Wuhan Lab Leak Theory

So you heard it here, more or less first (not talking about RW crazies) but the Wuhan Lab leak theory now has more backing out there in the intersphere of hive mind thinking. Of course, like many other things, the hive mind is now going all in on it and I'm not sure why. It's still a viable theory, but it's a low likelihood one. And, mind that there are a lot of other low probability theories (none being helped by the current Chinese obfuscation, but let's be honest, not like our gov/govs haven't been obfuscating about covid in other ways here in the US, yet none are given this kind of air time. Thing is, even liberals are jumping in on the "hate everything China" train, because it would seem that our elites are trying to get them angry about it right now. And that is only to deflect from themselves. 
And I don't want to carry anyone's water right now, but it feels suspicious to me and reminds me of the worthlessness of the hive mind on the internets, and the flow of anger over the past 6 years (when it truly became a weaponized force). Not much to say except that stay critical and vigilant. 
Also, this is a good way for me to see how well my gut instinct (this is all a bs charade but elites to either steal more from us and this nation, or to make sure they aren't blamed for anything bad) will go over time. 
That being said, there's a pretty good description over on medium by Doctorow about what a blog means to him. 

Clay Shirky has described the process of reading blogs as the inverse of reading traditional sources of news and opinion. In the traditional world, an editor selects (from among pitches from writers for things that might interest a readership), and then publishes (the selected pieces).

But for blog readers, the process is inverted: bloggers publish (everything that seems significant to them) and then readers select (which of those publications are worthy of their interests). There are advantages and disadvantages to both select-then-publish and publish-then-select, and while the latter may require more of the unrewarding work of deciding to ignore uninteresting writing, it also has more of the rewarding delight of discovering something that’s both totally unexpected and utterly wonderful.

An interesting take for sure. One that I've thought of, but not in that way, exactly. I've seen this blog as a way to get together my thoughts and, sometimes, my stories, but has it helped the longer forms lately? Perhaps I've been misusing this tool. 

That’s not the only inversion that blogging entails. When it comes to a (my) blogging method for writing longer, more synthetic work, the traditional relationship between research and writing is reversed. Traditionally, a writer identifies a subject of interest and researches it, then writes about it. In the (my) blogging method, the writer blogs about everything that seems interesting, until a subject gels out of all of those disparate, short pieces.

So he seems to have a good process. 

For more than a decade, I’ve revisited “this day in history” from my own blogging archive, looking back one year, five years, ten years (and then, eventually, 15 years and 20 years). Every day, I roll back my blog archives to this day in years gone past, pull out the most interesting headlines and publish a quick blog post linking back to them

And this is the work he does. Good idea here. Think I'll start at it, though I sense I'll be quite scared to stare at this mirror of past self. Be prepared, dear reader. That being said, I'm sure he has a better community than what we have going here, but I'm sure it's also the work of looking back and reading that helps him. Your thoughts?
One thing I want to look back on is this:
There's a current scream (not only on the right, which always screams about everything) about rising murder (I think crime in general is not rising) and I have to ask why are people just screaming and not asking questions? Cops (NYPD specifically) have gone on to say that it's defunding the police that's doing it, when their (this was NYC) place did not defund (begging the question of, well if an increase in $ increases crime, then what's the deal?) police. 
See screenshot for refutation, of course, that won't get the traction it should. But I do have to ask, given the semi-lockdowns we've been having, what are the breakdowns of gang violence, random stranger violence and DV violence. Because I sense, given how us apes act, that the latter is the biggest spike. Thoughts? Or is it some derivative in the people from seeing how little society valued them (in the sense of Trump basically not caring that covid would run rampant through all these communities)? Or of the virus itself in survivors? Certainly this might play a role, though I would say a low amount and at an already low probability.




Enjoyed it? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. paypal.me/nlowhim Throw some change in there & help cover the costs of running this thing. You can use paypal or a credit card.