Author: Californiacontrarian

Odds are that you like firemen. They’re brave and their only job is to protect people and their possessions. But if one of them goes above and beyond, he deserves a Sunday shout-out. One such guy is Brian Thompson, who is a Captain in the Los Banos Fire Department (LBFD).

From Epoch Bright:

“On Oct. 19, a crew from the Los Banos Fire Department (LBFD) in California responded to a call from a family. Karen Mendoza Silva, a mom of three, was in medical distress and needed to be taken to the hospital. Her three young children, aged between 5 and 8 years, were worried about their mom, and had no one who could immediately take care of them.”

After Capt. Thompson, 54, and his crew helped Ms. Silva get into an ambulance, his thoughts turned to the kids.

“There was two boys and a girl,” LBFD Capt. Brian Thompson told The Epoch Times. “They were asking, ‘Is she going to be okay?’ … They were on the phone with their father and with their uncle. I briefly Facetimed with the father to let him know that we were there.”

“I started thinking, ‘Oh, we don’t have anybody here to stay with the children,'” he said. “I asked them … ‘Hey, is there anybody here to stay with you?’ and they said, ‘No,’ that nobody was going to be coming for like, another hour.

What to do? A quandary. Three very young hungry kids.

The answer for Brian Thompson. Obviously … fix breakfast for them!

“I had them get the toaster out, get the bread out, sugar, all the ingredients … so we made breakfast together, cinnamon sugar toast and orange juice,” Capt. Thompson said. “They seemed excited that the firemen were there and helping them.”

As they began to warm up to him, they showed him their art and schoolwork for the day.

After around 20 minutes, the fire crew had to leave, so Capt. Thompson passed the baton to a police officer, and minutes later, the children’s uncle arrived.

Kudos to Brian Thompson  and his crew who are truly everything I would want from firemen.

12/3/23

As most of you might recall the initial concern about post vaccination myocarditis was raised by some Army physicians. Their concern was basically dismissed by those in the military who knew best. This was a potentially big problem as the military was mandating Covid vaccinations for young healthy individuals whose risk from Covid was very low. If the vaccines had significant side effects, that would not look good for the higher-ups in the military. So what to do? Hmmm? 

Obviously do a study to disprove any correlation between the Covid vaccine and myocarditis. So that’s what they did … and not surprisingly the study did not find any correlation! The problem, as I see it, is that this “study” was poorly done, and it was a very small study with thirty patients, twenty-three of which were active duty …hardly the population that the lead author, a pediatric resident, would typically deal with.

In general the experts appeared to agree with me.

From the Epoch Times:

“Several experts who reviewed the paper said the study did not provide any reassurance due to its small population and the definition of subclinical myocarditis.

Rates of clinical myocarditis, or heart inflammation manifesting through symptoms, run around 1 in 3,000 to 6,000 in multiple previous studies.Defining subclinical myocarditis as troponin raised to a certain level without cardiac MRI cannot rule out the condition, doctors said. The levels recorded in some of the participants indicate that there was “some damage to the myocardium,” according to Dr. Kirk Milhoan, a pediatric cardiologist. He said he’d have liked to see cardiac MRIs performed on those participants.

‘Why don’t we look further and see what that is, as opposed to saying, ‘well, since nothing was over 20, it was just ignored,’ he told The Epoch Times.”

As we have all heard many times before, “the cover-up is often worse than the crime.” Could this just be another example?

12/2/23

As many of my readers already know, I think that the widespread Pavlovian acceptance of recreational marijuana (Mary Jane) is a mistake. Initially I was opposed to marijuana use because of its driving safety issues. Unlike alcohol which will also impair one’s judgement when driving, because of marijuana’s long half-life its blood level cannot be used to determine whether or not someone is driving impaired. (“That blood test only demonstrates that I used marijuana yesterday … not today.”)

However, in addition there is more evidence surfacing that using marijuana can be detrimental to one’s own health.

From Medscape:

“Researchers at University of California, San Diego looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1808% increase in patients aged 65 or older who were there for complications from cannabis use.”

The two important things to note in that last sentence … ‘patients over age 65’. and a 1808% increase!

From that same UCSD study:

‘The lead author said in an interview that, “Older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].’

But these adverse consequences of marijuana use are not limited to the crazies in California.

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

To me this means, as was well put by Bachman-Turner Overdrive (BTO) in their song … “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”

12/1/23

I just read a Jeff Childers C&C on two separate, interestingly, but  ironic stories about ‘death’ and ‘dying.’ One was concerning a physician, Dr. Bruce Wilkoff, whose specialty is preventing sudden cardiac death  by inserting AICDs (defibrillators).He has recently been diagnosed with stage 4 turbo pancreatic cancer.

