An explanation of California Wildfires to all the people who haven't lived in California

 So, it is now Jan 16th of 2025.

I have heard much of what a lot of people have said about how California is "not dealing with their wildfire problem" or "you have an entire ocean of water to deal with it."

So let's go over a few things for people who don't live in California.

Forest/Brush Management

Ever since Trump made the comment that we should go 'rake' our forests, taking what the Swedish said how they deal with their problems with wildfires in a grossly inaccurate way, much like EVERYTHING ELSE he took from people, here is the thing to know.

Many of the areas where there are these trees and brush are on mountain or hillsides that are not very easily accessed by say, heavy equipment.

Take what happen in December of 2017, the Thomas Fire (Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Fire.)

The Thomas Fire burned mostly in the mountainous area, whipped up by strong winds and burned about 281,893 acres (440 square miles).

As you see here, this was one of the largest fires for California that was hard to contain for several factors.

The brush in those areas were not the easiest to get to on the ground for heavy equipment, such as fire trucks.  If fire trucks had a hard enough time to get to some of those areas, equipment to properly deal with brush and dead vegetation would also be difficult to do without a lot of man power dedicated to it.

So again, arguing about 'Proper forestry management' is ignoring the situation that areas that are mountainous or inaccessible by most means also means managing it would be difficult or nigh impossible and simply 'raking the woods' would not be that much better.

Weather Conditions

Many people have ignored something unique with regards to California, namely Santa Ana winds in the south where air from inland goes out to the ocean, often strong, dry, hot wind.

What happen in LA for the Pacific Palisades is the same as what has happened with many other wild fires in California, a fire that gets amplified by strong, hot, dry winds, blowing embers to other place and drying out vegetation to make it a possible fuel source as well.

Many of you think these things are 'easy to put out' had they had water.  Except look at this picture:

This is NOT an exaggeration of how some of these fires go.  Strong Santa Ana winds blowing at speeds that are close to hurricane speeds.  All the water in the world can't cover dealing with embers blown all over the place short of literally submerging the area underwater.

Water

People have been stupidly pointing at the Pacific Ocean to 'solve' California's water problem.

Here's the thing about the ocean people who don't live near one understands.

Its salt water.

Salt water can be used on fires, but generally, it is not the best idea to use it on areas that have vegetation.

Why?

If people bother to understand basic world history, particularly about the Romans and how they dealt with Carthage, the saying of "Salting the earth and poisoning the wells" was the tried and true method of making an area uninhabitable as "salting the earth" will make it difficult or impossible to grow things.

Now you say, "Well, it is more important to put out the fire than worry about that."

Except, again, some of those areas are MOUNTAINOUS, and those plants help those hillsides from eroding from rain at times.

Again, referencing the Thomas Fire, which BURNED a lot of the plants in the mountains, the city of Montecito had mudslides and flash floods when rain did come, all due to the fact that the plants and trees that should have been there, were gone due to the fire, which allowed the ground that would have been 'firm' there, to erode away with no roots to help hold the soil in place.

Now imagine dumping salt water to kill the plants there, and having those houses you wanted to save destroyed by some rain because there was no plants to hold the soil in place as well, because you literally killed them and the ecosystem there to prevent plants and trees from growing there.

Going back to the whole argument about how we should have 'plenty of water' from the north, here is the thing.

Fresh water is used for some of the agriculture that the is in the central valley of California as well as many of the other farms California has.  Fresh water is also used to *gasp* allow people to drink, which includes people who come to visit California.

This means, water is being used, but at the same time, we can't just water everything in sight either, because again, that water has to be replenished some how.

If we are not getting regular rainy seasons like in the past, then YES, we have a water problem because the demand is higher than what some areas can get.  And YES, areas that get rain but the ground can't soak it, will have issues as well.

Cloud Seeding

Now this 'genius' idea from Marjorie Taylor Greene shows why people with little to no education or basic understanding of how cloud seeding works should be considered relevant.

First off, Clouds.

Cloud seeding to cause rain does kind of require Clouds, which is generally trapped moisture in the air.

