It’s George Floyd Day! Yay!

 

It’s George Floyd Day!

Happy George Floyd Day!

That’s right. We got rid of:

• Lincoln’s Birthday
• Washington’s Birthday
• Columbus Day

But we must celebrate the day that a drug addicted felon died because of all his death did so much to improve society in just a year. In Minneapolis, Black Lives Matter can see how their philosophy has improved the country by simply looking at the celebration being held at George Floyd square. Watch:

Here’s the moment shots were fired near George Floyd Square earlier this morning. pic.twitter.com/NIWRBr6b9Y

— Philip Crowther (@PhilipinDC) May 25, 2021

Yep, a shoot out. Minneapolis police showed up right away. Not. Minneapolis has lost a substantial portion of their police force and it wouldn’t matter anyway. They’re not allowed to arrest anyone and, if they have the audacity to arrest someone, that person would be released right away.

Now, we are supposed to celebrate all the great changes that Black Lives Matter has done since the George Floyd’s. I mean, they’re calling it an anniversary. But, I have a question: What has Black Lives Matter done that was good besides make $90 million? I know the damage they’ve done:

• There was $2-3 billion of damage that was done during riots last year. They’re still happening.
• Murders and violent crimes are up throughout the country by 20%. Some cities are up over 100%.
• Police a retiring, going on leave or quitting a record rates. Most police forces are facing a staff shortage.
• People are not becoming police anymore. New York is down 75% with new recruits.
• They are ignoring the murders of blacks by other blacks. Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit have a huge black-on-black murder problem.
• Crime in large, blue cities is no longer being enforced. Felons are being released.
• Black Lives Matter made $90 million and have given none to society to improve it. But Patrice Cuellors, the founder, did buy three homes.

I don’t know what they’re celebrating. Black Lives Matter has just made things worse.

 

Oh, Now You Get It

The leadership in a lot of the big blue cities seem absolutely shocked at the major spike in crime. I guess trying to take money away from police departments and condemning every move they make without looking at all the evidence has not worked the way they thought it would.

Jacob Frye, the effeminate mayor of Minneapolis, said:

“The violence needs to stop, its unacceptable. People deserve to feel safe in their neighborhood, they deserve to be able to send their kids out to the sidewalk to play and to recreate without bullets flying by. That’s unacceptable. We should be holding these perpetrators accountable.”

In another press conference, Frye said:

“When you make big, overarching statements that we’re going to defund or abolish and dismantle the police department and get rid of all the officers, there’s an impact to that.”

He has called for federal and state help since violent crime climbed 21% over the last year.

In Los Angeles, the idiot mayor Eric Garcetti cut $150 million from the police. That brilliant move increase violent crime 36%. Murders are at a 10 year high of 350. The city council, reversing themselves, have approved hiring 250 new officers.

In New York City, they experienced a more than 50% jump in the number of shootings over the same time last year. The spike comes after last year when jumped 97% and the murders across the city increased 45% over 2019. The dumbass mayor Bill de Blasio promised to cut $1 billion from the police budget. That was a lie. He didn’t. Now he has approved to build a brand new police precinct.

None of this is actually being covered because most of the media and the Left still want cuts to the police departments. In fact, they want to eliminate the police all together. But that’s the problem when those people are not in leadership. They are not responsible when the consequences for their bad ideas come to fruition. In fact, they twist those consequences and try to make them proof that their ideas are necessary. For example, Jen Psaki was asked about the crime problem and she said that it was a gun problem.

Everything with the Left is about politics and the narrative. It’s never about common sense.

 

But, What?

So the leaders in Minneapolis have an idea on how to lower crime: innocent citizens should talk about it. No crap.

Minneapolis community leaders held a “take back the block” rally at Shiloh Temple in north Minneapolis last week to kick off a campaign of community pushback to violent crime. On Monday, volunteers took to the streets of Minneapolis in a display meant to signify that criminals do not run the city.

Rev. Brian Herron said at the rally:

“It isn’t an invasion of your block — this is support of your block. We want to see you come out. We want to see you sitting on your stoop.”

Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety John Harrington tried his little misdirection I talked about in the last story:

“We have to get the guns off the streets. We cannot live with this insanity.”

See the misdirection? Get the cops off the streets, violent crime goes up and it’s the guns, not the criminals, that cause crime.

One of the things police have a hard time with is actually getting witnesses and get help for catching violent felons.

Police Chief Medaria Arradondo said:

“Minneapolis police officers will continue to rush into harm’s way to save lives; however, we need help from community leaders and residents to stand up and speak out.”

I think this is true. I think people are too afraid to report anything to the police. But I also think it is leadership’s fault for not putting away violent felons. Hey, it’s the people living in the neighborhoods that have to deal with the issues when that felon is released, and he will be released. There are no consequences for committing crime in Minneapolis and, therefore, no motivation not to commit crime. Criminals are not usually very smart. All they understand are hard consequences. They cannot be reasoned with.

I also think this is a bad idea because leadership, by asking people to help, is targeted policing, not proactive policing. Criminals need to see that they are going to get caught by a police presence. If I am walking down the street and I am planning to rob a house but I see a cop on the corner, guess what? I won’t rob the house. If I am walking down the street at 2 AM and a cop sees me, stops me and finds that I am carrying a crow bar, a gun and a flashlight, he used to be able to arrest me for carrying robbery tools. Boom, no crime. That is proactive policing.

If I commit a robbery, rape or murder because their were no police around and the cops find our who I am, this is targeted policing. It’s too late. I might have gotten caught had policing been proactive.

