Mainstream Covid Narratives: Bricks are Crumbling

"I don't need no arms around me,

And I don't need no drugs to calm me.

I have seen the writing on the wall.

Don't think I need anything at all.

No, don't think I'll need anything at all."

Pink Floyd, "Another Brick in the Wall."

On March 24, @SpartaJustice posted a video on Twitter debunking the "safe and effective" mainstream narrative regarding Covid-19 vaccines. Robert Malone, Twitter handle @RWMaloneMD, is featured prominently as the introductory speaker for the Global Covid Summit. If this were two years ago, a pre-Musk Twitter/X would likely have succumbed to government and "designated expert" pressure and would have taken down the video. The fact that the Global Summit claims to have 17,000 professional health science signees is difficult to ignore.

A few days prior, on March 21, YouTuber Dr. John Campbell posted a video reviewing excess deaths data in the United Kingdom. Campbell explains that the British government has, as of January, decided to no longer make the excess death statistics publicly available.

I've stayed on the sidelines for two years regarding this topic, mainly because I'm not expert in any aspect of medical treatment. I'm not even a statistician. Unfortunately, it's time to call an obvious spade a spade. I have commented in the past about a CNN Ivermectin-debunking segment that broke every rule of responsible journalism and frankly would have garnered a D at best in any college journalism class. So I have been examining mainstream Covid narratives for years. If CNN was pushing that kind of obvious manipulative nonsense to educated viewers, what other propagandistic horrors were being foisted upon us by the powers that be?

On March 24, Dr. Mobeen Syed (YouTube) reported on the FDA agreeing to remove Ivermectin/Covid posts from their site, from Facebook, X, and all relevant sites. The FDA had famously pushed an anti-Ivermectin narrative with ads saying, "You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it." The FDA was found to be giving illegal medical advice.

The FDA settling so quickly and completely suggests certain things to me. It suggests that the FDA couldn't prove the case and didn't want a public trial where evidence would be argued and on display for all to see. And they could not prove Ivermectin harm of any kind if prescribed correctly. So three Texas doctors won versus the FDA and forced the FDA to drop its public anti-Ivermectin narratives. For Goliath to tap out this fast versus David does not speak well to the reputation Goliath spent years promulgating.

Regarding Covid-19, U.S. institutions have failed us repeatedly and in myriad ways. This is just the beginning, I fear, of exposes detailing the venality of these institutions.

Bob Dietz

March 28, 2024

Smoking the Seeds: 2024

It's that time of year again. Time to address the machinations of the hallowed "Tournament Selection Committee." You know, the committee that tries to pose as expert at something other than putting their heels on the neck of the purity of sport. The committee that plays toadish "sycophantic simpleton" to the whims and deep pockets of the "Brotherhood of Evil Brand Names." The committee that. . . oh, hell, I could write Magneto references all day, but to no good purpose.

My "Smoking the Seeds" series has sought, for more than a decade, to unveil the corrupt hypocrisy of the college basketball tournament committee. I feel like Shatner's Kirk telling Stewart's Picard that he's been saving the universe since Picard was in diapers. 

Fortunately, the universe has gone pretty much to hell, but now everybody knows how psychotically rapacious brand name athletic departments have become. The whispers about that very questionable priesthood have become full-blown high-def porn viewing. These screwings are blatant, hideous to watch, and usually involve some collection of former or current family members defecating on each other. But I digress. As I said, the whole sordid gestalt is now in plain view, and many authors better and more widely read than me have tackled the subject with gusto.

All these many years, I've wondered what "The Committee" has been doing behind closed doors. Now everyone can see the trays left outside the boudoir, trays stacked with empty peanut butter jars, Mastercard receipts from something called "The NCAA Escort Service," and numerous befouled dollar bills. I am no longer alone, to echo Fox Mulder, and everyone now believes.

I'll skip the generalized horror I usually explicate. Instead, I'll first recommend a couple of fine summaries by other writers. Please check out Ricky O'Donnell's March 18 "March Madness men's basketball makes no sense thanks to selection committee" and Yahoo Sports' Jeff Eisenberg's March 17 "March Madness:  What the NCAA men's tournament selection committee got right and wrong."

Specific Screw-Jobs

Well, whatever the committee was smoking, it had its usual predictable and year-to-year consistent effects. The Big 10 is over-represented and over-seeded. The Mountain West is under-seeded across the board. The Big East probably got hosed, which is what happens when you have all those non-football schools. Every non-brand-name conference got screwed either via teams left out or seedings.

