It's no secret, I like to mask debate.  Sadly, however, I seem to be only able to do so by myself since I trust in what decades of scientific studies, the CDC, the WHO, and even Dr. Fauci trusted before April of this year:  that healthy people wearing masks in a community setting does nothing positive for public health or safety.  

When the pro-maskers run out of improvised 'mid-2020' science to back up their assertions, the people who would put masks on healthy people hanging out with healthy people either 1) assign supernatural powers to the novel coronavirus or 2) just simply use the government's edicts to back up their claims.  In Michigan, that's not difficult as Governor Gretchen Whitmer has made a handful of mask mandates in her record numbers of executive orders.  The mask debate ends with cold hard science, losing to colder, harder politics or to the same junk science which claims race riots are a public health curative, but protesting lockdowns is the devil's work.

In Mason County, the City of Ludington and the local chamber of commerce teamed up to hand out informational signs to local businesses, free of charge, for them to place on their business' entrance(s).  The signs avoid any kind of mask debating by not even trying to claim that masks are for public health, rather they push the narrative that wearing a mask in Mason County businesses is the law and there is a $500 fine for those who break it.  You see these free signs on many businesses in the area telling you to mask up, or else.

July 10 COLDNews article announces:  "Local business owner, Nick Tykoski, owner of Safety Decals in Ludington stepped forward to support the effort and is producing “Mask Up Mason County” signs for Mason County businesses, free of charge, according to a press release from chamber of commerce.

“Our small businesses have been devastated after weeks of being shut down and the politicization of masks has made the reopening process difficult for businesses who are doing all they can to keep their employees and patrons safe,” stated Brandy Miller, president and CEO of the Ludington & Scottville Area Chamber of Commerce, in the press release. “We are really grateful to Safety Decals for helping us spread this important message to keep our community and businesses open”.

At the Ludington City Council meeting held by Zoom prior to this announcement, we find that the ever-generous-sounding Nick Tykoski, wife of the Community Development Director, was paid $165 for the 'free' signage.  None of the DDA board meetings held during this year, discussed this purchase, so CDD Heather Tykoski spent those public funds on the free signs from her husband without any type of backing from the DDA: 

  This is the typical graft and corruption that has been part of Ludington politics over the years, not even an industrial-sized bottle of sanitizer will get rid of it anytime soon.  It is common for thieves and highwaymen to wear masks, so one shouldn't be surprised of the pro-mask position of the City, in making a resolution mandating masks in public settings and creating a 'free' sign for businesses that does the same. 
Neither of them grant our visitors or locals any type of choice in the matter if for some medical reason they cannot wear a mask, nor do they offer an exemption or alternative if one believes it violates their Constitutional rights.  Each of the mask mandates in the executive orders offer these exemptions and several others.  If you cannot tolerate wearing a mask due to a medical condition, these signs are effectively saying that your 'type of people' cannot use the facility.  That's discrimination.
I refuse to enter any business that uses the 'free' Safety Decals sign for that reason, and I encourage others to boycott these businesses until they take the signs down and moderate their message to reflect the full executive order.  Remember the truism I hinted at earlier that the wearing of masks by healthy people in community settings is not about public health, it's a lot more than that, which is why our corrupted local government is pushing it.
Wearing a mask in public at this time is a symbol of submission to the state.  Wearing a mask in public depersonalizes yourself and your view of others.  Wearing a mask in public allows people to anonymously take part in riotous and criminal activities they wouldn't otherwise take part in.  Wearing a mask in public can be deleterious to your personal health.
After picking Kamala Harris for his veep choice, Joe Biden stated that if he were president that he would have a national mandate to wear masks outdoors for the next three months minimum:
The next day (Friday, August 14th), I walked the Ludington breakwall out to the lighthouse.  Due to high water issues, one can only travel on the middle part of the breakwall, once you round the turn, this surface is only about 6 ft. wide and slippery on the edges.  You can't pass another person going either way without violating social distancing rules, which suggests that one should be wearing a mask if they travel that route.
Going to and back from the lighthouse, I passed 212 people outdoors, usually doing so while within 3 feet of them; each of these people likely had similar numbers on their trip.  Of those 212 people, 205 people were walking without a mask on.  Nearly 97% of these folks were repeatedly violating social distancing without wearing masks.
If I may generalize, the 200+ people not wearing masks were having a good time of it:  talking, smiling, laughing, taking selfies, etc.  The seven masked individuals consisted of two groups of three and one on his own.  I heard not a peep from them, and they appeared nervous rather than happy, though it was hard to tell with their face covered.  
It's hard for me to imagine after that trip (and other prior trips where I haven't seen any masks) that declaring a national outdoor mask mandate would appeal to very many people, but Biden wants to get in his own mask debate with President Trump who has eschewed such a mandate and allowed states and individuals to make their own health care decisions.
If you want to wear a mask when you go out in public out of concern for your or others' safety, then do so.  If you want to force me to put a face covering on, however, I'm sorry, but you'll have to hear and see me mask debate.

Views: 1061

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Another excellent article X. I wonder when area businesses will wake up and see who it is that are representing them.
The Chamber of Commerce and DDA are run by lefties just like the schools. They do not represent anything kin to
conservatism. Where do they get off thinking they represent the entire Mason County business establishment. Those stupid tags should have a disclaimer stating this opinion is held only by the local Chamber of Commerce and DDA Marxists. When will people wise up that this ongoing situation is only a fear tactic.

