Strange Way of Looking at Things

Some time back, when speaking with an acquaintance, it was mentioned that this author had a strange way of looking at something. 

The specific in question here was regarding human interaction. This author stated that it is inadvisable to enter into any sort of interaction where the best possible outcome is a "break-even." To be certain, the acquaintance was 100% accurate on a technicality - not many people look at interactions this way; therefore, the point of view is "strange" by every sense of the word. Definition of strange:

1. unusual or surprising in a way that is unsettling or hard to understand.
2. not previously visited, seen, or encountered; unfamiliar or alien

To expand further on this point of view, one must understand the underlying premise. It has been said that all things can be classified as either assets or liabilities. And while many would argue that reality is more nuanced than that, and that circumstances will dictate the standing of something as either an asset or liability; the fact is that most things can be easily and readily classified as either at a given point in time. Among the things that can be classified as assets or liabilities are interactions with other people. 

Many interactions have the possibility of gain, loss, or neither ("break-even"). For example, if a person speaks with a loved one, that would generally be a gain for both. Similarly, if a person gets assaulted, that is clearly not usually an improvement in life, and would be a loss. 

Looking at the entirety of possible human interactions using this simple scale, and applying logic, one understands quickly that any interaction can be classified as an asset ("gain") or liability ("loss"). There also exists the possibility that an interaction may result in neither ("break-even"). 

If, when analyzing an interaction, one determines that the best possible outcome is a "break-even" (ie - you are not subjected to a loss, but there is no possibility of a gain), then it is only logical to want to avoid such an interaction. Particularly if the interaction has any level of possibility of loss. 

Advice: Don't enter into any interaction where the best possible outcome is a break-even.

Discretion

The inspiration for this post came from this YouTube video. At about the 11:00 minute mark, Navy SEAL Jason Pike discusses the Hollywood moment of the Michael Murphy character announcing their next move to the possible enemy sympathizers. Of course, discretion would dictate that you would never do anything like this. 

A lack of discretion used to be a character flaw in our society. These days, it is far more common to lack discretion than it used to be. As an example, this blog post, written here at this blog two years ago, about an event from 2005 in which an employee who was over the age of 40 at the time demonstrated a complete lack of discretion. 

Some things are better left unsaid. Whether I am carrying a firearm. The constitution and consistency of one's last defecation. What another person does well and not so well in bed. The list goes on. 

Truth on The Jab

Paige Brown shares that she was willing to take the jab for three reasons:

1. She did not wish to pass the virus to others. 

2. She did not wish to be a burden on the healthcare system.

3. She did not wish to be the person who took needed hospital care from someone who needed it.

However, this statement demonstrates why we need a functioning media in this world. A simple Bing search (can't use Google, as they censor things that run contrary to The Narrative) would show that:

1. Those who have received the jab are more likely to be "super spreaders."

2. Those who have had the jab face the prospect of getting COVID from the jab itself, increased risk of myocarditis, "breakthrough" cases of COVID after the jab, only 40% effective rate, and those who do get hospitalized with a breakthrough case of COVID seem to be passing at higher numbers. This sounds like a much greater burden on the healthcare system to me. 

3. Mayor Paige Brown, from a quick social media search, would seem to be in her mid-50's, and seems to be in good physical health (not obese, etc.). The likelihood she would suffer a severe case of COVID is slim, at best. The side effects of the jab would seem more likely to cause her to require hospital care. 

Mechanics of Fake News

This interesting low-IQ individual posted this on social media.  Since this author personally knows Pastor Greg Locke, the decision was made to see how deep the #FakeNews runs on this story.

Quarantine Camps / Facilities
From  the article in question:
MT. JULIET, Tenn. (WKRN) — The pastor of a Mt. Juliet church claims Governor Bill Lee has allowed for the creation of “quarantine camps” for Tennesseans who refuse to get vaccinated.

From  Executive Order 83 - part 18 on page 8:
Temporary quarantine and isolation facilities may be constructed.

The only question is whether the word "facility" can be a synonym of "camp." Most knowledgeable speakers of the English language would understand the synonym relationship here.

Hospital Occupancy
Also from the #FakeNews article:
While the Tennessee Department of Health reports 11% of hospital floor beds and 8% of ICU beds are available in the state, Pastor Locke expressed his disagreement.

Clearly, the implication is that there is room in the hospitals, and that would be contrary to Locke's statement. 

