Saturday, January 15, 2022

Sheep Pens Article

Here's kind of a shit article: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/tasha-kheiriddin-the-unvaccinated-must-be-deterred-from-harming-others/ar-AASFX34?ocid=msedgntp 

The unvaccinated must be deterred from harming others

Looks like Postmedia is competing with the CBC to bring us junk Op-Eds.  I was going to avoid any more CoHIV blog entries, but like everyone else, I'm getting tired of the lack of thinking, or any kind of logic, from the current governments on their handling of this pandemic.  Or reading puff-pieces like the one we’re going to go through.  I do want to get something out of the way that might make things easier to take (not make things better): smart people don't go into politics.  They're too smart for that.  Wanna-be celebrities without any talents get into politics and that's why we're at where we're at.  This one’s a long one so on to the article (in italics):

What to do about the unvaccinated? As Omicron tears through Canadian society, this public health question has become a political wedge issue. The Liberals and Conservatives have chosen sides, ramped up the rhetoric, and polarized the debate, each playing to the base they think is most likely to support their point of view.

Not really.  The Conservatives are just as dumb as the Liberals; there's not a lot of difference between the two but if there is a side that's ramping up the rhetoric, it's the "Liberals".  I use quotes because they're not very liberal minded at all; must be a Merriam-Webster definition.  They're actually more like a Federal Quebecois party, and that's not a compliment.  Anyways, the rest of this Op-Ed is like this; kinda dumb since she agrees with trying to bully a group of people into getting a shot, the same group that has every good reason to be skeptical about getting it. 

With 88 per cent of Canadians over the age of 12 fully vaccinated, the Liberals figure they’re pretty safe siding with the crowd that favours the jab. Regrettably, they have chosen the strategy of demonization. On Friday, Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos speculated provincial governments would make vaccination mandatory, which he said could be needed to get “rid” of the virus. During the election campaign Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the unvaccinated “misogynists and racists.” He dialled that down a bit last week when he said that Canadians are angry at the unvaccinated who take up hospital beds, but his remarks caused a furor that has yet to subside.

Has this chick been under a rock?  88% got a needle because they wanted to keep their job, which is completely shitty and only pieces of shit would propose, let alone enforce, a vaccine mandate.  When I got mine, I didn't see anyone gleefully skipping out of the Vax centre.  I find it hard to believe that 88% of the population favoured getting a relatively untested shot; that's wishful thinking at best.  Oh, and the PM insulted the wrong group of people last week too, not just during his campaign.

The Health Minister obviously doesn't read anything about pandemics and vaccines.  If he knew what was going on, he'd know that you can't vax your way out of this pandemic.  At least that's what the guy who holds the patents on the mNRA technology says.  I'll take his word over a greasy politician who's on the take.  And the Health Minister thinks you can get rid of the virus.  Dumbass.  We're all going to get it, vaxxed or not.  St Fauci of the Sand Flies came out Thursday and said the same.  I read another story yesterday morning (I started drafting this Blog entry 3 days ago and new things just keep popping up) about a family who did everything the government asked/mandated (3 shots, masks, distancing, etc) and were wondering why the caught CoHIV.  So for you vaxxed people out there, you might want to be a little nicer to the unvaxxed because they're not a group of misogynists and racists.  They're probably more informed than you'd think.

The Prime Minister is so out of touch with what's going on he'd be better off with his mouth closed.  Canadians aren't angry at the unvaccinated, they're angry at how poorly the government is handling the situation, but it's never this guy's fault, eh?  I'll bet people were more angry that there was a full two years where not one new hospital/ICU unit was built.  And if he did his homework, hospitals are seeing vaxxed and unvaxxed, with either the Delta strain or Omicron strain.  Both are still out there; Omicron didn't replace just Delta yet.  So in two weeks now, will the Prime Minister say that all of the vaxxed people are taking up precious hospital space too?  It’s half vaxxed-half unvaxxed taking up ICUs (in Ontario) at the time of writing,  People are also angry because they're realising the shot wasn't what was sold to us at the beginning and we're constantly being lied to by the current PM/future Pfizer salesmen.  It’s not 100% effective like the CEO of Pfizer claimed two years ago.  And the big one: 66% of the country didn't vote for the PM.  That was a polite way of saying a majority of Canadians don't like him.  This is the same dingbat who calls an election during the pandemic only to see no change from the day before the election (but I’ll throw more blame on his advisors for that one).  It's impossible for him to know what Canadians are like when he doesn't even like people.  I thought the projection was funny though.  The guy, that does blackface more than when minstrels shows were around, is so self-unaware he’s still calling other people racist.