Thanks, I see Gretchen got a new hairstyle and uniform in your amended and truer sign.

Funny about Gretchen X. And Lake Lady also a very precise and cogent post, thanks.

Lake Lady, 

Historically, Ludington elections have been non-partisan.  I actually prefer that status, since councilors will be more likely to be responsive to the people and rational public policy rather than to their party line which might suggest a different and unworkable course.  I do think it's the local media's job, and the electorate's duty, to identify the leanings of a candidate during the course of an election-- but it's rarely done.  In the current city council, I would place the three male councilors as moderate Republicans, Councilor Serna as an independent, and the other three women councilors as Democrats, Councilor Moonbeam being most extreme.

This would make them slightly left of center, with modern city orthodoxy moving them even more leftward.  The corruption gripping the city is less due to failed leftist ideology, as the three Republicans often line up with the three Democrats, and more due to the behind-the-scenes players who have been there at city hall for many years.  

The same Ben Carson stated less than a year ago that requiring single-family ONLY zoning created too much red tape and led to NIMBY like responses from neighborhoods. How about instead of more restrictions on what I can do with my property, we have fewer? Allow more uses (non nuisance based, i.e. industrial, chemical etc) and you allow more freedom for an individual as well as could potentially lower the cost of housing for a community. 

Remind me again how restricting an individuals use of their own property is a conservative ideal? In addition, in what way are they changing the zoning from single- to multi-family zoning? They are adding a Special Land Use, not making anything a carte blanche approval.

Could someone clarify why the City of Ludington would be  paying for masks for Mason County? Did the county also pony up some funds? I know there is a lot of inbreeding between the city and the county, but why would the city alone be responsible for the costs. After all it states Mask Up Mason County not Mask Up Ludington. And the website is STAY SAFEMASONCOUNTY.COM not STAYSAFELUDINGTON.COM  

Again you don't seem to understand the process, which is fine, but then leads to a lot of assumptions on your part. If this change goes through, a person who decides they would like to add another unit onto their home or convert their house to a two-family would be required to get a Special Land Use permit that would then start a process of neighbor notification and a review by the Planning Commission, culminating in an approval or disapproval based on specific guidelines. Not carte blanche go ahead.

However, none of those changes occur without neighbors having multiple opportunities to voice concern, favor, or simple questions; however, complaining here does not help your case. Attend a meeting virtually, write to a Councilor or the Council (as X does), or go speak to staff at City Hall. I speak up or act upon my concerns that are discussed here sometimes, do you?

Again, well said, exactly, Lake Lady, especially about the common citizen having a "say" in the city, even if you waste your breath at a council meeting ....  Decisions are already made and pushed through and city council is just a formal show of what has been decided.  I'm not sure where you are coming from, Epic, you seem to be very naive and idealistic if you think a citizen's voice makes a difference.  Yes, X, has made some in roads, but hated, ridiculed for righteousness, and if he could be, it would seem some in the city would run him over on his bicycle, literally, if they could.  I've rarely seen such courage to stand up as X has.    

The current zoning debate isn't all that simple, that's why you see some strange alliances of thought on the issues to go over.  As Epictetus points out, a conservative or libertarian viewpoint may like the general idea as it seems to expand a homeowner's options, effectively expanding their rights.  However, those same folks may worry of the consequences of the new policy, intended or unintended.  A similar dichotomy of viewpoint happens among liberal/progressives, just reversed.  

On my review, I cannot help but support the changes presented; Lake Lady's fears may arrive, and one may assume there are background players ready to exploit the changes to their benefit.  But there is still a process to go through and enough variation of thought among officials to potentially do what's right later on, if the public makes a good argument for it.

Philosophies aside, X, whether is it libertarian, conservative, or liberal, the current zoning origination probably was either to benefit someone, perhaps in the planning board who own many rentals, or perhaps as a consideration to increase density to increase tax base.  I'm sure the new city manager, who seems to have a brain for finances (at least on a personal basis), is looking at all possibilities to pull COL out of the debt spiral drain.  Otherwise, why all of a sudden this discussion?  It smells of tiny homes Rigged, otherwise.  Personally I lean on the side with Lakelady.  Once you invest in a  city, you should have some confidence that the city is not flipping in a dime, especially with relaxing zoning.  And Epi'cs argument doesnt hold a lot of water, even with special land use, once you let one change, your hair is cut but it ain't growing back.

FS, you are a very perceptive individual, and you properly are suspicious that we have a new Spence Riggs scenario.  For those not aware of what happened with Spence Riggs, he joined the Planning Commission getting full affirmation from city hall for his main objective in doing so, quickly developed and advocated for a new 'small house/lot' ordinance in the PC committees and then brought it through the city council, quickly splitting his own land into three buildable lots before packing his bags, selling the property for a good profit (read more here).

If that scenario does happen again to any extent, it will be exposed to the light of the torch.  People should not be using their public office for their own private gain unless they can do so and be totally transparent about it.

Thanks X.  Any perception I might have is generally based on past experience watching what has gone on in city hall.  I'm sure there is a lot of suspicion because of a perceived lack of ethics in past actions.

Thanks for the input on the LIAA.  Can you link an article on that subject as a refresher?  Just wondering how that organization became a consultant in Ludington?  Also, regarding your comment about the TIF etc. aspect:  it sure would be nice if reasoning were included to the general public but it generally hasn't been which creates more suspicion on the part of the public.  I see a little more openness in the new city manager.  The new mayor is pretty mute;  just a place holder for someone else's vision?


© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service