heading


Covering Platte County, Missouri Weekly Since 1865

Legal Notices
The official Platte County Legal Newspaper! Platte
County Foreclosures

Between the Lines
by Ivan Foley

The Rambling Moron
by Chris Kamler

The Right Stuff
by James Thomas i

Straight from Stigall
by Chris Stigall

Parallax Look
by Brian Kubickis

KC Confidential
by Hearne Christopher

Off the Couch
by Greg Hall

Classifieds

Advertising

Subscriptions


Weekly publication dates are Thursdays

252 Main Street0
P
P.O. Box 410
Platte City, Missouri 64079
816-858-0363

Fax :816-858-2313

TO CONTACT US
by email
Click Here!
or
by phone
816.858.0363


Contact Lawmakers
by Congress
Click here to:
Find Federal Officials &
Find State Officials


 
Kubicki

Parallax logo

by Brian Kubicki
Landmark columnist



 

 

 

HYDROGEN BATTERY COULD ALLOW I-PHONE TO RUN FOR DAYS OR WEEKS
Posted 12/29/11

•Merry Christmas to all my fantastically intelligent readers, and I hope you have a happy and safe New Year celebration.

•2012 is going to be a very important year in politics. We are going to select the next President in about 10 months' time and that election is going to be the one that sets the course of the United States economy for the coming 4 -5 years.

There are basically going to be two possible choices this time around, and they couldn't be more distinct from each other.

Option One, Obama and the Democrats course, involves growing government even bigger, going into even greater debt, and saddling the already over-burdened energy-burners in our economy with the cost.

Option Two, the Republican (and hopefully the conservatives will call the shots in that tent) course, involves reducing the size and scope of government to be more in-line with what the U.S. Constitution established when the states created the Federal Government. Historically, this option is followed by a tremendous explosion of injection of privately-controlled capital into the free market, which in-turn spurs employment in the private sector and wealth and revenue growth held by millions of Americans.

This will be the most easy-to-decide election in a long, long time.

•The loony story of the past week has to be the following:
www.SustainableBusiness.com reports the first large scale carbon capture project is underway. This is a huge carbon sequestration project which essentially involves pumping carbon dioxide (CO2) underground, presumably so it won't warm the earth's environment, which of course we know is just plain a waste of time and resources because the sun is warming and cooling the planet. CO2 concentrations go up and down in response to temperature changes. They don't cause them.

An estimated 1,000 metric tons a day are being sequestered now, and over the next three years, over a million tons will be stored 7000 feet underground. The site has room for up to 15 billion metric tons of liquefied CO2.

To add some common sense scale to that, the earth's atmosphere has about 3100 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Most of that comes from natural sources, that is to say sources that are not man. (By the way, what is man if not “natural?” Where do they think we came from anyway?) Man produces about 3% of all the carbon dioxide on the planet.

Back to the common sense part – a gigaton amounts to 1 x 10 to the 9th power, or 1,000,000,000 tons. The earth has 3,100,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide. This site is going to theoretically hold 15 billion or 15,000,000,000 tons (It will never reach that capacity because conservatives are going to yank funding for this nonsense as soon as they get control of the White House). Therefore, barely one-two-hundredth of all the carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere, and is going to stay there for a very long time.

By the way, has anybody done any study on the effect of all this carbon dioxide on subterranean life? Perhaps pumping all this pressurized liquefied gas underground is going to mess with plate tectonics and cause a major earthquake somewhere.

"We fully believe it will be safe," officials claim. "We already have excellent baseline environmental data." One of the most extensive environmental monitoring programs in the world is being employed by Schlumberger Carbon Services.

Idiots!

•And for some positive news, Apple has plans to use hydrogen in batteries allowing iPhones and iPods to hold their charge for weeks.

The company hopes to use hydrogen cells to produce lighter batteries that could last for weeks. The company has submitted applications for patents to create new energy sources for their products.

The filings that the company submitted seem to have rather bold promises of allowing electronics to run for days or weeks without having to be recharged.

Products: The new energy sources would be used for many or all Apple products.
By switching from standard batteries which use precious Lithium metal which is in short supply, to hydrogen, the by-products of the new technology would only be water and electrical energy.

The idea of hydrogen fuel technology isn't new, but this is the clearest indication of exactly what the company intends to do to improve users experiences with the iPod or iPhone.

So, at least somebody is trying something on the energy from that doesn't involve the nonsense of windmills or solar panels.

(Get a no-nonsense Parallax Look each week right here. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


ATTORNEY GENERAL NEEDS TO RESIGN OR BE FIRED

Posted 12/23/11

*Christmas Week…what to cover…what to talk about. . .

Why change horses in midstream? Full steam ahead!

Attorney General Eric Holder needs to be fired, or resign at the least. Evidence?

They are trying to, “paint him and other department figures in the worst possible light” as Holder himself said. Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we're both African-American.”

Yes, you read it…last weekend in the New York Times. Eric Holder played the race card. Funny, but I don't remember John Ashcroft ever complaining that his race played a role in the motivations of his opposition.

*U.S Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood last week announced federal guidance to expressly prohibit texting by drivers of commercial vehicles such as large trucks and buses. The prohibition is effective immediately and is the latest in a series of actions taken by the department to combat distracted driving since the secretary convened a national summit on the issue last September.

Their justification?

"Our regulations will help prevent unsafe activity within the cab,” said Anne Ferro, administrator for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). “We want to make it crystal clear to operators and their employers that texting while driving is the type of unsafe activity that these regulations are intended to prohibit.”

FMCSA research shows that drivers who send and receive text messages take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of every 6 seconds while texting. At 55 miles per hour, this means that the driver is traveling the length of a football field, including the end zones, without looking at the road. Drivers who text while driving are more than 20 times more likely to get in an accident than non-distracted drivers.

Because of the safety risks associated with the use of electronic devices while driving, FMCSA is also working on additional regulatory measures that will be announced in the coming months.

During the September 2009 Distracted Driving Summit, the secretary announced the department's plan to pursue this regulatory action, as well as rulemakings to reduce the risks posed by distracted driving. President Obama also signed an executive order directing federal employees not to engage in text messaging while driving government-owned vehicles or with government-owned equipment.

So, if we are not allowed to be on the phone or text in our cars, are police and ambulance and firemen not going to be allowed to be on the radio in their vehicles?

That's not safe either, is it?

*Well apparently, we have been given a reprieve from the evil doings of Thomas Edison, the Greatest Inventor of the 20th Century.

The forces of science and rationalism won a big victory in Congress this week over superstition and religious intolerance, but somehow I doubt the American Civil Liberties Union is celebrating.

Here's the headline: “Congress overturns incandescent light bulb ban.”

That's right. The ban on 100-watt incandescent Thomas Edison light bulbs, which was supposed to begin Jan. 1, has apparently been put off. Congress has denied the green fundamentalists any funds to impose their economic Jihad on the rest of us infidels who have figured out that global warming is a scam.

Is that blasphemy? It seems so, since Republicans and Democrats alike have embraced this strange cult.

Fanatical believers engaged in odd rituals like sorting out their trash, depositing each type in a different bin…paper, plastic, glass, and aluminum. Like all cults, which is what they really are, Enviros have no tolerance for other, more serious religions, because they believe in global warming, it therefore must be true, and anyone opposing them must be shunned.

Their Book of Revelation is Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth.” What they will never acknowledge is that the real inconvenient truth is that the date of the apocalypse keeps getting moved back.

Northern Illinois is instituting the state's Electronic Products Recycling and Reuse Act, which becomes fully effective in January 2012. The act bans virtually all e-waste from landfills expanding on the measure passed in 2008 which outlawed computers, monitors, televisions and printers from landfills.

