower in his honor."

Meme - Benny Feldman @Feldfrog: "You know how people who used to torture animals as a kid are way more likely to be psycopaths as adults? I'm sort of the opposite, I actually used to catch girl rabbits and pleasure them effortlessly with my fingers until they came"

Family that walk on all fours have 'undone the last three million years of evolution' - "The Ulas family has been the subject of evolutionary fascination for years after they were discovered in a remote village in Turkey walking on all fours. Back in the early 2000s, a scientific paper was published on five of the Ulas siblings and their strange bear crawl-style of movement, with experts divided over the cause of the abnormality... The Ulas mother and father had a staggering 18 children, however, of these, only six were born with quadrupedalism (walking on all fours), which has never been seen before in modern adult humans... Humphrey pointed out that the affected siblings – five of whom are still alive and aged between 22 and 38 – all suffer from a particular form of brain damage. In the 60 Minutes documentary, he showed MRI scans which revealed that they each had a shrunken section of the brain called the cerebellar vermis. However, the professor also noted that this in itself “[doesn’t] account for their walking on four legs”. He explained: “Other children who have damaged cerebellum, even children who have no cerebellum, can still walk upright.” He also stressed that the Ulas’ form of quadrupedalism differs from that seen in our closest animal relatives – chimpanzees and gorillas – in one key way. Whilst these primates walk on their knuckles, the Turkish children’s use the palms of their hands – putting their weight on their wrists while lifting their fingers off the ground. "What's significant about that is that chimpanzees ruin their fingers walking like that"... "These kids have kept their fingers very agile, for example, the girls in the family can do crochet and embroidery," he added. Humphrey has hypothesised that this could indeed be the way our direct ancestors walked... The LSE researcher also suggested that there are more basic explanations for the Ulas children’s quadrupedalism: they were simply not encouraged to walk on two feet. In the Turkish village where they grew up, there was no local health service to help the disabled kids make the transition from crawling as babies (on hands and knees) to walking fully upright. Humphrey told 60 Minutes that he provided the Ulases with a walking frame and within a few hours “there was an astonishing transformation”. “The children who had never taken a step upright on two legs [used] this frame to walk across the room with such delight in their faces and a sense of achievement,” he recalled, adding that it was as if they had “suddenly made a breakthrough into the world they never imagined they could ever enter.”"

Labour’s authoritarian urges are worryingly obvious... and not just in outdoor smoking ban it intends to impose - "They’re there too in the Home Secretary’s extraordinary plan to embroil our police once again in recording “non-crime hate incidents”. Yvette Cooper seems to believe this will show zero tolerance for anti- Semitism and Islamophobia. Experience proves it will be a mandate for cops to probe anyone who simply hurts another’s feelings via even the most anodyne remark in person or online. That’s not police business. Besides, they’ll be busy enough chasing illegal smokers down the street on behalf of the Government’s public health fanatics. Or should we say “irregular” smokers, since “irregular” is how Labour intends now to rebrand the illegal migrants landing on our beaches in small boats? Meanwhile, in our universities, Tory measures painstakingly negotiated to preserve free speech are set to be axed. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson risibly claims they were a charter for “hate speech” against minorities. In fact they were merely a safeguard against aggressive left-wing radicals shutting down speakers voicing even mildly conservative views on campus. Some political balance is vital. Our students and lecturers are already overwhelmingly left-wing and our universities the wokest places in the land. At University College London a new edict says vulnerable people must not be called “vulnerable”. Even if your sole motive is their protection and needs, such supposedly unthinking and blunt language could “disempower them”. Will Labour ever rein in this insanity? As we say, the omens are not good."

Estonia offers to hold UK prisoners as our jails are full with record number of lags - "Estonia’s minister of justice Liisa Pakosta said the Baltic nation had cells it could rent out to Nato allies. She said the scheme could be worth £25million to Estonia and hinted the UK and Sweden are already in talks over sending prisoners there."

