Real femininity is not weak

I recently told you what I believe embodies real masculinity. What about femininity?

Just as masculinity isn't aggressive or toxic, femininity isn't weak.

It's not feminine to allow yourself to be victimized and used against your will.
It's not feminine to support archation; to use the violence of government against people who are doing things you don't like or who aren't doing things you believe they should. Being a "karen" isn't womanly, it's being a jerk.
It's not feminine to stay with an abusive partner just because he says he loves you and you have kids together.
It's not feminine to be intentionally unpleasant to prove that you can't be pushed around.

It's feminine to be competent, compassionate, and responsible. You can be feminine by defending yourself and others from aggression. You can even be feminine if you ask for voluntary help from someone who will not archate while helping you if you want to-- but it's not necessary.

Masculinity and femininity are just aspects of "doing it right". You can also do it right without invoking either masculinity or femininity.

Every human has the same responsibility-- to not archate. How you choose to carry that out might vary from person to person, according to your temperament. You are your best self when you live up to that responsibility-- man, woman, or child.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

People responsible for own actions

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for July 1, 2020)

You bear no guilt for things you had no part in. Don't accept guilt you didn't earn.

I'm not going to blame you for things you have no control over, nor will I accept blame for the same sort of things. We have no control over who our ancestors were, what happened before we were born, the color of our skin, or what other people who have no real connection to us choose to do.

You aren't guilty because people in history did bad things. You aren't guilty when someone who shares your "race" did something bad. You aren't to blame if someone you don't associate with does something wrong. Those are not your fault. Don't accept blame on their behalf. It's not healthy. You are only guilty for any wrong you have personally done.

It's completely different if you choose to join a group known for violating life, liberty, and property. By choosing to join-- and remaining a member-- you are endorsing what they do, and in that case, you have personally committed a wrong.

You won't change the gang from the inside, even if that's your noble plan. You will be changed. From the moment you join you share in the guilt of every act any members commit in the name of the group you choose to be a part of. If you join or passively support those who actively violate the life, liberty, and property of others you share their guilt. Choose wisely.

You can absolve yourself by quitting and denouncing the group and its activities. I suggest doing so immediately.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Your first responsibility is to not violate anyone else. You can't be responsible for what people you don't control and have no real influence over do. Does anyone imagine you control anyone besides yourself?

Unless you openly side with people who are doing bad things I'm going to assume you're not on their team. I'd rather think the best of you. This means I may say something in your presence against the people doing bad stuff. Take this as the compliment it is.

I don't support holding history against people who weren't alive then, or who were too young to change anything. I'm for forgiving past offenses and I am not a fan of punishment. I'd much rather see you doing the right thing than to look for ways to blame and punish you for doing wrong.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Whose shame?

Why is slavery now being called "America's national shame" by some people, as if no other country participated in slavery? As if "America" did it worse?

Can a land feel shame?

I wasn't alive during the slavery they are talking about. I consider slavery an evil thing. Always.

This is why I am an abolitionist who opposes all slavery. I am even fighting against the slavery most of them want more of-- government-supremacism. I have less to feel ashamed of than almost any of those who talk about the shame I "should" feel.

Someday being a government-supremacist or even a "minimal" statist (minarchist) will look as bad in hindsight as being an enthusiastic slaver. I'm glad I'm not on that side! Even if remaining consistent in the face of haters and deniers gets a little uncomfortable sometimes.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Who should have political power?

I don't want Muslims to have political power.
I don't want black people to have political power.
I don't want women to have political power.
I don't want young people to have political power.
I don't want LGBTQXYZ3.14159... people to have political power.
I don't want Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, socialists, or Constitutionalists to have political power.
None at all.

That's because I'm being consistent.

I don't want anyone-- no groups or individuals-- to have political power. That includes straight white men of any (or no) religion and of any age.

Political power is an evil thing to hold. Why would I wish that kind of evil on anyone?

You have the responsibility to not archate. That's plenty for anyone to handle.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Real masculinity is non-toxic

I notice that many people-- not you, of course-- seem to be really confused about what is "masculine". They complain about something they call "toxic masculinity", but I notice what they describe doesn't seem very masculine to me. Quite the opposite (and the opposite of "masculine" isn't necessarily "feminine"). Often, what they call masculine I call being a jerk.