The new law extends the ban to other electronics, including keyboards, portable music devices, scanners, video game consoles and other items.

“The harmful toxins in these devices are harmful to our air and water,” said Lori Gummow, KNIB executive director. “Many of these items can be repurposed for reuse; it is important to remember that it is irresponsible to simply dump them into our landfills.”

These people are nuts…all of them.

We have plenty of land available for landfills. There is no shortage of landfill space. We made computers from resources gained from the earth. Putting them in a landfill is like sending them home.

Wake up!

(There is no shortage of Parallax Looks. Get one each week right here and follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


KEEP SCIENCE SEPARATE FROM POLITICS

Posted 12/17/11

This column will serve as an exhibition for why politics should never be used in science. Science is discovery and exploration. It is intended to answer basic life questions like, “Why are we here?” “How do certain things work?” and “Where did we come from?” Politics is figuring out what is to be done with the money taken from us through taxation, and how much should actually be taken. Those are two very different things. Combining the two is just wrong, as these factual examples will illustrate.

The Voltsel
Did you catch this on The Drudge Report? The Chevy Volt is said to be “headed down the Edsel Highway.” The Wall Street Journal indicated that GM is looking down the barrel of a thorough investigation into why the batteries on several Chevrolet Volt cars caught fire in recent months. Analysts fear the news potentially harming sales of the electric vehicle, which given the already anemic sales figures would be akin to convincing Todd Haley to buy a Chiefs Season Ticket.

GM has said a coolant leak is behind the problem, which caused three of the Volt's lithium-ion batteries to spark or catch fire days or weeks after being damaged in crash tests. GM has said the battery is safe and that the company likely can fix the problem without a major redesign.

But the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration isn't sure that explanation is correct. Meanwhile, GM dealers face a massive PR fallout from the fires. Already, two dozen Volt owners have taken up GM's offer to buy back their vehicles, and they are complaining to GM about the impact on business, worried that they won't be able to sell the cars, which cost $41,000.

Why the United States Should Exit the UN Post-Haste
Bureaucrats at the UN Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa have indicated plans for a truly imbecilic climate change treaty, under which the west would be mandated to respect “the rights of Mother Earth” by paying a climate debt which would act essentially as a slush fund for bankrolling an all-powerful world government.

Even after the near mortal wounds to the movement's credibility in the aftermath of Climategate 2.0 (which I outlined for you a couple of weeks ago here), the monstrous bureaucracy behind this bogus movement continues to lumber forward like a zombie trying to dance The Charleston.

The treaty calls for the west to achieve a 50% carbon dioxide emissions reduction within the next eight years, a feat that would completely bankrupt the global economy and spark a new great depression, as well as a “more than 100%” reduction by 2050. You would have to literally eliminate billions of humans to prevent them from exhaling carbon dioxide. (Wait a minute – how many people have been killed through abortion and the malaria resurgence thanks to the U.S. government ban on DDT?)

The text of the proposed treaty calls for a 2 degree Celsius drop in global temperatures, which would herald a new ice age.

The reduction in CO2 concentration the text calls for would actually begin to kill all plant life and trees on the planet because they need levels of carbon dioxide above 210 ppmv to survive.

Environmental enforcement arms of the UN would be given the power of a global government in the name of fighting climate change. The draft calls for creation of a global centralization of political, economic and environmental power in the hands of the UN secretariat, an un-elected position.

That's not very democratic.

And They're Talking About Warming?
Bloomberg reports, a wind turbine on a “wind farm” in Scotland caught fire in high storm winds recently.

The nacelle, the case containing the wind turbine's power- generating components, caught fire at the Ardrossan wind farm in Ayrshire, Scotland, Infinis, the turbine manufacturer, indicated in a statement late last night. The fire extinguished itself before firefighters arrived and no one was injured. The cause of the blaze is not yet known.
Wind speeds of as much as 165 miles per hour were recorded the day of the fire. Staff will typically vacate wind farms when wind speeds exceed 55 mph and no one was present on site at the time.

Electric cars on fire, UN global green police, and wind turbines torching the Highlands?

Let's keep our science separate from our politics, thank you.

(Watch Brian separate science from politics at Twitter.com/bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


NEWT HAS NEVER STABBED FELLOW REPUBLICANS IN THE BACK

Posted 12/10/11

*Now that Newt Gingrich seems to be gaining in favorability for the Republican nomination for president, I find myself trying to envision whether he actually fits in the role I envision for someone I am going to vote for in November 2012.

I could do the same thing for an empty Pringles tube, 'cause I'd vote for that over the current occupant of the White House…but I digress.

I did the same thing in 2007-08 as John McCain's nomination appeared to be gaining steam. As a result of that effort, I was left with a very bad taste in my mouth, a lackadaisical attitude for the Republican Party's chances in the coming election, and by virtue of the election results, I definitely wasn't alone.

It's different this time around. Newt has similarities to McCain in his physical appearance and age and political experience. But there's one main difference between the two. Newt hasn't stabbed his fellow Republicans in the back while he was in office. McCain seemed to make that his calling card.

Further to that point, I tried to recall a time when Gingrich did anything contrary to conservatism legislatively, while in elected office. Now, he certainly has a record of soiling the morning Cheerios of conservatives committed while out of office. His venomous betrayal of conservatism by appearing in a pro-global warming commercial with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi floats to the top first and foremost. His open criticism of Congressman Paul Ryan over Ryan's budget proposal as “social engineering from the right” almost got Newt drawn-and-quartered.

I have said previously that Newt's problem is he thinks he is smart enough to re-configure conservative principles. If he leaves that penchant in the basement of this campaign, he just might have a chance.

But I still say it's too early in the process for any one candidate to pull away from the pack.

*Have you ever noticed people in the media always crying about the federal government not getting anything done? They sneer when they call it what it is – gridlock. Neither side gets their agenda implemented and mostly, legislation stalls in one branch or another. Don't they realize that divided government – different parties holding control over the three branches of government with no single party having total power, it exactly what the American voters wanted from their government this time around? If everything government does is wrong, which has been the case from 2008-10, doing nothing is a decided improvement. I like gridlock in government this time around. Remember, if they're not doing anything, they're not spending your money.

*Now here's some good news from the North! Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent says Canada will withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol by the end of 2012.
Speaking in a teleconference from an international climate-change summit in South Africa, Mr. Kent said Canada will not make a second commitment to Kyoto, which would run from 2013 to 2017.

Jean Chrétien's liberal government signed onto Kyoto in 1998, but took little action to meet Canada's targets to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

The conservatives also ignored Kyoto after they came to power in 2006.

The Kyoto accord requires countries to make strict cuts to their greenhouse-gas emissions, but the Tories say making those reductions would hurt the economy.
The world's most productive economies – the United States, China and India – are not part of Kyoto and the conservatives that don't yet know that all of this is nonsense argue that any agreement that does not include the big economies is meaningless.

*As for this BCS controversy, for those that are claiming that having a better, more competitive match-up in a lesser bowl game, like Kansas State and Arkansas do in facing each other in the non-BCS Cotton Bowl in Dallas, consider the following facts:
In terms of the bowl game 2011-12 projected payouts, the AT&T Cotton Bowl pays the involved teams $7,250,000 to take back to their conferences after travel expenses are paid.

Not bad, huh?

The five BCS bowls get to split (in uneven distributions) an estimated $181 million. That runs down to something like $15 million per team, $10-$12 million more than K-State or Arkansas will take back to their conferences. So what exactly did double-digit ranked Michigan and Virginia Tech do to earn $10 million more each than Top 10 ranked Arkansas and Kansas State?

Get back to me when you figure that out.