‘A whole economy issue’: Labour productivity declines for second straight quarter - "“This is not a problem confined to one region or sector — say manufacturing. It is a whole economy issue,” said Douglas Porter , chief economist at Bank of Montreal, in a note to clients. “And while it may seem like an esoteric topic for many, the reality is that unless it is properly addressed, Canada’s relative standard of living will continue to weaken.”... Pedro Antunes, chief economist at the Conference Board of Canada, said it’s important to look at productivity before the pandemic, prior to disruptions that skew the data. Antunes says Canada’s productivity overall has declined 0.5 per cent compared to the average in 2019 and Canada has been a laggard for decades... This low productivity trend has also grabbed the attention of the Bank of Canada this past spring, when Bank of Canada senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers delivered a speech in Halifax, highlighting Canada’s productivity problem has reached an emergency level... GDP per-capita, another important measure to look at when discussing the standard of living of Canadians, posted its fifth consecutive quarterly decline during the second quarter of this year. Porter notes Canada continues to be outpaced by our American counterparts when it comes to productivity and our position among the OECD continues to decline. “U.S. productivity has thus outpaced Canada by 10 per cent in the past five years alone,” said Porter. “Looking at GDP per hours worked in U.S. dollar terms, the OECD finds that Canada has now slipped even below Italy and Spain and is losing sight of the U.S. and most Northern European economies.”"

Michael Higgins: Jagmeet Singh can still yank Liberals even further to the left - "To be fair to Jagmeet Singh he has parlayed two dozen NDP seats into a political wedge that has forced the Liberals to turn sharp left. That he gets no credit for it, even from NDP supporters, is probably because he is a tiresome, whining, sanctimonious hypocrite. Singh’s hypocrisy during his political marriage with the Liberals has been a defining feature of the last two years — attack Justin Trudeau on every occasion, but back him in the House of Commons to ensure the government doesn’t fall... Singh never seems to waste an opportunity to turn the political marital bed into a verbal pillow fight. Singh told delegates attending the British Columbia NDP convention last November, “I have seen Trudeau’s government up close. I shouldn’t be mean, but one of our MPs has described working with the Liberals like wrestling eels that are soaked in oil.” But he also noted, Trudeau “only acts when he is forced to, or when his political future is on the line.” It is this that Singh is gambling on. Certainly, Singh blindsided the Liberals on Wednesday with his announcement that he was dissolving their partnership — the one that in 2022 called for “no surprises” between the two parties. Just over a week ago, Government House Leader Karina Gould said she was “fairly confident” that the agreement would hold through to June 2025... Of course, Singh must also have his eye on the declining polling numbers for the NDP. According to an aggregate of polls for 338Canada , if an election were held now the NDP would see their number decline by a third — down to 16 seats from 24."

Is this Jagmeet Singh's swan song? - "The party’s gambit was simple: by working alongside the Liberals, the New Democrats could claim credit for such popular policies as national dental care and pharmacare. The idea was that once these programs started rolling out, Canadians would recognize the NDP’s hand in these initiatives and reward it with strong polling numbers. But, to the surprise of Singh and his team, the anticipated poll bounce never came. What was worse — the struggling Liberal government became more of an anchor than a lifeline to NDP fortunes. Rather than boosting support, Singh’s deal with the Liberals dragged both parties down. The Liberals tacked further left than expected and have seen public trust erode. Meanwhile, the NDP found itself on the wrong side of issues that alienated voters it desperately needs. Take, for instance, the NDP-backed motion on the Israel-Hamas war. Watered down from its original form, which sought recognition of a Palestinian state, it still signalled an uncomfortable departure from Canada’s long-standing foreign policy. This misstep may cost the Liberals key seats, such as the Toronto–St. Paul’s stronghold they lost in a June byelection. It’s a perfect storm of mistakes that make Singh’s latest declaration of independence seem less like a power move and more like a last-ditch effort to save face ahead of must-win byelections in Winnipeg and Montreal. Is this Singh’s swan song? It certainly feels like the beginning of the end for his leadership. Some within the NDP have already started asking tough questions. Singh has failed to consistently raise the party’s polling numbers above 20 per cent — a threshold the NDP hasn’t regularly crossed since he took the helm. Compared with the heights reached under Jack Layton or even Tom Mulcair when the NDP was a genuine contender for power, the party’s performance under Singh’s leadership has been underwhelming. It’s time to face the facts — today’s NDP has morphed from a vehicle for political and social change into a platform for Jagmeet Singh’s vanity. Yet his social media persona, though appealing to younger voters, hasn’t translated into the kind of widespread support the party needs... The NDP leadership review last October, while not damning enough to force Singh out, showed cracks in the foundation. It represented one of the worst reviews of any NDP leader since the 1970s."