Most affected wildfire areas are generally 'clear' of said clouds.

Smoke does NOT equal 'clouds'.  Smoke is fine particles of ash from things that were burned up, sometimes also carrying embers as well.  And smoke does NOT have moisture, so it wouldn't do anything.

Second, there needs to be reasonable amount of moisture.

In most of these areas, the moisture or humidity levels are relative low to non-existent.

The 'drone dropping water' conspiracy

So there was a post saying there was an idea of having thousands of drones to drop water on fires that never took off.

Well, here's the thing about that idea.  It wouldn't work for several reasons.

One - Most drones are designed to be 'lightweight' and will not have the most ideal means to carry water (As water does have weight, can shift around and also need a lot of it to be effective)

Two - Most drones don't handle strong weather events.  Most California Wildfire events have at strong wind event, which makes flying a little difficult for even PLANES AND HELICOPTERS that are used in the effort.  Drones are not going to be any more effective or useful in this situation as well.

Three - Capacity, as mentioned before, drones don't handle a lot of weight.  The amount of water most fire fighting has been involved in is by a fair amount.  The most carried by a Boeing 747 type is around 19,000 gallons.  Others range for 800 gallons to 12,000 gallons.  And even with THOSE aerial aircraft trying to dump water on fires, they can only do so much, so a thousand drones where they might not carry a gallon of water, unable to fly well under strong weather events...  It won't necessarily be ANY BETTER.

Conditions for aerial water bombing

Another thing people seem to fail to understand, again, part of the reason why California has a difficult time with wildfires, is the ability to do aerial water bombing.

In order to be effective in dropping water on the affect areas, they need to fly low.

Flying too high, the water mists out and won't be effective, basically using a bottle sprayer on mist for a raging fire.

Flying low has its problems if the conditions don't permit it.

Such as trying to do it at night, chances of an aircraft making mistakes.

High wind conditions can drastically make it difficult for an aircraft to be piloted safely.

Again, this is coming from a person who doesn't fly, does not fight fires, but has live in California and inquired about these things in a calm, rational manner and these are some of the reasons it isn't as "simple" as people who  have NO clue, or no understanding about this location.

So I say to all you "solution" people with regards to California wildfires...

Spend a few years in one of these areas.

Go into some of the areas that were burned at one point and see if you can actually engineer a cost effective, safe and manageable way to deal with this.

Hell, I task the actual Republican Speaker of the House, the senators and congressmen who think this is 'manageable' to actually show us Californians 'how to do it'.  And if they can't, they need to sit down and shut up.

Reasons to continue the Impeachment of Trump

There has been some debate with regards to continuing the Impeachment process of Donald J. Trump.

And here are a few reasons why Impeachment of Donald Trump should continue.

Actions that are criminal that should not be allowed.

The actions that Trump has done, are by no means, excusable for any public official.

Within days before January 6th, it has been shown that Donald Trump tried to pressure the Georgia Secretary of State to recant the election results.  This is, by definition trying to rig an election in his favor.

However, this isn't the reason why the Articles of Impeachment were called up.

It is the events of January 6th, which were prompted by him, that should never happen, ever.

Days prior, he encourage all his supporters to come to Washington, DC on January 6th.

His speech and tweets that day, encouraged all his supporters to march on the Capitol, with vague enough direction that can be interpreted as storming the Capitol building.

Even his tweets during the riot, did not tell people to stand down, only not to attack the police (Which they still did).

He endangered the legislative branch of our democracy with said crowd.  This is something that cannot be contested or denied.  The very rioters who were arrested after the fact and confirmed being in the Capitol Building, stated they were there because they believe Trump wanted them there.

Also, said rioters wanted Mike Pense, who he called out in both his speech and tweets, chanting "Hang Mike Pense", with what looks like obvious intent to execute Mike Pense if they caught him.

He stated that he 'called for the National Guard', however, the timeline shows that as it was happening, his focus was NOT contacting the National Guard, but to contact one of his supporters in Congress to keep pushing the objection to the electoral votes.