(Figure out Parallax Look each week and follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)


WANT SAFE DRIVING? DON'T BUY AN ELECTRIC CAR

Posted 12/1/11

This week's, “I Told You So” returns to the Government Motors (GM) Chevy Volt electric car.

Bloomberg reported last week that additional cars have caught fire resulting from crash-test-induced lithium-ion battery punctures. The car maker is now the subject of a U.S. safety probe after its batteries caught fire in crash tests.

As I mentioned recently, a Volt caught fire three weeks after a side-impact crash test May 12 while parked at a testing center in Wisconsin.

Volt battery packs were damaged in three more tests last week, causing two fires.

The NHTSA said it doesn't know of any crashes outside of testing that have led to battery-related fires in Volts or other cars powered by lithium-ion batteries. Chevy Volt owners whose vehicles have not been in a serious crash don't need to be concerned, the agency said.

Just don't get in a serious crash, I suppose is the best advice they can offer.

It's better just to avoid buying and driving an electric car. How's that for safe driving?
At this stage of Volt marketing, the NHTSA investigation will probably not hurt sales, claim industry analysts. Sales already stink. They can't stink much more.

The car has been on sale for a year as the manufacturer ramps up production.
GM sold 5,003 Volts this year through October. They'll push production to a rate of 60,000 a year starting in January. Of the 60,000 GM plans to build next year, 45,000 are earmarked for the U.S., and the rest will be exported.

*So, now a new batch of 5,000 emails among climate scientists that believe humans are causing global warming have been anonymously released to the public last week. The release has generated a new controversy almost two years after a similar email release culminated in the Climategate scandal.

Of course, all the global warming believers, who also happen to be rampant socialists incidentally, claimed at that time that the emails, which largely communicated that the climate scientists were trying to conceal data that did not support their assertion that man is the primary cause of global warming, were being taken out of context.

This time around, the themes emerging from the emails: are: that prominent scientists are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; the scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry; and many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

An example of a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures:

“I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” Phil Jones, with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

And:

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones in another email.

“I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” Jones strikes again!

The new emails also reveal the scientists' attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes, as the following shows:

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what is left out” of IPCC reports. Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC's most recent climate assessment.

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she thinks she's doing, but it's not helping the cause,” wrote Penn State's Michael Mann in another newly released email.

The “cause?”

How about this doozey…

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary.” --Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

I'm starting to like this Thorne guy.

To review, mankind isn't powerful enough to influence the global climate. This is all about implementation of global socialism and destruction of capitalism, which of course is why you have these Occupy movements around the nation.

(Get your weekly Parallax Look fix right here and throughout the week at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


DAUGHTER CORRECTS THE RECORD ON NEWT'S DIVORCE

Posted 11/25/11

*Europe says drinking water does not prevent dehydration. They do so now by law.
Please make this note in your Environmental Log Books – the European Union has concluded, after a three-year investigation, that producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim that drinking water will forestall dehydration. Violators of the new law will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.

NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 liters per day. But don't let the facts stop you. The European government wants you to know that drinking water will not prevent dehydration.

*So, let's get the record straight on Newt Gingrich.

Remember when everyone re-stated the story about Gingrich informing his wife on her cancer death bed that he would be divorcing her? We all heard the stories.
So, here's the truth:.

From Newt's daughter, “My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive, and often spends time with my family. I am lucky to have such a 'Miracle Mom,' as I titled her in a column this week.

“As for my parents' divorce, I can remember when they told me.

“It was the spring of 1980. I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.

“Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.

“It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won't repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here's what happened: My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested. Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother. She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor. The tumor was benign.

“As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.”

So there…you know the truth.

*You ever notice how people out of politics often refer to “Our Leaders” in referencing governmentally elected leaders? Actress Glenn Close did so in a recent interview, saying that “…we lack eloquent leadership…” among our political leaders. But, are elected politicians really “our leaders?” I would posit that they are nothing more than the arbiters of the money we all set aside for the operation of government, and nothing more.

WE are the true leaders of society. We determine how most of the money is spent in this country. Government has, and should have, a very limited role in that process.

*This one will really trip your trigger:

The Fernald School was the site of the 1946–53 joint experiments by Harvard University and MIT that exposed young male children to tracer doses of radioactive isotopes. Documents obtained in 1994 by the United States Department of Energy revealed the following details:

*The experiment was conducted in part by a research fellow sponsored by the Quaker Oats Company.

*MIT Professor of Nutrition Robert S. Harris led the experiment, which studied the absorption of calcium and iron.

*The boys were encouraged to join a "Science Club", which offered larger portions of food, parties, and trips to Boston Red Sox baseball games.

*The 57 club members ate iron enriched cereals and calcium-enriched milk for breakfast. In order to track absorption, several radioactive calcium tracers were given orally or intravenously.

*Radiation levels in stool and blood samples would serve as dependent variables.

*In another study, 17 subjects received iron supplement shots containing radioisotopes or iron.

*Neither the children nor their parents ever gave adequate informed consent for participation in a scientific study.

*The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, reporting to the United States Department of Energy in 1994, reported on these experiments.

*In 1946, one study exposed seventeen subjects to radioactive iron. The second study, which involved a series of seventeen related sub-experiments, exposed 57 subjects to radioactive calcium between 1950 and 1953. It is clear that the doses involved were low and that it is extremely unlikely that any of the children who were used as subjects were harmed as a consequence. These studies remain morally troubling, however, for several reasons. First, although parents or guardians were asked for their permission to have their children involved in the research, the available evidence suggests that the information provided was, at best, incomplete. Second, there is the question of the fairness of selecting institutionalized children at all, children whose life circumstances were by any standard already heavily burdened.

*In fairness, the highest dose of radiation that any subject was exposed to was 330 millirem, the equivalent of less than one year's background radiation in Denver.

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


 

CHEVY VOLT CATCHES FIRE WEEKS AFTER CRASH

Posted 11/18/11

*Alright, without further ado, let's discuss the elephant in the room: Penn State University child abuse scandal. So much has been said about the horrific allegations and those involved thus far, one has to wonder what can be added at this point? Here are a few thoughts:

It ought to be noted that despite the child sex abuse allegations being unproven at this point, the university was justified in dismissing head coach Joe Paterno. By Paterno's own admission, via the grand jury report, he was told that former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was in a locker room shower with a very young boy, and depending on whose words you believe, Sandusky was either raping the boy or “…fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy…”

With that information, Paterno waited an entire day before taking the allegation to the university athletic director. He never followed up and he never took the allegation to the police. Those established facts were enough to dismiss Paterno.

What did Sandusky's wife know? She is probably the only adult who knew whether Sandusky was capable of such horrific acts.

Sandusky has pled not guilty to the charges, and at least one of the witnesses against him is committed to a nursing facility with dementia, and at least one of his alleged victims is still unknown to the authorities. Can you envision a scenario where a jury acquits Sandusky? Before you tell me to get my head examined for making such a preposterous observation, consider the facts: wealthy and influential accused person, potentially more wealthy and more influential persons involved in related crimes, young and frightened and permanently-scarred victims, a jury from some jurisdiction that doesn't know about media or anything about this case. You know the scenario, because we have seen it again and again in this country. O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Casey Anthony. This joke of a legal system we are mired in benefits people like Jerry Sandusky greatly...and hugely disadvantages victims such as these boys.

I hope it doesn't happen again, but I'm not betting that it won't.

*By the way, did you hear that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said last week that a Chevy Volt electric vehicle underwent a 20 mile-per-hour, side-impact test for its five-star crash safety rating. The crash punctured the Volt's lithium-ion battery, and after more than three weeks of sitting outside, the vehicle and several cars around it caught fire. Fortunately, no one was hurt.

