开云体育

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/everything-is-broken —

Nothing at all. WE WON! WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT! GET OUT! — On Jan 19, 2021, at 08:06, Ed Lomas <relomas2@...> wrote: ?Okay, we're just going to do everything liberals have dreamed if in one day without regard to the other party because the Democrats have a two vote mahority in thr House and a one vote majority in the Senate. ....and we're going to unite the country while completely ignoring the concerns of the other half. What's wrong with that plan? Ed https://apnews.com/article/22de07d331169cee43885d671f7f9323

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-new-domestic-war-on-terror-is

Why Trump Lost ... but almost won by Andrew E. Busch Jan 20, 2021 In the wake of the presidential election half of our divided nation asked, incredulously: how did Donald Trump lose? Equally incredulously, the other half asked: how could he have almost won? Joe Biden’s victory will not change the Democratic and Republican parties’ basic dilemmas. For Democrats, the “fundamental transformation” of America promised by Barack Obama is still far from electorally secure. For their part, Republicans haven’t found a way to appeal to a majority of voters—even had Trump won the Electoral College, no fraud claims could have erased Biden’s 7 million national-vote lead. Why Trump Lost Granted, the election polls’ repeated underestimating of the Trump vote suggests the possibility of “shy Trump voters.” It’s also possible (though not certain) that job approval polls similarly underestimated Trump’s support throughout his presidency. But it is important not to exaggerate the significance of this effect. Real Clear Politics election polling averaged a Biden lead of 7.2% on Election Day. The end result was a national Biden lead of 4.5%. If one incorporates a similar effect to Trump’s approval ratings from the beginning of his presidency through election day he would still be the most consistently unpopular president since polling began. Most presidents have experienced lows; many have been in the low 40s a year before being re-elected. No one has spent their entire presidency there.Trump’s defeat should not have surprised anyone. It is a truism of presidential elections that, when an incumbent runs for re-election, the election is largely a referendum on the incumbent. This incumbent was the most consistently unpopular president since polling began. According to presidential job approval surveys, fewer than 40% of Americans approved of Trump’s performance for most of his first year in office, and fewer than 45% for most of the remainder of his presidency. The Real Clear Politics approval average showed him reaching a high of 47% after rallying the country to confront COVID-19 in late March 2020, before falling again. His approval ratings were “underwater”—the number approving outnumbered by the number disapproving—from January 27, 2017 for the remainder of his presidency. The remarkable stability of Trump’s (low) approval ratings was matched by a remarkable stability in Biden’s lead over Trump since mid-2019 when pollsters began regularly asking questions about head-to-head matchups. Biden led by about five percentage points for over a year until building an even larger lead in early October. Some of that lead at the end of the race was clearly dubious, and may have been before. But, again, probably not enough to erase it. Then there were the circumstances in the country, which resembled other times incumbents were defeated. Historically, it is difficult to beat an elected incumbent—it usually requires a conflation of difficulties that produce not just hardship but a sense of national unravelling. The last losing incumbent was George H.W. Bush, who in 1992 faced a recession, the Rodney King riots, and a mostly positive—but fatal to Bush—sense that the world had changed in ways that required adjustment. Before Bush the last losing incumbent was Jimmy Carter, who in 1980 faced recession, inflation, high interest rates, riots in Miami, oil shortages, and simultaneous foreign crises, including the humiliating hostage crisis in Iran. Before Carter there was Herbert Hoover, who had to contend with the Great Depression, increasingly severe social unravelling, and the disorder surrounding the Bonus Army. (Gerald Ford, who came between Hoover and Carter, was not a comparable case, having not been elected to the presidency initially, but he also faced his share of outsized difficulties, most notably the backlash to Watergate.) Trump faced COVID, a deadly crisis of international scope that almost no democracy handled well, a depression-like economic plunge associated with the virus and the draconian lockdowns, and the most widespread and destructi

https://www.nejm.org/covid-vaccine/faq

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9170237/Protesters-gather-damage-Democratic-headquarters-Oregon.html Another mostly-peaceful demonstration by the far left.