And now we are getting word that he also intended on replacing the Acting Attorney General with a political appointee to overturn the Georgia vote.

We are now seeing, within the first week of January, Trump had intended to abuse his power multiple times as well as incite a riot with intent to bully or terrorize the legislative branch to katow to his will.

Why should we continue with the impeachment of Donald Trump.

First - Setting a precedent for future public officials.

These actions come within the final weeks of Donald Trump's Presidential Office.

If we do not impeach Donald Trump for these actions, we set a very dangerous precedent to future public officials that it is alright to commit crimes, abuse of power and the like, fail at it, and get away with it because you did not manage to keep the office.

This would allow carte blanche to current and future politicians that it is alright to incite a riot towards the government, to bully our states into bending to his will, becoming a literal American Emperor. (Much like the Roman Empire, or even more comically contemporary of Palpatine becoming the Emperor of the Galactic Empire).

Second - Common sense intention

While some republicans are stating that it would be unconstitutional or it was not part of the constitution, I say that the common sense intention of the Articles of Impeachment was there to hold officials, including the President responsible for their actions.

When the process with regards to impeachment was put up, it was the belief that an official in question would be held accountable for their actions when it was brought up.

In the cases of William Belknap, Secretary of War, he resigned but was still impeached (Same day).  His impeachment trial continued while he was a private citizen, but was acquitted.

Samuel B. Kent (Southern Texas Judge) was impeached 11 days before he resigned and the ruling did not happen until 22 days after he resigned.

Given these two impeachments, while they did not end with conviction, does show that since they were called before the end of their term (Most notably, Kent and Belknap), it isn't necessarily unconstitutional to proceed with the Articles of Impeachment while he is out of office.

Third - We cannot afford Trump to dictate the future of US politics.

While Trump supporters cite he did 'great' things for the US such as:

• Improve the US Economy
• Did not enter a war during his 4 years of his presidency
• Increased employment (including for those of color)
• Brokered peace in the Middle East

A lot of that is undone by his actions since the beginning of 2020.

Economic Downslide

The handling of COVID-19, while no country was able to handle it properly, was still a dismal failure from beginning and to the end of his term.

The reason this is part of the Economic Downslide, is due to his insistence on not heeding his advisor's recommendations due to 'optics'.

The lack of leadership with trying to get ahead of it and then with regards to help getting the vaccinations out as well as telling people that it will 'go away'.  Further to it, by encouraging people to ignore his advisor's recommendations, he furthered the irresponsible behavior with regards to travel and the spreading of COVID-19, which is now straining some cities abilities to handle the cases.

His 'intervention' with the COVID relief in December, while voicing people should have $2000 relief checks seems altruistic, the problem is, his team was involved with the negotiation for the $600 checks to begin with, and his stepping into it and delaying of signing it put those who were under unemployment in dire straights as the unemployment benefits were tied to that COVID relief, which expired days before he agreed to sign it.

These two things affected our economy and prolonging our economic downslide, all in the name of 'optics'.

This also affects the employment situation in turn as well.

Foreign relations are strained

Trump has strained all of our foreign relations, such as with Europe and NATO.

While the touting that he brokered peace in the Middle East, in 2020, he may have endangered it by drone striking the Iranian General.

At the beginning of 2021, there was concern on the anniversary of his death the retribution from Iran about the drone strike, which means we are still waiting for the repercussions of his actions.

Steve Pompeo, part of the Trump Administration, as well as Trump, have put a strain with China with regards to COVID-19 and with Taiwan.

Putting 'America First' has literally made us seem 'elitist' and even more arrogant than what we have been accused of in the past.

The "they are laughing at us" which was Trump's rallying cry to get him voted ended up making it a prophecy of the fact they are laughing at us, for all the actions he have carried out since he has been president and the recent events at the Capitol, which made people questioned our democracy.

Lying to the nation

Yes, I know politicians lie.

Everyone lies.

But Trump's agenda of lies is to the point of creating division among us as well as our foreign allies.

The events of January 6th is a result of Trump who insists that the election was stolen.  That there was no way Biden could have won the election.

