Friday, March 27, 2020

Pearls of expression.

People are in full-blown headless chicken mode. . . .

The British tabloids are publishing horror stories about “doctors” standing by and helplessly watching as patients slowly suffocate to death. According to such stories, . . . these “doctors” [are] unable to treat roughly 400 patients with any of the UK’s over 8,000 ventilators . . . .

"Welcome To The War On Death." By CJ Hopkins, ZeroHedge, 3/26/20.


Pascal said...

I am probably wasted my breath because who listens to clear observations in a time of "crisis." And I think that is the point of it all.

The Precautionary Principle

It has become so prevalent in policy making that it has become a violation of itself.

Your link provides a fine description of the consequences of its looming in the background yet the author never mentions it per se. It certainly helps to be an obscure principle when it proves to be such a boon for authoritarians. But I digress.

Our nation's unprecedented response to the WuFlu -- undoubtedly compelled by the PP's influence -- has in turn led to a spending spree (it's PP necessary you see) that no one dare question lest the Principle be cause to condemn them.

The PP's chain-reaction use might be viewed as an unintended consequence were so many of us American geese not aware of how all the latest "crises" have been Rahmed down our gullet.

We need some clever and brave soul to put a stake in the heart of the Precautionary Principle once and for all. Else we risk its overuse spiraling out of control which is the explanation for why I asserted at the top that the PP has become violation of itself.

Because it may be too late to stop the consequences, Heaven help us fools again.

Col. B. Bunny said...

I'd never heard of the PP. "Taking counsel of your fears" might be a simple statement of the principle if I understand it correctly. Over complexification might be a corollary. As might "whatifism."

This seems to be a highly infectious bug but some commenter on ZeroHedge, I believe, asked why we aren't seeing the mortality stats for flu, drug overdose, homicide, auto accidents, heart attacks, cancer, etc. But, no, all we're getting is a view of THE VIRUS as though through the wrong end of a telescope. There are a lot of dangers in this life and I'm not convinced this is the mother of all threats. I do think the view that this is contrived is not without merit. Here we are nodding our heads and cooperating with TPTB and, lo, the Fed is branching out in to purchases of corporate debt and, if not now, soon, of plain vanilla equities. Is our beloved fedgov going to exercise voting rights that come with ownership. Is there anything going into legislation that vaguely resembles a sunset provision? Why, I believe the answers are "Yes" and "No."

Maybe it's just me but I have a distinct feeling that serfdom is not as outdated as people make out. For those of us who survive the big Die Off. Not selling this last but a case can be made that no one, but NO one, could be this stupid as to create this Chinese fire drill by accident.

Pascal said...

You have touched a bit on why the PP is dangerous. The ruling class has fostered the building of many web cites lauding its usefulness, with any downside doubts dutifully scrubbed out if any ever slipped in.

I did some more searching with duckduckgo. This link provides the most neutral examination I have found in that it provides some examples of how things can go wrong with its implementation. It begins with the following excerpt:

"The precautionary principle is the concept that establishes it is better to avoid or mitigate an action or policy that has the plausible potential, based on scientific analysis, to result in major or irreversible negative consequences to the environment or public even if the consequences of that activity are not conclusively known, with the burden of proof that it is not harmful falling on those proposing the action." Emphasis added.

That includes violating any number of our rights such as under the guise of this current crisis. You have to prove you are not a risk to public health to be permitted to go about your otherwise lawful activities. Guilty until proven innocent is not in our constitution folks. This is why I referred to Rahming it down our gullets -- authoritarians are not permitting this crisis to go to waste now are they?

Today's use is not the first time the PP has been used.
• After much great effort to overcome traditional morality roadblocks, the abortion industry really took off due to the "crisis" environment asserted circa 1960 by Neo-Malthusians such as Paul Ehrlich.
• The best Freons were outlawed some 15 years after the conceiving of another potential crisis.
• And of course global warming took even less time to provide an excuse for us to be taxed to benefit the cronies of lawmakers and of the lawmakers themselves.

But today's crisis is the most radical to date. You see them.

The overuse of the PP must be stopped or us geese are cooked.

Col. B. Bunny said...

This "principle" seems vaporous to me, easily overlooked when it suits the Enlightened Ones. Name any US foreign policy action in the last 30 years and not one of them can be seen as having been influenced by it.

It is a sappy elaboration of "look before you leap" which says it all. Attempting to add logarithms, phased, low-fat sigma subroutines, and various other snippets of dainty calculation to human activities adds bugger all.

When the luminaries of the Western world want something they act any way they want. The whole Western experience of mass immigration makes a mockery of this supposed analytical tool. "What could go wrong?" (the central inquiry of the PP) was answered by the Beautiful People with, "Gracious, what an absurd question." Not that any of those swine asked or entertained that question.

My disdain is directed at the subject matter, not you, it goes without saying.

Pascal said...

Rather than overlooked by the topmost, how about it never ever was meant for the conduct of those ruthless SOBs.

The PP's deployment is mostly for them to get benefit from the true-believers. Even as the inconsistencies mount, and that segment of the population may even momentarily notice its overuse, they will forever refuse to see that one cannot spell overuse without the word ruse.

It's a ruse morons the never see. Exposing it shouldn't be that difficult. The PP need not even be referenced since the tactic is open and exposed. It is what they are doing right now.