These Are Not Diana Ross' Supremes.

WhatMakesDonnieRun

NotSchulbergVille

That was then:

“We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”

That was the Supreme Court of Warren Burger issuing the order, based on an immediate 8-0 decision, that Richard Nixon must hand over the Watergate Tapes because he did not have blanket immunity from prosecution due to executive privilege as a sitting president on July 29, 1974.

****

This is now:

"Without expressing a view on the merits, this Court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for a stay is dismissed as moot.

The case will be set for oral argument during the week of April 22, 2024."

That was the current Supreme Court of John Roberts issuing the order that there will be no immediate order on February 28, 2024. Instead, there will be further delay in making any decision as to whether or not Donald Trump has blanket immunity from prosecution for committing acts of insurrection as an outgoing, but still technically sitting, president.

The latter two month delay until 'oral argument' commences means that it is very unlikely that the current Supreme Court will make a decision on Trump's ridiculous blanket immunity claim before the summer.

This very likely means that Mr. Trump will not go to trial before the US'ian presidential election in November.

It's important to realize that, if he were to win, it is even more likely that Mr. Trump would end the federal prosecution of his own acts of insurrection if his super slow walking Supremes were to rule against him in the summer.

That's some incentive to win at all costs, 'eh?

______

Why are there nine members of Burger's court in the image at the top of the post when the vote against Mr. Nixon was 8-0?....Because the guy in the glasses second from the right, William Rehnquist, actually recused himself because of his previous political association with the Trickster-In-Chief...Just one more thing that is very, very different now than it was then.

.

The Cookie Dough Mike Chronicles (ctd.)

We'veGotArchivesAndWe'reGonnaKeep
UsingThemVille

"...De Jong was finance minister in the last B.C. Liberal government. He has taken some heat within his own party for leaving behind a sizable budget surplus for the New Democrats to spend.

He makes no apologies: “The biggest criticism I seem to get is that I was too stingy or too careful with public dollars. I’ll take that criticism because when COVID did hit, B.C. was in better shape with its finances than any other province in the country.”...

Yesterday, we commented on the above passage, which is from a recent Vaughn Palmer column. Specifically, we noted that Mr. de Jong largely built his surplus by imposing a hidden, regressive tax in the form of significant monthly MSP payments.

But that doesn't mean that the good Mr. de Jong wasn't also stingy when doling out those regressively obtained public dollars.

It's just that sometimes Cookie Dough Mike was downright mean and disingenuous when doing so, especially when the affected were those who need our help most.

Case in point, the following is what de Jong said after he took away bus passes for the disabled:

...“They’re exercising a new-found freedom and choice that heretofore didn’t exist,” de Jong said. “So that was the whole purpose of the exercise: to give people choice.”...

Heretofore 'choice', indeed.



.

The Falcon And The Cookie Man.

RevisionistDeanish
HistoryVille


Vaughn Palmer's latest tells the tale of how one very, very fine former BC Liberal Party Finance Minister, Mike de Jong, is not going to run for Kevin Falcon's Soccer Party in the upcoming provincial election.

Mostly the column slowly circles the likely possibility that Mr de Jong, who once tried to soften his image by baking cookies on the Tubez long before Doug Ford's minions got the idea, will instead run federally for Mr. Poilievre.

In the process, the Dean of the legislative press gallery takes a wobbly walk down fiscal memory lane:

...De Jong was finance minister in the last B.C. Liberal government. He has taken some heat within his own party for leaving behind a sizable budget surplus for the New Democrats to spend.

He makes no apologies: “The biggest criticism I seem to get is that I was too stingy or too careful with public dollars. I’ll take that criticism because when COVID did hit, B.C. was in better shape with its finances than any other province in the country.”...

Hmmmm....

With the help of the late, great Dermod Travis, I remember things a wee bit differently when it comes to the strategy that the good Mr. de Jong used to generate his 'surplus'.

The following is from a post written in 2016:

Never mind that 4 percent MSP increase removal for 2017 thingy that the Clarklandians have bamboozled the Lotuslandian proMedia into focussing on over the past few news cycles (Ooooooh! Look! Shiny!!!)...

Because Dermod Travis of Integrity BC has instead noted the fee-for service gouging that has been going on during the entirety of the years of Clarklandia:

Moving out from individuals to the entirety of the British Columbian citizenry, the prediction by Cookie Dough Mike and his minions is that MSP will bring in a collectively regressive $2,549,000,000 this fiscal year (see pg 127).