Yet even his own people have stated that the election was fair.

He pushed several republicans to push that agenda, making people question the validity of votes.

The lie has been pushed for months, culminating to the events of January 6th, making many believe that it was necessary to assault the Capitol to overturn the Election.

His influence will further alienate the US from the world stage

In the last 4 years alone, the 'Make America Great Again' is slowly becoming similar to the touting of the rise of 'The Third Reich'.

The push to 'be great' and insulting our foreign allies will eventually make us isolated, ignoring the fact that some of our 'American' businesses do rely on materials outside of the US as well as Exports to said foreign countries.

Isolationism will, in turn affect our economy as we are not a self-sufficient country nor will we grow by ourselves.

Trump's views and his administration has not allowed a long term view with that in mind.

In the end, his presidential legacy should be remembered, by everyone, what not to do as a president.

When losing the presidency, to lose it graciously, not petulantly or reject the loss by any means possible, even at the cost of lives, which it has done.

While some will continue to believe that this will divide the country, we must show that no one public official should be allowed to do things without consequences, even at the end of of their term.

Trump, Make America Great Again and the odd resembalance of the rise of Nazi Germany.

 Admittedly, I am not a 'good' historian, but I do a little read up from time to time.

However, I find it oddly coincidental, that the beginning rise of Nazi Germany happened around the 1920s and it is 2020-2021.

People I know are still gravitating towards Trump for reasons that are difficult to fathom, purely on his saying that he won the election 'by a lot' and that the election was stolen.

Now why I mention this, is the way people are acting, and the sentiments from November 5th to this day and the similarities to Adolf Hitler's rise.

Now mind you, Adolf Hitler rose to power a second time, and even America supported, initially, the Nazi party for one reason.  Our concerns, at that time, the rise of communism and Nazi Germany at this time, was an Anti-Communist.

But note this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

"Nazism is a form of fascism,^[2][3][4][5] with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system."

Now this part is important.

We are seeing that there is a disdain for democrats and a distrust with Congress (Due to having democrats in it and some republican.)

To add to this, since the Election, Trump has told his supporters, like a cult-like mantra, that the election was rigged, it was stolen, that there is no way Biden could win without rigging the election.

Let's look at that from a high level view.

Trump has put in 62 lawsuits spanning 7 some states.  Of those 62, 1 of them was only successful in making a check for ID confirmation on the votes, but failed to overturn the results none the less.

In those lawsuits and appeals, not all those judges are democrats, but republicans.  Including the ones in Supreme Court, who were appointed by Trump himself.

Now let's also look at the claim of 'won the election, by a lot'.

How much is 'a lot'?  Trump never defined how much for each state, and that is a problem.  By stating 'by a lot', with nothing firm, is begging to be dismissed by any rational person.

Focusing on 'some counties' for 'issues' in the count is also questionable.  While it is true that small amounts adding up to being a whole could tilt the balance, the argument was not going to hold when recounts done, kept coming up as being fairly accurate, even with discrepancies.

While one could say the election is so corrupt that you will not get the numbers in question, the real question is, why not go and verify it yourself?

The grand lie is saying that there is no way for Biden to win short of cheating.  But then, why is it, Trump harasses a Georgia State Secretary to 'go find him 11780 votes', where the votes were certified 3 times by REPUBLICAN ELECTED OFFICIALS?

Isn't this, by definition, trying to rig an election?  To have people 'find' more votes for him after the vote has been audited three times and the results are returning the same with a small variation.

So question to those who still believe that Trump won the election.  Why is it Trump needs to harass and pressure a state official to decertify their electoral votes in one state?

Why was it necessary to have Trump Supporters push towards to capital to "Hang Mike Pense" when Mike Pense refused to overturn the count?

Is this the democracy of 'Law and Order' that Trump says he supports?  Where if it does not turn out his way, cajoling, harassing or mob rule is necessary to get the results.