General Motors blames the fire occurred on claims that the NHTSA did not drain the energy from the Volt's battery following the crash, which is a safety step General Motors recommends. NHTSA says they had not been told of the safety protocol.
The finger-pointing begins.

*This one really chaps my hide. Now that the United States Supreme Court has decided to hear the legal challenges to ObamaCare, 74 House Democrats have signed a letter to Clarence Thomas asking the Supreme Court justice to recuse himself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of the national health care overhaul, arguing that his wife's work as a lobbyist creates "the appearance of a conflict of interest."

Many believe the move is nothing more than a ploy to counter Republican demands that Obama-appointed Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself because she served as President Obama's Solicitor General and legal advisor when legal arguments for ObamaCare were being formulated.

Comparing those two situations is patently ridiculous. Clarence Thomas is not answerable for his wife's activities in his work on the Supreme Court. Kagan possibly devised the very legal arguments that are behind the health care law. Of course she should be recused from judging the case. They can't be serious with this claim to recuse Thomas!

Then again, look who signed the letter that the Democrats sent:

The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court Building 1
First Street Northeast
Washington D.C., DC 20543

Dear Justice Thomas:
As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. As members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.

[BLAH…BLAH…BLAH….BLAH….BLAH and the closing…]

We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request.

Sincerely,
ANTHONY D. WEINER
Member of Congress

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


WATER IS A POLITICAL ISSUE, NOT A SCIENTIFIC ONE

Posted 11/11/11

*Have you noticed the phrase, “a high tech lynching” being tossed around a lot as of late? The media has been using it quite a bit in describing the ordeal that Herman Cain is going through in relation to sexual harassment allegations going back a dozen years and more from purported former employees and associates.

For those too young to remember, the actual entire phrase is part of a larger statement made by a Conservative nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, who in his Senate confirmation process some 20+ years ago was faced with sexual harassment claims from a protégé that worked for Thomas many years earlier. For the record, Thomas was ultimately confirmed to the High Court and has served with distinction in the ensuing years.

But something is missing from the original phrase that the ABC/NBC/CBS media world is recounting. The entire phrase that Clarence Thomas used was, “A high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.” Those were Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' exact words. He used those words to describe the character assassination that was being leveled upon him by Democrat Senators Joe Biden (yes, THAT Joe Biden) and Edward Kennedy who were trying their best to keep a Conservative black man from getting placed on the nation's highest court.. But you never hear the “…for uppity blacks…” part when the media is recounting the statement.

Any ideas why they leave out that last part?

*I got a kick out of the woman that came out this week with a graphic description of the harassment she was subjected to by Herman Cain many years ago. But I wasn't entertained so much by her descriptive claims as much as I was by her acknowledgment that she was, “…coming forward to give a face and a voice to those women who cannot, or, for whatever reasons, do not wish to come forward…”
Boy is that a careful lawyer-wording! Might it interest all to realize that those women that had apparently made claims against Herman Cain did end up sealing their silence in discussing the accounts of their supposed encounters with a certain sum of money as settlement? This “whatever reason” is they do not want to be in violation of their confidentiality agreements and they do not want to give up the money they were given in the settlements.

Funny how the media tries to craft this as Cain keeping gags in these ladies' mouths.

*This was most interesting. I read the following in a blog put out by an esteemed (not by me, mind you, but somebody of the Leftie persuasion liked what he thinks generally) environmentalist.

There is enough water in our rivers to quench all thirst AND increase food production.
Water-related conflicts and shortages already abound throughout societies in Africa, Asia and Latin America. But they are completely unnecessary. There actually is more than enough water to sustain food, energy, industrial and environmental needs during the 21st century? According to the report appearing in the peer-reviewed journal, Water International, we have more than enough water, enough to sustainably double food production in the coming decades.

So why is there a perceived crisis of water supply?

The "sleeping giant" of water challenges is not scarcity, argues scientists from the agricultural research group CGIAR's Challenge Program on Water and Food, who spent five years gathering data from 30 countries for the study, but the inefficient and inequitable distribution of water from key rivers such as the Nile, Ganges, Andes, Yellow, Niger and Volta.

“Yes, there is scarcity in certain areas, but our findings show that the problem overall is a failure to make efficient and fair use of the water available in these river basins," says Alain Vidal, director of CGIAR's water and food program in a statement. "This is ultimately a political challenge, not a resource concern.”

So there you go. Water is a political issue and not a scientific one.

Kind of like global warming/climate change/or whatever they are calling the movement these days.

*Congratulations, I think, to the University of Missouri for gaining acceptance to the SEC. If I were a Missouri deep pocketed donor, I’d be ready for the onslaught because the curators are coming with open palms. As ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit said in an interview a couple of weeks ago on the prospects of the Tigers in the SEC, “…get ready to ramp-up your efforts in football. You're going to have to step up to the plate Missouri to compete in the SEC.”

Indeed. I'm gonna miss those old slavers.

(Ramp up each week with a Parallax Look and follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


CONSERVATIVES OUTNUMBER MODERATES

Posted 11/6/11

Have you seen the Gallup polling results on how people describe themselves politically?
In 2011, among Republicans and people who lean in that direction politically, 68% are conservative, 26% are moderate, and 6% are liberal.

Among all adults, those numbers break down as follows: 42% conservative, 37% moderate, and 21% liberal.

Those numbers are up from similar polls taken in 2009.

Given these figures, anyone claiming that the independents, or moderates, are the key group in winning elections are just plain incorrect. The last election in 2008 showed quite clearly than a moderate conservative loses against a liberal, because you have de-energized the largest single group in the election, the conservatives. If they stay home or vote for an alternative party, the conservative candidate loses the election. That's the only guarantee at work.

As I have said all along, the key is to deliver the conservative message with clarity and passion. Independents will go where the lights are brightest – that's why they are moderates.

*Can you imagine Obama, or any liberal candidate extolling the benefits of liberalism? You don't have to think very hard because you are hearing it from President Obama right now. His message is about populism, class envy, and pitting Americans of different income levels against each other.

And once again, we told you he was going to be like this. We told you in 2008.

*You ever stop and wonder where we get certain terms in our English language?
When did we start using the word, biodegrade?

Biodegrigation or biotic decomposition is the chemical dissolution of materials by bacteria or other biological means. The term is often used in relation to ecology, waste management, biomedicine, and the natural environment. It is now only associated with “environmentally friendly” products that are capable of decomposing back into natural elements.

Biodegradable matter is generally organic material such as plant and animal matter. or artificial materials that are similar enough to plant and animal matter to be put to use by microorganisms.

In nature, different materials biodegrade at different rates. But they all degrade. To be able to work effectively, most microorganisms that assist the biodegradation need light, water and oxygen.

Before 1961, nobody even heard of the word biodegrade, because we understood back then that everything degrades eventually back into its compositional elements. For some reason in 1961 we suddenly started to care about how long we would leave remnants of our life here on Earth around. Why were/are we suddenly so obsessed with disappearing from the planet and leaving no trace that we were ever here? Beats me. I want my remnants to last for thousands of years.

*Remember how I warned you to be cautious about Newt Gingrich? Here's why, courtesy of www.ClimateDepot.com.

From January 3, 2008. By Steve Milloy (edited by me for brevity)

“Newt Gingrich has guzzled Al Gore's Kool-Aid. Now he wants us and the Republican 2008 presidential candidates to drink it, too.

The former House Speaker's latest book, “A Contract with the Earth” co-authored with Palm Beach Zoo CEO Terry Maple, is an appalling paean to environmental naivete and taxpayer-subsidized profiteering.

While the book's theme — i.e., let's all just happily pitch in and do what it takes to save the environment — may sound reasonable, at least on a superficial basis, Gingrich's notions are often wrong or simply bizarre, and his prescriptions amount to little more than a full embrace of rent-seeking “green” business and left-leaning eco-activist groups, both of which often masquerade as “protectors” of the environment.

