Mass-debate

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

It seems the governor of my state hasn’t a clue and he takes every chance he can to prove it. He likes to think he is a climate change expert, but it’s just a poorly veiled attempt to tow the party line of climate alarmists.

Governor Doofus (Jay Inslee) said the other day that the fires in Washington weren’t wildfires but “climate fires.” He blamed them solely on climate change.

Here’s the thing, there are still scientists that are debating the true impact of climate change or whether it even exists. “Proven” science isn’t really, since information can be manipulated to show what you want it to show.

Cliff Mass, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington, says the governor needs to put on the brakes and drive in the other direction. He says the governor’s claims about the fires are flat out wrong. While Mass broadly supports climate change as a whole, he disputes how the information is used and seems to believe that it isn’t always used in a matter that informs the public accurately.

Anyway, I’m sure we’ll hear more about the Mass-debate when the jerk off governor has more to say about climate change and fires.

Tool

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Joe Biden would like to have it both ways

“If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised if we have more of America ablaze?” Biden said during a climate change speech. “If you give a climate denier four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised when more of America is underwater?”

Hey, Joe, if more of America is under water then less of it can be on fire.

I am no sure if Joe is aware, but that’s how the whole fire suppression thing works. Firefighters put water on stuff (not to mention the fire) so it won’t burn.

The current president might not be the sharpest tool in the shed on certain things, but do we really want to replace him with an even duller tool? Not just another dull tool, but one that will truly be a tool to all things Socialist and Communist?

Maybe Joe should stop being a tool.

Let it burn

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The West is on fire.

We should let it burn.

The exception to that, of course, would be to protect life and property as much as possible.

The West is on fire not from climate change, but from poor natural resource management.

Fire is natural. Fire is useful. Fire is not always bad.

Why are the fires so bad now? Because people think that fire should always be stopped, all the time. Forests have been left to grow out of control with no management. As such, there is a lot of undergrowth that has gotten out of hand. This provides fuel to a fire that eventually gets so big that it gets into the canopy and then spreads easily, creating it’s own wind (from consuming the air around the fire) and causing it to spread uncontrollably.

Forest management and use of fire isn’t a new concept and it still gets used, but not to the extent that is should be. What is new is that groups of activists who have no desire to manage forest lands so much as to stop all activity in forests. This is an issue of environmentalist being out of control and locking down good, demonstrated practice.

If you wanna stop fires so bad, how about we send them environmentalists out there to fight them? Let’s see if they can stop what they have set in motion with their emotions instead of science and management.

Festival bummer

action adults celebration clouds

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

This Covid, corona virus stuff is cancelling everything.

Sports. Concerts. Funerals. Weddings. Church. Parades. Street, county, and state fairs. Festivals. If it draws a large number of people, it’s likely been cancelled. They aren’t waiting to do it either. Most everything has been cancelled through the end of the year.

Now, I don’t do, or don’t even like some of those things listed above. But I believe people should have the right, even with precautions, to participate if they choose to do so. However, in a continuing move to scare everyone into compliance, everything is cancelled.

Well, almost everything. Not “protests.” Those are still allowed and even encouraged. Just wear a mask or not…

So, over the weekend, I learned that one of my favorite street festivals here in the county was cancelled. Major bummer. I loved going over to the city about 20 minutes away, parking, and then meandering about the booths looking at cool stuff, art, smelling the smells, and whatnot. It was a lot of fun.

Anyway, that’s when an idea struck me. If “protests” are allowed…HOLD THE STREET FESTIVAL ANYWAY! Hear me out here.

Do it anyway. Hell, all you have to do is slap some social justice slogans on it (pick one or nine, doesn’t matter), paint some signs (or the street, cuz you know that is the “in thing” right now), tell people to wear masks, shout some nonsensical stuff, and let people gather to “protest.” It would almost be like that CHAZ/CHOP thing in Seattle, right?

It’s like the perfect formula to do whatever the heck you want. It’s a license to celebrate, mourn, party, remember, whatever.

This is a great idea. Dare I say, it could even be a “protest” against tyrannical governors and health officials. That would be something. Wouldn’t it?

 

17+1

group of people making toast

NOT MY FAMILY – Photo by fauxels on Pexels.com

I took the day off yesterday, from and blogging.

Family is in town from out of town, so yesterday was when everyone could get together at the same time.

It was actually kind of a big deal, since most of the time people are uncooperative and typically chaos ensues as the planning and execution of said plans happens.

So, 17+1 all managed to make it to another  part of the state and gather in a sort of “family reunion” type gathering. 17+1? Well, there were 17 people, plus one on the way.

Family? My wife and I, our combined 6 children, 2 of their spouses and a significant other, and 6 grandchildren (plus the one on the way).

Picnic lunch, visiting shops and stores amid a pandemic and ridiculous restrictions, ice creams stops, and lots of driving (about 6 hours round trip). So, as you can imagine, there are always a bit of wrangling issues when you have people in your group from ages of 53 to 2. But, for the most part, it was a memorable time.

Granted, these are the people that a large portion of the topics here on the blog deal with, but yesterday they were all exempt. Genuine effort by all made for a day that was mostly pleasant.