1. Based on the responses from last week - define insurrection Rising and revolt 2. Did you watch the inauguration? Just a part. 3. Do you think Biden will survive his first year as president? The first or second year he will survive, but I'm not sure about the last two since he has showed signs of senility. 4. What do you think the US unemployment rate will be in one year? It might increase by 3 % or so due to the economic impact caused by the pandemic. 5. Do you think people are too dependent on their cell phones? Yes Amy

// the perversely-named 'smart motorways' // It seems to be the way of governments in modern “democracies” that “experts” alone should rule, with perhaps a little nominal public consultation, but that probably only because some rule or law requires it. The imposition described and discussed in this article is a small, but deadly, example; the imposition imposed throughout the world in March, with no public input whatever, is an example large enough to horrify the gods. ? ‘Smart’ motorways are an accident waiting to happen Mary Dejevsky If I could wave a wand and reverse just one government policy it would be the expansion of so-called 'smart motorways' in the face of what seems the iron determination of the Department for Transport to press ahead with them. These are motorways where the hard shoulder is incorporated into the motorway to create an extra lane – a loss supposedly compensated for with periodic refuges for breakdowns. If you wondered why stretches of the M4 are shut most weekends for works, this is what they are doing. The consequences of such supposed 'improvements' can be lethal. The latest evidence comes from a Sheffield inquest, where the coroner, David Urpeth, ruled that two people who were mown down by a lorry on the M1 after stopping to exchange details following an accident were unlawfully killed. While he said that the primary cause of death had been the carelessness of the lorry driver, the lack of a hard shoulder had 'contributed to this tragedy'. He said he would be writing to the Transport Secretary to ask for a review, saying: 'I believe smart motorways, as things stand, present an ongoing risk of deaths.' Mr Urpeth is far from the first person to use his official platform to cast doubt on the safety of 'smart motorways'. This time last year, the head of the Police Federation of England and Wales, John Apter, described them as ‘death-traps’ that ‘put lives at risk'. He was speaking the day after a BBC Panorama programme had discovered – via a Freedom of Information request – that 38 people had been killed on smart motorways over the previous five years; on one stretch alone of the M25 around London, the removal of the hard shoulder had resulted in a near 20-fold increase in near-misses. A survey found that only nine per cent of drivers felt safe while using them. I am not surprised. One reason why I feel so strongly about the perversely-named 'smart motorways' is that I would almost certainly not be writing this if the M20 between London and the Channel Tunnel had been among the early examples of the genre. Almost exactly four years ago, I was driving from London towards Ashford, when an Italian-registered lorry pulled out in front of me with no indication, tossing my car in the direction of the hard shoulder. In these sorts of accidents, apparently, one of two things can happen: your car can be thrown to the right, into the path of speeding traffic or the central barrier, in which case your chances or not good. Or, as in my case, you can be thrown to the left, in which case – if you are lucky, if your steering still works, and the cars behind brake in time – you have a chance of ending up on the hard shoulder. And that is what happened: a badly damaged car, a lot of laminated glass all over, but neither my husband nor I injured. According to the receptionist at the hotel where we spent the night, accidents like this are a routine occurrence – not helped on the Channel routes by the number of foreign lorries with mirrors either misplaced or unheeded by their drivers. It should not need to be said that anyone involved in this sort, or indeed any sort, of accident on a 'smart motorway' is going to be very fortunate indeed to land at the very place where the powers-that-be have decided to place a refuge. You might be able to do that if you break down, but it is almost impossible if you have been struck by another vehicle. And if you cannot make it to a refuge, you are essentially immobile on a standard motorway lane. Whether you are in or out of your car as the next lorry thunders towards you – as