The book opens with the melodramatic line, “We are personally diminished by the loss of each and every species or habitat that cannot resist extinction.”

But nowhere does Gingrich indicate that we've been diminished by the ongoing malarial genocide in Africa caused by the senseless 1972 ban on the pesticide DDT — which was promoted by the Environmental Defense, a command-and-control activist group laughably lauded by Gingrich as an “advocate of market-based solutions to environmental problems.”

Another over-the-top sentiment is Gingrich's endorsement of Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson's doomsday observance, “The living world is dying.”

Gingrich asks, “Who among us lacks a fundamental respect for the earth?” But he simultaneously slams so-called “anti-environmental politicians” as “out of step with the American people” and the “patriotic worldview” — whatever that is. I don't know of any politician who is “anti-environment,” though there are a great many who demand that environmental policy be based on sound science.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

(Our environmental expert gives a Parallax Look each week. Follow him at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


NEWT IS GOOD BUT CAN'T WIN WITHOUT MONEY

Posted 10//28/11

*An astute reader brought to my attention that I left Newt Gingrich off my rundown of the candidates for the Republican nomination for president. I'd like to use the excuse that my omission was on purpose as some kind of shunning of a disappointing candidate. But that's not true because nobody has been more substandard than Gary Johnson and I even profiled him. No, the Newt omission was plain old nincompoopitude on my part.

Please allow me to afford Newt his due.

Newt Gingrich is without a doubt the most intelligent candidate and the best debater in the entire crowd running for president, especially including the current officeholder. Everyone I have spoken with on the issue would pay to see Newt eviscerate Obama in an issues debate, and Gingrich's proposal for an hours' long Lincoln-Douglas style debate would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in a pay-per-view event.

Newt is solid on conservative issues – fundamentally. He is particularly strong on the government-experience side of bringing political reality to a debate. He has fought the wars as a former Speaker of the House. He is solid on fiscal issues. He also serves an important role as media attacker in the debates, never failing to point out that the mainstream media is liberally biased.

Now the downside. Newt doesn't have a lot of money. His campaign staff has largely abandoned him. If he got the nomination, I would most certainly vote for him. But the major difficulty I have in supporting him at this point in the primaries is he thinks that he is so smart that he can arbitrarily change the Republican Party's positions on the issues; case in point his commercial a few years ago with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi where he appeared to side with the Tuna Queen (Her husband owns a huge chunk of StarKist Tuna which has enjoyed huge legislative favors in that enterprise at her behest) on global warming and government's role in addressing it. That was a major gaffe in Gingrich's Conservative credentials and it still dogs him today. That is such a basic issue and one no conservative can abandon, because it is 100% nonsense from beginning to end. I hope Newt gets the debate with Obama that he seeks. I'll be tuned in if he does, but you cannot win without money.

Let me close on Newt with this…he will last longer than Gary Johnson in the race and would make a fantastic member of a Cain, Perry, Bachmann, or Romney cabinet.

*The media keeps talking about Herman Cain's abortion problem. I came in late on the issue but recently got up to speed. Turns out that Cain appeared on something called a Piers Morgan Show on CNN and when asked how he could possibly support an abortion if his daughter was raped and became pregnant, answered something to the effect of, “…government should never be involved with that issue…” (Why do Republicans always get themselves twisted by liberals on this question?) Of course, other Republicans pounced on those comments as inconsistently pro-life (and good for them). Cain doesn't seem to be able to extricate himself adequately, at least to date.

The answer is quite simple. If your daughter or wife is raped and impregnated, life begins at conception. That life is part of your daughter or wife. That child is a victim of rape, just like the mother of the child. Why should that child be punished with death?
(Personally, I'd fire back at the questioner with, “You don't set laws based on obtuse and extremely rare circumstances. You have a hideous show, Piers. Should be ban all television because if it?”)

*Did You Know That?

MRSA (antibiotic-resistant staff infections) is resistant to the following antibiotics: penicillin, amoxicillin, and methicillin.

There are more deaths associated with MRSA than AIDS.

About two tenths of infections of the bloodstream that are in hospitals are caused by the staph bacteria.

Community related MRSA is now a bigger concern than health care related MRSA.

One out of 100 people is dealing with a staph infection.

Stop using anti-bacterial household products. Buy the normal non-antibacterial soaps, wipes, detergents, etc. We're hurting ourselves by giving in to media-driven nonsense.
And NEVER buy anything marketed as a “Green” product. That isn't a health issue, just one that will make me happy.
Thank you.

*Why are so many people getting SOOOO bent out of shape over the appearance of Chiefs head coach Todd Haley on the sidelines? What does it matter what the head coach looks like? Like (RIP) Al Davis liked to say, “Just win baby!”

(Just win with a Parallax Look. Follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


ANALYZING THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

Posted 10//22/11

*Alright folks, it appears that the first Presidential Primary is set for early January, right after the holidays, and we are only about 10 weeks or so from the beginning of crunch time. So here's how I see each candidate and the primaries unrolling.

With Sarah Palin and Chris Christie out, we're left with eight candidates: Romney, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman, Paul, and Johnson. The most consistent conservatives, according to their positions on the issues, are limited to: Cain, Bachmann, and Santorum. Romney, Perry and Cain are pretty much polling the highest among the candidates.

By the way, don't you just hate it when the media reports poll results as one candidate “is leading” or “is ahead in the race?” Polls are not road races. Polls are single day snapshots of public opinion, nothing more. In a road race, nobody is going to overcome a multi-lap deficit in the last straight-away. But that can happen in elections – it happens all the time.

So the rundown pretty much goes like this:

Mitt Romney appears to have the most money, has much face and name recognition, has been there before, and has carefully triangulated his positions on the issues so as to garner the favor of the independents among the electorate. He believes man has some role in climate change but doesn't want to hamper the economy in efforts to address it. He seems strong on life, immigration, and the economy.

Romney has the disadvantage of being the former governor of Massachusetts which enacted a government-mandated health care system. He explains it as being a state issue and not a federal government one. But he also is seen to defend state government mandating the purchase of health insurance because of the “precedent” that state governments mandate that car owners purchase insurance for their vehicles, which is a nonsense argument since you are not mandated to own or drive a car. There are also folks who have a problem with Romney's Mormon religion, which is also nonsense for a country purportedly founded on the concept of religious freedom.

Rick Perry is the sitting governor of Texas, seems to be well-funded, and is a recent entry into the race. He initially rocketed to the highest poll numbers but the fervor seems to have settled a bit since then. (See what I told you about polls?). Perry is strong on global warming being made-up nonsense. He is also strong on the economy – low taxes, smaller government. Perry is strongly pro-life.

Perry is weak on immigration though. His in-state tuition subsidies for children of illegal aliens is not striking a chord on the right.

Herman Cain is polling much stronger lately. The former Godfather's Pizza CEO is consistently strong on conservative issues. He also has a great personal story as a cancer survivor who claims that he would be dead right now had he faced his disease under ObamaCare. Reportedly, his finances are weak, but much will be revealed about Cain's chances of getting the nomination in the coming 8-10 weeks.

Probably Cain's only weakness is his political inexperience. Deep-down, Americans who vote are afraid that Washington will chew-up and spit-out the politically inexperienced.

Michelle Bachmann is another strong conservative who can address Cain's weakness in that she is a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Her money is not as strong as Romney and Perry's and she suffered some early missteps by dumping her campaign chairman Ed Rollins and had a few debate stumbles. Perry's entrance into the race seemed to have drawn interest from her campaign.