So, today, while I don’t feel like Pissing and Moaning, I guess I’ll just be appreciative.

Focus

man in white crew neck t shirt

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

The focus is off and that’s the problem.

This whole Covid-19 thing has gotten the reporting all backwards.

At first, when this all came about, the reporting was all about how many people died each day. It was reported by county and by state.

Now, it isn’t necessarily how many people have died but how many people have been tested and have come back positive. From what I understand, a positive result doesn’t necessarily mean that they have a currently active case but just that they have had it at some point in the past (maybe I am misinformed…). Obviously, testing is now more prevalent than it was at the beginning, so of course there will be more people testing positive.

Anyway, just because someone has tested positive doesn’t mean it is a death sentence as we know the mortality rate is extremely low. So, other than fear-mongering, why keep reporting positive cases?

We don’t report how many people get the flu or the common cold on a daily basis, even though large numbers of people still die from them each year.

We don’t report daily car crashes, even though people die from those.

We don’t report daily abortions, even though babies dies daily from that.

We don’t report daily new cases of cancer, though people die from that as well.

Heart disease? Nope. Heart attacks? No. Suicide attempts? Not.

Doesn’t exposure and lack of death create a herd immunity?

So, what’s the big deal if more people are testing positive? The number of deaths (percentage wise) doesn’t seem to have spiked on an exponential climb. If the mortality rate has remained relatively the same, then is there really that much of a cause of concern?

Maybe I am missing something. Or maybe I haven’t.

Take down

woman in black long sleeve shirt and black pants sitting on brown wooden armchair

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

I did something yesterday I thought I would never do, and I don’t know how I feel about it. It seemed necessary but I still question whether it was the right thing to do. I suppose it can be undone, but I am not sure how to do it so the same thing doesn’t happen.

I took down (as in deleted) a post I wrote on my other blog.

It was a pretty good post, at least I thought it was.

Apparently, other people thought so too, except for the wrong reasons.

It got some traffic after I wrote it two years ago, but not much. But I started noticing a lot of traffic to this particular post late last year. It was getting between 15-30 hits per month. I thought maybe it was because of the image. I could have been. I thought maybe it was because people were starting to make some logical sense of the topic, or maybe they just appreciated my take on the topic.

The last two months have had over a 100 and over 150 respectively. Hmmmm….

So, I Googled the title. It was third on the list of search results. Usually this would be a great thing and most of the time we would be flattered to be ranked so highly in a Google search because it means our writing is getting exposure. But…

That’s when I discovered that maybe the increase in traffic was because it had suddenly become the flash point, rallying cry, support, ammunition, (whatever you want to call it) for a group I have no association with, nor do I want to have. I don’t want to have something I have written be co-opted and used as propaganda to their “cause.”

I debated what I should do. How do I get it to NOT show up as part of the search for this group? Do I change the title? Would that help? Do I rewrite it so the phraseology changes the search algorithm? Do I remove the image or change it? Do I just put a disclaimer on it saying that I am in no way associated with or want to be associated with the group in the search results?

I finally decided to change the title first, but couldn’t come up with an equally good title. But, I did it anyway. I then updated and published it. Yeah, that didn’t/doesn’t seem to make a difference. It still shows up in the search results with the old title. It’s just when you click on the link that it takes you to the newly edited post. Doesn’t appear as though that would work.

So, I deleted it.

I searched again. Still there in the search results. Only now when you click on the title, it gives you a 404 error message…but if you click on the cached link, it still takes you to the post. UGH. Now what? I am not sure how long it will be there (or if it will ever go away).

I hate censoring myself in this manner, but I also don’t want something I wrote about historical matters to be used in the wrong way or by a group I don’t want to be associated with. Know what I mean?

Anyone have advice on this?

Disarm, defund, abolish?

fog police seaside

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

This isn’t even close to the answer.

Not sure what kind of fantasy land people are living in, but most people know this isn’t even the practical, let alone realistic. But, there are a whole bunch of progressive and liberal people in power who are going to placate and pander to the loudest voices even if they make no logical sense.

I hate to tell ya this, but people ain’t gonna suddenly decide to live in a Utopian world just because the police go away. It will, in fact, go exactly the opposite as people and groups clamor for power over others.

Disarm?

I can accept that some equipment might be overkill. Maybe, just maybe, the budget could be better spent on training and non-lethal tactics/equipment. Arming the police like the military might not be the answer. But taking away their weapons won’t work and we all know it. Remember those instances where even the LA police were outgunned by bank robbers? What about gangs and drug cartels? How would that work?

I can see some concessions here but, as we have seen with protests all over the nation over the last decade or more, when you take away ability of the police to maintain order in communities you get crime on a  massive scale. As such, our expectation of what law enforcement can and can’t do is going to have to change. We won’t be able to expect that they are going to respond to crimes during protests, large gathers, sports celebrations, etc.

Every massive protest or celebration in the US these days leads to looting, property damage, and usually other crimes as a byproduct of such behavior. The police have basically had to stand back and let it happen because they are overwhelmed, either by the sheer numbers of people or by the fact that they lack the ability to respond.