Originally published by Diario della crisi. Translated by D. Alan Dean. Written by Giorgio Agamben. Read many other pieces written by Giorgio Agamben, here. As we foresaw they would, university lessons next year will be held online [in English]. What was evident to careful observers — namely, that the so-called pandemic would be used as a pretext for the increasingly pervasive diffusion of digital technologies — is being duly realized. We are not so much interested here in the consequent transformation of teaching, in which the element of physical presence (always so important in the relationship between students and teachers) disappears definitively, as we are in the disappearance of group discussion in seminars, which was the liveliest part of instruction. Part of the technological barbarism that we are currently living through is the cancellation from life of any experience of the senses as well as the loss of the gaze, permanently imprisoned in a spectral screen. Much more decisive in what is taking place is something that, significantly, is not spoken of at all: namely, the end of being a student [studentato, studenthood] as a form of life. Universities were born in Europe from student associations — universitates — and they owe their name to them. To be a student entailed first of all a form of life in which studying and listening to lectures were certainly decisive features, but no less important were encounters and constant exchanges with other scholarii, who often came from remote places and who gathered together according to their place of origin in nationes. This form of life evolved in various ways over the centuries, but, from the clerici vagantes of the Middle Ages to the student movements of the twentieth century, the social dimension of the phenomenon remained constant. Anyone who has taught in a university classroom knows well how, in front of one’s very eyes, friendships are made, and, according to their cultural and political interests, small study and research groups are formed that continue even after classes have ended. All this, which has lasted for almost ten centuries, now ends forever. Students will no longer live in the cities where their universities are located. Instead, they will listen to lectures closed up in their rooms and sometimes separated by hundreds of kilometers from those who were formerly their classmates. Small cities that were once prestigious university towns will see their communities of students, who frequently made up the most lively part, disappear from their streets. About every social phenomenon that dies it can be said that, in a certain sense, it deserved its end; it is certain that our universities reached such a degree of corruption and specialist ignorance that it isn’t possible to mourn them, and the form of life of students, consequently, has been equally impoverished. Two points, however, should remain firm: 1. Professors who agree — as they are doing en masse — to submit to the new dictatorship of telematics and to hold their courses only online are the perfect equivalent of the university teachers who in 1931 swore allegiance to the Fascist regime. As happened then, it is likely that only fifteen out of a thousand will refuse, but their names will surely be remembered alongside those of the fifteen who did not take the oath. 2. Students who truly love to study will have to refuse to enroll in universities transformed in this way, and, as in the beginning, constitute themselves in new universitates, only within which, in the face of technological barbarism, the word of the past might remain alive and something like a new culture be born — if it will be born. —May 23rd, 2020 Giorgio Agamben —

https://lockdownsceptics.org/challenging-covids-new-opportunists/ —

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/putting-the-cost-of-covid-19-in-perspective/ —

Okay, we're just going to do everything liberals have dreamed if in one day without regard to the other party because the Democrats have a two vote mahority in thr House and a one vote majority in the Senate. ....and we're going to unite the country while completely ignoring the concerns of the other half. What's wrong with that plan? Ed https://apnews.com/article/22de07d331169cee43885d671f7f9323

But he’s a Democrat, no? The party is much more important here than old Uncle Joe. He’s in there because his big smile made a nice election poster. If the party had put Ms Harris at the top of the ticket, they might well have lost. As it was, they had a close call. Now Joe will go to meetings and go wherever else he’s guided. Ms H waits in the wings. — On Jan 19, 2021, at 10:42, Ed Lomas <relomas2@...> wrote: ?Repeat that tomorrow after you see all his executive orders prepared by the party that he signs to fill their agenda. By the way, Trump isn’t a conservative, which is interesting because of the amount of hatred that he’s stirred up from the left. Both Trump and Biden play to their crowd; neither has strong convictions. A few years ago, Biden was despised by women for his treatment of Anita Hill during Clarence Thomas’ nomination hearings. He was despised by the black community for his support for a tough law that resulted in millions of black men getting thrown in prison. But since he was Obama’s VP all has been forgiven. It’s just a matter time before he screws up, as Obama put it in a coarser way, despite the party propping him up. Ed On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, a1thighmaster <thighmaster@...> wrote: Ed, You're dreaming. Biden is not a liberal. Aloha, Celeste Rogers Chair and Editor Mensa Hawai'i On 1/19/2021 3:06 AM, Ed Lomas wrote: Okay, we're just going to do everything liberals have dreamed if in one day without regard to the other party because the Democrats have a two vote mahority in thr House and a one vote majority in the Senate. ....and we're going to unite the country while completely ignoring the concerns of the other half. What's wrong with that plan? Ed https://apnews.com/article/22de07d331169cee43885d671f7f9323