All of this is par for the annual course.

No Indiana State, no Richmond, no Sam Houston State, all of which fits the annual hosing pattern. No Oklahoma, which frankly does not.

The committee shoe-horned Virginia into the field, even though no computer rating had the Cavaliers rated as worthy. Virginia, flying the committee's vassal-state flag, proudly played a truly terrible first half versus Colorado State last night, limping into halftime on the wrong end of 27-14. They then promptly came out and played a worse second half. Remarkable, really, that the committee could kick things off by being so wrong with their first charity entry.

The Committee Versus Las Vegas Oddsmakers

Historically, this is as consistent and one-sided as a Rocky Marciano fight. The Tournament Selection Committee is fine except that (A) the committee has no entrance exams requiring basketball team evaluation skills and (B) the main expertise of committee members is making money for athletic departments. It's pretty funny. A bunch of career academics deciding they have basketball handicapping expertise. 

This is opposed to Las Vegas oddsmakers, whose job it is, night after night and season after season, to predict which basketball teams can do what to whom, all with millions of dollars at stake. So what you have, in summary, are two-week moonlighting college administrators versus years-long, career-anchored professionals. Gee, in the long run, I wonder who grades out right more often.

In 2024, we have more disagreements between oddsmaker favorites and seeding favorites than ever, and some of the disagreements are drastic. I'll walk you through them:

1) First, Drake (#10 seed) is a -1 1/2 fave versus Washington State (#7 seed).

2) Michigan State (#9 seed) is a one-point favorite versus Mississippi State (#8).

3) New Mexico (#11 seed) is startlingly a 2 1/2 point favorite versus Clemson (a #6).

4) Nevada (#10) is a 1 1/2 favorite versus Dayton (#7)

5) TCU (#9) is a four-point favorite versus Utah State (#8)

Nevada and Dayton really got screwed, paired in an opening cage match versus each other with Arizona on deck. More on poor Dayton later. If this were 2000, their seed would be a tad bit different.

I also wanted to mention that in last night's alleged toss-up 10-seed clash, Colorado State was actually a -2 1/2 versus Virginia. That translates into Colorado State as a -145 to -150 moneyline favorite. Thus, an alleged committee toss-up actually, according to oddsmakers, featured a 3-2 favorite that won convincingly.

History and Computer Ratings

The NCAA has rotated through RPI to BPI to NET, ignoring whatever system was in place whenever required to get the proper runways for the proper teams. I'm old enough to remember when RPI was king, and Missouri State became the highest RPI team (at 30 or thereabouts) to be told to take a hike. Their brand just wasn't up to NCAA snuff.

In 2024, Virginia was jammed into the tournament despite no computer rating placing them high enough. The committee just squeezed them in for funsies.

If you're wondering what became of the RPI, well, it outlived its usefulness. I checked two sites that reported marginally different 2024 season-complete RPI results.

Drake at #5 (overall, not a #5 seed) at RealTime, and #9 overall at TeamRankings

Dayton at #7 (overall) at RealTime and #5 at TeamRankings

and San Diego State at #9 (yes, overall) at RealTime and an eye-popping #4 overall at TeamRankings.

The tournament committee, in 2024, simply cannot use a ratings system that spits out those kinds of results. 

My Contribution

It's not much of a contribution since it's obvious as hell, but I'll spell it out. All of the 2024 critiques of the committee that I have read have failed to mention the idea that the committee can play the seeding game backwards, and almost certainly does.

Clearly, all of the recent committees have had the ability to plug various teams into different seedings and run simulations. The seedings (and tournament exclusions) are then tailored to get what the brand names want. Using simulations to optimize preferred results is probably something that's been done for years. Why wouldn't it be? USA Today's been running tournament sims for years. Half a dozen writers reported their 2024 sims results today. Obviously, sims are a tool the committee can use to mold reality to something they prefer.

Conclusion

The good thing about 2024 is that the heavy-handed venality of the NCAA Tournament Committee has gone from hushed conspiracy to front-and-center obviousness. Kind of like the Covid-19 lab leak theory.

Can you imagine if the committee had been forced to stick with their initial methodology, the RPI rating system? That would certainly be worth the price of admission in 2024.

Bob Dietz

March 20, 2024 

 

Propaganda Files: Accidental Propaganda?