The second story was about professor of cancer biology at the Vanderbilt School of Medicine, Albert Reynolds, PhD, 66, who died suddenly and unexpectedly at his Nashville home.

I found these two individual stories to be ironic because the cancer specialist died suddenly, while the sudden death specialist is dying from cancer. Additionally Dr. Wilkoff had an interview with Dr. Eric Topel, in which he expressed gratitude for not dying suddenly, as he has been given time to reflect and cement his legacy, which is substantial.

My first thought after reading what Dr. Wilkoff’s said, is whether or not he has ever known or even has heard about what actually happens when someone dies from pancreatic cancer. I know one person who died of such, and it is a horrible way to die.

In contradistinction, I do not obviously know anyone who has died suddenly … as they are dead. While I cannot be one-hundred percent sure that they did not experience severe pain, I can be sure that any pain that they might have had was extremely short. (I do have experience with sudden death individuals who were promptly resuscitated, and none of them related any remembered pain prior to their episode or their resuscitation.)

Upon further reflection it seems to me that a slow drawn out death might be helpful to those who must deal with the deceased post-mortem bills, estate, etc., as there has been plenty of time for planning. However, sudden death is better for the individual, as long as that individual is ready to meet his/her maker.

If I were to be given such a choice, a slow painful death from cancer which is what is going to happen with Dr. Wilkoff  … “No! Not me!”

Sudden death like what happened to Albert Reynolds … “bring it on!”

11/30/23

To be honest right from the top, I have often wondered how individuals choose who to vote for. If one agrees with candidate A on all of the issues, then no problemo. Candidate A will get that individual’s vote. Likewise if one disagrees with candidate B on just about everything, then again no problemo, as candidate B is not going to get that individual’s vote. These examples are exaggerated and pretty straight forward, and little actual decision making will be involved.

However, let’s make the situation a bit more difficult. For instance, let’s assume that one agrees with candidate A on only seventy percent of the issues, but agrees with candidate B on a measly thirty percent. Will candidate A still get that individual’s vote? Yes, as long as all of the issues have the same weight for an individual, then the candidate with the higher percent will be the one he likely votes for. But if not all of the issues are of equal importance to an individual, then the situation becomes more complex. If one particular issue is of tantamount importance to an individual, will that individual even pay much attention to the rest of the issues? In today’s world, in fact, the answer is that one issue voting is commonplace. 

For the left this issue is abortion. If candidate A is pro-abortion, then in all likelihood he/she will get that leftist’s vote. Does it matter what else candidate A promotes? Usually not. Is this purely a leftist thing? …No, it is not. When I asked one of my conservative friends what he thought about RFK Jr., his response was basically, “no way,” as RFK Jr. does not hold my views on global warming and going green

I bring this up today because on 10/9/23, RFK Jr. declared himself to no longer be a Democrat, but to now be an Independent. While it is extremely unlikely that an Independent could be elected President, RFK Jr. is certainly in a position to be a spoiler, stealing votes from both the Republican and the Democratic candidate. At present none of the other present Republican Presidential candidates have been smart enough to declare solidarity to Donald Trump, and thus be in a good position to be considered as Trump’s V.P. 

How would a Trump/RFK Jr. ticket sound? I wonder, “Could my conservative friend back this combo?”

11/29/23

A copy of this letter was sent to me, and I feel that it is very apropos for a “Tuesday truth”blog.

To  me this EV craze is unsustainable, and this Professor agrees.

A huge machine is required to move 500 tons of earth/ ore which will be refined into one lithium car battery. This machine burns 900-1000 gallons of fuel in a 12-hour shift.”

Lithium is refined from ore using sulfuric acid. The proposed lithium mine at Thacker Pass, Nevada is estimated to require up to 75 semi-loads of sulfuric acid a day.!  The acid does not turn into unicorn food as AOC believes. 

Refining lithium has created several EPA SUPERFUND SITES.  IT ISVERY TOXIC TO THE ENVIRONMENT.! 

A battery in an electric car, let’s say an average Tesla, is made of: 

25 pounds of lithium,

60 pounds of nickel,

44 pounds of manganese,

30 pounds of cobalt,

200 pounds of copper, and

400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic, etc…. averaging 750-1,000 pounds of minerals, that had to be mined and processed into a battery that merely stores electricity … which is generated by oil, gas, coal, or water (and a tiny fraction of wind and solar)

That is the truth, about the lie, of “green” energy. There’s nothing green about the “Green New Deal.”

