Showing posts with label insanity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insanity. Show all posts

Sunday, March 8, 2020

Sh*t Mardi Gras















ZeroHedge thinks all U.S. hospital beds will be filled due to Kung Flu cases by May 8th.

Au contraire, mes amis.

ZeroHedge's Tyler Durden knows what he knows, and doesn't know what he doesn't know.

1) The number of ICU beds already full is closer to 90%, most days, esp. during flu season, i.e. every day since Thanksgiving.

2) There's already a severe shortage of N95 masks, and all protective apparel. With damned close to zero Kung Flu patients hospitalized anywhere. And that's only going to get worse.

3) Because of #1 & #2, there won't be a shortage of hospital beds.
Quite simply, unless you're almost abso-fucking-lutely dying right this minute, you will not be getting a hospital bed.
Now. Then. Ever.

4) Napkin math says you'll need 5M cases of Kung Flu to get 1M who need a hospital. We're currently a long way from 5M cases, even if this doubles every 4-6 days.
(Remember Ebola Math: there are 34 doubles from 1 to Everyone.
The first ten get you to 1000. the second ten get you to 1M. So to get to 5M, you need 23 or so doublings. At 4-6 days per double, that's 92-138 days. So if that's the doubling speed, we will be at 5M cases by June, anyways. Not May. But in a pandemic, doublings speed up and slow down, as the virus hits new pockets of people, and then runs through them.)
Regardless, at some point, we'll get to 1M Kung Flu victims who need a bed.

5) None of that matters, because less than 10% of them will ever get in.

6) Because long before then, we'll either decide to stop seeing them, or hospital care at all will cease to exist, from staff infections, lack of supplies, people who'll stop coming to work, etc.

7) At that point, there will functionally be zero hospital beds.
Either because no one with Kung Flu will be let in, or because there isn't a hospital. I can tell you right now, we aren't going to turn away heart attacks, strokes, and trauma patients so we can see people with Kung Flu, even if they're really effing sick. I've told you, "Don't get this virus." This is why.

If you have URI symptoms, you'll be triaged outside to a tent, and then transmogrified and transported to some CDC-approved empty warehouse, sports arena, convention center, etc., where you'll get the best care you can from totally untrained amateurs, retirees brave enough to risk it, and people too stupid to turn that work down. Think former barristas, people too dumb to pass the TSA civil service exam, and the guys too stupid to make it delivering pizzas or spinning signs. The number of licensed folks there, like doctors or nurses, will be countable on one's thumbs. There will be somewhere between vastly inadequate PPE, to no PPE. They will be short of everything but patients.

And as friend ASM826 at Borepatch's blog has noted, even hospital staff can wear full Level A encapsulating suits in the hospital, but if they aren't wearing them to their front yard decon station, and staying inside afterwards, they're going to get Kung Flu from the general population anyways, in short order.

8) That is an S3 event.
It is not a Shit Show.
It is not a Shit Circus.
It will be a Shit Mardi Gras.

So Tyler's analysis is too cheery by a couple orders of magnitude.

{If you were wondering, the higher levels are, in ascending order, A Shit Riot, A Shit Tsunami, and a Shit Apocalypse.
You do not want to see an S5 or S6 event, believe me.
Moses' ten plagues on Egypt were only an S5. The only S6 in recorded human history was Noah's Flood.}

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Fiat Anarchy


Frequent commenter A.B. Prosper responds to our essay this morning regarding the plight of Johnson & Johnson:
"I wouldn't worry about J&J, the medical companies can simply refuse to sell in the US if they like.

This kind of leverage is why the vaccine injury compensation trust fund exists, the companies that make them basically said 'we get protection or you do without.'"

J&J isn't the issue here, A.B.

The issue is fiat anarchy under color of authority.

Setting the precedent that uninvolved innocent parties can be rounded up, sued, and financially ruined for the unrelated actions of evil people using not-their-product, as if apples were elephants and horseflies were horses, because the defendants happen to be minding their own business legally and above board, undoes all trade and commerce in anything, in about a minute.

That's a civilizational death sentence.

It's Kafka-esque and surreal, and the only answer is rivers of blood and heads on poles. If that starts tomorrow, just for this reason, I'm all in.
It's that bad.