Bachmann seems strong in Iowa, where the first primary will be held, and a strong performance there coupled with a stumble by Perry or Romney can give her needed fuel for the primaries coming soon after.

Rick Santorum is solid on all the issues, especially life. His conservative positions on the economy, foreign policy, immigration, health care, taxes, and extent of government growth are consistent.

He doesn't seem to have much money though and he has a horrible electoral loss for the U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania hanging around his neck like an albatross. He might be the first candidate to drop out of the race after the Iowa caucuses.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian wearing conservative clothes. He is solid on the constitution being the basis for limiting the size and scope of the federal government. He is strong on life, health care, and taxes from a conservative point of view.

Paul's problems are that his isolationism is so strong, he makes Pat Buchanan look like a travel agent. Ron Paul's world view would see a nuclear-armed Iran and would leave Israel alone to fend for itself.

Jon Huntsman is Obama's former ambassador to China and is the most pro-anthropogenic climate change of all the candidates. I don't think even Obama is as bad on the climate as Huntsman is. He's strong on the economy and health care. He also says he is pro-life but he advocates same-sex marriage, which even Obama opposes.
Huntsman is a mixed bag moderate that likely has no chance at all in this particular election year.

Gary Johnson, the governor of New Mexico, only gets into debates occasionally and wants to legalize marijuana. He has no money to speak of and has no chance at all.
That's the rundown in a nutshell. Enjoy.

(In a nutshell, you can follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


 

THIS 'GREEN JOBS' THING JUST ISN'T WORKING OUT

Posted 10//14/11
 

*It seems like the Obama Administration and the Democrat National Committee are attempting to characterize the Wall Street protesters (I call them Anti-Achievers) as some kind of left-leaning Tea Party.

Wait a minute – I thought that the Tea Partiers are nothing more than racist, homophobic, Nazi-loving rednecks? So is that what these Anti-Achievers are? Looks to me like these folks are the same crowd that protests at the G-8 Economic Summits in Europe every year. That's a same-old, same-old situation.

The best thing these folks can do is go away from the protest lines and come back to Wall Street after a bath, a nice change into a shirt and tie, and with a recently updated resume in hand.

*How exactly do extending jobless benefits improve the national unemployment statistics? There are people out there turning down lower-paying jobs because they will make more money on welfare? This is nuts!

*The Chiefs do seem to be a slow-starting bunch but they can be entertaining. Now, before you dismiss the victory over Indianapolis as a meaningless win over a winless team, recall that just one week before that Colt team gave a tough Tampa Bay team a tough game on the road. Stay tuned.

*RIP to Steven Jobs and Al Davis. Now that's an unusual pairing in the line at The Pearly Gates. It would almost be worth being dead temporarily just to listen-in on their conversation. They kind of looked like they were related.

*By the way, how has that green jobs thing the Obama Administration has been all about working? I think I told you all several years ago that green jobs are just plain a bad investment. Generating electricity by wind or solar is 5-8 times more expensive than generating electricity with fossil fuels. File that one in the ever-expanding I Told You So file of this Administration.

*It seems like the Occupy Wall Street movement protests are basically different from Tea Party protests in that the Tea Party folks went home and cleaned up after themselves.

*Who are the Koch Brothers and where is all the money they are giving to Conservatives? Media Matters and other kook-Left websites always toss-out “The Coke Brothers” as the funding source behind the Tea Party. I'm a Conservative. I've gone to Tea Party events. I sport a “Reduce Your Government Footprint” bumper sticker on my car. These guys have never given me any money.

*If I have moles in my yard, will they go away when it gets cold this winter? Where do they go? Do they just freeze and die underground?

Well, the internet being what it is, apparently no. They don't go away. They just burrow down deeper and eat the worms that dug down deeper. Remember when we learned some time ago that the collective weight of worms under the ground is greater than the weigh of all the life on top of the soil? It a veritable mole smorgasbord underground.

*Imagine all the carbon dioxide that emanates off the soil all over the planet due to decaying plant and animal matter. I wonder if the climate modelers that claim mankind is the main source of global warming take that into account. I highly doubt it.

*As a dedicated Kansas State fan, I really hope Missouri stays in the Big 12. The KSU-MU rivalry grew kind of stale over the years and all this angst over the Tigers possibly moving to the SEC has stoked the fires quite a bit. Rivalries need that once in awhile. It would be a shame to burn off all this unrequited hate among fan bases.

*The caveman commercials have run their course. I can't believe they actually tried to make a TV series out of that.

*You know, a Detroit-Buffalo Super Bowl would be kind of cool.

*Next week, I will be laying out the contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination. Yes folks, it is that time.

(It’s always time for Parallax Look, here and at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


OF THE RINOS,
ROMNEY WOULD
DO LEAST HARM

Posted 10/7/11

*I have been informally polling acquaintances interested in the upcoming Republican Primaries to determine answers to the following question: considering only those who are actually in the race, and assuming you cannot choose one of the consistent Conservatives, which RINO candidate would you object to the least? We agreed that the consistent Conservatives are Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum. The RINOS are Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Newt Gingrich. The Libertarians are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

The answers were consistent across the board. The Libertarians are out because they want to legalize drugs and prostitution and seem to have no sense of the need to protect American interests, home and abroad.

Among the RINO's, Romney believes man causes some degree of global climate change and backed a government mandate for buying health insurance in Massachusetts. Perry likes giving things to illegal aliens and mandating STD shots for 12 year old girls in Texas. Huntsman is more adamant than Romney on global warming. Newt is also soft on global warming, evidenced by his commercial a few years ago with Nancy Pelosi on addressing climate change through government action.
But among all those RINO's, Romney would hurt the country in the least manner. He says that he believes man at least contributes in some minor manner to climate change, but he is adamantly opposed to implementing any kind of carbon tax on corporate America. Also, his argument that the health insurance mandate he backed in Massachusetts is an issue for the states, and not the federal government, and that argument, while easily disagreed with on principle, holds some merit philosophically. States have the right to set their own laws to live by, as long as they do not conflict with an expressed power of the federal government in the U.S. Constitution.

You could stick the Conservatives in the race for the Republican nomination with various eyebrow raises on mostly ancillary issues, Bachmann's Gardisil-causes-mental-retardation faux claim struck some nerves, even though I agree with her on the specific issue; Cain's lack of specificity on the issues and total lack of political experience makes me afraid that he will get chewed-up and spit out by the Washington machine, and Santorum's crushing defeat for his Pennsylvania U.S. Senate seat gives him a permanent stench of losing; but you can make those kind of claims for almost every candidate.

If Palin and Christie get in the race, I'll slot them in the above rundown accordingly.

*Toyota is my favorite car maker, but that Prius commercial they keep playing with a bunch of Millennials forming a larger human character is disturbing on many levels. I want that commercial to go away.

*I don't know what those protesters on Wall Street want, and I don't really care. Most of them look to be in the range of 20-25 years of age. They don't appear to be employed – how else could they be absent from their jobs for so long a period of time? But before anyone tells you that it's too tough out there to find a job, stop them in their tracks. There are jobs out there. I have two spawns that are in that age range and both are working toward their college degrees. Both are gainfully employed, and one of them has voluntarily left jobs because better ones came along.

Neither is in possession of an Ivy League education. Jobs can be found, but you have to actually look for them.

*I did like one of the signs held up by one of the protesters. It said, “Equal Taxes For All!” Now THAT's a protest I can get behind.

*My favorite Twitter blurb (I can't stand the term, “Tweet”) came from Ann Coulter after American woman Amanda Knox was released from an Italian prison Monday after serving 4 years of a conviction for murder of her roommate: “Amanda Knox not guilty, Casey Anthony rolls eyes, says; "well, duh..."