Lockdown learning is no match for the joys of the classroom Debbie Hayton Debbie Hayton is a teacher and journalist Schools in January are usually full of life, but not this year. At the start of my day, I walk alone down silent corridors to an empty classroom. There are no children lined up outside; the bustle of school life is gone and the only voice I hear is my own. Welcome to lock down learning where my pupils are miles away at the far end of fibre optic cables. Teachers like me are doing our best to make it work but, although we are not teaching blind, our vision is so restricted that we might as well be looking at our classes down long cardboard tubes. We never did have eyes in the back of our head, but we had peripheral vision and we are missing it. It was from the corners of our eyes that we noticed the children who were confused or unmotivated or upset. In the years before social distancing, we would get alongside them with encouragement and advice, even as others burst with triumph when their penny dropped. What we did not see, we sensed. But in 2021 the vibrant world of the classroom has been replaced by computer screens that fill our days. Our senses have been numbed as we grapple with Zoom and Teams. We can certainly deliver material and 'respond in the chat', but this is no way to teach. Nor is it any way to learn. My pupils might be picking up knowledge, but how well do they understand it, and how can I know for sure? Assessment is far more than end-of-topic tests; it is ever present in the classroom – 'Are you OK with that, Adam? How about you, Maria?' – and mediated by body language rather than mere words. Activities have been moved online, and, yes, they are better than nothing. But too often they are mere shadows of the real thing. Grey January days lend themselves to physics experiments with candles, lenses and screens. In normal times my classes would arrive to find the lab already filled with candlelight; no words were needed to start those lessons. Part of the joy of teaching is seeing pupils' eyes light up as they learn things for the first time. No matter how good the webcam and internet link, watching a teacher demonstration is not the same thing. But it’s not just the interaction with teachers that pupils are missing out on. Stuck at home, every activity becomes an individual task. Yes, break-out rooms are useful for discussing specific questions, but for group work to work properly, people need to be present. Disembodied images and voices on a screen are a pale imitation. While nobody has yet developed the square eyes that my grandparents warned me about forty years ago, neck aches, backaches and headaches are very real hazards – for pupils and teachers – along with a lack of exercise. At school, moving around from one class to another was an important divider between lessons. It allowed pupils to reflect on what they'd learned and prepare for their next lesson. Now, children can spend their whole day in the same chair. For parents, this can be heart breaking. 'I don't think my daughter realises the enormity of what she's losing out on, even though there are things she is starting to miss, like chatting to her mates about a film she's seen,' Cath Janes, a mum of a 13-year-old schoolgirl from Pontypridd told me. 'I am so proud of her; she's not missed a single lesson and never really complained about homeschooling. But I'm desperate to see her walking into her school again, towards the life any 13 year old should be living. Instead, she is pretty much chained to our kitchen table as the joy of being a teenager drains away.' The school where she should be learning will not be closed forever. But the impact on teenagers like her is enormous. We have all coped – we had to – but the longer this goes on the harder it gets. Children who have been struggling can slip ever further behind, while those who have lapped up the work might not be too keen to ask for enrichment activities. Especially if the alternative is a quick fix of social media in another browser window. The school day evolved for a pur