This is the kind of thing that justifies slaughtering the entire judiciary and executive organs that uphold or enforces it, as quintessential casus belli. It stands the law and common sense itself on its own head, and endangers society itself, intrinsically and explicitly. This is one of those things that authorizes marching people to Madame Guillotine in wholesale batches.

What happens to J&J is something to which I'm relatively indifferent. In the end, they'll make out okay.

This judge and OK's AG, OTOH, need a fine public lynching about five minutes ago, as outlined in the OP.
This is the Dred Scott case of the 21st century, and if upheld, it's sufficient grounds for another civil war/revolution, with all the trimmings.

A sitting judge has ruled that the innocent must be fleeced because evil exists, somewhere else.
J&J is merely standing in the dock in your stead.
If they can be judicially ass-raped without a shred of legal rationale merely on some lunatic judge's say-so, nothing and no one is safe.

That's sufficient grounds for lopping off heads and burning down legislatures, just for openers. And if the dullards amongst TPTB don't see that, and nip it in the bud, good and hard, that's exactly what's going to follow, and it will be wholly justified.

What comes after that is the real problem.

You don't want a civil war?
This is how you get a civil war.

Ask King George how that worked out for him.

Half-witted, and Half-@$$ed

h/t SiG and Kenny

If we had actual justice, court houses would all have a spiffy
 show-and-tell display on the front lawn most days.





















Much has been made on right-leaning websites of the recent roll-back of the Obozo-era EPA ruling that anything up to and including your child's wading pool was "waters of the United States" subject to federal jurisdiction.

Folks are celebrating because a half-bright judge recognized this went a wee bit too far.

Natzsofast, Guido.

This is merely the verisimilitude of justice.

It's also as stupid as taking your car back to the same jackwagons who didn't fix it right the first time, as if they'd eventually get it right after trying all other options.

The correct ruling would have been to abrogate the entire Act as a violation of the takings clause in the Bill of Rights, and refer the entire EPA SES from then until now to twenty US Attorneys in the specific jurisdictions for prosecution, for violation of civil rights under color of authority, and conspiracy to commit same.

The people that issue such rulings should be at risk of prison for overstepping their bounds.
Anything less is merely a bastardized monarchy without the handy option of direct popular regicide.

The Founding Fathers would have hung the entire EPA in Lafayette Park, and sold tickets to the event, followed by a bonfire on the site where their former offices were converted to charcoal and rubble.

"BYOB" on the invitations would refer to a wine bottle of high-octane.

BBQ, fireworks and a social dance afterwards, around maypoles decorated with the severed heads of former administrators.

Sending the EPA and Corps Of Engineers to their room, to rethink the "waters of America" statue, is like assigning a convicted child molester to community service by having them run a day care center.

Saturday, August 3, 2019

Mollycoddling The Circus Freaks

h/t McThag
























In commenting about men competing as pretend-women, on his blog, Divemedic wrote this:

"Let's say that I believe myself to be a gorilla. No matter how strongly I believe it, I am still not a gorilla.
Let's say that I take pills to make myself grow more hair to look more like a gorilla. I am still not a gorilla.
If I hire a surgeon to perform an operation to make myself look more like a gorilla, I am still not a gorilla.
If I get a million people to say that I can be whatever I identify myself as, and declare than I am a gorilla, I am still not a gorilla.

If I were to believe myself to be a gorilla and took the steps above, people would say I am crazy."
Divemedic is correct, and his analogy accords with the situation of men pretending to be women, and allowed to compete in women's sports.

Guy wants to play sports?
His birth certificate dictates where he competes.

Allowing genetic men in women's sports is clinical insanity, and should occasion the end of any sport or organization supporting it.
They're lunatics.

The response to Divemedic from Angus:
"The button he pushed is only tangentially related to his point about the athletics problem.

Let's say that letting you pretend you're a gorilla alleviates nearly all of the internal symptoms of your species dysphoria and lets you function at a normal level.

There's a few things that I keep ramming into when seeing the trans issue coming up, but far and above is whether it's a mental illness or not.

The LGBT party line is that it is not a mental illness and it's completely normal.

I don't think that it is correct.  Seeing the wrong person in the mirror is not normal.  If it's not normal, then it's abnormal and likely a state of mental illness.  If you want to get technical, being left-handed is an abnormality too.

The problem of admitting it's a mental illness comes from the people who use this to attack and demean the persons with the problem.  You have a cure?  An effective cure that does less psychological damage than the affliction?