Singh targets carbon tax in a flaccid attempt to imitate Poilievre - "In August 2021, pre-coalition deal, EKOS had the Conservatives polling 52 per cent higher than the NDP among working-class voters; by August 2024, that lead grew to 119 per cent... Singh, it seems, had to learn the hard way that punitively taxing people for existing in a modern (but cold) economy isn’t exactly the way into a working voter’s heart. The Liberals and NDP have forked on how to manage this mess: the NDP are denouncing the present iteration of carbon pricing (sort of), invoking the disproportionate suffering workers are supposed to experience in a changed climate without openly opposing it. The Liberals, meanwhile, are trying out another hopeless rebrand while giving carve-outs to strategic provinces (Atlantic Canada). Layered with other flaccid working-class pitches, it’s not hard to see why the Conservatives are in the lead. The NDP has largely veered from labour politics toward campus-style identity concerns, even supporting the Liberal government as it caved to the rail duopoly in its dispute with train engineers. The Liberals have performed miserably worse on worker appeal, touting rebates and welfare programs nobody wants to have to rely on. Sure, there’s a carbon tax rebate, but the scheme is still a net negative for all but the bottom quintile — most people know that money is best left in their pockets anyway. The free amenities don’t resonate all that much better. Liberal free school lunches, Liberal free birth control — all while Canada is getting collectively poorer respective to peer countries. Trudeau, confronted by a dissatisfied steelworker two weeks ago, even tried to play the free dental-care card. Didn’t this tradesman appreciate the latest expansion of the welfare state? No, of course not. “I pay for it myself…. Why? I have a good job,” responded the worker. The Liberals, and to a lesser degree, the NDP, struggle to understand the great insult of having welfare jigged in front of one’s face like a lure. No, a few hundred-dollar “Climate Action Incentive Payment” isn’t enough to buy someone’s vote, and it’s offensive to even suggest that it might be. No, another free service that everyone could afford in 2005 isn’t going to cut it, especially when many of us can’t reliably find a doctor. Climate justice was only fun when the rich were the ones paying, and handouts only felt great when most workers didn’t need them."
The working class is too stupid and ignorant to realise that the NDP is the party that really represents their interests. But they're too bigoted to swallow identity politics after all

Jack Karlson, who shot to fame after ‘succulent Chinese meal’ arrest, dies aged 82 - "The man who immortalised the phrase “this is democracy manifest” while starring in what has been described as the pre-eminent Australian meme, Jack Karlson, has died aged 82. Karlson – although there are debates as to whether this was his real name or one of many aliases – was a serial prison escaper and small-time crook who shot to fame in 2009 after a news clip of his arrest at a Chinese restaurant in Brisbane’s Fortitude Valley in 1991 was uploaded on to the internet. “What is the charge? Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?” Karlson theatrically boomed as his bear-like frame resisted a string of police officers."

