Skip to main content

On Coronavirus

On Coronavirus

 

On July 28th, in his corona virus update, President Trump said that there are large areas of the country that are free from the virus.  He was immediately attacked for that statement.  That attack was unfair because, contrary to his normal struggles with integrity, in this case he was exactly correct.  Three undeniable examples confirm this.

 

Firs29t, take deserts for example.  The high deserts of the northwest states combine with the Mojave, the Sonoran, and the other southwest deserts to comprise an area of 200,000 - 300,000 square miles which are almost completely plague free.   Add in Alaska, almost all of which is covid free, and which is nearly one third the size of the contiguous states and you have an extremely large area.

 

Second, lakes.  The Great Salt Lake is great.  Don't forget Lake Tahoe, a million lakes in Minnesota, and the Everglades and other swamps.  Then there are the Great Lakes, not only close to 95,000 square miles, but over 5,000 cubic miles.  Wow!

 

Finally, don't forget the coastal waters which extend 150 miles from nearly all of America's borders.  The Atlantic seaboard, the Gulf Coast, the West Coast, the Alaskan coast and Hawaiian coasts add an enormous amount of square and cubic miles.

 

All of these hundreds of thousands of square and cubic miles of America are virtually covid free.  A minor difficulty, however, is that they are also human free.  Our problem is not that small areas of the country contain the virus, it's that those areas are where our human populations live.  Sadly, there are no large inhabited areas that are free from the Trump Plague.

 

Trump says if there was no testing there would be no cases.  Likewise, if we could only get rid of people, we would have no cases as well.

 

So, the obvious two-pronged solution, of which the president has identified one prong, and I'm sure he'll soon apply his stable genius to the second, is to get rid of testing and get rid of people.  Fortunately, we only have to eliminate testing, which is  relatively easy, and people will soon thereafter be eliminated, too.

 

Next month: a simple solution to end racism.  (hint: it also involves eliminating people.)

 

 

- PeteBarkett.blogspot.com

07/ 29/20

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

 Bannon Up! This analogy is far from perfect, but it represents to me a futile mindset.   A sacrifice bunt in baseball involves giving up an out to advance a runner into a better position to score a run.   Occasionally, a pitcher tries so hard to throw pitches that are difficult to bunt, that he ends up walking the batter, which moves the lead runner into scoring position, gets no out, and puts another runner on base.   I’ve heard former coaches and players announcing games cry, “He’s trying to make an out.   Let him!”   I believe Steve Bannon wants to go to prison, to make himself a martyr and hero to the right-wing nuts who support him.   I say, let him.   I’ve heard some pundits worry that convicting him would further infuriate the right-wing nuts.   I think it’s time to abandon that type of thinking.   We have seen time after time that making concessions to appease these people is completely unproductive.   They see conces...
Post a Comment
Read more

Musings

  Right-To-Lifers Don’t Go Far Enough       I was pro-choice, but I’ve changed my mind.   The problem is not that the State should govern what a woman does with her body, the problem is that the State has not gone far enough.   The argument is that to protect the life of a fetus, the State must overrule a woman’s privacy and bodily autonomy and regulate her body for her.   Fine.   If we want the State to be in the business of protecting life through bodily regulation, then go all in.   Stick to the prime directive.   Protect all life.   The State should govern both men and women to protect life.   The State should tell any healthy person what to do with their body in order to protect life.   So, if someone needs a kidney, liver, or any organ transplant to save their life, the State should find someone and take whatever parts are needed to save that life.   If not, then we are allowing organ-icide.   (...
Post a Comment
Read more
Inspired by "Is religion a force for good in the world?" - the debates with Christopher Hitchens Let's compare general religious tenets with general humanistic tenets: I assert that to be a good humanist you must follow the rules.   To be a good religious person you must break the rules. Religious:                                             Humanistic: love thy neighbor                                   love thy neighbor do good works                                       do good works live according to the scriptures              live according to what can be drawn from evidence (science) try to follow the dictates of god       ...
Post a Comment
Read more