No.  No you do not.

When there's no cure for a disease, you're left with treating symptoms.

Letting the trans person dress like the person they think they are and using the pronouns of that person is treating the symptoms.  It doesn't turn a man into a woman, but it allows that person to feel human again.  That's something that people with gender dysphoria don't get dressing as the chromosomes dictate.

It's not near so extreme as human v gorilla.  Let's try another analogy:

 Let's say that I believe myself to have a full head of hair.

No matter how strongly I believe it, I am still bald.

Let's say that I take pills to make myself grow more hair.  I still have male pattern baldness.

If I hire a surgeon to perform an operation to implant hair from elsewhere to my head.  I still have male pattern baldness.

If I get a million people to say that I can be whatever I identify myself as, and declare I have hair, I still have male pattern baldness.

If I were to believe myself to have hair and took the steps above, would people would say I am crazy?

Genetics says I should be bald.  Yet we have how many technologies that allow the bald to pretend they have hair?

Something I learned about basic human kindness and politeness AS A CHILD was to not make fun of someone's toupee to their face.  That pretending that an obvious rug was hair was just something that we did because compassion for others is the right thing to do.

I can make the same analogy about hair color.  How many people dye away the gray?

Gender dysphoria is something without a cure.  While there are several treatments, none are 100% effective and none are universally applicable.  What worked in one case will fail spectacularly in another.

That's just how psychology works."

Now it was my turn to enter the conversation.

"Treating the symptoms" acknowledges that reality is not what we wish it to be.
That's sane coping.

Believing that your wish is reality is a psychosis.
Which, by definition, isn't just "abnormal", it's clinical insanity.
Left-handers are abnormal, but their function is real: they use their left hand better than their right.
Their belief that such is true absolutely comports with reality.
Abnormal means different, not crazy.

That's just how psychology works.

Someone who wants to dress differently is within the societal bounds their own business.
First Amendment, free expression, etc. etc.

Demanding to be referred to, and allowed to function as, a genetically different sex than biology dictates, not only steps over the line into clinical psychosis, it compels me to join in that psychosis, by pretending an insane fantasy is reality.

That is tyranny, by way of insanity.

I decline to participate, on both counts.

Forcefully, if need be.

And if someone can't deal with the reality that they are the sex they are, no matter how, or how well, they try to camouflage it, they have the problem; I do not.
It not my job, nor society's, to kowtow to such insanity, let alone enforce nor reinforce it.

They need professional help.
And if they cannot deal with reality and behave appropriately in polite society, they need institutionalization.
Guy wants to wear a wig and a dress? Couldn't care less.
Guy in a dress goes into a bathroom used by women and little girls, he's going to jail.
Not even a hard decision.

Angus' reply to that:
"Get professional treatment, fine. What's the 100% works every time, on everyone treatment?

That's the problem here. Gender dysphoria isn't a single disorder, but a family with the same overt presentation. A myriad of causes means there's a myriad of cures... *IF* it can be cured at all. It doesn't seem certain it can be in many if not most cases and it's tragic.

What you've said you're going to do when confronted with a sick person is to be a dick about it.

Think about that."

Sorry Angus, but having a firm grasp on reality, and refusing to mollycoddle someone else's clinical psychosis, isn't "being a dick".

No treatment for anything is 100%, especially with psychological disorders.
That's why that's a completely ridiculous standard of care, adopted by no one nowhere and at no time.
I suspect you knew that already.
So why lay it out as if it's really a thing, let alone reasonable?

The problem is pretending that humoring lunatics helps them, or anyone else.
It doesn't.
When confronted by a sick person, I'm suggesting they need serious psychological work, but as long as they're not a danger to themselves or others, it's not my problem.

Trying to coerce me into humoring and coddling their lunacy is.

I'm not going to do anything confrontational with crazy people, unless I'm on the job.
If I'm in public, I'm calling a cop, if they're breaking a law.

If I'm on duty, and they're where I work, they'll behave, or be ejected.
If they're patients, they'll behave, or be restrained.
That's what I get paid to do, and I have the safety of everyone else to consider.
It's not their world, and they don't get their own reality, except inside their head, just like anyone else. When their crazy leaks out, and they start doing things against the rules, anyone sane would know there will be a problem. Anyone not sane needs an intervention. If that involves handcuffs, so be it.