Dr. Phillip A. XXXX

University of South Alabama

Mobile, Alabama

11/28/23

“I used to favor immigration, but now, not so much.”

This type of sentiment seems be increasing in many European countries.

From REMIX:

Nearly two-thirds of all German citizens want the country’s federal government to impose a ban on migration from predominantly Muslim nations, a damning survey has revealed.

Polling conducted by INSA on behalf of the Bild tabloid newspaper showed that 61 percent of respondents now advocate refusing any more migrants from Islamic countries with many explaining they no longer feel safe in their own country and believe an increasing number of new arrivals despise German society.

Meanwhile in France, from Breitbart:

“Senators in France started debating a bill Monday that is intended to toughen the country’s immigration law but advocacy organizations have criticized as a threat to the rights of asylum-seekers and other migrants.

French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin said the legislation “is about being firm” on immigration. The bill especially is aimed at “being tougher on foreigners who commit crimes, expelling them all,” he said, speaking Sunday night on TV channel France 2.

The legislation includes a provision that would give legal status under certain conditions to undocumented individuals working in specific sectors with labor shortages.

‘There’s a political compromise to be found. What counts is the general interest,’ Darmanin said.”

Meanwhile in Scandinavian countries … from American Thinker:

Increasing crime numbers may explain why Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland are beginning to take steps to get rid of illegal immigrants:

While the Europeans once sneered at America’s high crime rate, they’re now grappling with high crime, too. That seems to be thanks to the influx of Middle Easterners and Africans flooding their once safe, homogeneous little countries 

Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden announced a new agreement on Tuesday that they were to combine their efforts on removing migrants, saying they would launch joint deportation flights and other initiatives. The agreement came out of a two-day Nordic nations summit in Copenhagen where the group said they had come to a “strong commitment” to strengthen their cooperation on migrant returns.”

From the Washington Post:

“The latest victory came in the socially liberal Netherlands, where hard-right icon Geert Wilders and his anti-European Union, anti-Muslim and anti-immigration Party for Freedom landed a shocking first place finish this past week in parliamentary elections.”

From JusttheNews:

“Caring for illegal aliens currently within the United States could cost American taxpayers up to $451 billion per year, a Monday interim staff report from House Republicans has concluded.”

$451 billion per year is a lot of moola. Will this be the straw that reverses the influx of illegal migrants, and could perhaps even swing the U.S. in the same direction as is happening in many places in Europe?

11/27/23

www.californiacontrarian.com

On Sundays I write about individuals who stand on principle, and should be praised for such. This Sunday is no different.

As an aside, if you look up the word, “cojones,” there are two separate meanings … For those who are aware, there are women without cojones who demonstrate courage, and men with cojones who have no courage. The following two real life stories demonstrate both species.

From a BlazeMedia headline:

“Female boxer learns at last moment her opponent’s manhood was kept a secret, drops out of women’s competition”

An Australian transvestite won a Canadian women’s boxing competition in Quebec by default in late October because his 36-year-old female opponent, Dr. Katia Bissonnette, refused to fight a man.

Bissonnette, a recovered drug addict turned psychologist, figured she had fair shot in the 0-5 fights, 165 lb. super welterweight category. That dream was dashed by 27-year-old Mya Walmsley, a man evidently keen on beating up women.

Denis Gravel, Katia’s trainer, indicated that neither the QOBF nor Boxing Canada bothered to mention that Mya Walmsley was a man, reported La Presse.

Bissonnette, accustomed to fighting women, recalled worrying whether they’d be facing off “on equal terms,” noting that she “could have after-effects, end up in hospital with a concussion or in a coma.”

Are her concerns valid?

Still from BlazeMedia:

“A 2020 study published in the Journal of Experimental Biology found that “males’ average power during a punching motion was 162% greater than females’, with the least-powerful man still stronger than the most powerful woman. Such a distinction between genders … develops with time and with purpose.”

A 2021 study published in the journal Sports Medicine revealed that the “performance gap between males and female becomes significant at puberty and often amounts to 10-50% depending on sport. The performance gap is more pronounced in sporting activities relying on muscle mass and explosive strength.”

The second cojones-courage dichotomy is from Wales and involves a non-contact sport.

From BlazeMedia:

“Female pool player forfeits championship rather than compete against a man — and the crowd goes wild”

On Sunday, 11/12/23 a crowd of pool enthusiasts gathered at a resort in Denbighshire, Wales, about 240 miles northwest of London, for the women’s 2023 Champion of Champions tournament. In the final round, Lynne Pinches was scheduled to play against a man whose name was once reportedly Chris Haynes but who now pretends to be a woman and calls himself Harriet Haynes — or “HH” on the competitive pool circuit.