But the same publication also published  this article, suggesting:
The Tennessee Department of Health says members of the Tennessee National Guard will deploy to hospitals to respond to the rising number of hospitalizations in the state to fill the bed and staffing shortages.

Once again, it seems the "news" outlet is trying to twist words to make Locke look bad or inaccurate.

Masks
The article also makes the claim:
Pastor Locke said last month during another service that his congregation should not buy into the Delta variant “nonsense,” and added that he would kick out members who show up in a mask.

The reality is that the sign clearly indicates that persons have the option to either remove masks, or remain in their cars. Truth of the matter is that members of Global Vision are not showing up in masks.  The only people who have since the sign was put up are folks who wish to cause trouble or cast the church in a bad light.  The rest of the congregants choose Faith over Fear.

The sign:

ThE sCiEnCe

Let's talk about mask science - real and imaginary. For reference, this author has a degree in Chemistry and minor in Biology. Way more qualified than the average internet "expert," and way less qualified than a virologist. 

When this author was in college, the study of science included plenty of research papers. Several professors harped on getting the right kind of studies and data. Studies and data had to be pertinent, and the source had to be correct. When you see the phrase "a study suggests..." or similar, look at how the study was performed. Some studies are akin to polls - people are asked questions. Some studies are trials - scientific experiments are performed with controls in place. Each kind of study has its place. 

Up to now, the author has relied on a series of short rebuttals to the mask sheep, designed to offer a rhetorical argument than a dialectic argument. For the sake of brevity - a rhetorical argument is designed to argue emotionally, and a dialectic argument is designed to argue from a position of logic. And the reason why this author argues rhetorically is because the mask sheep are incapable of understanding the actual and real science behind why masks don't work. Or, more correctly, why masks don't make enough of a difference for someone to really want to wear. Here are the facts, the dialectic, from a big picture. Feel free to share this article with your mask-sheep friend. 

The Studies

This author has said countless times that there are virtually no studies performed prior to 2020 that indicate any more than about a 1% efficacy (effectiveness) in reduction of viral transmission due to wearing of masks. All of the studies performed since Jan 1, 2020 are poll-based (no experiments, no controls) and almost all are in a medical environment, and almost all are based around the N-95 mask. Here's where these studies come up short. 

• Medical environments only - higher concentration of infected than the general population (hence, a greater chance of transmission). 
• N-95 masks - even #LibNuts agree that the N-95 mask offers more protection than the bandanas and face-diapers that are prevalent. 
• Polls. Most people don't recall what they had for supper two days ago. And there will also be a certain amount of confirmation-bias here, as well. (ie - "I didn't wear a mask that day, then I got sick, so it had to have been then!")

The Mechanism

Many will claim the mask is worn to protect others. This is partly false, and partly true. The mask does have a significant effect on keeping water droplets from escaping. This does decrease by over 30% the transmission of a virus via the water droplets. Congratulations! You have now gone from 1.3% chance of transmission to 0.9% chance of transmission! In the words of the great gun guy, Paul Harrell, that's not enough of a difference to make a difference. 

Also, even the bandanas and face-diapers stop a certain amount of water droplets from entering, so the same physical mechanism that prevents droplets from escaping one mask also prevents droplets from entering the next mask. So again, if you believe in masks so much, feel free to wear yours! 

Summary

So when this author claims "masks don't work," the reality is that the effectiveness of wearing a mask, if any, is minimal. Not enough of a difference to make a difference. And the science backs this up. And if you want to prove that statement wrong, this author is 100% welcoming of new information. Understand that, for the reason stated above, the study must include controls, not polls, in order to change this author's opinion. And go!

More Freedom

Lost in the Afghanistan news, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) announced on Tuesday, August 17 that vehicle emissions testing in five Tennessee counties will end on Jan. 14, 2022.  Link to post.

This is 100% welcome news. 

It does adversely affect my family, as my brother-in-law is a high ranking manager with the company contracted to perform the testing and he is scheduled to lose his job on January 14.

Nevertheless, more freedom is worth the sacrifices that will have to be made.  This is good news for over 1 million Tennesseans. 

Afghanistan: Lessons Learned

Wow - what a crazy past 24-hours. We went from the Biden "Administration" saying that "there is going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of an embassy of the United States from Afghanistan," to people being lifted off the roof of the embassy in Afghanistan. That said, here are some thoughts on the whole situation. Some of these may not be popular. 

