TrueBlue4ever

Long rant coming. Ignore if you wish, just need to get this off my chest, not looking for any response necessarily. Let's just sit back and remember that 62,000,000 Americans voted for him last time. I was in Arizona in February when he held a rally, and there was a buzz around the city when he came in. He has disgusted and divided his country in the eyes of many within and many outside the USA but he is still popular with a large segment of Americans, and those he is popular with find him very popular. I suspect there will be less fence-sitters this election than last, and I would like to think that even the Bernie Bros. who are ticked about their guy losing to Biden will take a step back and realize that this election is all about "do you want Trump or not?" Yesterday he crossed a line by declaring war of some of his citizens and utilizing the military to take control. That speech could be seen as very frightening if you accept the narrative that he has been pushing for a fascist state. There was no veiled text in his call for law and order against Antifa and all the other agitators who he sees as threatening his America. But if you accept the narrative that the fake media has been out to get him and the deep state has tried to take him out and sabotage him despite a legitimate election victory, then that image of him walking to re-claim sacred holy ground that had been vandalized by thugs the night before is a powerful unifying image, and the willingness to stand up to and dominate the bullies who tried to destroy the country and harm innocent Americans sends a message of strength, guts, courage. (Forget that he tear-gassed peaceful protestors to clear the park and had armed guards escorting him, his state-owned media at FOX and AON will spin it as quelling an insurrection). If you believe that your America is great again once those violent black people (who proved it once again that they want to destroy all peace-loving whites with their actions, and don't respect law and order as proven by their attacks on the police) are put in their place, then yesterday was another triumphant stand against them, just like the election in 2016 was. It is chilling to write this, but even more chilling to think that what I just laid out is the mindset of 10's of millions of Americans right now, and not just the fringe elements. And if you don't subscribe to this view, then are you not more than a little afraid of how readily the police and military were willing to do Trump's bidding and clear the streets? Images of media being shot at, peaceful protestors being maced and tear-gassed and beaten with shields and clubs, people standing on the porches of their homes being told "get inside now" by military soldiers parading down the street in their Humvees, and then hearing "light 'em up" and getting shot at when they were already off the street (but not inside, so not good enough) filled my screen, but I think they will be drowned out by the "law and order" crowd who see this as justifiable and proper action to "dominate" the rebellion. These remind me of the images of the army moving in to Tiananmem Square - at least it would not surprise me if that's where this is headed. But Americans, Dem or Repub, do like to agree on one thing - that America is the best nation in the world. They have loved to be labelled as cowboys, those brave individualists who stand up to tyranny and play by their own rules. It's mirrored in the slogan "America First". So I think that a whole lot of them give Trump not just a pass but an A+ grade for his action, because it reinforces how tough he is (and, by transitive property for his supporters, they are). There was a line in Captain America where the Red Skull said "I'm not sure if arrogance is a purely American trait, but you certainly do it better than anyone else", and I fear that arrogance has blinded many Americans from seeing what is really going on. The ironic thing is just how blindly hypocritical Americans who follow Trump are too. Government should not interfere, but use all the force of the Government to control the people (at least those who don't line up with my ideology). We demand the cities open up and we have the individual freedom to go get a haircut, and will storm a capitol building with my AR 15 for intimidation purposes to get what we want, and no Government can stop us, but how dare those unarmed protestors speak out in anger about racial injustice in the wrong way with vandalism (although peaceful resistance by taking a knee at a sporting event without violence was also "the wrong way" so maybe it's the message and not the means that's really irks those who complain), and the Government should step in and stop it. The COVID lockdown is unconstitutional and my safety is my own business and my choice if I go out and risk catching or spreading the virus, but hey let's impose a nationwide curfew because I am in danger from those thugs, looters, Antifa, etc. My rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and no Government can take those away, but hey let's violate the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of lawful assembly if they stand for something other than what I stand for, and let the Government use the full power of the military to facilitate the taking away of those rights. The next "funny" irony will be the 2nd Amendment. "Patriots" have always bastardized the meaning of the Amendment to justify an individual's right to own automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets, Kevlar, and the like to ensure their personal safety and freedom, when the original intent was to keep a well-regulated civilian militia to protect the country, and act as a police force when necessary, especially against a tyrannical Government. Well, if there was ever a situation that mirrored the original intent of the Constitutional Amendment, would it not be arming oneself to defend against Government forces (be they police or military) attacking unarmed civilians to "dominate" citizens in the name of "one law"? You wonder how quickly Trump would try to revoke that right if he felt their was a threat of insurrection from the masses who were prepared to fight his firepower with their own? And would his followers jump on board with that infringement on their liberty if they suddenly felt that perceived threat and abdicated their power to him? "My right to guns does not extend to someone's else's equal right to guns, because they disagree with me, so yeah the government can take away their guns and put in restrictive laws, I agree with that restriction because it's in my best interest (until it isn't its the part they don't see). Other dictators have been able to suppress freedom by armed force when necessary, without fear of reprisal because their citizens did not have the same access to weaponry that the Government did. In the US it's a whole different ball game. Wonder how that will play out?