The question, "Is there such a thing as accidental propaganda?" In other words, if there is no intent to propagandize, is the effect of a piece of writing or film sufficient to justify calling it "propaganda?" I bring this up because the Christian Datoc Washington Examiner piece I discussed yesterday has some interesting quirks of language. These quirks may have had effects on readers that were unintended by both Datoc and The Examiner. Without mind reading skills, I have no way of knowing the intentionality. Regardless, I think these quirks of writing are worth a brief look.

I think that I'm correct in saying that The Examiner is considered conservative. Therefore one might, in today's bipolar political environment, expect Examiner pieces to possibly be Kennedy-friendly as a way to undermine President Biden. Yet some of the language choices in yesterday's Datoc piece did Kennedy no favors.

For example, Datoc uses the line, "Kennedy claimed in a recently unearthed video that COVID-19 was genetically engineered to protect Chinese and Jewish people." This is a very curious translation or interpretation of what Kennedy actually said. Kennedy did not "claim" anything. He said that some people claimed it but did not himself take any ownership of it. Then the phrase "genetically engineered" comes into play. The problem is that one could torturously interpret "genetically engineered" multiple ways. Most readers would likely read it as implying human intervention or direction. Technically, however, one could say "genetically engineered" to simply refer to the virus engineering itself via natural selection or other processes.

Another line from Datoc's piece was "During Monday's briefing, however, Jean-Pierre directly refuted Kennedy's claims." First of all, she did not. The word "refute" has meaning. "Trying to refute" is not synonymous with "refute." Second, Datoc is gauging the nature and effectiveness of Jean-Pierre's presentation for the reader by baldly claiming that Jean-Pierre "refuted" Kennedy. Datoc is offering himself in a judge role, which isn't really his job. Worse for him, he got it wrong. Jean-Pierre did not refute Kennedy.

Conclusion

I can hypothesize that Datoc misstepped journalistically because he was reporting under deadline immediately after the press conference event, and he presumed that he was conveying the gist of the story. I think that he took too much interpretative responsibility onto himself and botched the piece with a couple of bad word choices. I suspect neither he nor The Examiner are very happy about it.

Bob Dietz

July 18, 2023

Propaganda Files: Straw Men, Lying, and Implying

As reported Monday by The Washington Examiner, the White House attacked some RFK Jr. statements. Undoubtedly because they preferred to not use actual quotes of what the man said, they manipulated and paraphrased in an effort to score points among those who don't grasp the finer points of evidence-based debate or the English language. As to whether Kennedy was trying to appear anti-Jewish without actually saying anything explicitly anti-Jewish, I have no idea.

It is, however, instructive to examine exactly what was said by the White House press secretary, even though she avoided directly quoting her target. The Examiner article by Christian Datoc made some curious language choices of its own, but let's save that for another day and tackle press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre's attempt to nail Kennedy. Here's a direct quote, courtesy of Datoc:

"I think if you look at the last two, three years since 2020, since this pandemic hit, there are countless Americans, American families who are seeing an empty seat at the Thanksgiving table. So the claims made on that tape are false. It is vile, and they put our fellow Americans in danger."

I feel it necessary to point out that this is all paraphrasing and NOT stating what Kennedy actually said, and it's basically a verbal gobbledygook that has no direct application to what Kennedy stated. This mishmash debunks nothing. Here's another Jean-Pierre word salad salvo:

"If you think about the racist and antisemitic conspiracy theories that come out of saying those types of things, it's an attack on our fellow citizens, our fellow Americans, and so it is important that we speak out when we hear those claims."

Note that Jean-Pierre still doesn't quote Kennedy directly, doesn't mention the points he was making, doesn't even try to refute what he said with data or logical argument. This would be a big fat fail in any debate class or civics class or technical writing class. She continues:

"the assertion that COVID was genetically engineered to spare Jewish and Chinese people is offensive, and incredibly dangerous."

Jean-Pierre, who I'm sure is very implication-savvy, throws the word "assertion" at the audience. I think most people have a very loose idea of what "assertion" really means, so of course I looked it up.

Assertion: a confident or forceful statement of fact or belief.

Well, since Kennedy did NOT assert this, I'd have to label Jean-Pierre a pure propagandist here. Kennedy mentions that the argument has been made that COVID was designed to do this, but then immediately states that he does not know whether it was deliberately targeted or not. He uses a weasel technique, passive voice, to bring the idea to mind, but then states that he has no evidence to back up the idea. If you mention something but then undercut it a sentence later, that is NOT making "a confident or forceful statement of fact or belief." In other words, Jean-Pierre is not being truthful in her characterization of what Kennedy said.