Strangely, this is how Hitler's Sturmabteilung (Aka Brownshirts) helped promote Hitler's rise in Germany.  (Reference: https://www.historyhit.com/hitlers-bullyboys-the-role-of-the-sa-in-nazi-germany/)

The startling focus here is that it is 'anti-left' and focusing on 'the back stabbing politicians' (re: Congress).  This is literally an echo of Germany back then, except instead of disgruntled soldiers, it is now Americans who feel the Democrats are betraying America.

So I will leave people with this.  I am not a democrat.  Nor am I a republican.  I will also admit, I have never been a fan of Trump since he became President.

I have resisted posted anything about him, but since January 6th, and the follow up since then, hearing how Trump supporters insist that he won the election, how some of the more radical portion of his supporters act much like the Brown Shirts and made me think of Trump being like Hitler with his 'MAGA Shirts'...  The similarities are hard to ignore overall.

Just remember also, Trump is inciting fear and loathing.  Similar to Hitler's rhetoric of hate and anger that made Nazi Germany rise the way it did back then.

Lastly, as the most often quoted saying:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

People who see Trump without fault for what happened on January 6th with the Capitol Riot, and not responsible for inciting the actions of the more radical element of his supporters with his rhetoric, or worse yet, still unwilling to not let themselves 'think' and 'verify' for themselves.  Will find themselves much like the Germans who supported Nazi Germany based on the rhetoric, but ignoring the facts of what the Nazi Party truly is.

And at this moment, Trump and his MAGA movement, is echoing the Nazi Party of 1920s Germany, we won't be too far off in following the later concerns if we continue to let the mob rule and actions continue unabated and put reason forth.

Star Trek Discovery

So I have to rant a little about Star Trek Discovery...

I will first admit, I don't hate the series.  But I do have to nitpick on a few things that are just simply wrong about where they claim this series is placed in comparison to established Star Trek.

Tech
So we get to see the ships for Discovery...  Nice, sleek... And contradicts the designs laid out in both Enterprise and The Original Series (TOS).

Nacelles are Post TOS design (IE: 1980s Enterprise/Enterprise A), not sticking with the established 'round' ones.  Even for the 'older' ship, the Shenzon.  Even Enterprise, they made the NX-01 have the rounded nacelles.

Holographic Communications - Never was part of Enterprise or in TOS in Starfleet.  It was 'screen to screen'.  Holographic communication did not get involved until Deep Space 9.

Shielded Bulkhead support - Was also not available until The Next Generation.  The TOS based ships didn't do that until around Generations level.

Transporter Controls - Both Enterprise and TOS transporter controls were still 'manual' switches, not the digital touch pad they showed.

Cloaking - Mostly a Romulan thing, not a Klingon used idea until TOS, and not until the whole Romulan/Klingon alliance came up during TOS.  At the time, Klingons were pretty 'up front' about most of their fighting in both Enterprise and TOS.

Speaking of Klingons...

The drastic change in the Klingons and the pretty much ret-conning of what was established with regards to the Klingons.

Remember, in Enterprise, while it wasn't the GREATEST explanation of the whole "Why do the Klingons look like humans?" part, it at least explained why Enterprise started out with Klingons looking like traditional Klingons, then looked like Humans which was even glossed over in DS9 when Worf was asked why Klingons didn't look like Klingons as they do later on.

But this change is even MORE drastic.  The iconic Klingon battle armor/tunic of either Enterprise or TOS is now a cast off of Vlad the Impaler from Bram Stoker's Dracula movie props.

More so, the Klingons here look even 'vampiric', or 'strigoi' (Re: The Strain) looking than either Klingon look we have seen.  In fact, bald Klingons...  Literally lacking even distinction between the genders short of hearing their voice.

As a fan, I am sort of disappointed that they would have us believe that this is set 10 years prior to TOS.  Even when they did Enterprise, even with the Temporal and Borg stuff put in, kept things within reason of the 'time period' given when Enterprise was created in relation to TOS.

I will say, I am not going to condemn the show outright, mostly cause I found, despite my nitpickiness about aspects of it, I found the two episodes interesting for their setting.