I don’t like to throw around the word “racist” lightly - there are many forms of ignorance that can be displayed that are inappropriate but do not make the person an out-and-out racist. But I will say this strongly to Brandon. I have found a lot of his comments here offensive to me personally. I won’t assume to speak for the masses. I have shrugged them off so far as ill-informed in my opinion, but since he has decided to declare another poster as “racist” for making generalities, I invite him and everyone else to re-visit his own posts where he talks about a “culture” that he seems to ascribe to only one visible minority, and ask if this does not meet his very own definition? Either the definition of “racism” proposed by his last message needs to be discounted as incorrect, or he needs to read-think the toxicity of his own statements if the label of “racist” is going to be thrown about.

I would surmise that the escalation of police weaponry was originally in response to the ability of the common US citizen to purchase AK 47's and AR 15's, using the 2nd amendment as cover to justify why civilians needed such powerful weapons. The 1997 North Hollywood shootout was a big turning point where police found themselves outgunned, using pistols to engage in a firefight with 2 bank robbers armed with automatic rifles and body armor. Rather than enact more restrictive measures prohibiting sales of automatic weapons to the public, the government instead decided to encourage the upping of the police arsenal in response, with departments then training all members like their specialized SWAT units, with more lethal weapons to go along with their training. Seems to be the US way, to escalate to match the perceived threat rather than de-escalate. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-north-hollywood-shootout-revisited-20170223-htmlstory.html

Even the man who implemented the strategy for Sweden is not convinced of that statement you so confidently assert. And it would appear that not locking down hasn't spared their economy either. And herd immunity isn't even progressing like they thought. So any other mistruths you want to offer, or are you just spouting unwarranted opinions with no factual underpinning to them? https://www.npr.org/2020/05/25/861923548/stockholm-wont-reach-herd-immunity-in-may-sweden-s-chief-epidemiologist-says Here's another pair of recent articles on the "herd immunity" lack of success. Based on this, please elaborate on how this model was "the correct one from the start". https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks/article/Sweden-herd-immunity-experiment-backfires-covid-15289437.php https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-antibody-study-suggests-sweden-not-reaching-herd-immunity-2020-5

Apparently still not “done with it”

I found it curious watching the US numbers last week. The Country had been averaging a steady 1,400-1,800 deaths per day although dipping slightly every weekend to closer to 1,200 daily before spiking again. Based on the usual progressions the US should have hit 100,000 Deaths on Saturday or early Sunday. Then along comes the Memorial Day weekend with the ominous 100,000 number looming, and suddenly for 4 consecutive days on Saturday through Tuesday the numbers drop to 1,000, 615, 505, and 774, and the 100,000 is not hit until Tuesday night. Note that those three daily totals below 1,000 are all lower than anything that has been recorded since March 29, and in fact only twice in total between March 31 and May 23 did a daily total not exceed 1,000 deaths. Are they flattening their curve? Well, on Wednesday the deaths spiked again to 1,535. So did the CDC take the weekend off and was lagging in reporting, was there an actual drop, or maybe someone in the White House did not want the headlines of 100,000 deaths being prominent on the holiday weekend and suppressed numbers until Wednesday?