Somehow they think the guy going around strutting, threatening people, or picking fights is manly. They think being a cop or a "troop" is masculine (unless it's a female doing that "job"). They think impulsivity or loudness or what I've noticed as a habit of spastic movements is what makes someone manly. They even think the jealous guy who puffs up his chest because he thinks "his" woman looked at another guy is exhibiting masculinity. They seem to see aggression as masculine.

Not even close!

It's not masculine to aggress, but to defend from aggression. Archation isn't manly. Living up to your responsibility to not violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else-- even when it's hard to do-- is masculine. And more. It's the way to be a decent human being, whether you are male or female.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

So close; scared to face the truth

Sometimes statists can get so close... so close! But they won't take that final "scary" step.

They might recognize a problem caused by political government, but instead of facing the root cause, they do whatever it takes to avoid the truth.

Recently I heard one advocating getting rid of teachers' unions. I support this idea, but it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't strike at the root; it's thrashing at a branch. The existence of government schooling is the root problem. Abolish those schools and the teachers' unions are no longer an issue.

It's the same story over and over.

It's not that political government is being used wrong, it's that it is allowed to exist at all and to ruin society. In endlessly varied ways, by millions of wrongheaded people.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Reasons NOT to wear a mask

If you don't want to wear a mask and you want/need more reasons to not do so, Jim Davies has made a thing-- TinyURL.com/WearNoMask

Personally, I'm not convinced-- even if masks do reduce transmission of the virus-- that it's a good idea to reduce the transmission of The Corona. At least among the general population.

I'm still pretty sure this "pandemic" or whatever will never get under control until just about everyone has had it or has proven themselves immune. As the mortality rate that even the politicized experts accept continues to plummet, it seems important to end this thing sooner rather than later. To take away the State's favorite toy. So add that reason to the list.

But that's just my opinion. YOU do what YOU want.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Politics reason behind a lot of anger

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 24, 2020)

Why is there so much anger in the world?

People fight over statues; over differing opinions on gender, race, and policing. Over masks and whether to end the shutdown or keep society imprisoned until everyone is perfectly safe-- which can never be.

Activists are even protesting to abolish the Fourth of July... without mentioning Independence Day. I guess if they are successful, future calendars will skip from the third to the fifth... unless the activists are confused.

What causes anger over such issues? Politics-- where every win comes at someone's expense.

Politics forces everyone along the same path. Legislation dictates things only our ethics and morals should determine. To understand the anger, notice how politics makes a difference of opinion into a life and death struggle. An unnecessary one.

It's odd that something imagined to be a hallmark of civilized society is instead the root of most antisocial behavior. Trying to form a society around politics is like trying to form a pearl around a pellet of nuclear waste.

If you want to play politics, go ahead, but any results should only apply to you. You shouldn't expect others to be bound by your results. They shouldn't be expected to fund your political institutions or agencies. If you want it, you fund it. I have better uses for my money.

Just as there is no "one-size-fits-all" church, you shouldn't be able to force everyone to participate in the same political system based on location. Or any political system at all. If you force everyone to play your game by your rules, or else, your game is toxic. Society would be better off without it.

Just imagine if no one were forced to fund a park or a statue. If your group builds a park, good for you. If you want to put a statue in the park to honor Willie Nelson, people can choose to visit your park or not. As long as they aren't forced to subsidize it, they aren't harmed.

If, however, you force people to chip in for the park and pay for statues and monuments to things they dislike, it's no wonder people get angry. I do, too.

The way these things are currently done causes strife. It's long past time to give it up and try something better. Something voluntary, based on unanimous consent. If you want to chip in, go ahead. If you'd rather not, go your own way. It's the only civilized way to organize a society.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Robbed by politicians

I was supposed to be in the New Mexico mountains all this week with the extended family. I would be there now.

It was planned and booked in early February. I was looking forward to some time in the mountains and on some trails-- time I am in severe need of but can't afford on my own.

Then... The Corona.

Or rather, it was politicians who shut down so much stuff using The Corona as their excuse that the family decided to cancel the trip. The fascist/socialist New Mexico governatress proclaimed that any visitors to New Mexico were "required" to quarantine for 14 days, when our vacation would only last a week. Blocked just because I live less than 7 blocks east of an imaginary line.

