Post Scripts

by Jack

Authors note: The statistics used to determine water quality at noted in Chico waterways were taken from the lab report as posted on Facebook.  I took those numbers and divided them by the State of California’s published levels for safe water and determined the ratio.

If any relevant changes to this report are made known I will post an update.

Chico- After 3 months of water quality testing* in local creeks the findings are  not looking good for the citizens of Chico, CA.

Possibly dangerous levels of fecal coliform bacteria and e coli have been discovered in the surface water at some of Chico’s most popular recreational areas, namely Sycamore Creek above and below the One Mile recreational area, Comanche Creek and Humboldt Park.

The varying ratios of water born coliforms coincidentally mirrors the density and proximity of homeless encampments filled with trash found near to the sites tested for water quality.

Chico citizens are warned that high levels of fecal coliform that comes in contact with open skin cuts or scratches, could lead to typhoid fever, hepatitis, dysentery,  gastroenteritis and other infections.  Possibly dangerous levels of E-coli, higher than California’s own water quality standards, were found in the area of One Mile, Chico’s most popular swimming area, according to lab analysis information provided to me.

Coliform is a group of bacteria including around 18 bacterial species, which indicates the sanitary quality of the drinking water.    Escherichia coli, often abbreviated as E. coli, is a type of bacteria commonly found in the digestive systems of warm blooded animals. One specific strain can cause serious digestive system upset, however, leading to diarrhea and nausea, which can leave an infected person weak and dehydrated. It may also produce a toxin that damages the kidneys and weakens the small intestine walls in children. Part of the reason that this bacteria is so dangerous is because there is no effective cure for an infection.

How did this pollution suddenly happen in such a wide spread area?  The evidence points to the City of Chico’s own City Council.

On April 7th, 2020, in a closed door session, the liberal majority on the Chico City Council, approved the Brown New Deal.  This action rescinded the City Code for preventing camping within the city limits.

The City now allows camping in certain designated areas of city parks, including Bidwell Park.  (This has led to illegal camping in Bidwell Park and excessive camps in designated areas)  The new legislation allowed homeless camps to be as close as 50 feet from water ways although state law said no closer than 500 feet!   The poorly written legislation was passed quickly, under the pretext of emergency sheltering-in-place for homeless during the Covid’s pandemic.

In hindsight there has been no evidence to support any sheltering in place has happened.  Quite the contrary, the occupants are highly mobile and the camps function like a place to party.  I’ve personally observed how some will party by day and pillage by night.   The city endorsed encampments have simply become a place for addicts, drug abuse, bums and crime.

The total camp numbers ebb and flow as they are occupied randomly by derelicts, addicts, alcoholics, parolees, drifters, etc.   They can congregate, use drugs, drink booze and socialize without any concern for the police or the pandemic rules, like social distancing or wearing face masks.

Suddenly Chico has a serious drug problem, including heroin and methamphetamine.    Trash, used drug needles tossed carelessly away, bits of drug paraphernalia, abundant bicycle parts, stolen shopping carts filled with trash, these are common scenes in the bum camps and yes, some of it winds up in the creeks where kids swim and families picnic.

Chico police have been impacted too with orders to leave the bums alone.  Yet they must deal with numerous complaints of vandalism, disturbances of the peace, fighting, shootings and theft reports, all associated with the occupants of these new camps.

Neighbors to the camp areas report thefts from their vehicles, mailboxes, also graffiti, noise pollution and trash.  They generally feel threatened and insecure by the new park residents living and polluting in the once pristine parks.

The outbreak of crime, in particular thefts by addicts to support their deadly habit, has become known as the Homeless Tax.  This would be that hidden cost from crime being imposed on the citizens of Chico thanks to an errant city council that seems to be more concerned about bums and junkies than the health of their own citizens.   The people they think they are helping are not from Chico, but they come here because they know they can take advantage of the bleeding heart liberals.  They feed them, give them money and allow them to do their drugs and other crime thinking they are helping them get back on their feet…what a crock.

In response to the latest public health risk, a lawsuit has been filed by Attorney Rob Berry, against the City Council and the City of Chico to rescind the Brown New Deal, passed by  council members, Ms. Alex Brown, Mr. Scott Huber, Mr. Karl Ory, Mr. Randal Stone and Mrs. Ann Schwab.

*Water Quality Testing done by FGL Analytical of Chico.

by Jack

Some might argue that a sudden spike in COVIDs is a sign that the virus is approaching herd immunity, but whatever it is the statistics are climbing for real and they are in Chico.

To date we have 465 total cases in Butte County and this is up by 45 new cases in the past 24 hours.  At least 3 of these new cases involve healthcare workers that were caring for COVID’s patients in Chico rehab hospitals.  That can’t be a good sign!

Allegedly, staffing has become a problem for the hospitals, due in part to nurses out sick with the virus and some nurses/healthcare workers quitting their job rather than expose their families to the risk posed by COVIDs.

As a result of the above, you can imagine that the staff at rehab hospitals is being stretched very thin.  Again, allegedly, this has resulted in the unsafe practice of cycling healthcare workers from the isolation ward to the general population side or vice versa, to fill the needed shifts.  In addition to this alleged practice, I’m told protective clothing and face shields are being used by more than one healthcare worker for the purposes of entering quarantine rooms.   The reason given…they don’t have enough protective suits.  So they are told to make do.

The risk of contamination at the rehab hospitals is therefore likely much higher than at regular hospitals that are properly equipped.  To make matters worse, the patient census at the rehab hospitals shows a majority of patients are high risk seniors.

UPDATE:  16 new COVID’s cases were just admitted to one of the rehab hospitals in Chico and this to me reflects a serious spike in the rate of infection.  This spike could become much worse if proper quarantine methods are not employed at the rehab hospitals.

Disclaimer:  I am not a healthcare provider and the information I have been given has not been verified by other sources.  If you are concerned about a loved one at a local rehab facility, you should due your own due diligence.  Ask questions and don’t assume everything is fine just because these are professional healthcare facilities.

Posted by Jack

Posted by Jack

by Jack

Why has the DNC kept Biden away from the podium?  Watch this and the answer will be fairly clear.

posted by Jack

Bari Weiss, editor at the New York Times, submitted her resignation after consistently being harassed by radical progressives in her work place.   ”What this journalist has done is not just to indict, but to convict The New York Times of outright censorship,” Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell said. “If it doesn’t send shockwaves through the world of journalism, it’s because the world of journalism no longer has ethics.”

BARI WEISS QUITS NY TIMES, SAYS SHE WAS BULLIED BY COLLEAGUES IN SCATHING RESIGNATION LETTER

Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.

Sincerely,

Bari

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6170977041001#sp=show-clips

Doctor explains the numbers.