*I've been spending some time on the website www.Real-Science.com and they have been scanning old newspapers going back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries and it is fascinating to see how much research and observation was happening in those years about the environment and climate and weather. There is much to be learned about the present and the future by scanning what those who lived before us went through and learned.

Most interesting is when you do an internet search of old newspapers of terms like, “climate change,” and “global warming,” you find NO mention of such terms before approximately 1970. Want to know what year the EPA was started? Would it surprise you if I were to answer, 1970?

So, did science-based concern about our place and role on the planet only start in 1970? Not hardly.

(Check back here next week for another Parallax Look, and in the meantime follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparalax)


DESPITE WHAT THE RINOS ARE SPEWING, CAIN HAS CREDENTIALS

 


OBAMA STRUGGLING WITH SOARING GAS PRICES

Posted 4/12/12

•Did you see that the Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million in taxpayer funds to the IRS to help implement ObamaCare?

The money is only part of the IRS's total spending in implementing the enormously unpopular law, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The IRS is being made responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the individual mandate.

Republican lawmakers have tried to cut off funding to implement the healthcare law, at least until after the Supreme Court decides whether to strike it down. That ruling is expected by June, and oral arguments last week indicated the justices might well overturn at least the individual mandate, if not the whole law.
Another example of your government tax dollars at work!

•This one takes the cake though. Illinois U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin reacted last week to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier in the week. Durbin called for more laws regulating carbon output while he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem. "It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs associated with it." If you had any previous doubts that politicians, especially the Democrat ones, are certifiably dumb, Sen. Durbin bobbed that apple down to the bottom of the barrel.

•Does anybody else find the timing a bit suspicious regarding President Obama's recent comments about the Supreme Court's possible actions regarding the constitutionality of ObamaCare? We heard that the Friday before Obama made his highly inflamed comments the court was actually conducting their first vote on the issue, which of course is done in-chambers with the results not released to the public. Results of that vote, which are non-binding, but precipitates the assigning of authors of assent and dissent opinions issued by the court, may actually have been leaked to President Obama by one of the justices, allowing him one more chance to try to sway votes onto his side.

Some have argued that Obama's motives in making the comments were hitting the ground running in arguing that the Supreme Court was acting out of a sense of political bias, which would be an effort for Obama to gain political advantage by characterizing the Supreme Court as political vigilantes, if a Supreme Court could be viewed as a vigilante, one who takes the law into their hands in an unlawful manner.

•How about this one? As of Monday, President Obama has hit another President Carter goal. Both administrations saw gas prices double in their first term of office. Now we have proof that under Obama, even higher gas prices than were seen under Carter have been reached. Under the Carter administration, gas prices increased by 103.77 percent. Gas prices since Obama took office have risen by 103.79 percent as of Monday. No other presidents in recent years have struggled as much with soaring oil prices. Under the Reagan administration, gas prices actually dropped 66 percent. When Bill Clinton was president, gas prices grew by roughly 30 percent, and under both Bush presidencies, gas prices rose by 20 percent.

•My favorite Obama Administration nuttiness of the past week involves what came out of Eric Holder's Justice Department.Video from James O'Keefe's, “The Project Veritas Monday shows a poll worker in Washington, D.C., offering a “voter ID activist” Attorney General Eric Holder's ballot in the recent primaries.

Holder, 61 years old and black, bears no resemblance to the young white man who asked for and was able to obtain his ballot. The young man walked into the D.C. polling place in Holder's precinct, gave a poll worker Holder's name and home address, then received Holder's ballot.

When the poll worker asks the prospective voter to sign a form to get Holder's ballot, he responded: “I actually forgot my ID.”

The poll worker and voter then went back and forth over how a photo ID wasn't necessary to obtain Holder's ballot.

Poll worker: “You don't need it; it's alright.”
Activist: “I left it in the car.”
Poll worker: “As long as you're in here, and you're on our list and that's who you say you are, we're okay.”
Man: “I would feel more comfortable if I go get my ID, is it alright if I go get it?”
Poll worker: “Sure, go ahead.”
Man: “I'll be back faster than you can say furious!”
Poll worker: “We're not going anywhere.”

The voter never accepted Holder's ballot, despite the poll worker offering it to him. Even so, the video shows just how easy it is for one to claim they are somebody else, obtain that person's ballot and effectively disenfranchise them by stealing their vote — all because there are no federal voter ID laws. D.C. falls under federal jurisdiction when it comes to voting laws.

As U.S. Attorney General, Holder has adamantly opposed efforts to combat voter fraud with voter ID laws. The irony in this latest Project Veritas revelation, of course, is that Holder, one of the staunchest opponents of voter ID laws, could have himself been disenfranchised by white men because there is no federal voter ID law to protect voters in D.C. and elsewhere nationwide from fraud.

Hat-tip goes to The Daily Caller. A superb website.

 


LIBERALLY-BASED EXTORTION OF THE TAXPAYER

Posted 4/6/12

Quite a number of people in the media last week were all over April being National Autism Awareness Month. The Star ran a story last week about how “…Autism has become a veritable epidemic in the U.S…”

In fairness, the story in the paper, by Mike Stobbe, did mention that the definition of Autism has been expanded so that now "autism" is also shorthand for a group of milder, related conditions, including something called Asperger's syndrome. For decades prior to that, the Autism diagnosis was given only to kids with severe language, intellectual and social impairments and unusual, repetitious behaviors.

Specifically, the reason for the perceived "explosion" of kids with Autism is the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual for Psychiatric Disorders), which kind of is the Official Bible of loopitude, expanded their definition of Autism in 1994 to include kids with a wide variety of social-perception and interaction difficulties. That's kind of like declaring an epidemic of broken bones when you extend the medical definition to include broken finger nails.

Uta Frith, a researcher on the subject once observed that Asperger's kids may have a "dash of Autism." Her backhanded phrase handcuffed millions of kids by forever linking them with the previously known true profound disability of Autism. It is a disservice to kids who exhibit Asperger's-like personality traits, and is akin to the environmental activist group, the Sierra Club basing every protest they have against coal fired power plants on the needs of the asthmatic kids that may be living in the vicinity.

Linking Asperger's Syndrome to Autism in this manner is like linking forgetting where you left your keys to advanced-stage Alzheimer's Disease.

It is yet another form of liberally-based extortion of the taxpayer and it has to stop.
Kids with Asperger's are NOT Autistic. There is no medication that will cure them. They are not diseased. They're normal kids.

Aspergers Syndrome is nothing more than a difference in personality of some kids and adults that are not able to process social cues -- AKA body language. Once parents learn a proper strategy for teaching their kids social cues, they can function in the "regular" world like most everybody else. Not being able to read social cues is no more or less a disability than a kid that is so dependent on social approval for their actions that they give of their bodies sexually in order to gain that approval. Another example - it's no different than a kid that can process social cues just fine but cannot focus on written instructions. We don't call those kids disabled...we call them "visual learners."

But when the difference deals with social interaction, everybody wants to label them disabled. That's a disservice to those kids and to kids who really are Autistic.
As you can expect, the expressions of “Autism epidemic” has spurred advocacy groups to seize on the new numbers as evidence that Autism research and services should get more attention (By attention, they mean money.).

Some have linked childhood vaccines as a trigger to Autism. However, many parallel studies have found no such connection, CDC (Centers for Disease Control) has been looking at other possible factors, including illnesses that mothers had while they were pregnant with children who later were diagnosed as Autistic. The researchers also are looking into antidepressants and other medications that the pregnant women took and those given to their children when they were young.

Parents are hungry for more answers. The worst part of all this is parents are blaming themselves, wondering if there was anything they could have done to have prevented “Autism.” The only reason they are racking themselves with such guilt is public education administration sees another opportunity for sticking their greasy mitts into the hip pockets of the taxpayers.