However, I strongly suggest that they do consider that this is not part of the 'Prime' timeline.  Definitely not part of the JJ Abrahms revamp timeline either.  At best, this would be another branch timeline.

The whole thing about AR-15, Gun Control and whatnot...

In this week alone, there has been a lot of hoopla about restricting the sale of AR-15s, the NY Journalist who said he got a bruised shoulder and temporary PTSD, Gun Control and the shooting in Orlando.

Sad thing of all of this, is the fact that so much crazed ranting from both sides, that we aren't all sitting down and understanding certain basic things.

Now, mind you...  I'm not a gun owner.  But I do like to fire off guns when given an opportunity.

I probably can't trust myself with a gun, knowing I am a fire cracker at times and I play violent games involving guns.

But suffice it to say, I am not a person who advocates 'disarming' or preventing people from owning guns.

Add to it, I am somewhat in favor of gun control at the level of what it means to procure a gun in the proper way.

So getting to the point here is simply this.

The sale of a rifle, semi-automatic or just single bolt is fine.  Does everyone need an AR-15?  Not really.  The AR-15 is not a 'necessity' for personal defense unless you happen to live in the boonies or we are in a Zombie Apocalypse situation.

For Special Tactics squads like Police, Sheriffs or Specialized Private Security, I can understand it.  For home defense, again, unless it is a Zombie Apocalypse or you are way out in the boonies where someone can't help you easily, perhaps.

Being able to have a shotgun or a hand gun should be a 'reasonable' weapon for self-defense in most urban areas.  Rifles and Semi-automatics are best for non-urban self-defense reasons as you are dealing with ranged intruders more than close and personal.

Gun control being outlined is about making sure a gun is not procured in a way that can be detrimental to the rest of society.  Some of the posts where people are ranting about how Gun Control is liken to things like what Hitler did in Germany or violating their second amendment rights leads me to believe people are fearing for the wrong reasons.

The gun control the US needs is the fact that getting a gun is difficult, not easy, to get.  The second amendment is on the basis that we are not to be disarmed 'for our own sake' as what was the reasoning by the British back when the US was still a colony of Britain.  Colonists were expected to not have any weapons, to allow the British government to hold sway over the colonies.

What has been harped is the belief that gun control means just that...  We are being disarmed for our own sake.  If this was the case, there has been no law or suggestion of a law to say that if you own a gun or a particular gun, you must give it to the government 'for your own sake'.  What has been proposed is the limit to what can be purchased.

Of the current gun control restrictions I have seen so far, the ban on assault rifles and large magazines were to limit the destructive power a person can inflict with said weapons.  It is rare to need an assault rifle for home protection or a need for a large magazine.

One thing I did cringe upon is the lack of informed understanding of a weapon.  Such as the one politician who was arguing anti-gun:

If anything, I would say the State Senator is not familiar with guns and did not have someone assist him in understanding the gun in question or the terminology of what he cited in his discussion.

However, looking at SB 808, with regards to the Gun Control Bill...  Only loosely looking at it, has nothing to do with preventing a person from purchasing a gun or to have a gun.

The bill itself puts several stipulations that are necessary to get a weapon, such as the weapon has to be purchased through a licensed dealer, it has to have identifying marks and serial number.  Much of the information here points to what should be 'common sense' with regards to at weapon with regards to public safety as well as stipulations with regards to the purchaser as well.

Going with Gersh Kuntzman's "report" with regards to the AR-15...  Again, while I have never fired an AR-15, a few things I have fired is a Calico M100 Semi-automatic Rifle (.22), a .22 Pistol and a .38 revolver.

Given the AR-15 is a .225 Semi-automatic rifle, it is almost similar to the M100 Calico, the round being slightly larger.  The difference between the M100 and the AR-15 is that the M100 Calico uses a much shorter round than the AR-15, meaning it doesn't have nearly as much propellant, and I also believe the muzzle is shorter than the AR-15.  The M100 also sports over 50 rounds in comparison to the 30 round magazine that the AR-15 regularly has.