Angry netizens call out Wells Fargo for not noticing a dead employee for 4 days - "Denise Prudhomme, a sixty-year-old, worked at the American financial services's corporate office in Tempe, Arizona. She clocked in at 7 am on August 16, Friday. On Tuesday, August 20, she was found in her cubicle at 4:55 pm by the police and was pronounced dead. The preliminary investigation did not indicate any foul play. According to a USA Today report, the company stated that since the employee’s desk was located in a very “underpopulated area,” she went unnoticed during the weekend... most of the people are the company work remotely"
It's a good bet that most bashing the company also demand remote work

Schools are competing with cellphones. Here's how they think they could win - "At Nguyen’s school, students lock their phones in neoprene pouches during classes or even all day. A teacher or principal’s magnetic key unlocks the pouches. It doesn’t matter how dynamic the lesson, said Nguyen, who teaches at Marina Valley High School and now markets the pouches to other schools. “There’s nothing that can compete with the cell phone.”... Some say other forces behind teen disengagement are only amplified by the cellphone. The divisive political climate often makes students unwilling to participate in class, when anything they say can rocket around the school in a messaging app. Taylor’s high school English students tell him they don’t talk in class because they don’t want to be “ canceled ” — a term applied to public figures who are silenced or boycotted after offensive opinions or speech. “I’m like, ‘Well, who’s canceling you? And why would you be canceled? We’re talking about `The Great Gatsby,’” not some controversial political topic, he said. Students “get very, very quiet” when topics such as sexuality, gender or politics come up in novels, said Higgins, the Massachusetts English teacher. “Eight years ago, you had hands shooting up all over the place. Nobody wants to be labeled a certain way anymore or to be ridiculed or to be called out for politics.” So Higgins uses websites such as Parlay that allow students to have online discussions anonymously. The services are expensive, but Higgins believes the class engagement is worth it. “I can see who they are when they’re responding to questions and things, but other students can’t see,” Higgins said. “That can be very, very powerful.”"

Meme - Japanese sign: "Please do not finger the peaches. As this fruit is easily damaged, would you mind not touching it by hand."

Weird Florida throwback: Psychedelic mushrooms and alligators don't mix - "Amid the recent news of a face-biting slaying and an accused Chipotle-eating baby neglecter, it's easy to forget that Florida has always been a land of weird behavior. Here's an example from 2013, when five Florida men learned a valuable lesson: psychedelic mushrooms plus marijuana plus alligators does not equal a good time... a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officer found four men and a teenager in Little Big Econ State Forest near Oviedo with a bag full of narcotics. Those arrested included Rick Myers, 30; Tyler Salzman, 20; Gregory Sansota, 22; and Jacob Russell, 20. The juvenile’s name was not released, and a woman with the group was not booked.  According to the wildlife commission, the group had psilocybin mushrooms in the bag while one of the men was holding a 2-foot alligator that was “tucked into a bandana.”... The incident inspired the viral photo that read: “Do Not Feed Hallucinogens To The Alligators”"

Mike Benz on X - "The US State Dept called in massive favors & leveraged personal connections to build voting machines for Lula-aligned Brazil officials and then the CIA warned Bolsonaro not to mess with or cast doubt on all the new US State Dept-secured voting machines determining his election"
Mike Benz on X - "What’s funny is both the 1964 military junta in Brazil and the 2022 judicial junta in Brazil received direct help from the CIA to rise to power."

Crémieux on X - "Have you seen these charts on parental time use from Our World in Data, Financial Times, and The Economist? These graphs are not good... In some cases, they fit an exponential increase to data with limited differences between just two timepoints!"

Meme - ">Playing DnD
>Wizard gets into a fight with an important NPC
>When the wizard realizes who the NPC is, he apologizes and asks "As a token of my goodwill, would you like me to make you a magical sword?"
>NPC agrees
>Wizard casts polymorph and turns them into a sword.
>Argues that the NPC shouldn't have a will save because they agreed to it."

“Genocide”? Canada’s Government Wanted to Close Every Indian Residential School in the 1940s

Ironically, left wingers are usually for compulsory schooling.

