Comments by "" (@ronjon7942) on "Using Seawater To Fight Fires in SoCal | Why No Water | Fireboats | Seawater Myths!" video.

  1. Good Lord, the X article at 9:15 reads exactly like activist climate change writing. It’s so pathetically obvious this was written to appeal to emotion, completely bypassing rational thought. And it’s so charged up with aggressive, negative rhetoric, it not only makes it difficult to have a conversation about the subject, it’s written to preemptively shout down any alternative point of view of the topic. And it’s written thusly by design. This has been such a common theme all these years. It feels like someone at the top has a perspective, maybe even an agenda, how a grand vision needs to take place. And with stone cold rationality and intention, has commissioned these narratives that are so highly charged with words that appeal to emotional manipulation, they’re seized upon by activist tools that use them as weapons against anyone who dares dissent. And it doesn’t matter if the narrative is supported by facts or if it’s completely wrong, because that’s not its purpose. Its purpose is to advance the agenda of the puppet master. Oops, sorry, I got on my soap box again, with not enough sleep. Sorry. Laf, all I originally intended to write was to compliment Sal on this episode. Once again, Sal validates why I like waiting for his analysis of current events. I guess when he started using facts, experience, and common sense to explain the situation, it reveals the stark contrast between what we should have and what we actually have. I wrongly assumed government would be able to handle these contingencies by investing and preparing ahead of time, and getting the public educated they’re worthwhile investments we hope we never have to use. Instead, it just points out the short term vision and elimited, linear thinking our government has. For instance, if someone observes we haven’t had to use the investments in infrastructure, designed to protect us and safeguard our homes, towns, and cities from unforeseen threats and extremes, last year or maybe even the year prior, we’re probably not going to need them. Ever. At least not in the short term. Instead, they’ll kick that can (that can of ‘risk’) down to future politicians’ dilemmas, and use those responsible investments on shiny, new programs and projects that will get them reelected. Or advance some large-scale narrative or ideology. Or, more likely, both. Yeah, so a couple towns burn to the ground; a few dozen or hundred businesses are destroyed - after just getting un-destroyed by the genius moves during the pandemic; citizens - who count on the government’s foresight, preparedness, and leadership during crises and disasters - are wiped out financially, rendered homeless, even killed. And it’s justified. Their unpreparedness for basic government services and responsibilities - in this case, as basic as fire protection - in order to instead ‘prepare’ to keep themselves in power, advance their political careers, and further their agendas, is at the expense of the citizens who hired them to manage a functional society. “Certainly,” they tell themselves; “Certainly it’s terrible what the people of California are going through. But if they only understood our vision and our plan for the future, they would absolutely see we ARE preparing for their common good. If the little people could only see the big picture, and comprehend our vision, of course they’d agree the misfortune of a few justify the continuation of our leadership.” Just listen to John Kerry explain to bis cohorts how special people like him and they are. If it wasn’t so chilling to think about, and they didn’t believe it to be true, it would sound completely ridiculous.
    1