 Now.... 

First: No other government in Canada hauls in money in this completely non-progressive way.

Second: Take away that $2.5B gouge/regressive pretend-it's-not-a-tax and Cookie Dough's new prediction of a $1.9B surplus is completely gone.

Yes...

I do have archives and I'm going to use 'em.

______

And, still herding after all these years, the Keef weighs in on the same story.

.

My Weekend Ride.

Where'sHorgan

WestshoreVille


Had a work thing late Friday so C and the Whackadoodle II headed over to SouthVan Isle without me.

I followed Saturday.

On my bike.

I really enjoy the Lochside Route into Victoria from the ferry - especially the flats from Mitchell's to Mattick's Farm. Then it was out to Colwood along the Galloping Goose. A good 50 km with the ride to Bridgeport to get the Tsawwassen bus on the Lotusland side added in.

Sunday, I rode out a little farther through Langford and out to Happy Valley on the GG.

No sign of the former premier anywhere. 

.

What Would Alexei Have Done?

IfTheyDecideTo

KillMeVille


The anti-Putin Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, who already survived a poisoning, is dead.

Below is his wife Yulia speaking at the Munich Security Conference just hours after she learned the news:

_____

Back end of the sub header?...."It means we are incredibly strong."


.

That Handedness Thing Again.

ThePowerOfThe

AmbiJabVille

In the last post we got into a bit of a discussion about the contortions a left-handed person needs to perform when they are forced to complete an exam while sitting in one of those right-handed mini-desks that are often attached to chairs in big lecture halls and/or converted gymnasiums.

Which, of course, is crummy.

But nothing like the old days when folks like my maternal grandmother were forced to switch to using their right hands for everything they did in school because being left-handed was, by definition, 'sinister'.

However...

Is there ever a situation where switching hands, or, more appropriately in this case, arms, is a good thing?

Turns out that, when it comes to multiple vaccination regimens, that just might be case.

The following if from the abstract of recent paper by a group from Portland published in the very respectable Journal of Clinical Investigation:

...In previously unexposed adults receiving an initial vaccine series with the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, contralateral boosting substantially increases antibody magnitude and breadth at times beyond 3 weeks after vaccination. This effect should be considered during arm selection in the context of multi-dose vaccine regimens...

Translation:

If you got your first COVID jab in one arm and then switched to the other arm for the second jab you likely made more antibody against the virus for a significant amount of time.

Imagine that!

________

Why?...Not clear yet...One suggestion in the paper is that you generate more 'memory' B lymphocytes that can generate antibody over the long haul when you get jabbed in both arms, maybe because you get twice as many draining lymph nodes involved.

Tip'OTheToque to Mike The Mad Biologist for the heads-up on the paper...

.

Deadline Day.

WhereIsThatConfoundedLeftHanded
DeskVille


Back in the days before the thought of becoming an academic lifer was even remotely visible far, far over the horizon, I became very good at the cramming for exams.

And then one time, I think it was in the run up to Christmas break during my third year as an undergradual, I hit a wall a couple of days before it was time to trudge off to the cavernous McKinnon gym with hundreds of other young folks so that we could furiously empty our brains onto the page.

The issue was that, suddenly and somewhat inexplicably, I temporarily lost the one thing I ever had in common with Richard M. Nixon.

Which was my 'iron butt', the ability to sit in a chair and focus, really hard, for hours on end.

When I mentioned the problem to my Dad at the time, he took a moment before saying that I should remember all the work I'd already done and just relax a bit because everything would be fine, regardless.

I'm not sure if I heeded his wise words at the time.

But now, 40-plus years on, I am doing my best to channel them as I struggle to strap the iron into the chair once again so that I can finish yet another project on deadline over the next 48 hours.

Argh...

______

Image at the top of the post is by JJ Philion is from the UVIC archives, resurrected by a young fellow named Malcom, a member of the school's official blogger army a few years ago.


.

Some Days Are Longer Than Others.

TriumphOfTheWitless
NotChaplinVille

What began as a spur of the moment stream of consciousness throwaway from he who would be Adenoid Hynkel for a day is now viewed as  'definitely or probably good' by a significant proportion of all kinds and categories of US'ians.

Is this due to the great influence of a certain Mr. Hannity, who was the receiver of the throwaway, and the propaganda strength of the cable news network that Mr. Hannity works for?

Well.

I guess you could make that case for the majority of the members of a certain political party.

But what about the rest of the population?