Kennedy

Here's what Kennedy actually said:

"COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese."

Followed by:

"We don't know whether it was deliberately targeted or not, but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact."

Now Kennedy isn't blameless here. The phrase "is targeted" can be read as implying agency. But the fact is that Kennedy makes his salient point, namely that certain people are more resistant to COVID-19 than others, which (if false) is what Jean-Pierre should have made clear to the millions listening to her.

But she didn't do that. And you haven't exactly heard the topic explored on CNN or MSNBC, so guess what? I'd bet that Mr. Kennedy has these particular facts pretty much correct. Based on the White House content and style, I've gotta believe Jean-Pierre not refuting these differential COVID-19 effects means she cannot.

Back and Forth

Kennedy tweeted on Saturday that he "never, ever said that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews." He then stated that the US and other countries were indeed developing ethnically targeted bioweapons. Outside of recent James Bond movies, I know nothing about this, but perhaps he does. 

Meanwhile, the White House press secretary wrapped up her propaganda spree with:

"Every aspect of these comments reflect some of the most abhorrent antisemitic conspiracy theories throughout history and contributes to today's dangerous rise of antisemitism, and so this is something that, you know, this president and this whole administration is going to stand against."

At no point does she try to refute Kennedy's core argument, namely that some people are provably more immune to COVID-19 than others. Instead we get some flag waving and rhetoric that has not much to do with Kennedy's comments.

Going Forward

I never thought anything could be worse than President Trump's press secretaries. But here we are. Jean-Pierre doesn't even bother to address, argue, or refute the core statements being made by Kennedy. Instead she's off on some oblique God Save the Queen (or maybe the Jews) attack rant. The days of someone saying something factual, and then being refuted, appear to be finished. The factual-ness of what's being said gets drowned out by verbal camouflage and appeals to wokeness. 

If the White House designs and promotes this kind of trash propaganda against political rivals, where do we go from here? This kind of thing, I think, is actually worse than hearing blustery "Low Energy Jeb" and "Pocahontas" when Trump was holding forth. At least he helmed his own hatchet speeches.

Bob Dietz

July 17, 2023

Cocaine, Kardashians, and Alien Abductions

I suppose some of you are wondering about the title. Well, I am going to do something rare, namely plug an offshore sports book. BetOnline.ag had odds on everything in the title. I love it. The props were listed under "Entertainment" futures. 

Until a few days ago, BetOnline had odds for, "Who is the owner of the White House cocaine?" The first number I had seen from them was Hunter Biden as the favorite at +170. People must know something about Travis Kelce, the KC tight end, because he was originally listed as the fourth choice at a miserly +800. In an odds move reminiscent of Score's Lock of the Year, Hunter Biden took all kinds of money quickly. His odds blew up to -500. Kelce tumbled into Snoop Dogg territory (+1200). Of course, now that the Secret Service has put a lid on the cocaine investigation (they "don't know and have no suspects" -- LOL), BetOnline pulled the cocaine odds. Damned shame.

Meanwhile, "Kim Kardashian's Next Lover" has also been yanked as a prop. If anyone is wondering about an ethnicity angle, Tom Brady was the first white dude listed, a fifth choice at +800. I suppose that suggests that Brady is a real man about town, which has been rumored for some time.

Fortunately, we can all still bet on aliens. We can wager on their skin color, where they will first land (Russia and the U.S. co-faves at +1200), and who will be abducted first. Trump is the fave at +2000.

I realize that people will bemoan no longer being able to bet on cocaine and Kim K's next lover, but BetOnline offers plenty of alternative action. Kevin Spacey's next lover, for example. Plus an entire array of props regarding the Zuckerberg/Musk cage fight. Most of the latter involve penis length, but action is action.

Are These Real Bets?

Evidently they are. I just tried to put a few bucks on Musk's penis length being longer than Zuckerberg's. Musk is -200. The wager panels worked. I did not confirm my bet, but everything seems to be live and working. 

While it is indeed sad that I failed to have the courage of my Musk convictions, at some point I will hit the confirm button. What am I waiting for? Well, I'm notoriously tight, like Musk, and the size of the wager must be rigorously debated.

