Canadian Wildfires Still Raging-- Perhaps Americans' Anger Should Be, Too?

 

Remarkably, some have said, regarding the ongoing and incessant Canadian wildfires, that there's nothing Canada can really do about them. Year after year after year. That is bunk. First of all, some of the fires have been started by arson. One thing Canada could do is lock those sick bastards up for life. Think that's harsh? For burning down large swaths of the beautiful forests of Canada and causing tens of thousands of people to be evacuated, disrupting their life in every way? And who knows how many (painful) deaths of animals have occurred? Doubtless many thousands. And think of the sickness and death caused—not just in Canada but in its neighbor to the south. Think of those with COPD and various other diseases and susceptibilities. Think of the elderly. Burning down half of Canada, trashing its lush boreal forests, slaughtering countless animals, dispossessing tens of thousands of Canadian citizens, adversely affecting the health of (or even killing) countless others across the border in a foreign nation, and making people cancel their vacations and skip going outside entirely? This is not worth life in prison?

Hell, Canada jails people for ‘misgendering’ someone or for praying outside of an abortion clinic or potentially anywhere else in public-- or for criticizing the national government. Some of those unfortunately aggrieved people spend longer in jail than the arsonists! And, by the way, some ‘experts’ claim that one of the reasons for the fires is that we are not following the ancient practices of the indigenous peoples. What the hell is meant by that? I don’t believe they had the technology and tools to clear vast tracts of land of dead trees, underbrush, etc. The only thing I can think of is the proverbial ‘rain dance.’ The rest of us can't do rain dances because that would be cultural appropriation. So every single indigenous person in Canada should be rain dancing right now until those fires are vanquished, if they wish to have any of their precious forests left intact. Get to it! Carney, make it happen, eh?!

And now Canada is begging for help from other countries? Like, I don't know, perhaps its neighbor to the south, the United States of America? Really?! We didn't start the fires, but Canada wants us to come and help put them out? After Canadians in and out of government have mocked, sassed, and trashed us for months, and disrespected our national anthem? Well, if we not only have to protect the Great White North militarily but put out its effing fires, perhaps it should more seriously consider becoming the 51st state. For its sake, not ours.

We’ve all heard the phrase, “Where there's smoke there's fire.” Well, that's not true in this case. Much of the densely populated northcentral and northeastern tier of the United States is smothered in Canadian smoke and being slowly asphyxiated. Yet there are no fires here.

The majority of Americans who have never been on a Canadian fishing trip and who don’t live in the northcentral and northeastern states might not realize two very important things: first, the smoke is, at times, impossible to avoid and dangerously thick and low to the ground, and, second, the only thing more prevalent than forest land in much of Canada is water. It is, gloriously, everywhere. Rivers, flowages, lakes-- massive bodies of water seemingly sprawl everywhere. Might not the latter be used to save the former? Does Canada not have enough firefighting aircraft such as airtankers and water scoopers? If not, why not? Does it want its forests to burn?

Why am I not hearing about the staggering amount of greenhouse gases these fires are releasing into the atmosphere? And yet, ironically, a few more of these gigantic fires and another volcanic eruption or two and the earth might enter a period of cooling due to the vast amount of smoke, soot, ash, and particulates blocking the suns rays.

It would be very neighborly of Canada—one might even say polite—if those in the Canadian government lit a fire…under their own asses and pulled out all the stops to finally extinguish these fires before more people and animals—and Canada’s previously beautiful forests—are destroyed.

Eh?

Here Comes The Smoke From Canadian Wildfires...Again!

 

Why can’t the second largest nation on earth ever get control of its wildfires? Canada should have had enough practice by now. Hundreds of fires raged out of control for months in the summer of 2023. And 2024. For that matter, why can’t the most populous state in the union (California) do the same? Maybe for the same reason. Progressive asshats in both places seem to be unable to do literally anything except aggressively police “Islamophobia,” “homophobia,” and “transphobia.”

From an NPR report: “Thick, billowing clouds of smoke are sweeping south from wildfires ravaging the central Canadian province of Manitoba into parts of the United States, compromising air quality for millions of Americans across several northern states.” Of course, the NPR report was sure to mention climate change, stating: “The U.S. has also battled increasingly devastating wildfires over recent years as climate change has made larger wildfires more likely and more intense.”

Regarding Canadian wildfires, a CNN article from 2023 stated: “Scientists from the World Weather Attribution initiative – which calculates the role of climate change in extreme weather events – found human-caused climate change more than doubled the likelihood of hot, dry and windy conditions that drove the Quebec fires between May and July, and made this fire-prone weather at least 20% more intense.” Made this fire-prone weather at least 20% more intense? How does fire-prone weather get made (at least 20%) more intense? How is this measured…and by whom? For that matter, how much more intense can a raging, out of control fire consuming hundreds of thousands of acres of forest get?

Friederike Otto, co-founder of something called the World Weather Attribution initiative (and senior lecturer at the Grantham Institute in the UK!) issued a statement saying, “Until we stop burning fossil fuels the number of wildfires will continue to increase, burning larger areas for longer periods of time.”

Ah, there it is! Fossil fuels bad.

The CNN piece referenced Kira Hoffman, a fire ecologist at the University of British Columbia and the Bulkley Valley Research Centre, who averred that there are many factors that contribute to extreme wildfire seasons, including logging and abandoning Indigenous fire stewardship techniques. (Guess we have to capitalize the ‘I’ in Indigenous.)