The Daily Mail noted that Pinches could have opted not to appear at the final round at all, but if she had, would have been declared a no-show. By showing up and going through some of the tournament procedures, Pinches may have been sending a “message” about men competing in women’s sports, the outlet indicated.

A social media user stated that Harriet Haynes was once a mediocre pool player and began winning tournaments only after he started competing against women. While Blaze News cannot independently verify his record in men’s competitions, Haynes has had tremendous success in women’s competitions.”

Whereas Katie Bissonnette refused to fight a male transvestite because she realistically feared for her safety, Lynne Pinches refused to compete against a male transvestite out of principle.

Both women deserve our respect for standing up for what is right!

11/26/23

I just watched part of a recent Megyn Kelly podcast interview with Dr.  Drew Pinsky, a cardiologist with forty years of experience. Basically Dr. Pinsky was aghast that a recently published article in Circulation(a premier worldwide cardiology journal) has not received more attention. The article had to do with Covid-vaccine myocarditis, and the long term consequences of such. 

The study basically followed 39 people up to 10 months after COVID-vaccine-induced myocarditis. Of these 56% had persistent features of myocarditis and 2/3 had abnormal findings overall.

Dr. Pinsky’s take home:

Most people who get myocarditis from the COVID vaccine have long-term changes to their hearts.

 I agree with his frustration that this article in Circulation did not get more press, but what is missing is the amount of cardiac tissue that is involved by this vaccine induced myocarditis. If a large amount of heart tissue is affected by any type of myocarditis, then I would agree that it portends a very poor long term prognosis. However, there is no info on the degree of involvement. At this point I would have to assume that the more heart tissue is involved, the poorer the prognosis, and vice-versa. But in reality, at this point we do not know the answer to that question. If the amount of myocardium involved is not a crucial piece of this puzzle, then I would have to agree with the extremely pessimistic outlook of Dr. Pinsky.

Personally, this myocarditis-long term outlook segues into the present status of Damar Hamlin who was used on the Bills’ special teams unit only for kick returns in the fourth game of this season. Very hard for someone who does not live in Buffalo to know what Damar Hamlin’s playing status is from week to week. Did Damar Hamlin have myocarditis? Furthermore, since the NFL  mandated that the players receive the Covid vaccine, is the league legally responsible for what happens to a player who gets myocarditis from the vaccine?

On that same Megyn Kelly podcast the issue of the legal responsibility of the future possible deleterious effects of the Covid vaccine as suggested by this Circulation article, and the colleges that mandated those vaccines to young students who had a minuscule chance of dying from Covid. Is it possible that what is now a mere drizzle of an article in Circulation could morph into a huge coming thunderstorm?

11/25/23

A number of years ago a friend of mine had a job offer in Wyoming, so he and his wife went to visit the area. As his wife started to open her car door a gust of wind came up and violently blew the door open! To make a long story short his wife then refused to get out of the car. Her final comment was, “Any place but here!” Needless to say, my friend did not take the job.

Even though that was a long time ago, it is unlikely that the wind has changed as Wyoming’s topography has not changed. Now even though the wind in Wyoming might not make it a pleasant place in which to live, it would certainly be a perfect place for green wind power. Oops! … as Tonto would say, “not so fast kemo-sabe!”

From the Blaze.com:

“Once upon a time, the people of Wyoming enjoyed the lowest electricity rates in the nation, thanks to their supremacy in coal production. A state rich in God’s natural energy is now facing a 29% increase in electricity rates, thanks to Republican Governor Mark Gordon’s windmill grift. Who needs cheap natural fuel when you can have expensive and inefficient wind power?

“Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Rocky Mountain Power, the state’s largest utility company, announced the nearly 30% hike in rates due to rising costs. Residents responded with outrage. They had thought, with good reason, that the state’s abundance of resources would shield them from the national trend.

“It wasn’t always like this. Coal plants accounted for about 71% of the electricity produced in Wyoming in 2022, down from a peak of 97% in 2003 but still second-highest in the nation after West Virginia. What changed? Wind power now accounts for 22% of the share, more than doubling just in the past three years under Governor Gordon.”

To me if wind power cannot succeed in Wyoming, it is unlikely that it will be successful anywhere. (If not there, … where?)

BTW, my friend and his wife settled in Kansas City, and to the best of my knowledge, at last report the wind in Missouri has not violently blown their car door open.

11/21/23