Is it possible that they are being influenced by milk toasty obsequious think pieces from very serious commentators working at even more serious mainstream media outlets?

To wit, check out the following lede by a piece from the Washington Post's national columnist Philip Bump:

The irony of Donald Trump’s assertion that he would seek to have dictatorial powers for the first day of his presidency is that he was supposed to be saying he had no authoritarian inclinations at all...

Gosh.

I wonder if the good Mr. Bump has ever considered the possibility that being a little bit dictator might be the same as being a little bit pregnant?

______

Subheader?... Apparently, Charlie Chaplin decided to make 'The Great Dictator', in which he played the fellow named Adenoid referenced above,  after he watched L. Riefenstahl's nazi propaganda film 'Triumph of the Will'.


.

Vancouver's 'Temporary' Parks In Potential Privatization Peril...The City Manager Weighs In.

JustBecauseThisIsNotHoustonDoesNotMeanWeDon't

HaveAProblemVille

In recent posts, we discussed how the  recommendations from the mayor's budgetary task force potentially puts 100 'temporary' parks in privatization peril, particularly if the parks board is abolished.

So.

Does the City of Vancouver itself also recognize that there might be a problem here?

Well, according to Francis Bula's tweet storm coverage of a press conference held yesterday to calm the waters given the massive wake caused by the Mayor's  drive to abolish the parks board, the city manager, Paul Mochrie, apparently does:

So there you have it.

The city is 'looking at opportunities' to protect public lands (i.e. all those temporary 'park spaces') that are being put in potential peril of privatization due to the concerted actions of the very same city's mayor.

Don't know about you, but I'm not sure that allays any of my fears.



______

Image at the top of the post.... Sunset Beach TempPark...Taken from Justin McElroy's fantastic and comprehensive ranking of all 240 (permanent and temporary) parks in Vancouver.

.

Sometimes Zero Is A Very Good Number, Indeed.

TheBestHealthIs

PublicHealthVille

I've written about this before, but as a tail end boomer I consider myself to be one of the lucky ones.

And I'm not just talking about all of the socioeconomic benefits bestowed upon me just because I was born at the tail end of the 1950's.

Instead, I'm talking about polio.

Because, unlike a good friend of mine who was born just a few years earlier, it is not something I ever had to worry about.

Or live with.

Fast forward to the 2000's when our two girls were coming of age and a different vaccine was being rolled out in public schools all over the world.

This one against human papilloma virus.

At the time, Bigger E. asked me if I thought this was a good idea.

I told her that it was clear that a couple of the virus strains were a major contributing cause of cervical cancer so preventing HPV infection was definitely a good idea. However, being the science geek that I am I couldn't stop there. So I also told her that the development of the disease itself takes a long time which, at the time that she was going to get her jabs, the actual effect on cervical cancer rates wasn't yet known with certainty. Probably broke a number of Dad codes with that last bit - Sorry E.

Anyway...

The cervical cancer rate reduction data are now rolling in.

And the upshot is very good, indeed.

From Scottish Public Health:

An exciting new study from Public Health Scotland (PHS), in collaboration with the Universities of Strathclyde and Edinburgh, shows that no cervical cancer cases have been detected in fully vaccinated women following the human papillomavirus (HPV) immunisation at age 12-13 since the programme started in Scotland in 2008.

The study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute today, concludes that the HPV vaccine is highly effective in preventing the development of cervical cancer...

The actual paper is here (see Abstract at bottom of post).

****

This is the way things are supposed to work.

Initial fundamental/basic research, followed by clinical validation and pharma doing things right, from drug development through trials, all ending in a sweeping public health measure that improves everyone's lives (the vaccine is not just for young women and cervical cancer prevention anymore - it is efficacious against multiple types of HPV- driven cancers).

OK?

______

Abstract
Background
High-risk human papillomavirus causes cervical cancer. Vaccines have been developed that significantly reduce the incidence of preinvasive and invasive disease. This population-based observational study used linked screening, immunization, and cancer registry data from Scotland to assess the influence of age, number of doses, and deprivation on the incidence of invasive disease following administration of the bivalent vaccine.

Methods
Data for women born between January 1, 1988, and June 5, 1996, were extracted from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system in July 2020 and linked to cancer registry, immunization, and deprivation data. Incidence of invasive cervical cancer per 100 000 person-years and vaccine effectiveness were correlated with vaccination status, age at vaccination, and deprivation; Kaplan Meier curves were calculated.