The same government that doesn't think your life is worth defending with an AR15 just gave machine guns, equipment, night vision, and drones to a group of people who murder, rape, and torture people daily. My tax money paid for that. Where is my MRAP with an M2 on top? - Iraquiveteran8888

For those that think the AK47 and AK74 is somehow superior to the M16 and M4, virtually none of our troops used the AK, even when they had a chance. And the Taliban picked those M16's and M4's up posthaste when they had the chance. 

None of our troops sacrifices were in vain. They did what we asked them to do. 

The government spent $ Billions to train the Afghan military. Again, the only thing the government excels at is wasting money. 

The Afghan people were willing to die to escape, but not willing to die to take back their country. Very telling. 

We do not need to house the refugees. Sounds harsh, but our country shouldn't be the dumping ground for all the people across the world too cowardly to fight their own battles... that's how we've gotten into this mess to begin with. 

The Taliban accomplished their objective without the use of the most modern gear, equipment, and armament. We should take a moment and learn it is all about mindset, tactics, and skill. 

Immediately after seizing control, the Taliban started banning civilians from having guns. 

As much as we want others to have the opportunity for "democracy" (read: self governance), not all people deserve it. Only those who would fight for it. 

Our troops being there did not promote the safety of a single person here in the US. 

Our troops being there did not help keep you free. We live under more restrictions now in the US than ever. 

There are US citizens and missionaries and others still trapped over there. And I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get them out. Yes, I'll suit up myself if need be. 

Now, to make you mad, here are Biden's statements (via whitehouse.gov) with which I agree:

Today, the terrorist threat has metastasized well beyond Afghanistan: al Shabaab in Somalia, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Nusra in Syria, ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia. 

So what’s happened? Afghanistan political leaders gave up and fled the country. The Afghan military collapsed, sometimes without trying to fight.

We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future.

And here’s what I believe to my core: It is wrong to order American troops to step up when Afghanistan’s own armed forces would not.

So I’m left again to ask of those who argue that we should stay: How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghans — Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not? How many more lives — American lives — is it worth? How many endless rows of headstones at Arlington National Cemetery?

Most of what Biden said was inaccurate or misleading. These statements on their own are accurate. The ultimate fact is this:

While getting out of Afghanistan is the right thing to do, the Biden "Administration" did so in the worst possible way. 

And to our military vets: this one is on the suits, not the boots. 

On Leadership

Many times in the Rifleman's life, he has been called on to lead - personally, professionally, and all sorts of areas in-between. Some of these roles were sought, most were not. One thing that remains constant in all of them - the quality of the team being led was always dramatically improved. It is often asked what makes for a good leader. 

As with all instruction, there are two main parts: what to do and what not to do. 

This article on 9 Signs Of A Bad Boss details some things not to do. If you look at the 9 signs listed, they fall into just a few categories:

A. They are hyper-critical; they micromanage; they offer zero feedback. In other words, they tear down. 

B. They are insecure; they are a know-it-all. Two sides of the same insecure coin. 

C. They lack personal boundaries; they lack professional boundaries. One might say they lack social skills.

D. They play favorites. 

E. They play politics. 

Conversely, here is an article on the top qualities good leaders have in common. From the article:

1. They are self-aware and prioritize personal development. 

2. They focus on developing others. 

3. They encourage strategic thinking, innovation, and action.

4. They are ethical and civic-minded. 

5. They practice effective cross-cultural communication. 

Not ironically, these two lists cross very exactly on what to do and what not to do:

Prioritizing personal development (1) is the opposite of being insecure (B).

Focusing on developing others (2) is the opposite of tearing down (A).

Strategic thinking and innovation (3) are the opposite of playing politics (E).

Ethical and civic-minded (4) is the opposite of playing favorites (D). 

Effective communication (5) is the opposite of lacking personal and professional boundaries (C).

If you have an organization of any sort, and a manager in your organization exhibits any, some, or all of the negative traits, you need to sit down with them immediately and discuss. They must recalibrate, for the health of your organization. If they refuse to change, remove them. If they cannot change, coach them up, and take an honest look to see if it is better to put them in a different position - preferably one that does not involve management of others. 

Who Can Be Racist?

Members of the Proud Boys attended my church some weeks ago. 

In the course of speaking about just that with a client at work, one of the employees of the client mentioned that he felt the "Proud Boys were white supremacists." 

"Funny... two of the seven of the Prod Boys present were black," I mentioned. 

