Your Moral And Intellectual Superiors

Day of Wreckin’n

It costs £174.50 a year to obtain a BBC license for a color TV. Technological atavists who are bargain-hunting can snag a license for a black and white TV for only £58.50 per year. For the year ending March 2025, the license fee raised £3.8 billion, 65 percent of the Beeb’s total income.

There is growing resentment about the fee. “Some people ask,” said one news report, “why they should be forced to pay for the BBC if they do not use its services.” Good question. However, it now appears that the BBC may need to significantly increase its fees to avoid insolvency.

That’s because Donald Trump is preparing to sue the storied news and entertainment company for between $1 billion and $5 billion. That “B” for “bankrupt.” “I have an obligation to do it,”

Fishing Without Bait

Or, The Difficulties of Satisfying Progressive Women:

It occurs to me that there’s something a little dissonant about the framing of affection and basic consideration – say, remembering your partner’s birthday – as “unpaid.” As “emotional labour.” As if being in a relationship or having any concern for those you supposedly care about were some onerous, crushing chore. As if you should be applauded – and financially compensated – for the thirty-second task of adding a birthday to the calendar on your phone.

The attitude implied by the above would, I think, explain many failures on the progressive partner-finding front and the consequent “stepping away from dating altogether.” Though possibly not in ways the author intended.

As if the concept of wanting to care, to help, to remember those birthdays, were somehow alien or offensive.

Jeffrey Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself

Red State;

The Washington Post dropped a bombshell that Epstein appeared to have been communicating with Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett, the non-voting delegate from the Virgin Islands, during a congressional hearing in February 2019. So this would have been well after the allegations about Epstein were all over the news, and he was a known convicted sex offender. The Virgin Islands is where Epstein’s infamous island is Little St. James.

The name was redacted in the documents. I wonder why? But the WaPo was able to figure out who it was by comparing the texts to the action at the hearing.

The hearing involved Democrats trying to go after Trump for the umpteenth time by questioning Michael Cohen, his former attorney. Epstein appeared to be feeding her information to influence her questioning. They matched up the time stamps on the texts that were released and the video of the hearing, so you can read what he was communicating while the hearing was in progress.

The Part I Like Best

About harm reduction is the way Street Outreach programs identify addiction-impacted persons in crisis and redirects them away from chemical self-actualization.

Oh well. Cheaper than MAID, I suppose. (Is it cheaper than MAID?)

What Would We Do Without Research?

Stat Modeling; (sorry about the code glitch)

The point is that I shouldn’t be so shocked to hear that Columbia medical school has prominent faculty who’ve been involved in research fraud. If you’re a medical researcher and a cheater, then research fraud is a natural step. Just as if you’re a storekeeper and a cheater, then ripping off your customers and employees is a natural step; or if you’re a statistician and a cheater, then it makes sense to hire yourself out as a data manipulator; or if you’re a CEO and a cheater, then it makes sense to fake your corporate reports; or if you sell used cars and you’re a cheater, then you’ll hide the flaws in your cars; or if you’re a university administrator and a cheater, then it makes sense to fake your U.S. News statistics . . . ulp! In all these examples, there’s a clear incentive to cheat: if you play honest, it’s easy to fall behind your competitors who could be cheating too. Indeed, you could argue that, if you play by the rules, you’d be letting the side down . . . it’s arguably unethical not to cheat. You’re developing treatments what will save lives, after all!

Via Steve McIntyre: Gelman didn’t mention the following famous statement by climate scientist Stephen Schneider

Let Them Eat Bullets

Viral immunologist Dr. Bridle;

The data suggest the ostriches experienced an outbreak of avian influenza, which was most likely introduced to the farm by wild birds, in which the virus is endemic. In the ostriches, the virus functionally behaved like a low pathogenic strain, based on the percentage of deaths. Ostriches that had been on the farm for more than several years did not get sick, suggesting that they had naturally acquired immunity, likely from a previous exposure to the virus. Newer members of the flock got sick and some died. Most of the sick ostriches recovered and returned to full health. This suggests that all of the remaining healthy flock had naturally acquired immunity. So, to execute healthy birds with gold-standard immunity in no way increases the safety of people or animals in the region. In fact, it does the opposite.

A flock with naturally acquired immunity creates a geographical location where the virus will either be stopped dead in its tracks, or will have great difficulty getting transmitted. Instead, the farmers will be allowed, if they so wish, to repopulate the farm with immunologically naive birds that will be highly susceptible to influenza viruses that can get re-introduced by the birds that forever migrate through the property. Absolutely nothing has been done or can be done about the carrier population of wild birds that spread the virus between continents. So, by failing to acknowledge the reality of naturally acquired immunity, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has done the opposite of enhancing public safety. Their policy of ignoring this basic science has raised public risk through the removal of a flock that achieved the ultimate public health goal of herd immunity and allowing them to be replaced with highly susceptible birds.

Indeed, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has documented multiple farms across the country in which their stamping out policy for avian influenza facilitated the repeated return of the disease when naive birds were introduced. Over just a few-year span, several farms were documented to have up to four repeat outbreaks. Let’s explicitly spell out what that looks like…

Related.

Navigation