Sorry, Kira, not buying that one. Logging removes trees. Oddly enough, things that aren’t there don’t burn. And what the hell is “Indigenous fire stewardship?” I have respect for Indigenous peoples and a love for trees, but, seriously, come on!

As I wrote in a 2023 blog post, “Many of the fires are at least partially the result of leaving too much deadwood and flammable material on forest floors, usually due to ‘environmentalists’ wishes. Of course, more folks live in more areas, and fire detection and reporting are better than in prior eras, too. And, at least in the case of Canada, one gets the impression that an all-out effort to contain these conflagrations hasn’t been made…possibly to drive home the point that global warming is going to be the death of us all, and sooner rather than later. (It wouldn’t stun me if some of the fires were set by those with an agenda.) A recent study by Danish author and academic Bjorn Lomborg, published in the Wall Street Journal, illustrated a vast disparity between the actual number of wildfires and the attention given them by the mainstream media and politicians. Lomborg asserted: ‘Climate change hasn’t set the world on fire. It turns out the percentage of the globe that burns each year has been declining since 2001.’ Yet, despite that inconvenient truth, the mainstream media-- and many politicians—insist that there are ever more fires as a direct result of ‘climate change.’ In furtherance of their agenda, reporting on ‘climate change’ has increased by 400% between 2010 and 2020.”

We know for a fact that many of the previous Canadian wildfires were deliberately set by arsonists. So, instead of reflexively blaming logging—and oil & gas companies-- for the fires, let’s seek the truth.

I am on vacation in a remote, undisclosed location in northern Minnesota as I write this. The smoke is noticeable, tangible. And I have asthma, so, to use a favorite phrase of progressives, I may be ‘disproportionately affected’ by these wildfires.

I am not a fan of blowing smoke, whether it comes from Canada…or progressive politicians with an agenda.  

 

 

Michelle Obama Says Reproductive System's Least Important Function Is...Reproduction

 

As most of you have probably heard by now, the preternaturally moronic Michelle Obama utilized the latest episode of the barely listened to podcast she co-hosts with her brother, "IMO with Michelle Obama & Craig Robinson,” to state something so imbecilic it beggars description. Nonetheless, I had to weigh in on the matter, had to opine-- or I would have been remiss.

The former First Lady (ahem) said, "Women’s reproductive health is about our life. It’s about this whole complicated reproductive system that the least of what it does is produce life.”

No. The reproductive system literally has one and only one intended function: to allow us to-- wait for it-- reproduce. Meaning to produce life. I’m not taking a stab at this one. I’m not guessing, not out in left field, not wandering far off the reservation. Biblically, physiologically, logically, factually, etc., etc., that is specifically what that whole complicated system was designed to do, whether by nature or God. It is the most of what it is designed to do, the only reason we exist, and the only reason you are reading this now. If we can’t even agree on that, we have preposterously acute problems that likely cannot be rectified.

To state that the least important function of a woman’s (or man’s) reproductive system is to produce life is akin to saying the least important feature of a missile defense system is to protect and defend us against missiles, or to saying the least important aspect of a stove is its ability to heat and cook our food. Only far more insane. It is patently absurd, by definition.

Oh well, the least important podcast out there is Michelle Obama’s.

San Francisco Schools To Allow Students To 'Pass' With A Score Of 21% Correct

 

The chief of San Francisco’s public schools announced a “Grading for Equity” plan that will affect more than 10,000 high school students in the City by the Bay. According to reports, the new and depraved grading system will award a grade of ‘C’ for scores as low as 41 on a 100-point test. Even more absurd and incredible, students with a score as low as 21 out of 100 will be allowed to pass exams with a ‘D’ grade, according to the Washington Free Beacon. 21% correct will be a passing grade? 21%! That’s not just ‘woke,’ it’s a joke. And a bad one. Especially for the rest of us who will have to deal with utterly incompetent youth entering the workforce and manning our institutions, political and otherwise.

San Francisco Superintendent of Schools Mary Su recently unveiled the plan, without bothering to seek approval from the San Francisco Board of Education-- or so reported the Voice of San Francisco. The plan is scheduled to go into effect this fall, (adversely) affecting 14 San Francisco area high schools and their students. VSF also noted that the Grading for Equity program will relieve students from the stress of taking weekly tests. Other reports indicate that homework will not be considered in final grading and that plans to train teachers in the new grading system are set to be implemented in August. If there are no weekly tests and homework is non-existent or ungraded, why do teachers have to be trained in the new grading system?

Teachers allegedly will have the choice of whether or not to implement Grading for Equity this fall, but students and parents decidedly will not. I mean, what do students and their parents have to do with education, right?

There are real, profound, and lasting issues with the continuing trend of pandering to the lowest common denominators in classrooms and making it ever easier for students to graduate without learning much of anything of use to themselves or others.

Consider the following potential future scenarios:

Woman on a gurney: “Are you a good surgeon, doc?”

Surgeon: “Well, I’m averaging 23 out of a hundred on my competence exams!”

 

Man at an auto repair shop: “Do you know how to change my serpentine belt?”

Mechanic: “I’m not sure, but I did score 42% on my last certification test!”

 

Airline customer: “Are you qualified to fly this plane?”

Pilot: “Don’t worry, I got 35 out of 100 on my recent skills assessment!”

 

How about we go back to “Grading for Competence?”

Now that is a radical idea.

(Author’s update: San Francisco’s ‘Grading for Equity’ plan has since been dropped due to public outcry. Thank God! But the idea is still trending in many locales and among many ‘educators.)