"Black people can be white supremacist racists, too." Came the reply. 

As I have a policy against arguing with idiots, and given the fact that a client of theirs walked in, I took the opportunity to excuse myself. Because we all know black people can't be racists. 

The Church Safety Team

Welcome to a new subject for this blog - Church Safety.

Before getting deep into the subject, here is a brief summary of the author's qualifications for writing on this topic:

* Parking ministry team lead - 2 years.
* Safety Team ministry team lead - 5 years.
* Safety Team ministry assistant team lead - 2 years.
* 8+ years employed as a management level supervisor by various major corporations.
* Certified Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit Instructor.
* NRA Certified Instructor - Rifle, Pistol. 
* Professional Firearms Instructor - 5+ years.
* Black Belt Instructor - Jiu-jitsu & Karate
* Thousands of hours of professional training in armed and unarmed defense. 

This author was head of the Safety Team for Global Vision Bible Church and one of the inaugural members of said team.  Pastor Greg Locke (a personal friend) has one of the widest reaching online ministries on social media. 

One of the primary things a church safety team needs is a purpose. Keep the purpose simple and pertinent. The purpose of the church safety team needs to incorporate all of the following principles and add extra only as needed on a situation - dependent basis:
1. The church safety team is a ministry - to the members of the team, as well as to the church. 
2. The safety of the pastoral staff, VIP guests, children's ministry, and general congregation are of utmost importance. 
3. The safety team is not a security team.  There is a difference and every member of the team must be crystal clear on that difference. 

The foundation upon which the team is built is the team members.  Member selection is of the utmost priority.  Safety Team members must first be servants - those who wish to serve. Second, they must have the gift of protection - wanting to protect. Some church teams make the perilous mistake of thinking only military or law enforcement should be on a safety team.  Nothing could be further from the truth!

Here is a video by  Michael Mann Security detailing the myth that Safety Team members must be former military or law enforcement. On the video, Mr. Mann details his opinion that former law enforcement, in fact, make for terrible security and safety team members.  This author's experience is identical.  In the rare instance I ever had a Safety Team member who was former law enforcement,  it never ended well - there were always negative consequences.

So much was the case that if this author was helping a church set up a Safety team right now, it would be a strike against a prospective team member if they were former law enforcement. As a rule, they just do not have the right temperament for the job.

Certainly more coming soon on this topic.

It Is Not A Vaccine

In Tennessee, 31 people out of 1000 have died from COVID-19, even though they have  had the "vaccine."

According to the CDC, only 2 people out of 10,000 have died from COVID-19 overall. 


Let's compare using the same numbers, extrapolated:

For every 100,000 Tennesseans who get COVID-19,

With the stab - 3100 will die. 

Without the stab - 20 will die. 



It makes more sense to use your own immune system.  It's almost like God made it for just that reason. 

What is In A Trademark?

Some time back, there was an ad for the Patriot Training class,  Urban Rifleman. This message was received:

Sporting Goods Store Owner: "Urban Rifleman is my trademarked company name."

Patriot Training: "That's a good name.  Do you also name your classes 'Urban Rifleman'?"

SGSO: "It is a trademarked name.  I own the name.  For any use."

PT: "That's an interesting claim.  Do you have a site or Facebook page or something similar where I can see it in use?
Last thing I want to do is use someone else's trademark. 
And naturally, anyone can make the claim - so I am simply politely asking for proof."

SGSO: <sends websites>

PT: "Those are nice pages."

SGSO: "I'm not trying to be a jerk at all."

PT: "I'm not going to be a jerk either.  Do you have proof of your trademark?"

SGSO: "Yes I do! Maybe you could tell everyone I let you use the name. I am not making a big deal of it.  Just letting you know the name is trademarked.  Cost me $400!!"

PT: "Without proof of a trademark, I am not inclined to say or do anything different. 
With proof of trademark that demonstrates I cannot name the class that, I will happily change the name of the class."

SGSO: <sends link to a trademark that has been applied for.>

PT: "That site states you just filed for a trademark. It does not indicate that the trademark has been approved.
Furthermore, it says that the applied for trademark is for "Firearm accessories and sporting goods."
As I do not sell firearms accessories nor sporting goods, and certainly not named "Urban Rifleman," this will not suffice as proof."

SGSO: "OK man. Do whatever you want."



Maybe he was trying to extort? Maybe he wanted money for nothing? No telling.