I'm certain I could go double or nothing and win the bet again. You'll be back posting something soon enough. Can't help yourself.

Looks like I won the bet.

Bet it won't be.

Here's another idea. Call it "a modest proposal". Let's just kill all the billionaires in the US and take their net worth and split it equally amongst every US citizen. No, hear me out. There are only 614 current billionaires in the US (see Forbes magazine for all numbers). That's a far sight less than 100,000. Their combined net worth is $2.9 trillion. Divide by the 328 million Americans (less the 614 of course) and you get $8,841 for each and every American citizen (not just the working ones - every single citizen left). The per capita disposable in the US is about $45,600. That of course includes the incomes of the billionaires, which skews the average up. Get rid of them, and the per capita income (before taxes) is about $36,700. So by giving the survivors a split of the billionaires' fortune, each person now has almost 3 months of income to put away. Lock down the country completely for that time so that the virus can't spread ans existing cases get isolated and treated. Eliminate all cases. And if anyone breaches the total lockdown, they get shot and killed by the government forces to prevent them from possibly spreading the virus. And we take their money too to split evenly amongst the rest. Kill the rich, eliminate the threat of the social distance deniers and call them collateral damage (or "the cost of doing business" if you will) and let the rest of us get on with it in 3 months' time. Sure, billionaires will die, including titans of industry, media moguls, celebrities, and a current sitting President, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. And for those who step outside to enjoy their personal freedoms in spite of the threat to everyone else, hey, it wasn't like you weren't warned. The threat must be eliminated. Hey, that's not being uncaring, that's just being practical.

https://twitter.com/TomJChicago/status/1263811708566503427?s=20

Murder hornets and cicedas apparently, because 2020.

Read an interesting article in CNN last week about Biden’s potential VP candidates, an interesting angle on why Warren may not be considered because of the Senate majority being in play. I suspect Harris has more national name recognition than Klobuchar, but since this VP is the de facto President in waiting In 4 years for the Dems, they need to be much more than a window dressing pick. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/13/politics/joe-biden-running-mate/index.html

Now that’s how you do a political attack ad.

I have second-hand info from someone in the medical field who knows someone involved in testing, so take this double hearsay for what it is worth, but I am led to believe that up to 11 people were being contacted some 3 days ago to be told they had tested positive, but no change in the numbers yet from the government. I would have expected a spike with the reduced restrictions, long weekend and nice weather. We shall see.

I am waiting to hear of more new cases post-long weekend.

Early results in on Sweden's herd immunity efforts (unless they've gone back to denying that was the reason for no lockdown). Short version, not great, and maybe no better than other countries that did lock down. And if the post 2 above is any indication, testing positive for antibodies is no guarantee of immunity anyway. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/health/sweden-herd-immunity-coronavirus-intl/index.html

Not sure if we'd need "buzz" for a CFL season largely without fans in the stands, but with the reigning Grey Cup champs here and the Grey Cup (which they'd still want to have fans in the stands for if possible) in Regina, these two cities would make sense from a higher profile point of view.

With the reigning Grey Cuo Fair point. I know they were one of the early spots hit, had not followed how they progressed. Thanks for the clarification.