The part of the vacation I was in need of-- mountain trails-- wasn't shut down but with the parents coming down with coronavirus just weeks ago, and not knowing if anyone else would get it, and everyone else caring that shops and restaurants might be "off-limits" to us, I understand why they and the rest of the family canceled the plans.

I'm trying to not let it get to me. Stuff happens, and all that. Still, I'm pretty unhappy right now. And, yes, I blame the political vermin.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Starlink and "pollution"

I saw someone complaining about how their long-exposure photograph of comet "Neowise" was ruined by the passage of Starlink satellites.

If you are unfamiliar with comet "Neowise", well, it's a comet. And if you are unfamiliar with Starlink, it's Elon Musk's swarm of internet-providing satellites.

The various voices chiming in about the horrors of the ruined photograph sympathized with the harm done to the photographer, and the evils of polluting the world for profit. I'm more upset that Elon takes government subsidies and launches government payloads, but whatever.

But "pollution"? I HATE pollution, including litter.

Pollution damages property; without the damage, there is no pollution. I can't think of a way these satellites damage anyone's property. One of the dissenters told me that "damages property" was a strange way to define pollution, so I asked for his definition. He said he'd include harming people. I asked him who is being harmed. Silence. Strangely, I find most of my questions to those on the other side keep going unanswered-- some of them seem to have blocked me.

Sure, people are "forced" to see something they don't want to see, in specific circumstances. Or, perhaps they are forced to accidentally photograph something they didn't intend to photograph. A photobomb of sorts (but one you can avoid with a little prior planning-- at least for the time being). The newer Starlink satellites are getting harder and harder to see, even right after launch. Musk has been trying to make them less reflective to keep ground-based astronomers happy, so perhaps it is working.

Someone said the pollution is the damage done by ruining a little of the beauty of nature for everyone. That's too subjective.

I want to go outside and look at the horizon without seeing any man-made structures or invasive/exotic trees blocking the natural view. Am I being harmed that this isn't possible where I live?

I hate to hear dogs bark. I don't like seeing boys hobbling around with their pants below their butts. Is this pollution?

If I see my neighbor walk to the end of their driveway and they aren't attractive enough for me to want to see them, am I being harmed? I don't think so. A better case for pollution could be made if they were smoking and I caught a whiff of their smoke. Yet I'm not petty enough to make an issue about that. They can smoke cigars as they walk out to the street naked and I can't think of a way this actually harms me.

Yes, "astronomy" pictures taken with a long exposure can be "ruined" by the multiple streaks from Starlink satellites. How many satellite tracks does it take to ruin a photo? One? Three? A dozen? Do planes also ruin photos? Do meteors?

It takes a long exposure-- specialty photography-- to really have a problem with Starlink streaks. I could complain if I use infrared photography to take photos of my neighbor's house and I see them inside doing things I don't want to see, but who has the problem here?

Starlink is intended to fund Musk's Mars missions and Martian colony. I am in favor of getting humans to Mars and to seeing if they can live there sustainably. It takes a lot of money-- profit-- to fund these kinds of things. Either direct profit spent willingly by those who earned it, or profit confiscated from the rightful owner by government through "taxation"-- guess which one I like better.

One of the detractors said satellites are too expensive and it would be cheaper to run wires out to all the remote areas to provide high-speed internet. I think this shows a lack of understanding of how remote some remote areas actually are, and the economics of running wires out there and the people in remote areas being able to actually afford to use such a service. Plus, this only shifts the property damage to actual property. Would these people like to have a path bulldozed for this line-- either underground or hanging on poles-- through their property so they don't have to see (if they look hard) something they don't want to see in the dusky sky?

I have gone out at night and watched Starlink satellites pass overhead. Most of the time they were too dim for me to see. A few times I was able to see the "train"-- a string of satellites following one another across the sky-- with some success. It's rather interesting to see and even beautiful in a way. But, even though I really like antique stuff made of brass, bone, wood, leather, and glass, I'm not a Luddite.