If you're going to be this bad at your job, at least be a cool person.  His new bobblehead has more personality.

This is not accidental. The sad reality is that there is a subset of the unvaccinated who fit Trudeau’s description; since September, for example, some have been using the hashtag “Pureblood” on social media to self-identify as unvaccinated. You don’t have to scroll far to find tagged images peppered with shots of white supremacy gestures or MAGA hats. The Liberals’ dogwhistle is designed to conflate these people with mainstream Conservatives — and turn people off Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole’s call for “reasonable accommodation.”

Now, the creator of this piece, Tasha Kheiriddin, is throwing in her two cents (that's 1.6 cents Cdn).  I'm not sure what she was trying to accomplish but somehow all MAGA hat wearers are all white supremacists?  Maybe if you're in Grade 3 and your parents are sheep, you might have learned to think like that.  Or maybe Tasha was homeschooled.  Quite honestly, I've never seen a MAGA hat north of the border since 2016 but I've seen plenty of MAGA hats south of the boarder and it ain't all whites wearing them.  And what exactly is a white supremacy gesture?  Tasha should remember that her government of choice was caught fabricating the existence of White Supremacists about a year ago.  I'm not exactly sure if this was before or after we found out that the Canadian Government admitted to secretly surveilling its population’s movements during the lockdown by tracking 33 million phones.  Also, if she her homework, she’d find out that isn’t exactly that demographic that's hesitant; quite the opposite.  I'm trying to be polite here because I don't think your exterior shade means much but it's not the lighter shade of skin that's been shown to be the most hesitant to get a shot.

O’Toole is asking for “acceptance” of the fact that up to 15 per cent of the population will not get vaccinated. He favours using rapid tests to keep unvaccinated workers on the job, as opposed to shutting down to stop the spread of the virus. “In a population that is now largely fully vaccinated, in fact the action and inaction by the Trudeau government is normalizing lockdowns and restrictions as the primary tool to fight the latest COVID-19 variant.

But this approach is also wrong. First, it relies on unreliable technology. Rapid tests are not good at detecting Omicron infections, particularly in the early stage when a person is infectious but shows no symptoms. Second, it sends a double message. On the one hand, the Tories encourage people to “get vaccinated.” On the other, they make allowances for those who eschew the jab.

There's no double message; that’s not an on-the-one-hand kind of comparison.  The message is: the virus is real, we recommend you take at least one shot but if you refuse, we can't make you take it.  Look, I summed it up in one sentence for Tasha.  The only unreliable technology that anyone should worry about is the vaccines themselves, since they certainly don’t stop anyone from catching (and spreading) the CoHIV.  The good thing you can say about the Conservatives is they're not beating on particular, almost non-existent demographic.

The current governments don't base any decisions on silly things such as facts or statistics.  That's why we're still in a pandemic mess.  Lockdowns/curfews don't work; they only concentrate people in certain areas at certain times (I feel really bad for anyone living in Quebec - maybe it's time Quebec left the Commonwealth).  Giving people more money than they got when working didn't work (don't worry, the PM assured us the economy will fix itself); not allowing people, who didn't get a shot, to work was completely stupid.  So now there's a group of people who want to work but can't and a group of people who don't want to work but can.  Clever.  Proof of vaccination wasn't well thought out.  For starters, it shouldn't have happened in the first place, but that led to, at least in Ontario, a mandatory QR code to verify your vax status.  Somehow, that was better than me showing my second dose pdf from my phone.  Nobody really said how or why it was better.  And at time of writing, I can't even use my QR code because the day after I just had to get it, I'm in another lockdown.  Smart. 