With this said, I have fired numerous rounds from the M100, with no ear protection, hence my earlier belief that the AR-15's muzzle is shorter and the fact the AR-15 has more propellant due to the round size.

From experience firing the .38 revolver, yes, I was temporarily deafen by the sound, hence my understanding of the 'terrifying' sound and my earlier statement about the AR-15's muzzle and round.  The .38 is a larger round and a shorter muzzle makes the sound much more pronounced at close range.  Compared to the M100's .22 and muzzle, I hardly needed ear protection from the sound.

Which comes back to the report Gersh makes.  He makes himself foolish by claiming its deafening and bruising his shoulder.  This is an over exaggeration, as shown by a few people recanting his story with images of a children firing a gun and one man literally firing the gun from the tip of his nose.

From my own experience, again, firing the M100, even with its short round, there was literally no kickback in comparison to the .38.  And even then, the .38 didn't wrench my wrist and at the time, I was about 19 years old in comparison to 51.

The only 'terrifying' part of a gun is, of course, being on the end that spews the bullets itself.  A fear of a gun is not in holding or using it, it is being on the end of its fury with a user pointing it at you.  The fear invoked by it is the fact that you can die from it and mishandling it is like trying to play catch with a sharp knife, tossing it around carelessly.

The 'PTSD' part of it only comes when you have been hurt by it.  If you are easily started by loud noises, perhaps a little PTSD comes with it, but then, you would be afraid of fire crackers or car backfires as well.

The simplest example of anything is that most people don't realize what a gunshot sound is other than a loud bang sound.  Many guns sound 'different' based on the muzzle and round type they use, and that is not counting the fact that there are silencers that can also alter or mute the sound as well.  Not being the gun fanatic, even I come to the conclusion of this.  What more, many of us mis-identify a gunshot as a backfire from a car, because we are USED to some of those sounds or even with fire crackers, because, strangely enough, they are used more often than gun sounds.

From Gersh's perspective...  His report is flawed simply on the fact that he has not been exposed to the world at large.  Even more so than me, and I am not that exposed to many things.

The thing of it all though is that we have too many people hyping their own agenda, trying to make everyone believe their current agenda, often times going over board on what they believe are 'facts'.

We need people to be less sensational about it and be more factual and accurate about what they are proposing.  While emotions are high about certain situations, in the end, being 'correct and accurate' will go a lot further than 'sensationalism'.

About 'Batman v Superman'...

A while ago, I was about to write a few choice criticisms about the movie...

Jeremy Irons, who was in the movie as Alfred, actually sums up one of my criticisms about the movie here:

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/29/batman-v-superman-jeremy-irons-criticism

The movie, in and of itself, was actually a rush and literal mish-mosh of several plot lines in one movie, which was disappointing to say the least.

Some people actually hit on it, but let me go over some of the issues I had with it.

First...  Lex Luthor.

The casting of Jesse Eisenberg, was, in my opinion, not a reasonable one for the movie.  Not so much for his looks, but the acting or what he was directed to act for Lex Luthor in the movie.

Over all, Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey's version of Lex Luthor was much more adequate for the person, even in the really bad Superman II and IV movies for Gene Hackman.

The Eisenberg version seemed more like he was trying to mix a little of The Joker with Lex Luthor.  While his Lex Luthor was condescending genius, sort of way, his sociopath take on him read a bit too much like the Joker.

Even the Animated version of Superman, voice acted by Clancy Brown and the Justice League, the Lex Luthor in that series was much more composed, even near the end of that series where he is shown to be less than sane.

Next...  Plot points...

Suffice it to say, the original intent of Batman versus Superman is a plot point from one comic, "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller...  Where an old Bruce Wayne becomes Batman once again, to the point he has to face off against Superman...  The movie also decided to throw a few too many other things to it to 'make it exciting'.

One of those plot points is 'Injustice - Gods among men'.  A scene plays out where Superman is seen as an Overlord, dispensing Justice in a nightmare that Batman has.  This is literally from not only "Injustice" but also one of the Justice League stories, where the Justice League becomes Justice Lords...