Bob Dietz

July 16, 2023

Cubs' Relief Pitching: A Rant

Well, I'm no baseball expert, but somebody please fire the Cubs' manager, David Ross. I have no understanding of how managing hires are made, but I can't find any reason for this guy to be heading one of the classic, historic, iconic MLB squads. His pitcher choices have become almost legendary -- akin to Seinfeld's George Costanza before he realized that he should just do the opposite of whatever he was planning to do. Ross has become a reverse manager -- someone who somehow has a gift for losing games. Last week, Cubs' management made the comment that the Cubs have a real knack for losing games that aren't pretty. The handwriting appears to be on the wall, so somebody please underline it in Day-Glo chalk and read it aloud.

Whereas the Reds blindly stagger through all manner of emotionally draining, extra-inning twister games and manage to win, the Cubs flail like windmills with broken arms.

I tried to come up with an appropriate analogy for Cubs' middle relief. Please pick one of the following:

(1) The Cubs' middle relief is like a pinata. It gets hit until the fans' guts fall out.

(2) The Cubs' middle relief is like watching Joe Frazier versus George Foreman. You close your eyes until someone tells you it's over. And you never really need to ask what happened.

(3) Cubs' middle relief is like tattoos on Tub Girl. They're a minor respite and distraction until, inevitably, you throw up.

Please choose (1), (2) or (3) and email your preference to IntegritySports@aol.com.

Thanks.

Bob Dietz

July 6, 2023

Affirmative Action Ruling

Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down the judgement that affirmative action should not be a guiding principle in college admissions. MSNBC immediately did a harbinger-of-doom piece suggesting that the world will now go to hell in a handbasket. Me? I'm ambivalent, but I have my own recommended solution.

My Background

I'm white, German/Polish, male, and from a small town and a relatively poor school district. By "relatively poor," I mean that when I was 15, some 23 schools in Pennsylvania were labeled as unsuitable and unsafe. Seven of those schools were in the collection of small mining towns comprising my school district. By "unsafe," I don't mean that people were selling drugs (much) or taking guns to school. It meant that the schools themselves were dilapidated and falling down around students' ears. 

I spent the first 10 years of my life in half a double my father was able to rent for $50 a month from the elderly women next door because my grandfather, the milkman, was considered an honorable and respectable man. My father did various chores for the two women to augment the $50 rent payment. Winter nights were somewhat cold in the Dietz household at that time. Heat was at a premium even though my grandfather also wildcatted coal at night from mines all over the county.

Being white, German, and male did not aid me in my attempts to go to college. What paid the bill was a National Merit Scholarship because I managed 1450 on the SAT and graduated first in my high school class. At Penn State, I still had "Popcorn Tuesdays" where all I ate was popcorn because my scholarship sort of covered my expenses, but not by much. And yes, I had a roommate in my studio apartment. And yes, my friend on the track team sneaked me into the athletic cafeteria for an occasional free meal. 

This is no "Coal Miner Elegy" riff. It was all banal stuff to be overcome. 

Ambiguity as a Plus

I have a friend who is half Caucasian and half Japanese. When applying for college and grad school, this prospective student had the option of labeling as White or Asian and opted for White because whites are held to a lower standard. I saluted the strategic thinking.

On Thursday, CNN's Abby Phillip interviewed Kenny Xu, one of the members of the organization that won the affirmative action case. When Xu rightly pointed out that admittance standards are lowered for Black students, Phillip (who is Black) abruptly ended the interview. Xu had stated that an Asian student must score 270 points higher to be on an equal admittance footing with a Black student. Evidently, one cannot have that on CNN. Would it have killed Phillip to end the interview with "Thanks for the facts," as opposed to "Thank you for your perspective." Recently, CNN seems to have a tough time understanding that "facts" and "perspective" are not synonyms.

I'm not going to weep because race has been downgraded as a college admittance factor. Of course, as  populations, Black and Hispanic students are at a disadvantage educationally in the United States. That isn't the fault of the current crop of White students and certainly not the fault of the current crop of Asian students. 

My Solution

I haven't mentioned recently that I'm left of Marx when it comes to most mega-societal issues like education, health care, and support of unions. I say that if people want en masse affirmative action, scale college admissions to socioeconomic status. My perspective is radical. Scale admissions to the proportion of candidates in distinct economic categories. Are you the child of a one-percenter? One percent of college admissions are reserved for you. And so on down to poverty levels. That would be interesting.

Okay, so nobody is going to buy that. To those of us who are left of Marx, it's still better than admitting on a curve based on race.

Bob Dietz

June 30, 2023