Canada’s Government Wanted to Close Every Indian Residential School

"In what might be considered an act of heroic optimism, in March 1942 Canada’s House of Commons convened a special committee to “study and report upon the general problems of reconstruction and re-establishment which may arise at the termination of the present war.” This was a particularly grim time for the Allies in the Second World War. Most of Europe was under Axis control, German general Erwin Rommel was rampaging across North Africa and the German army was near the outskirts of Leningrad and Moscow. In the Pacific theatre, Japan had recently captured Singapore and Burma, and the crucial Battle of Midway was still three months away. Nevertheless, a committee of Canadian politicians was tasked with imagining what the country would look like after the war.

By February 1944, the Reconstruction and Re-Establishment Committee turned its attention to Canada’s Indian Residential School system which, for the most part, educated native students from remote reserves in dormitory-style schools...

Appearing before the committee to discuss Canada’s now-demonized residential schools was Robert Hoey, superintendent of Welfare and Training at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Summarizing the attitude in Ottawa, Hoey said most of his fellow bureaucrats “can dismiss the matter just in a sentence – that the residential schools are no good. But,” he added, “they use language considerably more forceful than that.”

Hoey explained that his own opinion was not quite so pointed; he was in favour of offering an education to as many “Indians” as possible, regardless of the venue. He did admit, however, that his department was closing residential schools at the rate of about one per year. “I think we are outgrowing our Indian residential schools,” Hoey noted. Asked how he would direct future budgets, he replied, “Establish day schools.”

Committee member and Saskatchewan MP Dorise Nielsen strongly agreed with this sentiment...

Such rubbishing of residential schools was neither new nor novel. In 1942, deputy superintendent-general of Indian Affairs Harold McGill wrote to his deputy minister explaining that, “I hold, and have long held the opinion that the educational requirements of the great majority of Indians could be met by day schools to the decided benefit of the Indians and the financial benefit of the taxpayer.” The deputy minister replied in the margins of McGill’s memo, “As soon as war regulations regarding building materials permit, the building of day schools and the closing of residential schools should be proceeded with.”

An official dislike for segregating native students in remote residential schools was again evident in the 1948 report of a joint House of Commons and Senate committee reviewing the Indian Act. The report’s central recommendation was that “wherever and whenever possible Indian children should be educated in association with other children.” (See page 188 of document.) Some committee member expressed interest in “having Indian children sent to municipal or provincial day schools” rather than continuing with the existing federal system at all. (See page 47.) Following these recommendations, Ottawa essentially froze enrolment in residential schools in anticipation of eventually shutting them down.

It was thus the express desire of Canada’s federal government to rid itself of residential schools as early as the 1940s – five decades before the last school finally closed its doors in 1996. So why didn’t the federal government close them all in 1948? Not only would such a move have saved Ottawa considerable money and effort, it would also have avoided later accusations that the operation of these schools constituted a “genocide”, as a unanimous House of Commons motion claimed in 2022. The answer: because the government was not prepared to abandon vulnerable Indigenous children.

As painful as it may be to admit today, the vast majority of native children attending residential schools during the post-war period suffered from social ills, family hardships and health concerns that were far more serious than those faced by most other children in Canada. In particular, the devastating inter-generational effects of alcoholism and parental dysfunction on reserves had turned residential schools into a de facto native child welfare system. Had the government shut these schools down in the 1940s, as it very much wanted to, those children would have been left at grave risk of injury or death. There was, quite simply, no other place for them to go.

And so, regardless of the well-documented problems of ill-health and abuse at some residential schools, keeping them open long past their due date was a decision made with the best interests of Indigenous children at heart. Considering this, claims of genocide are not just wrong, but outrageously wrong.

In the late 1800s the new country of Canada was faced with the perplexing problem of how to help an estimated 120,000 Indigenous people habituated to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle cope with the sudden demands of a modern society based on agriculture, resource extraction, permanent towns and expanding industries. The populist reform movement sweeping across North America seemed to offer a ready answer: public education. Publicly-provided, compulsory schooling was widely hailed as the solution to poverty and social disharmony throughout Canada...