Maybe it would be considered "essential" travel? Players would quarantine for the two weeks, so it is not an absolute travel ban. As for being a hub city, there would be benefit for the bottom line of the host cities. Players need hotels to stay in, food to eat, etc. so business would get extra traffic. There's a reason Las Vegas is being looked at hard for the NHL hub plan. They would welcome all the hotel traffic of players and possibly their families. I suspect if the CFL is considering a hub city plan then they will want similar criteria that the NHL looked at: 1) Not a coronavirus hotspot - not sure what the current status of every city is, but Calgary, Quebec and BC seemed to be of particular concern, and Toronto being so big the population density would raise concerns. Winnipeg and Regina seem to be handling it well. 2) A stadium with 4 pro-size dressing rooms minimum to handle the extra traffic. I know IG Field has the Bomber locker room, the Bison locker room, a road team locker room, and a room for amateur athletes. Not sure if they have a fourth full locker room. I'm guessing Roger's Centre in Toronto would have the full number given that the Argos and Jays both played there, can't speculate on any other stadiums. But in Toronto's case that leads to issue #3 3) Not sharing the stadium with another tenant is preferable. 4) Readily accessible practice facilities nearby. It has already been pointed out that with IG Field, Pan Am stadium next door, and the indoor soccer complex which could be divided into two or even 4 separate fields, Winnipeg is well suited to handle to traffic flow. 5) Enough hotel space nearby to accommodate the players and be close to the practice sites - with the University being largely shut down, this might be less of a problem with the dorm space available. 6) A field that can handle the wear and tear of multiple games in a week. Given that natural grass is not an issue in any stadium, this should not be a bar to any of the CFL cities. Other potential issues would be enough space to handle the TV and radio crews for each game, and easy travel between the 2 hub cities. With one TV broadcaster, that would not be an issue, but the league might need to have an in-house radio broadcaster rather than sending a local radio crew for each team. You could do worse than have Bob Irving cover every game on radio, and with Geoff Currier and Kelly Moore you have capable back-ups both with experience calling CFL games. As for the travel, pairs of cities that would work are Toronto-Hamilton, Edmonton-Calgary, Ottawa-Montreal, and at the outer limit Winnipeg-Saskatchewan (if you want to avoid flying altogether). Just some thoughts on the matter.

Here's a new avatar for you, then.

And TSN1290 will be re-broadcasting the Grey Cup on Monday at 3:00 pm I believe.

Good detective work. As for the "rant", even by today's PC standards one would have to be a snowflake to get bothered by that. Not sure why the media would get all bent out of shape.

Two "sports" related analogies about feeling stupid and judged by others in a mask. When Jacques Plante wanted to wear a mask after taking one too many pucks to the face, there was a lot of public backlash (as much about it being distracting and negatively affecting his game as it was about "not looking right". Fortunately he went on a heater and the public outcry waned. And he had the perfect retort when challenged by Gump Worsley about being scared because he wore a mask when other goalies still went bare-faced: "If you jumped out of a plane without a parachute, would that make you brave?" Once read an SI article about the World Co-ed Naked Volleyball Championships held in upstate New York, and they got a writer to assemble a team of six players together including him. One of the big features of the article was the discomfort about being naked in front of strangers and how to overcome that fear while trying to focus on playing a match with all those eyes on you. Writer said in the first game none of his teammates were really shy about their bodies but didn't want to strip down "just because it was expected", so one guy who was Australian (they have few hang-ups) was naked, two of the men played just in boxers, and two of the ladies wore a t-shirt and underwear while one wore bottoms but went topless. Their opponents all went naked, and the entire crowd gathered to watch the match were all nudists. One line from the article kind of summed up the feeling. "At some point you realize that no one is really gawking at you, and you aren't gawking at anyone else, but you become aware that when everyone else is naked and you have clothes on, YOU are the one that stands out and draws more attention to yourself." Early on mask-wearing was an extreme rarity. Now it is still the exception and not the rule, but I am seeing a significant shift. Before the pandemic I can think of seeing people on an airplane wearing masks and worrying "Oh no. Are they contagious?" As time goes by I realize that same thought will run through my head if I see someone without a mask where the majority of the crowd has one on. On the plus side, think of the fun you could have wearing a designer mask (like the Gerry Cheevers "stitches" for his hockey mask). You can't tell me this wouldn't look way cool as a face mask design.