 

When They Say No, They Mean Yes

A couple of weeks ago, there was a meme on Twitter that made fun of Joe Biden’s policies limiting the beef intake of American citizens for climate change. Jen Psaki was asked about it and she said she didn’t know what the reporter was talking about. I did not

An article from Vox called A no-beef diet is great — but only if you don’t replace it with chicken. Let’s not swap one moral disaster for another  by Kelsey Piper. 

Most people have heard it by now: Our meat habit is bad for the world. Polling suggests that tens of millions of people are taking this message seriously: One in four Americans said they tried to cut back on meat in the last year, and half of those cited environmental concerns as a major reason. The popular food site Epicurious recently announced they’ve stopped publishing recipes with beef in them, because of beef’s climate impacts, setting off the latest round of discussion on meat’s effects on the environment.

Have you ever met a vegetarian? You know what they always tell you? That they’re a vegetarian.

Now I know it is not all vegetarians. But a lot of them are self-congratulating, condescending prigs. When they found out that, not only is vegetarianism is healthy, they will also scream that it is saving the environment.

Here’s a news flash: Meat is a healthy part of a diet. It has all the major amino acids and complete proteins that one can’t get on a vegetarian or vegan diet. Men, who have more muscle and bone density, require those amino acids and proteins that meat provides. That’s why most vegan men are incredibly thin and frail looking. Now, does that mean men can’t be vegan? No. All it means is that if a man is a vegan, he has to eat a lot more to obtain what a piece of meat could give immediately.

Cutting meat consumption is as smart an idea as advertised. Industrial farming — the source of 99 percent of the meat Americans eat — provides the world with cheap meat, but it does so at a terrible environmental and moral cost.

Where it gets complicated is when people decide which meat, exactly, they’ll be cutting back on. Often, it’s beef that loses out in that calculus. And often, the messaging is that we can save the world by switching out our beef consumption for chicken.

The problem with this message is that switching beef for chicken basically amounts to trading one moral catastrophe for another.

Get that? No meat at all. Sound familiar? Can you say “Green New Deal”.

The environmental reasons for cutting beef from one’s diet are clear. Most of the climate impact of animal agriculture comes from raising cows for beef. Cows produce methane, a greenhouse gas that is a major contributor to global warming; it’s much more potent than carbon dioxide. Transitioning away from eating beef to eating other factory-farmed animal products undoubtedly reduces the carbon impact of a person’s diet.

But the transition away from beef can end up being a Pyrrhic victory if it drives up the world’s rapidly rising chicken consumption. That ends up swapping one disaster — the climate crisis and beef farming’s role in it — for another: the moral disaster of industrial chicken production.

Here’s the good news. This writer is probably a socialist. If socialism comes to this country, none of us will have any food to eat anyway. History kind of tells us that.

To put it simply, it takes many, many more chicken lives than cow lives to feed people. Cows are big, so raising one produces about 500 pounds of beef — and at the rate at which the average American eats beef, it takes about 8.5 years for one person to eat one cow. But chickens are much smaller, producing only a few pounds of meat per bird, with the average American eating about one whole chicken every two weeks. To put it another way, each year we eat about 23 chickens and just over one-tenth of one cow (and about a third of one pig).

The choice to swap beef for chicken is further compounded by the differences in their quality of life. Cows are raised for slaughter on pastures and feedlots — enclosed spaces where they’re fed grain in preparation for slaughter. Most animal well-being experts say that the life of a cow raised for beef is punctuated by traumatic events and cut needlessly short, but it’s not ceaseless torture.

This is a typical PETA article.

On the other hand, factory-farmed chickens — and that’s 99 percent of all chickens we eat — have an awful life from the moment they’re born to the moment they’re slaughtered. The most efficient way to raise chickens is in massive, ammonia-choked, noisy warehouses, where the birds grow so rapidly (due to genetic selection for excessive size) that their legs can’t support their weight. They live about six weeks and then are killed.

So switching from cows to chickens is a way to somewhat reduce carbon emissions — but it comes with a massive increase in animal suffering.

Choosing between the two is a knotty dilemma that tends not to be discussed often. But this tension isn’t inevitable. After all, climate advocates and animal advocates are on the same side: supporting a transition away from industrial agriculture. And most people care about both animals and the environment, so addressing factory farming is a simple win-win.

The solution to factory farming’s many harms can’t be shuffling consumers between chicken and beef depending which of their devastating impacts is on the top of our minds. And consumers shouldn’t accept as inevitable the choice between torturing animals and dramatically worsening global warming. There is a path to a food system that doesn’t force us to choose, but we’re going to need to take much bigger steps, in terms of policy and consumer choice, to get there.

OK, there is a lot more to this article and you can click on the link to read it. It is just more environmental craziness. I want you to notice some things about it:

• Environmentalism has become a religion, determining now what you are allowed to eat.
• The article is very loose with the science. Human beings are made to eat meat and have since our appearance on the earth.
• Now am I against veganism or some of their philosophies? No, I’m not.
  • There are health benefits.
  • Slaughter houses are cruel.
  • Eventually, they will create an artificial meat.
• This is a part of the Green New Deal. This craziness was never a thing before that stupid proposal AOC came up with.
• And the article never addressed this: If we all stop eating meat, what do you do with the cows in chicken? Look what’s going on in India.

This environmental crap is all just insane. These people think they have all the answers no matter how crazy they are and everything involves taking away our freedoms. We can’t drive. We can’t fly. We can’t eat meat. We can’t have coal or oil or energy.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22430749/beef-chicken-climate-diet-vegetarian
https://news.trust.org/item/20170221124834-qu67m/

Socialism and famine