I get it, though. If I had my choice I'd turn the clock back to the Pleistocene or something and wear animal skins and live in a cave. I don't care to see plastic everywhere I look-- I'd rather see mammoths. But I can't pretend someone is harming me just because the world isn't the same as it used to be or as I might wish it still were. There are more important things to fix.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

"War on the suburbs" by Ammo.com

I got this from Ammo.com several days ago.
War on the Suburbs: How HUD's Housing Policies Became a Weapon for Social Change

Reading it just made me mad.

I could point out that I am in favor of people living wherever they like-- as long as they aren't trespassing. I could point out that allowing political government to use sticks and carrots to "encourage" compliance and carry out anti-social engineering is stupid and self-destructive; that if "states" hadn't gotten addicted to "federal" handouts, they couldn't be manipulated by the feral government. I could point out that all DemoCRAPublican politicians are guilty to some extent. I could point those things out, but you already know it as well as I do.

I personally hate cities-- except as an occasional dangerous thrill for a highly limited time. But to live in or near one? No thanks!

I don't really like suburbs or small towns, either. Still too crowded and too many "rules".

I don't mind that people want to live in any of those arrangements. And I do mind when meddlers try to coerce people into living as they believe they "should".

I wouldn't take well to being herded into an urban environment. In fact, I would feel the need to use self-defensive violence against those trying to herd me. I hope others would join me.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Conservative copsuckers blame leftist politicians

Someone forwarded an email to me full of "memes". In one, it said something like "Did you ever notice that the police leave you alone if you aren't doing anything wrong?" Another showed a 911 operator and said something like "911, what is your emergency? Oh, I see you v*ted to defund the police. We'll send someone to visit you in 3 to 5 business days." While another showed the St. Louis couple guarding their home with their guns, saying something like "This is why you need an AR15".

I should have left it alone, but I replied.

I said that yes, the guy who used an AR15 (or whatever specific type of firearm that actually was) used his gun to defend his home, and then the cops, who will supposedly leave you alone if you are doing nothing wrong, came and stole all his firearms, leaving him at the mercy of other thugs. So much for being protected by police. And that this is why I am in favor of defunding the police and the politicians who control them.

The guy wrote back and said what the cops did wasn't right, but that it is the "leftist politicians" who are at fault.

Conservatives apparently imagine that if you just got the "right kind" of politicians holding the leashes of the police that the police would turn into the heroic saviors the conservatives seem to want so badly for them to be. Nope. That will never happen. Good people don't seek a job that gives them that kind of power over others. Not politics or policing.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Falsifying liberty

I believe liberty to be worthwhile, to say the least. I also believe it is objectively superior to any alternative. This means I should try to falsify this hypothesis to myself. If I can't think of ways which-- if they held up-- would prove my belief is based on a falsehood if it is, my belief is worthless.

How could liberty be falsified? If I could find one example where liberty-- freedom tempered with responsibility-- fails, that would do it. So far I keep coming up empty.

People have given me lots of examples where they imagine liberty fails: drugs, sex, "immigration", etc. (and even the post office!) In every case, they weren't thinking their position through very well or were trying to argue against liberty by artificially keeping The State a part of the scenario.

Sure, some people neglect their responsibility. This simply means humans are flawed and since they can't always be responsible for themselves they certainly shouldn't ever be put in charge of others.

Sometimes, people want to argue that because exercising your liberty in some essential ways is illegal, it can't work even if it weren't illegal. They imagine this rights-violation shows that liberty would fail even if the artificial barriers they refuse to reconsider weren't there. The "we can't get rid of government border controls because of democracy and welfare" people fall into this category.

That's just dumb. If you want to argue against freedom of movement, you've got to at least discuss it without the artificial constraints of keeping other Big Government programs propped up to make sure liberty fails the way you want it to fail. And if you can get rid of one facet of tyranny you can get rid of the others-- don't pretend otherwise.

Yes, I am biased. I am pro-liberty and I am against theft, aggression, and slavery. I think I am able to consider all claims, however, I don't need to wake up each day and decide anew whether I would be within my rights to go next door and start slaughtering people so I can take their stuff. You can ponder that question with each new day if you believe it's necessary, but I'm done with it. No one has the right to archate and nothing can change that fact.