But it's all a burden on the hospital staff, is the excuse.  Governments were the ones who single-handily understaffed the hospitals.  It's their fault, not the unvaxxed. 

It’s like saying “wear your seatbelt, but if you don’t, that’s OK.” Well guess what — it’s not. If you get in an accident, it will cost up to three times more to treat you in hospital than if you were buckled up. Sound familiar?

While I don't mind the seatbelt analogy, it's too simple to be accurate.  People wearing their seatbelts can wind up in the hospital and/or get killed too and not every car accident sends people to the hospital.  I'm sure that there have been times where the person wearing the seatbelt goes to the hospital, and the person that didn't wear a seatbelt didn't.  That would mean the seatbelt wearer would be costing the hospital 3 times as much.  A blanket statement like everyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt at the time of an accident automatically cost 3 times more to treat is naive at best.  Sound familiar?

The reality is that we restrict plenty of behaviours where we judge the harm to others, including economic harm, outweighs the limits to individual liberty. We don’t allow people to smoke in workplaces or public buildings. We forbid drinking and driving. And we mandate vaccination for contagious diseases such as measles if children are to attend public school.

Why? Because otherwise your actions, or inaction, present a real risk of harm to someone else. They can cause quantifiable loss, in the form of sickness, suffering, even death (yes, last year 200,000 people worldwide died of measles , mostly children under five).

If that were true, going back to the seatbelt analogy, then cars would be banned.  Also, comparing the measles vaccine with the Pfizer shot is a bad comparison.  Two measles shots and you'll never get measles again, compared to three shots (so far) that are ineffective after a year: Tasha, one shot actually immunizes, the other wishes, so let's keep things honest.  Also, 200,000 out of almost 8 billion people dying of measles, as terrible as that is in third world countries, is still 0% rounded up.  0%.  That's the same percentage as online hate speech.

People don’t live in a vacuum. A liberal would cite Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract, which called for government by popular consent; a conservative would point to Edmund Burke, who rightly observed, “Men are never in a state of total independence of each other.” In other words, there is no freedom without responsibility, no liberty without duty.

Ironic since a mandate would be antithetical to liberty, but sure.  Rousseau's "collective need of all to provide for the common good of all" didn't mention anything about government mandates.  The current mandates aren't for the common good and they weren't developed by the people.

When it comes to vaccination, we should protect those who understand this truth from those who disdain it. Vaccine passports, restrictions on interaction and withdrawal of privileges are preferable to calling people names, forcing them to get the shot, or conversely accommodating a choice that puts others in harm’s way. Obliging those who opt out of vaccination to pay a penalty, such as the Quebec government is suggesting, is also a possibility. Such measures are not about cajoling or compelling, though if they do result in more vaccinations, that’s a good thing. They are meant to protect all of us who just want to move on from this once-in-a-century public emergency and get back to living our lives.

Actually, all of these measures are about cajoling and forcing people to do something they really shouldn't have to do.  I think it’s called Bullying.  If she doesn't understand why there's a pushback, she would fit in great at the Federal Parliament level.  I found over the years, if you want someone's help, you don't insult them, because if you do, they'll probably tell you to go fuck yourself and not help.  It’s been like that for centuries.  It's just how people are.  Shaming works but that's usually to get a better performance out of people.  A withdrawal of privileges is not preferable to forcing people to get the shot.  It's pretty much the same thing.

Things are going to be changing rapidly though.  The CBC, in an attempt to look neutral, put out a natural immunity article, except the more you read, it's another pro vaccine article, praising the Federal Government's handling of the pandemic but I was surprised to see the CBC said the booster is outdated: "Right now, the boosters that we have are matched to a strain long gone". 

That's why me, and millions more, are asking, what's a booster good for, and why do you want to force me to take something that clearly isn’t going to help?  I'm at the point where two shots were enough.