In civil society, you act civil, or you don't get to go out and play with others.
Life has been like that pretty much for 6000 years of recorded history, and back before it into the misty past.

Some guy wants to pretend he's the Queen of Sheba, it doesn't affect me.
His attire is as free for him as my disdainful looks are to me.
He wants to be called something other than what he is?
Not happening.
He wants to go into a multi-user ladies' room?
He's going to have a date - with a judge.

You don't get to forcibly compel speech in this country, ever.
Noting that, or living according to that, is also not "being a dick".
It's called liberty.

That's the gist of the whole "your right to stretch your arm ends where my nose begins" theory of personal freedom.

We were told thirty years and more ago that demands from society's sideshow freaks for recognition and acceptance would lead to compulsory approbation.
"Today, psychosis is accepted. Tomorrow, it will become mandatory."
Now, exactly as warned, it's here.

I refuse.

"Being a dick" about all this would be publishing their names in the newspaper, or making them wear pink triangles on their clothes, or worse.

Noting that crazy people are indeed crazy, however, doesn't begin to approach dickishness, and instead goes by the handy name "sane". Noting insanity is neither an attack, nor demeaning. It's simply calling a nutbag a nutbag.

Being free-range crazy in public is generally punishment enough.
 


Just don't expect mandatory grazing rights and a watering trough on my front lawn.
And if anyone cannot handle the inevitable sane people laughing and pointing at their antics, it's probably too late in the summer for such Special Snowflakes to be outside without a sun umbrella.

Insanity itself has been a good way to know whom to avoid from time beyond reckoning.
 
UPDATE: We had made our point, but Angus apparently wants to move the goalposts all around and try again. And again. And again.
"Sure is a long winded way to say, "Yup, I'm going to be a dick."

You're also ignoring that I specified a particular disorder... But you lumped in everyone who dresses differently than you demand in your diatribe. I noticed."

"100% isn't fair, you're correct.

What's the treatment that's most effective? How often is it applicable? Will pursuing this line of treatment make some forms of the disorder worse? Can you determine that before you begin this line of treatment? Do you demand that everyone with the disorder be subject to the most effective treatment of the most patients even if there's a plurality of patients it is ineffective on, or will cause more problems for the patient?"
"Then, what if there is no effective treatment?

Just be a dick?

You must be fun around people in wheel chairs who have no more effective means to walk than many forms of gender dysphoria have of seeing a person who matches their chromosomes in the mirror."

 
Now you're just trolling.
 
No such dickishness was expressed nor implied. You evidently just choose to describe any contrary opinion as that equivalent.
How does that approach work for you offline, face-to-face? Just curious.
 
I make no demands regarding treatment.
I definitely suggest it, from a surfeit of compassion.
Whether they choose to follow up on that, and how, is between the psych patient and their psychologist/psychiatrist.
And frankly, I couldn't care less what they choose; nor whether it's effective or not.
That's their problem, and likely not any of my business.
 
Their behavior in public is.
If they just want to let their freak flag fly in private, I couldn't care less.
And if they want to walk out in the town square, as long as they don't jaywalk, block traffic, or spit on the sidewalk, they have as much freedom to parade their dysfunction as anyone else.
But if transvestites of any of a myriad of psychological dysfunctions can't stay in their own biological lane, I'll call a cop.
And at any point, I'll use whatever pronouns in addressing them as I see fit.
 
People in wheel chairs are in wheel chairs.
No one is demanding they walk.
People with gender dysphoria are demanding we carry them on our backs, and tell them they're walking.
That's where that analogy runs off the rails and over the cliff.

Not yet content, we are now treated to a wholly irrelevant tear-jerking tale:
The topic of dressing wrong and using the restroom came up in comments on gender dysphoria.

A long time ago in a city, far far away...

There lived a woman, a lesbian, who dressed much as a man would.  She cut her hair short, much as a man would.  She was stocky of build, a typical "bull-dyke".

She used the women's room one day, as she had her entire life.

She got the shit beat out of her by a couple of "men" who decided that no "fucking tranny" was going to use the same restroom as their precious "women folk".

They quickly discovered that, even in rural and often conservative Iowa, that assault is assault and it's a felony and felons go to prison.

This is why I despise the bathroom "police".

She was never the same after and I miss my friend.

