Monday, 15 April 2019

Ebola in 2019


Ebola is still with us, we only get to know about it when its in the interests of Corporate news networks to 'sell' the news. We'll see how long this headline from the BBC lasts, "Ebola outbreak 'not global emergency yet'".

Tuesday, 30 October 2018

Trump'ing the Fourteenth Amendment

Contrary to media and activist rhetoric, the 14th Amendment does not grant Citizenship rights to anyone who just happens to be "born" in the United States;
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Citizenship is bestowed by virtue of residency, a child born on US soil is subject to United States law only when their parent are similarly subject (this was to include and grant citizenship rights to recently freed slaves, and indigenous Indians, neither of whom were considered citizens of the United States at the time). The author of the 'citizenship clause', Sen. J.M. Howard, remarked on this context that;
The first amendment is to section one (cf. above), declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Further to this context conferred rights to citizenship may be granted where the parents of a child are considered to be permanent residents, but not (yet) naturalised citizens, of the United States (cf. United States v. Wong Kim Ark);
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, in this context Trump's action could be considered a strict interpretation of the Executive Office's obligations to its role and the Constitution, making the following intentionally misleading; Trump is not claiming to "unilaterally end" anything rather to enforce the law as it currently stands;

Besides, since when do those opposing the move care about the Constitution so eager are they to find reason to infringe the individuals exercise of their 1st through deplatforming, social media account blocking, bans etc., and 2nd using every 'mass-casualty event' as reason for "common sense gun control".

Wednesday, 9 May 2018

Ebola, other infectious diseases and Personal Protection Equipment (PPE face masks etc.)

WARNING: consult an appropriately qualified agent with any safety concerns, not blogs posts or opinions found on the Internet.

TL:DR; test and check Personal Protection Equipment before deployment or use. Don't just trust PPE to work as expected even if it says it should.

Ebola and similar contagious diseases are universally considered Class 4  Biohazards. That's the highest hazard level. Ebola in particular carries risk of high mortality rates and easy air and contact transmission and contamination which means dental or surgical masks and face guards are completely useless as personal protection (PPE), especially for prolonged exposure.

Or put more simply, Class 1 PPE items (dental/surgical masks and open face shields) will not in any way protect the wearer from Class 4 contaminants. This is equivalent to clearing a sewer in little more than a boiler suit and science goggles.

Class 4 Biohazards require positive-pressure equipment, self-contained or fed suits that are inflated like balloons so there is constant outward force that prevents ingress of contaminants through any gaps or openings.

For Ebola, Class 3 PPE should be considered the absolute minimum requirement, at least for initial response where time and mobility is crucial, not Class 1 - it may be cheap, but it's certainly not worth the risk.

When buying this type of personal protection equipment make sure it fits properly and check it functions as intended, make 'valved' or 'vented' masks for example have silicone or other flexible membranes that mitigate moisture build-up during exhale.

Upon investigation however, such baffles can often be found to not sit correctly, or might be slightly malformed - when worn a cool breeze will be felt highlighting the issue, the baffle doesn't fully close during intake as it should. This is particularly common on cheap masks and equipment, even though they may be marked PP2 or PP3.

Monday, 7 May 2018

Trump doesn't care about the "little people"

This was originally written early in 2017 but never published. Little has changed it seems with an antagonistic media then, and still, moving from topic to topic trying to get something to stick to Trumps Teflon suits so he can be forcibly removed from office.

Does Trump really care about the "little people"? It's a question of measure, "how much does Trump care", and whose determining the qualifier, the "how much" aspect of the equation.

Reviewing the 'liberal' leaning press, that's your Times, Time, Guardian, Independent, BBC, CBC, Vox, Buzzfeed, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, etc., etc., basically any outlet considered part of Mainstream Media complex, the answer is "very little if at all", assuming ones able to navigate past calls for impeachment, assassination, or his otherwise removal from Office, and that's notwithstanding him and his support being "actual, like, Nazis, no, like, real Nazis".

Which can be broken down into two parts; "how much" and "care". The first can be defined by a quantitative value, i.e., how many times has Trump done "X", which in this case is "care".

And a qualitative value, again "care", far more difficult to define but does require some outward sign of some kind, i.e., Trump showing he cares by addressing "the little people" through meet and greets perhaps, the number of campaign stops, although perceptions may differ here (Trump appears to have made more stops only because news reporting was so fixated on him activities) as the numbers tend to indicate Trump and Clinton made, more or less the same roughly similar numbers of campaign stops.

Wednesday, 11 January 2017

AR-15, the terrorists weapon of choice (according to the Book of Hollywood)

It's not really, that honour befalls to the AK-47 for all sorts of reasons (cheap, hardy, available).

Hollywood however, thinks otherwise and wants movie go-ers to associate the AR-15 with terrorists, or at least "the enemy" or "bad guy/s".

How so?

Captain America: Civil War.

About 5 minutes into the opening sequence as some of the Avengers engage "The Terrorists" (attacking a subsidiary of the UN), Captain America makes an assessment of the situation after knocking a few heads together with the following;
Captain America: "Body armour, AR-15's"
He doesn't say; "Body armour ... assault rifles", " ... assault weapons", "... custom weapons", or some other fancy but generic term meaning 'high-tech weaponry'. (which would make more sense considering who they happen to be fighting - not an 'off-the-shelf combat unit).

No, the script writers have Captain America specifically say "AR-15's".

Why?

There's only one reason that oddly specific detail appears, especially when just about anything else, or nothing at all, would make just as much sense (the viewer only needs to understand the scenario as 'bad guys firing machine guns at good guys'), and that's as a 'subliminal', a not-so-subtle but intentionally placed message, in this instance one that reinforces the politicised narrative that "AR-15 is a weapon of terror", that "only bad guys use AR-15's", or more generally 'guns' are (a message that's more than a wink and nod to Obama's 'Town Hall' comments on keeping "assault weapons" out of criminals hands).

P.S. only caught this the second time round watching the movie.

Thursday, 13 October 2016

Narrative over Facts Part Deux! (the flying chicken)

Sigh, okay, here's another one;

Claim
1995: Hillary delivers a historic speech in front of the UN, announcing: "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all."
Contrasting claim
After becoming owner of the Miss Universe Organization, Trump says that he will make contestants' "bathing suits... smaller" and "heels... higher."
The first point to note on this particular comparison is the overt misandry on display; that Clintons "fight" for "women's rights" is not at all comparable to a beauty pageant. The comparison implies Trump is at least sexist, if not an outright misogynist, for his comments being seen to be an objectification of the contestants. And worse yet, that the contestants, by participating, were/are not the right kind of women, they're not women like Clinton, i.e., women that don't pander to men, making her 'fight' all the more difficult for other women.

A bit of a stretch perhaps, but the basic premise is there, not even implied, or to be read between the lines, that Miss Universe contestants do nothing to advance the cause of women's rights, whilst Clinton was/has/is/does [delete appropriate responses].

This is outright misandry as it denies the pageant participants their agency, their personhood, their ability to make individual choices, decisions, actions for themselves and by themselves, with their own goals and motivations. In essence the rhetoric denies the individualism of each womAn in favour of womEn.