Indigenous leaders were well aware of the over-arching importance of education; church-run residential schools had been operating in Canada as charitable missionary endeavours as early as the 1600s. When Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada’s first prime minster, began signing treaties with the inhabitants of what had been Rupert’s Land (now most of western Canada) in the 1870s, the issue of education was a key area of negotiation. All of the “numbered” treaties signed between the federal government and the various tribes required Ottawa to build and run schools “whenever the Indians of the reserve shall desire it,” as Treaty 6 states. Schools were thus a contractual obligation for the Government of Canada. For native parents, the schools were to be the means by which their children could enter a world they were struggling to comprehend...

In line with its treaty promises, the federal government began funding a church-run Indian Residential School system (as well as a day school system) shortly after Confederation so as to provide native children with basic language and other skills required to function in Canadian society. This was to be a voluntary acculturation process, at least during Macdonald’s time. As Indian Affairs’ annual report for 1898 stated, “The Department’s policy is as long as possible to refrain from compulsory measures and try the effect of moral suasion and an appeal to self-interest.”

Not until the 1920s did federal legislation extend compulsory education to native children, although this policy was rarely enforced. Most Indigenous children attended school for only a few years, with more than half of the attendees of both day and residential schools dropping out after Grade 1. Such schools were clearly not prison camps, as is often alleged...

The disastrous effects of alcohol on native communities shows itself very early in Canadian history...

Protecting native communities from alcoholism’s debilitating effects was also one of the driving forces behind creation of the North-West Mounted Police (NWMP) in 1873. The Mounties were tasked with stemming the illicit trade in whiskey flowing across the border from the United States. Their efforts were gratefully recognized by Chief Isapo-Muxika at the signing of Treaty 7 in 1877. “If the [NWMP] police had not come to this country, where would we all be now? Bad men and whiskey were killing us so fast that few of us would have been alive today. The Police have protected us as the feathers of the bird protect it from the frosts of winter.”...

The modern impact of alcohol on native Canadians has been dealt with by several noted Indigenous writers, including Calvin Helin and Harold Johnson. In his powerful 2016 book Firewater: How Alcohol is Killing my People (and Yours), Johnson, a former Saskatchewan Crown prosecutor who died in 2022, makes the provocative claim that half the Indigenous people known to him locally died, either directly or indirectly, from alcohol abuse.

“I can’t stay silent any longer. I cannot with good conscience bury another relative,” Johnson writes in Firewater. “I cannot watch any longer as a constant stream of our relatives come into the justice system because of the horrible things they have done to each other while they were drunk. The suffering caused by alcohol, the kids with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), the violence, the poverty, the abandoned children, the mental wards and the emergency rooms, the injuries and the illnesses and the loss of hope and the suicides have all piled up within me to the point that I must speak.”

FASD deserves special attention in any discussion of residential schools. It was only formally identified as a medical condition in the 1970s, but its impact likely goes back centuries. It is caused when a woman consumes alcohol while pregnant, damaging the developing fetus within her. FASD can impair the victim’s health in numerous ways including physical abnormalities as well as problems with memory, cognition, communication and abstract reasoning. Children with FASD typically have serious difficulties in school, both academically and in interacting with others. Tragically, these problems inevitably follow them into adult life, revealed by high rates of violence (including spousal and sexual abuse), suicide and addiction.

FASD can repeat in an endless cycle as women with FASD are prone to drinking during pregnancy, resulting in another generation of FASD children. And while this pathology can occur within any race or culture, it is particularly virulent on Canadian reserves. Scientific studies suggest FASD occurs among Indigenous children on and off reserves at rates between 10 and 100 times greater than in the rest of Canada. Nearly two-thirds of Inuit women in Arctic Quebec, for example, drink during pregnancy, putting their children at great risk of FASD. A recent academic study identified five key demographics in which FASD is most prevalent worldwide; Canadian Indigenous children under the care of welfare agencies lie at the intersection of several of these categories.