Once it gets out that we didn't really have to go through what we went through over the last two years, there's going to be a lot of angrier people out there.  I can't wait for another empty apology from the empty PM.

 

Monday, January 10, 2022

Happy New Year 2020/21/22

I wondered if C3PO got a job with the Government of Ontario last week?  I can hear his voice saying, "Shut them down.  Shut them all down".

C-3PO may be a fictional character but he sure is smarter than anyone currently accepting bad CoHIV advice at the provincial level.  And C-3PO wouldn't be getting kickbacks either.

It's another round of lockdowns that didn't really need to happen.  If anything, it's the time to open up everything. 

Everyone will get Omicron.  That's what the professionals are saying.  Professionals; not a dog hating desk jockey with a share in Moderna.  This is the perfect time to catch the CoHIV, especially if it's as mild as they (the professionals: doctors and such) are saying. 

What's the most severe symptom?  A runny nose.  Shut them down.  Shut them all down.

Here's how a dumb guitar player (myself) would approach this: open everything up - no indoor restrictions; everyone catches the "cold"; a couple of weeks later, everyone's good and there's no need for a booster.  Not that boosters don't work, but they should be used on old people that could benefit from it (even though the booster doesn't target the Omicron variant - that's supposedly coming out in March).  Everyone doesn't need a booster.  Pfizer shareholders might disagree but everyone is different. 

And then everyone can go back to a time where you didn't have to wear a silly mask and look like a bank robber all the time.  No "mandatory" QR Codes to use on closed stores and restaurants.  No more knee-jerk decisions.  Life's good.

The excuse for the lockdown is so hospitals don't get overwhelmed.  There's two things that didn't have to happen: firing of the hospital staff (oddly, your average "Liberal" is good with that).  The other thing that didn't have to happen was not building ICUs during the summer lull.  For an example, where I work, they're currently building condos in the area.  A four story condo building took a month to erect.  Imagine if someone was building more ICUs so it wouldn't strain the hospitals?  They had 2 years.  Then you could have more hospital rooms, and staff (if they weren’t wrongfully dismissed) to work in them. 

And by the way, on the Federal level, can someone fix the Prime Minister?  He just an embarrassing dumbass.  Anyone that publicly says antivaxxers "do not believe in science, who are often misogynists, often racists, too", isn't capable of running a bath.

Happy New Year.

 

Thursday, July 8, 2021

It's Not About Hate Speech - It's About Speech They Hate

Two wrongs don't make a smart Heritage Minister.  Why is the Canadian Government wasting time creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist?  The Judas Party of Canada, the party that seems to hate Canadian Citizens, ironically tables an Anti-Hate Speech Bill.  I was kidding, it's not ironic: they really hate you or this proposal wouldn't even be a thought.

This is going to be a multi-parter blog entry because there's so much wrong after wrong here, I can't fit it into one entry.  The main focus of this entry is from here, the introduction of Bill C-36:

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2021/06/government-of-canada-takes-action-to-protect-canadians-against-hate-speech-and-hate-crimes.html

"Canadians expect to be safe and free from hate speech and hate crimes, online and offline. The Government of Canada is committed to keeping all Canadians safe, while also protecting their rights and freedoms."

I know why I haven't found a definition of Hate Speech in Canada; it's because in bullet-point 2, "this Bill will add a definition of Hate Speech".  So while the title implies it's about Hate Speech, it hasn't been defined yet so the Bill is not really about Hate Speech.  I'm glad that's out of the way.  As far as offline hate speech: let's be clear that kids spraypainting a backward swastika on a rock in the middle of the night at the park is not a hate crime.  If you think it is, you should probably get off Facebook for awhile.

Maybe it's my age but if I've ever received genuine hate in a text, tweet or an e-mail from a stranger, I wouldn't think much of it because some stranger's feelings about me isn't something I would dwell on because it's not healthy.  Sticks and Stones anyways.