Results
No cases of invasive cancer were recorded in women immunized at 12 or 13 years of age irrespective of the number of doses. Women vaccinated at 14 to 22 years of age and given 3 doses of the bivalent vaccine showed a significant reduction in incidence compared with all unvaccinated women (3.2/100 000 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.1 to 4.6] vs 8.4 [95% CI = 7.2 to 9.6]). Unadjusted incidence was significantly higher in women from most deprived (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 1) than least deprived (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 5) areas (10.1/100 000 [95% CI = 7.8 to 12.8] vs 3.9 [95% CI = 2.6 to 5.7]). Women from the most deprived areas showed a significant reduction in incidence following 3 doses of vaccine (13.1/100 000 [95% CI = 9.95 to 16.9] vs 2.29 [95% CI = 0.62 to 5.86]).

Conclusion
Our findings confirm that the bivalent vaccine prevents the development of invasive cervical cancer and that even 1 or 2 doses 1 month apart confer benefit if given at 12-13 years of age. At older ages, 3 doses are required for statistically significant vaccine effectiveness. Women from more deprived areas benefit more from vaccination than those from less deprived areas.

______

Another time I broke the Dad codes with E?...It was when I let my science geek tendencies run amok while helping her with her Grade 7 science project...Long story short - her teacher rightly informed me that rigorous statistical significance analyses of the data generated were a pretty good indication that the project just may have become as much mine as E's...Apologies for that one also kid.

.

Developers? In Lotusland?

AllTheirBagmen
'RUsVille


Raymond Tomlin, who is really on top of this parks board on the killing floor thing, explains why the City of Vancouver has been so developer friendly for the last fifty plus years:

...Whether it’s developer Mayor Tom Campbell in the late 60s, or Joel Solomon and Gregor Robertson for a 10-year period when Vision Vancouver was at the seat of power at Vancouver City Hall, or in these latter days, with an avuncular — but dare we say, avaricious — Peter Armstrong and Chip Wilson (backing ABC Vancouver), we who call Vancouver home are reminded yet again, and much to our consternation, this is not our city, for Vancouver is owned lock, stock and barrel by the developer class...

Go and read Mr. Tomlin's entire post - it's good.



.

The Unprotected One Hundred.

Laura Christensen was elected to the Vancouver Parks Board on Mr. Sim's ABC ticket in November of 2022.

Ms. Christensen is no longer an ABC Parks Board Commissioner, and is instead now sitting as an independent.

When the good Mr. Sim, the ABC leader and current Mayor, announced his intention to abolish the Parks Board late last year, Ms. Christensen was passionate in her defense of the elected Board, making it clear that when he she first agreed to run, Mr. Sim assured her that the Board would be reformed but would remain if his party won the election.

So.

Is there something untoward going on here?

For example, will the abolishment of the Parks Board clear the way for the selling off of park land under the now public, and some might say infamous, Recommendation #14 from the Mayor's Budgetary Task Force that we discussed yesterday?

Well, according to the actual wording of the said Recommendation #14, you could assume that all parks are safe given that they have been assigned to the 'critical asset' category.

Additionally, as Raymond Tomlin noted earlier today, Mr. Sim had the following to say on December 15th of 2023:

“I want to be very clear: as long as I’m mayor, parks will always be parks in the City of Vancouver,” Mayor Sim told CityNews in an interview on Friday, December 15, 2023.

But here's the thing...

As Ms. Christensen pointed out in her passionate petition to City Council (which you can watch here - it only takes three minutes and it will do your heart good when it comes to restoring your faith in what a true public servant can and should do), one hundred of the City of Vancouver's parks are not designated as 'permanent'. One of those not 'permanent' parks is Spanish Banks, pictured above.

Why does this matter?

Because, according to independent, and straight speaking, Parks Board Commissioner Christensen this means that the not 'permanent' parks are not protected by the need for a public referendum and a unanimous vote from City Council to 'de-parkify' them.

This conclusion of Ms. Christensen is actually supported by the wording in Mr. Sim's December 6, 2023 resolution to remove the Parks Board:

...FURTHER THAT, in accordance with the above (resolution to remove the Parks Board), (Vancouver City) Council formally request that the Province of British Columbia amend the process for revoking and/or cancelling the designation of areas designated as permanent public parks of the City under the VC, notably under section 488 of the VC (“Parks in care of Board”), to a unanimous vote of all Council members, along with provisions for a public referendum... (material in brackets and bolding mine)

And if a big chunk of developer desirable not permanent parkland were to be de-parkified with no elected Parks Board to protect it?