Despite the enormous shadow cast by FASD and alcoholism in native communities, the issue is rarely discussed in official circles. The 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), for example, barely mentions the topic. And just two of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action (#33 and #34) make any reference to FASD – one of which demands the court system treat those with FASD in a more lenient fashion, a proposal that can lead to further trauma on reserves. FASD is the unmentioned demon that haunts the native experience throughout Canada.

As Ottawa sought to extricate itself from the residential school system in the post-war period, it was confronted by a great surge in the number of Indigenous schoolkids, fuelled by a native baby boom every bit as profound as the post-war baby boom in the rest of Canada. Between 1943 and 1954, the number of Indigenous students doubled from 16,000 to 32,500. And within this boom was a rapidly growing share of students described as “neglected children”, “orphans and part-orphans” or children from “broken and problem homes”. This was almost certainly the result of alcoholism and undiagnosed FASD on reserves. Whatever the terminology, government officials felt they couldn’t just leave these children at home with their parents. And the only place they could send them was residential schools.

In 1996 Trent University historian John S. Milloy produced a lengthy report on the history of Canada’s residential schools for the RCAP entitled Suffer the Little Children: The Aboriginal Residential School System 1830-1992 (later revised and republished as A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System 1879-1986). In his earlier RCAP report, Milloy examined why Ottawa failed to carry through with its stated intention to shut down the residential school system in the 1940s and concluded it was due to “the emergence of a new role for the schools, that of social welfare institutions.”...

During the aforementioned Reconstruction and Re-Establishment Committee hearings in 1944, superintendent Hoey candidly admitted that while his department was shutting down residential schools, they remained necessary for the care of “orphans and children from disrupted homes.” The same message can be found in the 1948 Indian Act joint committee recommendations, which said residential schools were required for children “who come from homes in which competent welfare workers decide that institutional care is needed.” What to do with child welfare cases on reserves was always a dilemma for federal officials, but in the post-war era it was growing much worse. And this created a major impediment to Ottawa’s planned exit from native education...

Typically, a child required an application form to attend a residential school. Where a child could otherwise reasonably attend a day school, the application had to be supported by an additional explanation for why residential school was necessary, chosen from one of six categories. Category 3 covered cases of “serious neglect.” By 1954, Milloy reported, Category 3 welfare cases were given “first priority in admission.” Milloy says he found “many thousands” of such applications...

In all cases, a residential school placement appeared to be the only recourse available to protect or help the child in question.

A federal census taken in 1953 found that 43 percent of the 10,112 Indigenous children in residential schools nationwide were listed as neglected or living in homes that were unfit because of parental indifference or over-crowding...

As the supply of such cases increased, Canada’s Indian Residential Schools were forced to transform themselves from mainly educational institutions to “a sort of foster home which endeavour[s] to cater to the social and emotional needs of the child,” as a 1966 departmental report cited by Milloy puts it. In that year, an astounding 75 percent of 9,778 residential students were welfare cases. At Nova Scotia’s Shubenacadie Residential School, federal regional director Francis B. McKinnon noted in 1967 that, “Practically all the children now in residence have been placed there mainly for reasons other than to facilitate school attendance.” A church official replied that his school had essentially become “a welfare institution.”

As time went on and Ottawa pushed its policy of opening day schools and closing residential schools, the share of difficult cases in the remaining residential schools went up even further. By 1975, children from “broken or immoral homes” constituted nearly the entire student population at three Saskatchewan residential schools: Gordon’s Residential School (83 percent), Muscowequan Residential School (64 percent) and Cowessess Residential School (80 percent)...

The near-complete takeover of these schools by high-needs children, many of them likely suffering from undiagnosed FASD or other health problems, would have made the experience for all students extremely difficult, especially the minority who were attending only because there was no day school near their home reserve. This may help explain why so many witnesses to the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission expressed such negative memories of their time at residential school which, in turn, led to accusations of genocide.