This proposal magically appeared a couple of days after Bill C-10 was passed in the House at 1:30 in the morning.  Most crimes happen at night.  Bill C-36 will be a lot worse because of its content since it creates a bigger problem than it tries to solve and will have real serious (and terrible) consequences for pretty much every Canadian.  It must be all that Equity talk they throw around. 

"Too many people and communities in Canada are harmed and victimized by hate speech, which is often amplified and spread online. Online hate can turn into offline hate with devastating impacts on communities and families. We have a responsibility to victims to take action to combat hate online and continue to build a more inclusive Canada."

How many?  A whopping 1,946 out of 38,000,000 people (that's about .005 percent; rounding up, that's 0%).  You may as well say that there isn't a lot of hate going on in Canada.  That's something to be quite proud of, actually.  That is until something like this passes.  Because it will.  The Senate is too complicit to do the right thing.  I've seen them cave on Bill C-16 and I wouldn't expect anything less again.  

  

The offline part is ridiculous and where it obviously goes too far but I wouldn't expect anything less from the Dishonourable MP Khunt (Gilbeault; see above pic) to be all for this.  As a note, he's quite proud of himself for doing all of this harm.  Then again, all activists are self-centred assholes.  I hope he doesn't spend his thirty pieces of silver all in one place.  Basically, this proposed bill says it's OK for a start ratting out someone on a conversation they eavesdropped on.  There are low-lifes out there that love to be a malicious rat because they think they're appearing to do something virtuous.  Being a rat is not a virtue and honestly, snitches deserve stitches when they stick their nose in other people's business.  And who wants to hang around with a tattle-tale?  No one. 

I had a good laugh at "The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of freedom of expression for all Canadians and is taking a balanced and targeted approach to tackle the most extreme and harmful speech."  This whole thing is the antithesis of free expression and there is no balanced approach.  Targeted, yes, but there's no need to "balance" Freedom of Expression with anything.  It works fine on its own if you leave it alone.

"A 2020 study conducted by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue Global concluded that Canadians were using more than 6,600 online channels, pages, groups and accounts across several social media platforms to spread white supremacist, misogynistic or other extremist views."

Who the hell is the Institute for Strategic Dialogue Global and why are they going through people's social media accounts without their knowledge?  The Government of Canada has to fabricate white supremacists: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canadian-military-to-establish-new-organization-to-use-propaganda-other-techniques-to-influence-canadians.  Misogyny (Misandry apparently didn't make the cut) means making feminist jokes anymore so that shouldn't count, and "other extremist views" could mean anything right of far-left. I would say, judging by these selling points, and the 0% online "hate crimes", that this Bill is totally unnecessary.

The real point of this bill is to silence the opposition, just like Bill C-10 would work well for the CBC (instead of opposition, it would be competition).  This really has nothing to do with the undefined Hate Speech.  This is all about not being able to criticise the government for the poor job they're doing.  It's not Hate Speech but it's speech they hate.  The easiest way to combat criticisms is to do a good job and do the right thing, but the current federal government either knows they're inept at their jobs or they're up to something that not one single person will like.  I guess that is the same thing.  Think I'm losing it? https://www.the-sun.com/news/3002400/putin-sign-extremist-bill-banning-critics-elections-fears-gaddafi/

Should anyone pay a fine for criticizing or insulting another person?  Of course not.  Any sane person knows that.  The sad thing is, if that Bill ever gets Royal Ascent, this Blog entry (and probably a couple others) would be considered Hate Speech.  Isn't that sad? 

The Quote section was interesting: "“Canadians expect their government to take action against hate speech and hate crimes."  I've learned over the years that I wouldn't expect the government to take action on anything.  They couldn't even handle a pandemic properly and they've had at least 20 other countries to use as models as to what would work and what wouldn't. F-

Once information goes up on the Justice Department page, then I'll go through it like the Bill C-10 blog entry I did.  I'm sure there will be plenty of inconsistencies.  If an unfinished Bill like C-10 will pass the House, garbage like this will too.