If, in the course of pondering this question yet again, you come to a different conclusion for reasons no one has presented before, try to convince me you aren't just wallowing in statist superstition. Maybe you're on to something and have discovered a way to falsify liberty, but I wouldn't bet money on it.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Holster aggravation peaks

This is a topic I don't discuss much... or ever. I've had enough of my current holster. Actually, I'd had enough of it years ago, but I can't design, find, or afford to try something that might be better. But I'm finally reaching the breaking point, to the point that I'm not sure it's worth the pain and aggravation of carrying anymore.

This is what I'm wanting to try:

The link is here: Urban Carry G3

You might be noticing the price and figuring out why I haven't bit the bullet and bought one. My current one is homemade-- as have been the last several. Nice and inexpensive. The commercial ones I've used in the past weren't even as tolerable as the current abomination.

If people would like to chip in toward this new holster, just make a note that this is what the donation is intended for. If not, I'll make do or do without.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Thinking isn't their superpower

Government-supremacists aren't good at thinking. They imagine they are, but the evidence is clear that they aren't.

Here are some examples:

1-- Chicago has strict anti-gun rules and high crime rates. Does this mean "gun control" [sic] isn't effective, or that high crime rates cause political bullies to impose strict anti-gun rules in response? Which is the cause and which is the effect?

It doesn't matter. It is unethical to impose anti-gun rules no matter whether you believe it "works" or not. No studies needed. No one has the right to impose or enforce anti-defense/anti-tool legislation.

2-- Do police murder more "black" people or more "white" people? We must argue over who they murder more-- and why it might be so-- in order to prove a point.

No, we don't need to. It's not about "race"; it's about police and policing. Police are a criminal gang even if you are scared to live without them, and this fact matters more than who they are murdering, what causes them to murder, and at what rates the murders occur.

3-- Should schools be allowed to re-open in spite of the risk of Covid-19, or should they be kept closed for safety? What does the "science" say?

Wrong approach. Schools shouldn't be part of government, shouldn't be theft-funded, shouldn't be compulsory, and shouldn't be confused for educational facilities. If someone wants to fund a school, they can decide how to run it. Anyone who doesn't like how it is run doesn't have to chip in and doesn't have to subject their kids to that institution.

In each instance, the statists have erected blinders to keep the questions within parameters that limit the possibilities considered in a way which results in a false "answer". An "answer" that empowers them no matter which way it goes. This isn't so much thinking as plotting against society. Apparently, unethical plotting is easier than doing the hard work of rational thinking.

I could keep going with endless examples but you get the picture. Government-supremacists aren't good at thinking, but they imagine they are. That's a dangerous combination.

I think it's time we give their opinions all the consideration they deserve.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Respecting liberty will still work

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 17, 2020)

The world's a bit crazy. Not as bad here as in other places, but we see the effects of those crazy paces even here. Pandemics, riots, gangs of trespassers setting up their own governments... what's next? A volcano spewing out zombies?

Whatever happens next, you can rest assured that respecting liberty will still work. It always does. It would even work against the volcano zombie invasion.

No matter how crazy the world gets, you don't have to be crazy with it.

Aren't you glad to know we had the cure for Covid-19 the whole time? Who knew all it would take to solve the pandemic were riots? Oh, sure, some has-beens are trying to keep the pandemic panic alive. Few people are still listening to them. Their fifteen minutes of fame was over before they were ready. Maybe they'll be happy if the virus comes back for round two this Fall.

Speaking of riots, don't confuse the riots with the peaceful protests. They aren't the same thing and didn't involve the same people. They only happened alongside the protests because parasites saw their chance to make trouble and latched onto an important issue. It seems to have ended when the protesters realized most of us were already on their side, but the rioters were driving away support.

Then the rioters became squatters taking over property they didn't own. Much of the national mainstream media misidentified them as "anarchists". Will they be calling horses "dolphins" next? It would be as inaccurate.

They aren't the only ones who think of socialistic nihilists as "anarchists". This is what they've been taught. Yet, anarchy only means you accept no human master. It doesn't mean chaos, theft, destruction, or aggression. Those who seek to misinform you never define things correctly when a scary lie works better for their purposes.

How can you know the squatters aren't anarchists? They set up a political government in the stolen territory-- this is not "anarchist" by definition. Anarchists wouldn't set up political institutions, nor do ethical anarchists steal property from others. I know this from personal experience.