Requiem For Universities Published 21 January 2021 on "Lockdown Sceptics" by Sinéad Murphy Universities have been dying for some time. As their prospectuses have grown glossier, their gateway buildings more spectacular and their accommodation for students more stunningly luxurious, the Humanities subjects have been gradually hollowed out. Academics’ intellectual work has been streamlined by the auditing procedures of the ‘Research Excellence Framework’ and by growing pressure to bid for outside funding, which is distributed to projects that address a narrow range of approved themes – Sustainability, Ageing, Energy, Inequality… Student achievement has been dumbed down by the inculcation of a thoughtless relativism – Everybody’s different; That’s just my interpretation – and by the annual inflation of grades. The curriculum has begun to be tamed by continual revision – never broad enough, never representative enough – and by the drive for ‘equality and diversity’.And teaching has been marginalized by the heavy requirements that it represent itself on ever proliferating platforms and review itself in endless feedback loops. Universities, in short, have been gradually transforming into what they proudly trumpet as a Safe Space, a space that has been cleared at greatest expense to Humanities subjects, a space in which the slightest risk – that a thought might lead nowhere, that a student might be uninterested, that an idea might offend or that a teacher might really persuade – has been mitigated by so many layers of bureaucratic procedure that most of everyone’s time is spent in wading through them. Safe Space universities have been divesting themselves of real educational content, their plush marketing ploys concealing the decline – of their Humanities subjects at least – into little more than holding patterns for directionless youths. But up until March of last year, there was still some space and time to act as if. To attempt, in the midst of the decline, to teach, to learn, to think, as if it were really possible to do so. Because you could still meet your students, and use the small chance you had to teach them to introduce ideas which they might just be taken by and which you, in the process, might deepen your understanding of. And because students could still meet each other, form friendships, gather together, lift themselves out of the lives they grew up with, if only as a temporary reprieve. It was not much, that is true. And acting as if can too easily collapse into the corruption of an all-out cynicism – quoting Heidegger in the original German to students who are visibly disengaged. But acting as if can also, sometimes, work; the pretence can actually catch on. Two centuries and a half ago, Kant urged us to act as if human beings are rational, convinced that that would eventually make us so; and it did seem to work… for a while, at least. But even the pretence is over now; even acting as if, no longer an option. Safe Space universities have come to their culmination. No space is safer than an empty space. And universities are empty at last. The shell has cracked and fallen away. The university is no more. A couple of weeks ago, following a year’s leave, I stood in a tiny office on the tenth floor of a university tower. From here, all teaching for the coming semester was to be done. Lectures were to be given into the void, recorded for access in a space and at a time of students’ choosing. Hour-long tirades, with only your Panopto reflection for your guide, without even commonplace reference points to scaffold the event – the time of day, the weather outside, the furnishings, quirks in the technology: no experience shared, nothing to bind you to your crowd. Seminars were to be run from here too. These, at least, were to be ‘live’; when it was morning for you, it would be morning for everyone else too. But – open and earnest discussion with students locked up in their family home, sitting on the bed they tossed in as a child? I am told that they turn off their video, sometimes their audio too, attending the class in

Why the Vaccine Distribution Went Badly James B. Meigs February 2021 It was all going too well. The Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed pumped billions into helping private companies develop COVID-19 vaccines in months rather than years. By mid-December two stunningly effective vaccines were approved for use, and tens of millions of doses had already been manufactured. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar predicted that 20 million Americans would be inoculated in “the next several weeks.” You could almost hear the country prepare to breathe a sigh of relief. But then Operation Warp Speed hit a nationwide speed bump. Shipping the vaccine to thousands of distribution points went more slowly than anticipated. And even with doses on hand, health-care organizations, pharmacy chains, and state health officials weren’t initially prepared to administer shots at the hoped-for pace. By the time the New Year’s ball had dropped in Times Square, fewer than 4 million people had been vaccinated. At that rate, it would take years to inoculate the entire U.S. population. The press responded to the news with a mix of dismay and poorly concealed jubilation. “Trump’s rollout of the COVID vaccine is an utter fiasco,” crowed the Los Angeles Times. An “astonishing failure,” echoed a New York Times editorial. You could almost sense their relief; they wouldn’t have to give the departing administration grudging credit for a public-health victory after all. Instead, they labored to uncover any screw-up—no matter how localized or inconsequential—that could be laid on the White House lawn. “We came all this way to let vaccines go bad in the freezer?” the New York Times editorial page asked. The editors then offered a list of vaccine snafus. Some doses were “nearly wasted” when a nursing home ordered too many shots (actually, they were just given to others); a Palo Alto hospital vaccinated a few older administrators before some frontline workers; and in Wisconsin, some 500 doses were deliberately spoiled by a disgruntled pharmacy worker. No doubt if a random nurse had dropped a single syringe, that too would have been scratched up to Trump’s mismanagement. In reality—and despite some setbacks—the U.S. is vaccinating its citizens at a pace almost unmatched in the world. Only China has administered more doses (of largely untested vaccines, it’s worth noting). And only Israel, Bahrain, and the UK have immunized larger percentages of their populations. Still, the bumpy rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines reveals some troubling weaknesses in how the U.S. is handling this health emergency. Some of these concerns can be blamed on Trump and his Warp Speed team. But others reveal the frightening ways in which progressive political ideologies have infiltrated our public-health system. While early-20th-century progressives focused relentlessly on health for all—with food- and drug-safety laws, sanitation improvements, and anti-malaria efforts—today’s progressives have a different focus. For too many, the question isn’t how to save the most lives; it’s which lives deserve to be saved. But first, what went wrong with the vaccine rollout? For one thing, Operation Warp Speed officials seem to have underestimated the difficulties they would face setting up a distribution network for a highly perishable, time-sensitive product. Both approved vaccines must be kept frozen during shipping—at a stunning –70 degrees Fahrenheit in the case of the Pfizer-BioNtech version. Once thawed, the Pfizer vaccine can be kept under normal refrigeration for five days before expiring. Moderna’s vaccine lasts 30 days. Maintaining that “cold chain” is a challenge. In the frozen-food business, companies plan for a standard 2 percent spoilage rate, though losses of up to 5 percent are common, according to an industry expert I talked to. Nothing close to those levels of spoilage has been reported so far in the distribution of COVID vaccines. But cold-chain issues have complicated matters. For example, some batches of the Moderna vaccine allocated to a Texas medical center were