As the problems of forcing church-run residential schools to become child welfare institutions multiplied, Ottawa finally found a way out of its conundrum. In 1964 the Federal-Provincial Conference on Indian Affairs came to an agreement on “the terms under which Indian children may be accepted in provincial schools.” A separate series of federal-provincial agreements around the same time also transferred the care of native children in need to provincial child welfare agencies. But even with these agreements, the shutdown of residential schools still took decades. By the mid-1980s the transfer was largely complete, even if the last school – Gordon’s Indian Residential School in Punnichy, Saskatchewan – remained open until 1996...

Given the circumstances on reserves, having white families foster vulnerable native children was considered by many child welfare experts to be the best available option. The Sixties Scoop was driven by the same intractable conditions that turned residential schools into welfare institutions several decades earlier: in the absence of any other viable alternatives, it was considered the only way to help desperate children in need. Today, this policy is widely referred to as an “abduction of First Nations children” and yet another stain on Canada’s relationship with Indigenous people. It has also been duly apologized for and generous compensation has been paid. Amid all this breast-beating, however, one might also spare a sympathetic thought for the thousands of loving parents whose act of compassion in adopting impoverished and distressed native children is now regarded as yet another form of genocide.

Following the transfer of native child welfare to the provinces in the 1960s, responsibility was further devolved to Indigenous agencies. This process culminated in 2019 with federal legislation intended to completely “Indigenize” native child welfare by allowing every First Nation in the country to create and deliver its own care standards. The new law also makes it nearly impossible to apprehend native children from dysfunctional homes, as such cases will now be subject to a “cultural continuity” test.

This law was challenged and judged partially unconstitutional by Quebec courts in 2022 as an overstep into provincial jurisdiction. Earlier this month, however, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled it to be wholly constitutional, with Indigenous leaders hailing the decision as an “historic moment” in “advancing reconciliation”. Can this latest change in jurisdiction really make a difference in improving the lives of vulnerable Indigenous children? It seems unlikely.

Despite the closure of the entire residential school system, several decades of devolution and the rapidly ascendant role of Indigenous-controlled child welfare agencies, the foundational problems have never gone away. In Manitoba, 91 percent of children under the care of a family services agency are Indigenous. Nationwide, according to the 2021 Census, native children under 14 account for 53.8 percent of children in care, despite representing less than 8 percent of children that age in Canada. Meanwhile, Indigenous youth continue to struggle with alcohol and drug use, unemployment, low educational attainment and mental health problems at rates substantially above the rest of the country. The most obvious conclusion regarding the intractable persistence of these social issues is that jurisdiction is irrelevant. The residential school system was never the cause, but one of many attempted solutions.

Should Canada’s residential school system be characterized as a genocide? It has lately become impossible to discuss the history of residential schools without confronting this damning allegation. The 2022 House of Commons motion claims the answer is self-evident. So too the 2019 report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (Although the latter came with a “cultural genocide” qualifier.) More recently, some proponents have even demanded any opinions to the contrary be criminalized.

A careful review of the facts belies these hysterical allegations. While conditions in some schools were less than ideal – perhaps even abusive – due to budget shortfalls and poor staffing, the schools existed to fill a necessary and irreplaceable role. In the beginning, this role was to provide Indigenous children with the language skills and other Western knowledge essential for their successful participation in Canadian society. As time went on, however, the schools transformed to fill an even more vital role. They became a de facto child welfare system for vulnerable children from dysfunctional homes brought on by centuries of alcohol abuse within Indigenous communities.

By the 1940s, federal bureaucrats knew there were better options for educating native students, but as much as they would have preferred to shut down residential schools, they couldn’t. Doing so would have abandoned the many individual welfare cases these schools protected. Without acknowledging this difficult truth, it is impossible to comprehend the full story of Canada’s Indian Residential Schools.

To conclusively answer the question of whether the residential school system was a genocide, consider again the final Category 3 application form from the Mohawk Institute residential school listed above. “Since her father has remarried, the girl has been boarded out among relatives. The child is of a nervous disposition and has developed and (sic) impediment in her speech. It is considered the child will receive proper care and attention to overcome this condition at the School.”

What sort of genocide frets about a young girl’s speech impediment?"