Hmmmmmm.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves what might happen to said de-parkified public land under the good Mayor's Task Force 'Recommendation #14 for asset privatization?

_____

Now, does an entire park have be swallowed, whole, by a developer to make a few of the chosen ones a whole lotta money?....Of course not?...How do I know this?...Because I saw the entire deal go down, up-close-and-personal, when another bait-and-switch happy politician cut the heart out of Pacific Spirit Park under the guise (i.e. initial bogus bait) of protecting the edges of a golf course...Seriously.

Again, Raymond Tomlin is all over this story over at his place.

.

That's Some Recommendation, That Recommendation 14.

JustAddEight
AndCallMrHellerInTheMorningVille

From that City of Vancouver 'Mayor's Budget Task Force Report' that I've been blathering on about recently:

Hmmmmm...

I see that 'parks' are on the no-go/do-not sell 'Core Assets' list.

But what if a park like, say, Spanish Banks, is not actually a park?

At least not a 'permanent' one.

More on that in the next post...

_____

Raymond Tomlin is a little ahead of me on this one if you want to head over to his place and cut pretty much directly to the chase...

Subheader?....This!

.

Drop Turd, The Herd Will Follow.

ForThoseWhoCanBe

SteeredVille

The media herd that is.

****

Yesterday, Norm Farrell wrote about the many municipalities in British Columbia, including the City of Vancouver, that are sitting on mountains of 'surplus' cash:

At the time, I couldn't help but note that despite this, based on a pretty much data-free report from the Mayor's budgetary task force, we would soon be hearing about how we could get out of the phantom fiscal woods by selling off public assets.

And today, whadd'ya know...

Digital front page.

Vancouver Sun.

Can the thundering hooves of the Keef be far behind?


.

First They Came For The Sociologists...

IntellectualsMustNotBeSilent
NiemollerVille


Post-secondary rank-and-file academics like myself live a very good life.

Oh, sure, there's lots of complaining and moaning about all manner of petty things, including some of the stuff that I was kinda/sorta jokingly moaning about last fall.

But here's the thing - regardless the teaching load and/or administrative duties, in a job like this you still have a good chunk of time to do what you want when it comes to your  'scholarly' activity. Personally, I'm lucky enough that I get to spend most of that time working with a fantastic group of people, many of them young and energized, trying to make a small dent in the universe.

There is an off-shoot to this scholarly stuff that boomerangs back into the administrative realm, however. This is acting as an independent/outside 'referee' for folks going forward for such things as tenure and promotion. Given that I have been around for a long time and have a pretty good handle on what's significant (and what is not) in my field, I get a reasonable number of requests to be such a referee.

Essentially, the requests come from the institution involved. Normally, if I deem myself appropriate to give an informed review, I'm happy to oblige because that's the way our world works, no questions asked.

The exception to this rule of thumb occurred last fall when I declined such a request on principle because of concerns that had been raised on a number of front's about a certain US'ian state government's highjacking of their public post-secondary system, this being just one particularly egregious example.

Well...

It turns out that things keep getting worse for post-secondary education in the Sunshine State:

Last fall, with little explanation, Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. proposed removing sociology from the menu of courses university students can take to meet graduation requirements. On Wednesday, he spoke more clearly, suggesting that sociology studies could veer into “identity politics or theories,” in violation of a new state law.

“Students should be focused on learning the truth about our country instead of being radicalized by woke ideology in our college classrooms,” Diaz said in comments to the State Board of Education.

A short time later, the board unanimously approved two rules that will apply to Florida’s 28 state colleges. One prohibits spending on diversity efforts. The other removes sociology as an option to fulfill state requirements for what are known as the “general education” or “core” courses that all students must take...

{snip}

...“I think the statute is clear that, within the general education core code, courses may not distort significant historical events or include curriculum that teaches identity politics or theories,” Diaz said. “And I think when you go into the sociology course, you’re talking about theories, and that’s an option that students have to explore those theories in a nongeneral education course.”...

Now, if you've been stopping by here occasionally for awhile (and/or have clicked through on the first link, above) you will know that I do not ply my scholarly trade in the humanities.

But.

Leaving aside all those 'theories' that are taught all over the place for the moment, including in biology courses where evolution often comes up,  there is the following to consider, as noted by fellow academic PZ Myers:

'...First they came for the sociology departments, but I was not a sociologist...'

Enough said?


______

Subheader?....This.

.