Which is germane to the topic because I totally said that the answer to the problem is to beat the shit out of people...oh, wait, holy f**k, nowhere at all, ever, at any point in the discussion. Well-played.

OTOH, in my entire life, I've never yet witnessed anyone run in for calling a cop for someone else disturbing the peace by entering a restroom to which they were not biologically entitled.

When the facts and the law are against you, Angus, pound on the table and cry.

Let's try that in reverse:

Someone once got shot by a mugger, so we should ban all guns, because I'm sad for my friend the minimart clerk.

In short, my feelz trumps all reality and common sense.

That's the level to which you've taken your topic.
If that's all you've got, quit while you're behind.

And stop telling people they're being dicks just because they don't agree with you.
It's not only poor form, but it stands language on its head, and you reduce all language and all persons to either "things with which I agree" or "things that are done by dicks".
You reduce every question to one of vanilla vs. chocolate, as if there were no more nuance to any topic than that, and your taste buds the sole arbiter of common sense, while you beggar the language of Shakespeare, Dickens, and Twain.

And because it's being a dick, right?

UPDATE II: Nope. He's still not done:
"You did demand they get treatment. I am trying to see if you understand what that means. You don't.

You're ignoring the disorder I named and focusing on something else entirely.

You sure can write, can you read?

And you still insist in being a dick about it in every reply. You're apparently seeking agreement that being a dick about it is the correct response. You're not going to get that agreement here.

You don't understand the disorder, but have convinced yourself you do and have all the answers, but the behavior you've said you will exhibit make the problem worse, not better.

But I bet you don't go after people who dye away the gray and get offended that they're not acting their age.

Someone has a problem... It's you." - Angus

Angus, really.
I made no such alleged "demand". Disprove that, and win: Kindly specify the quote wherein I "demanded" anyone get treatment. Any treatment at all.

You'll discover instead that I merely identified a need.
Language is precise, and "need" does not equal "must get or else". Logic fail.

If you misunderstood, that's on you. I made no demands, whatsoever, by any stretch of the imagination, except in regard to actual behavior in public.
We call those things laws.
Legislatures pass them, not I.

I'm not ignoring the disorder you specified, I'm doing exactly what you did with Divemedic: ignoring the smaller subset of cases he was refering to (transvestites competing as alleged women, in his comments), in order to address the larger issue: who gets to claim womanhood in public at all.
I took the quaint notion of using biological fact as reality.
That is not, ergo, "being a dick". (Throwing the "dick" flag is a weak crutch. Sticks and stones.)
You can think what you like about that, and on your blog, you get the only vote.
That does not, however, comport with either rationality, nor best course of action for the disorder, but it's a free country.

I understand the disorder, and I also know that patronizing insanity and delusion never works.
I even have some wee amount of real-life clinical experience with dealing with crazy people, but it was once considered so common-sense an approach that they even made a movie about dealing with people based on reality, rather than humoring their behavior, called The Miracle Worker, and honored the lead actress in that work with an Academy Award, IIRC.
You might check it out on Netflix.
If you're truly open-minded, read Hellen Keller herself on how reality-based treatment allowed a blind and deaf person to figuratively see, hear, and experience the actual world, versus the prior failed efforts to humor her dysfunction.

People who dye away the gray don't attempt to attend grammar school as students.
You continually keep pulling out inapplicable analogies, and then misapplying them.
Logic has rules.

To make people dyeing their gray hair equivalent to people with alleged gender dysphoria (miniscule out of the population of current transvestites as that number is), people with gray hair would also have to be trying to be treated as school-age youths or earlier.
They are not.
They merely don't wish to appear to be decrepit, disposable elderly persons.
Not an unreasonable desire on the part of someone still in full possession of their faculties, despite the advance of years, or inevitable physical decline.
(I had a friend in High school who was completely naturally grey by our senior year, at age 17.
Should he have acted old, by your standard? Show your work.)
Dyeing one's hair is not breaking any law nor disturbing the peace, btw, and dates to long before you or I came upon the scene of civilization.

And they make no demands on others as to how they are to be addressed, let alone demands that do not comport with reality.
So your analogy of that with gender dysphoria has zero points of contact with the situation you're trying to make more familiar.
Analogy fail.

Sorry if that's uncomfortable, but like Martin Luther, "Here I am. I can do no other."
Reality is a harsh mistress, but I thought you were in her fan club.