What's a person to do?

Liberty, which is freedom tempered with responsibility, could solve all these problems to the extent they can be solved. Exercise your freedom to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't violate the equal and identical rights of any other person. There's no better way to live among others. Try it and I think you'll agree.

-
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com

Freedom is subjective

If you live in a cage, eat only the slugs and rats you can catch, wrap yourself in newspapers the wind blows in (when the wind brings you newspaper), sit in your own waste, and totally rely on someone else to decide everything that happens to you, and this is exactly how you want to live, you are completely free.

It's not the life I would choose. I wouldn't be free in that situation. But freedom is doing what you want so whether you are free or not depends only on what you want.

Many people are free in a police state. They don't want liberty because the responsibility scares them, or they are too lazy to handle it. This is why they crow and celebrate "freedom" while smarter people look at them in stunned silence, wondering what they've been smoking. But, by their measure, they are free.

So they keep v*ting. They keep supporting cops. They don't mind "taxation" and legislation-- at least in concept. They are OK with anti-gun legislation and policies. They don't think about the licenses and permits they are told they must rent. They don't care about their privacy because they've been convinced that as long as they have nothing to hide privacy doesn't matter. All those liberty violations are fine with them-- they are living the way they want to, so they are free. And they will do whatever it takes to prevent changes they don't want.

Maybe you can convince them to be unhappy in their chains, but maybe you can't. You may need to leave them behind; leave them fighting for their chains and against those who can't live their way. Your destiny may not involve them.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Masks and oxygen

With all the hysteria over face-masks; those who say masks are starving people of oxygen and those claiming masks can't impede oxygen flow-- and the anger boiling up from both sides-- I decided to do my own experiments.

The argument from the pro-mask cultists is that there is no way the fabric weave of a mask can block the exchange of oxygen or carbon dioxide molecules. They are much too small compared to the weave to be hindered. Which may be true... but I don't believe the flow in and out is instantaneous. This delay does have an effect, which I can feel. The hot, exhaled air lingers long enough to be re-inhaled. Is this a problem?

I bought an oximeter (an over-the-counter unit) right after I was exposed to The Corona. I know wearing a mask causes me to do the face-mask gasp every so often, but is it just due to the heat or due to a lack of oxygen.

I thought I should test this for myself (and for you). So, I did.

Without a face mask, my %SpO2-- oxygen saturation percentage-- runs between 95 and 96 rather regularly. After a few minutes of wearing a mask (an actual face mask and a silk bandana were used separately with the same result), that drops to 93-94. Not a huge difference, but a difference. After a couple of minutes of this I do the face-mask gasp and bring my oxygen back up to maskless levels, but it won't stay there.

Is this really due to the mask? I don't know. Here are some alternative hypotheses...

Maybe I breathe differently while wearing a mask; shallower or less frequent breaths.
Maybe I am too self-conscious of my breathing while wearing a mask.
Maybe the effect is due to the heat build-up.
Maybe this was a fluke and a coincidence that my %SpO2 fell a little just at the time I was wearing the masks.
Maybe my bias skewed the results.
Maybe it was magic, elves, or faeries.
Maybe there's more than one cause.

It seems to me, the claim that masks can't reduce your oxygen levels has been falsified. It's not a big difference, and maybe not enough of a difference to even notice or cause harm. But there was a difference. I now believe all of those saying it can't happen are either lying or are mistaken.

Don't trust me; do your own tests. Listen to your own body.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.

YOU get to decide if I get paid.

I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

"Why have masks been politicized?"

How amused are you over the karens whining about masks and the coronavirus having become politicized? How clueless can someone be?

They politicized it by getting government involved-- forbidding and mandating things-- and then when things don't go exactly their way on every tiny issue they get upset about it being politicized. Looking to shift the blame elsewhere.

It's as though they don't understand what they are talking about.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

Opinions and "opinions"

On Twitter and elsewhere, I see people who express opinions I disagree with. Sometimes opinions I disagree with very strongly. But opinions based on credible information which they interpret in a way I believe is wrong.

I see other people expressing opinions I'm certain are based on fake news, lies, emotionalism, and delusions.

Guess which people I take more seriously.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.