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/california-ethnic-studies-curriculum

Florida residents report sightings of massive ‘skunk ape’ as Oklahoma Rep pitches hunting season for ‘Bigfoot’ January 28, 2021 | Jon Dougherty | Print Article Share Tweet Telegram LinkedIn Email Print Residents in Florida have shared stories about a giant “Skunk Ape” — some say it’s the state’s version of “Bigfoot” or “Sasquatch” — for years, and a new episode of Fox Nation’s “Monsters Across America” released this week examined the phenomenon. “You could see that it was big,” Mike Falconer, a native of Sarasota, told Fox Nation’s Kacie McDonald as he recalled his encounter with the Skunk Ape in 2013, which he claimed he saw in a field near a road. 1:01 / 48:26 “And when I say big, I don’t mean eight foot tall. You could just tell it was massive [in size] and thickness – just large,” Falconer added. The sighting was certainly a surprise to Falconer, but he also said he was stunned by what happened after he posted pictures of his encounter online. “My office started getting phone calls, people asking for me,” he remembers. “Within a week, I had five Bigfoot hunters from all over the country staying at my house.” He went on to tell McDonald that since first spotting the large creature, he has gone back “every single day” to the same area searching for any evidence of it existing, including footprints. Dave Shealy, a cryptozoologist with the Skunk Ape Research Center, told Fox Nation that he’s been tracking the creatures in the Everglades since he was a fifth-grader. Shealy said when he was 10 years old he saw a “hairy” and “pretty stocky” creature he believes was about seven feet tall standing in tall grass. He noted that whatever it was, it wasn’t as big as Bigfoot, another alleged creature that is native to the Pacific Northwest. “But they don’t really need to maintain the bodyweight down here” in Florida,’ Shealy said. “We don’t have long winters. So the fact that a Bigfoot-type animal would be smaller is very realistic.” After the sighting, Shealy’s interest was piqued, leading him to spend the next 30 years looking for “Skunk Apes.” He was “talking to people, out in the woods, finding tracks,” he told Fox Nation. “So I knew something was there.” Shealy captured “compelling” video of a “Skunk Ape” in the early 2000s, which, he adds, has never been dispelled. The legend of Florida’s ‘Skunk Ape” has been around for decades: Meanwhile, a state lawmaker in Oklahoma is pushing to create a ‘hunting season’ of sorts for Bigfoot-like creatures, though the goal, he says, is not to mount a trophy on someone’s wall. “I want to be really clear that we are not going to kill Bigfoot,” said Rep. Justin Humphrey, a Republican, in an interview with The Oklahoman. “We are going to trap a live Bigfoot. We are not promoting killing Bigfoot. We are promoting hunting Bigfoot, trying to find evidence of Bigfoot.” His legislation does not specify that, however. According to the text of the bill, it instructs the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission to develop rules, licensing fees, and dates “establishing a big foot (sic) hunting season.” Humphrey added in an interview with NBC affiliate KFOR that he would work with the commission on the rules, which will include a $25,000 bounty for anyone who captures a live creature. That said, officials with the commission did not seem to share Humphrey’s enthusiasm. “We use science-driven research, and we don’t recognize Bigfoot in the state of Oklahoma,” Micah Holmes of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation told ABC affiliate KOCO. Nevertheless, Humphrey said the scheme would also be a tourism draw. “Having a license and a tag would give people a way to prove they participated in the hunt,” he told KFOR. “Again, the overall goal is to get people to our area to enjoy the natural beauty and to have a great time, and if they find Bigfoot while they’re at it, well hey, that’s just an even bigger prize.” Author Recent Posts