Seattle’s police chief said that things are going to have to change. That’s not only the way the police do their business but it’s also the acceptance from the public that you aren’t going to be safe or protected at all times.

Crime won’t get better if you take away their ability to handle it or prevent it.

Defund?

This option is bad at best, besides a veiled effort to push more socialism. You all know that a budget means, right?

What exactly are you going to defund in a police department?

Cut money from buying weapons? OK, again, maybe this might work. But again, what happens when the police are outgunned?

Cut money from training? Yeah, that doesn’t seem like a good idea either. If anything, funds could be diverted from arming to training. Taking money isn’t the answer.

Cut money from payroll? Also not real bright. Money means staff. Staff means there is someone to respond to a crime, to investigate, to rescue, to protect, to arrest those who need and deserve it. Are you really prepared to be told when you call 911 that an officer will be there in 30 minutes to 2 hours, if at all? It also means that paying (for all intents and purposes) them a quality wage. They are supposed to stand in harm’s way, right? So are we asking them to take less pay to do the same job, while being under armed and understaffed?

Do more with less? We have been doing that to teachers for years and that is clearly working (that’s sarcasm if you can’t read between the lines), so what makes you think law enforcement can do it?

Starting to get worried yet?

Disband?

Asinine.

Sure, let’s just get rid of the police department altogether. That won’t create a whole other set of issues that will have to be dealt with.

Crime will just magically disappear! Humans are naturally good by nature so there will be no problems and we’ll all live peacefully together in one big happy family…gather ’round the fire folks! We’re about to sing Kumbaya and hug and stuff.

The fact is, this won’t work either. The human heart hasn’t been fixed yet. Evil will always rear it’s ugly head and the vacuum left by an absence of law enforcement would quickly be filled by people who have no intent on sharing power, safety, or resources.

I am just not that optimistic of my fellow man. As such, I’ll be buying more guns to protect my family, friends, and property.

That is the natural assumption, right? If someone else who is armed to protect me and others is removed from my community, then I will have to fill that void myself. You can’t have it both ways – no police force AND an unarmed populace.

Can no one see how stupid this is? (That’s rhetorical, as I know there are lots of people who see this as completely stupid).

So what then?

I’ll be over here building my arsenal and fortress.

If you need me or want to visit, text me. I’ll unlock the gate, lower the bridge, pull the gators outta the moat, and tie up the attack dogs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Denied

person in white protective suit sitting on green grass field

Photo by Gustavo Fring on Pexels.com

Again.

The goal posts keep moving. The “red line” keeps moving. The rules are changing without notification. You don’t know what you’re actually required to do until you’ve been told you can’t do it they way they told you to do it previously.

We all knew this was going to happen.

My county has been denied, for a third time in three weeks, the ability to move forward into Phase 2.

In each case, the rules changed after the application was submitted and according to the Secretary of Health (and by extension the governor), the county can’t move forward base on the criterion it applied under but only when the new criterion is met.

Talk about an agenda. Clear demonstration of such is now not even a question.

It’s time for the county to tell the state, “Thanks, but no thanks.” We have met the requirements that were initially established and we are ready to roll moving forward.  Not gonna play your game any longer.

Local government is the only government that can address the true needs of the people. The people need to say “Enough is enough” when it comes to government over-reach and control.

Backwards

neon signage

Photo by Ivan Bertolazzi on Pexels.com

Going backwards? Strange concept in the times we live, but it I think it bears asking since we have set ourselves up for it…

Given the situation with Covid-19, is the public (general population) going to accept going backwards when it comes to a “disinfected” shopping experience? Or are employees going to be OK with going back to the way it was before? Are government services going to be restored and go back to business as usual? Because germs and disease existed before this whole thing and they will continue to exist after as well.

So, some questions?

Is everyone OK with the removal of the plexi-glass cages cashiers are now in? They protect the public and the cashier, so are they going to stay?

Is everyone OK with discontinuing the disinfecting of each and every shopping cart? Again, it gives the perception that the business cares about it’s shoppers. Is that not important after the threat of Covid-19 has dissipated? What about the flu and other infectious bacteria/viruses?

Is everyone OK with going back to full capacity seating in restaurants?  More people packed into a small space is good, right?

Is everyone OK with door handles, counter-tops, and self-serve check out stands not being cleaned after each use?

Is everyone OK with standing inside of six feet of other customers, shoppers, employees, co-workers, supervisors, non-family members, etc?

I am being the devil’s advocate here because, of course, we are going to go right back to the way it was right after this whole things is over and everyone has moved through the proper “phases of reopening.” Right? Back to “normal.”

But in doing so, we basically are going to say it is OK to go back to a society that allows for thousands of deaths each year from the flu. Or, we are going back to a society that expects less of the places we frequent because, well, it isn’t practical or cost effective to keep it up.

So, dirty and contagious it is. Kinda makes you think, doesn’t it? If it was possible now, why not then. If it was possible now, why not continue it? It’s a lose-lose battle for consumers and businesses.

Happy back to normal! Eventually.