Another plot point shoved into our face is the formation of the Justice League, in this case, the joining of forces with Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman against a powerful foe.

Another plot point is the introduction of Doomsday and the death of Superman...  Again, this is another plot point from one of the more significant events in the Superman storyline around the early 2000s.

Batman's Origin being another plot point sort of shoved in there, and tying the name of Martha Wayne to Martha Kent was a bit of a reach.

A reference to Crisis of the Infinite Earths is also included in there, where you see a brief showing of the Flash trying to tell Batman something, which made Batman almost dismiss it as being a hallucination.

Basically, too many different plot points crammed into one movie to make it exciting, but even in how it was structured, it was almost nonsensical to me, on some of the jumps in logic made on certain information.

Overall, the movie was rushed and tried too many things at once.  The logic behind it all could only be masked by the action, but I think the action itself can't make the movie seem confusing and rather not as good as "Man of Steel".

Obama's Hiroshima Apology and Social Media

So, someone posted the following:

http://www.youngcons.com/obama-says-dropping-bomb-on-hiroshima-was-evil-fiery-tweet-responds-we-owe-no-apology/

What sets me off is the fact that this is actually... INCORRECT.

The original text of Obama's speech is this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/world/asia/text-of-president-obamas-speech-in-hiroshima-japan.html

No where in there does Obama state that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was evil.

What makes me even more annoyed...  Is this:

Hiroshima? Bataan Death March, Bangka Island Massacre, Sandakan Death March, The Rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor. We owe no apology.

— WeirdReport (@WeirdReport) May 26, 2016

 Said group didn't look up the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

A country that is still apologizing to this day for what has happened 70+ years later, and quite possibly will still do so for years to come.

Another argument made was why should we apologize for a bomb that has killed over 100 thousand people killed between the two bombs alone in retaliation for an attack that got us into a war we were partially taking part in and killing 2,403 men, wounding 1,178.  This argument grated at me where they ignored the fact that between the two nuclear bombs dropped, the number of dead is an 'equivalent' retaliation.

This is the problem with Social Media and also Social Engineering...

Social Media, and perhaps media itself, is a way to define a narrative without presenting facts.

That the use of a nuclear bomb on a city is justifiable retaliation for being attacked.  That our retribution is justifiable at any cost.  That we have no reason to be sorry to do what we want because our cause is right.

Sadly, this is what a terrorist or a jihadist would rationalize their belief.  They should not feel sorry for doing whatever it takes, as it is retribution for hindering their agenda.

You say we don't have an agenda?  You are sorely mistaken.  We want our gas prices to be low, our involvement in Kuwait was part of our agenda to keep the oil from the Mid-east flowing to keep oil prices reasonable.  We tolerate some of the social injustices in Saudi Arabia because it suits our agenda for Oil once again.

We still deal with China, a Communist country, and some of its social issues because said electronics you buy, are, made in China...

We all have agendas that is about our immediate comforts, but when it comes to Social Media, we all try to play out that we are 'high and mighty'.  But in the end of it all, it is still following an agenda people want.

Young Conservatives hate Obama, so they spin up a Social Media snafu using people who cite information with only a one side of the coin, not the full side and misquoting a speech to suit their agenda...

In the end of it all, people should take the time to read the actual 'apology' to Japan about Hiroshima...

My take on this, while I don't believe an apology was fully necessary, is that Obama believes that we (Not just the Americans, but everyone in the world) need to remember Hiroshima for the one thing it does point to that some of us who lived our young and teenage years of the 80s feared as well as those who lived through the 50s, 60s and 70s, the fear of a nuclear war...  The potential of a nuclear war is STILL there...  And with other countries now developing Nuclear or Dirty Nuclear weapons, the horrors of what we have learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only cities to be have been intentionally nuked by a country.

What has been repeatedly stated, time and time again, is if we do not learn from the use of Nuclear weapons on our two only know uses of a Nuclear Weapon on actual cities and the moral implications...  How are we, as human race, be able to survive when we don't accept the consequences for our actions, regardless of the reason for those actions?