If any of you have a different opinion on this subject, and I am specifically addressing you teachers and especially SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS, I would like to hear from you. Bring it!

(Get a Parallax Look right here each week, follow along at Twitter.com/bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


CAN'T WE MOVE BEYOND SKIN COLOR LINES?

Posted 3/29/12

•There were so many things going on this week, I had to return to the short-bite shotgun format…enjoy.

Why he opened his big mouth on the subject of that 17 yr old that got shot and died in Florida last month I'll probably never understand, (Were you aware that the shooting occurred back in late February? Where was Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers in the two weeks after this happened? Who is asking those questions?) but President Obama said “if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.”

Looking past the obvious criticism of why a “post-racial” president would deem it beneficial to invoke the race of a shooting victim, but doesn't Obama need to acknowledge that a woman is involved in the creation of a son for him? Now, had he said, “If Michelle and I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.” you might be O.K. What if the mother was White or Asian, or Nigerian? Perhaps even with Michelle, Obama's White genes might have taken a lead role in forming Trayvon's skin color and resulted in a kid that looks more like Blake Griffin.

Don't you see how silly this all is? Can't we move beyond skin color lines?

•Remember Jalisa Reed? Beautiful, wonderful young woman from KCK shot for no reason at all. Where's Jesse Jackson speaking-up for Jalisa? Where's President Obama talking about her shooting in a White House statement?

Why is the Trayvon Martin shooting so much more important to take to the national stage?

•As the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf are sent to the mothballs, did you know electric cars were once made for the Father of the mass-produced American automobile? Henry Ford bought his wife, Clara, at least two electric cars in the early 1900's. The cars offered a 50 mile driving range.

The Volt has an advertised electric range of 25-50 miles! More than 100 years later and we still can't manage more range? Why did our government even begin to subsidize this nonsense?

On top of all this other idiocy, even with rising gasoline prices -- topping $4 a gallon in parts of the country – electric vehicles are simply uncompetitive. According to the Lundberg Survey, gas prices would have to rise to $8.53/gal. to make the Nissan Leaf competitive and $12.50 for a Chevy Volt to be worth it, based on the cost of gasoline vs. electricity, fuel efficiency, and depreciation.

So President Obama's goal is gas prices more than 3 times what they are right now?

•Get a load of this factoid amid all the hand-wringing over the birth control issue. An 18th-century Russian woman holds the world record for having birthed the most children: 69, which she had over the course of 27 pregnancies that included 16 pairs of twins, 7 sets of triplets, and 4 sets of quadruplets. Believe it or not, she was outdone by the male record-holder for most kids, a Moroccan emperor who, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, sired "at least 342 daughters and 525 sons. By 1721, he was reputed to have 700 male descendants. Ouch!

•Notice how you never seem to hear about the Ozone Hole anymore?

The ozone hole above the Antarctic annually reaches its maximum size every year around fall/winter time, revealing a thinning in the protective atmospheric layer that rivals the size of North America itself.

Spanning about 10 million square miles, the ozone hole over the South Pole reached its maximum annual size on Sept. 14, 2011. The largest Antarctic ozone hole ever recorded occurred in 2006, at a size of 11 million square miles, a size documented by NASA.

The Antarctic ozone hole was first discovered in the late 1970's by the first satellite mission that could measure ozone, a spacecraft run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The hole has apparently continued to grow steadily during the 1980s and 90s, though since early 2000 the growth reportedly leveled off. Even so scientists have seen large variability in its size from year to year.
On the Earth's surface, ozone is a pollutant, but in the stratosphere it forms a protective layer that reflects ultraviolet radiation back out into space, protecting us from UV rays. Years with large ozone holes are now more associated with very cold winters over Antarctica and high polar winds that prevent the mixing of ozone-rich air.

There is a lot of year to year variability. In 2007, the ozone hole shrunk 30% from the record setting 2006 winter. This year, the ozone region over Antarctica dropped 31 million tons, compared to the record-setting 2006 loss of 44 million tons. Apparently natural variations in temperature and atmospheric changes are responsible for the decrease in ozone loss, and are not indicative of a long-term “healing.”

The data shows a lot of variability and no real trends after the Montreal protocol banned ChloroFluoroCarbons (CFC's). The climate models had predicted a partial recovery by now. Later scientists adjusted their models and pronounced the recovery would take decades. It could be yet another failed alarmist prediction.

Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (1985). It is very likely to have been there forever, varying year to year and decade to decade as solar cycles and volcanic events affect high latitude atmosphere.

Another climate hoax! I want my Big Macs back in thermally efficient Styrofoam boxes!

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


REDUCE OUR GOVERNMENT'S FOOTPRINT

Posted 3/19/12

•From junkscience.com, the Washington Times recently noted that a new LED light fixture manufactured by the Philips Corp. is the latest public-relations disaster for the Energy Department. The 60-watt bulb won an Energy Department $10 million prize for an “environmentally sensitive” bulb that is “affordable for American families.” The retail price is $50 each.

Affordable?

The new LED is more energy-efficient than standard incandescent bulbs and “may” last up to 10 years. $10 million to a corporation in economic times like these when manufacturers should be developing efficient, reliable, cost-effective products?

Obama-mentor (Hat-tip to Breitbart.com) Prof. Derrick Bell, also one of the founders of Critical Race Theory, once wrote the following:

“The Constitution has survived for two centuries and, despite earnest efforts by committed people, the contradiction remains, shielded and nurtured through the years by myth. This contradiction is the root reason for the inability of black people to gain legitimacy -- that is, why they are unable to be taken seriously when they are serious and why they retain a subordinate status as a group that even impressive proofs of individual competence cannot overcome. Contradiction, shrouded by myth, remains a significant factor in blacks' failure to obtain meaningful relief against historic racial injustice.

“The myths that today and throughout history have nurtured the original constitutional contradiction and thus guided racial policy are manifold, operating like dreams below the level of language and conscious thought. Much of what is called the law of civil rights -- an inexact euphemism for racial law -- has a mythological or fairy-tale quality that is based, like the early fairy tales, less on visions of gaiety and light than on an ever-present threat of disaster.”

Wow! That sounds like ObamaNonsense, doesn't it?

•From real-science.com:

Did you know that the Chevy Volt has a great-great grandfather?
Meet the Roberts electric car. Built in 1896, it gets a solid 40 miles to the charge (same as the Volt), the highly touted and subsidized $31,645 electric car General Motors CEO Dan Akerson called “not a step forward, but a leap forward.”

Don't let the car's advanced age let you think it isn't tough: Its present-day owner told The Daily Caller it still runs like a charm, and has even completed the roughly 60-mile London to Brighton Vintage Car Race.

So Obama's “leap forward” in automotive science is no more efficient (and much more dangerous judging by recent revelations of Volts bursting into flames when their batteries are punctured in crashes) than was possible more than 100 years ago!

From the Way-Back Machine:
From the Jun 24, 1974, Time magazine, entitled: "Another Ice Age?"

“As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.

The trend shows no indication of reversing.

Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When scientists analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since.

As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. Climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly. In the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time.

But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced.”

My how times change!

•By the way, I have largely avoided the Sandra Fluke issue because I know you all are way too smart to fall for smarmy Liberal manipulation like that, and Fluke is an idiot.
But it will be worth your time to visit TheDailyCaller.com and read a column entitled, “Thank you Sandra Fluke, because I've gotta have it” authored by Keith Koffler.

(Read a Parallax Look each week and follow along at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


REDUCE OUR GOVERNMENT'S FOOTPRINT

Posted 3/11/12

•If you follow media firestorms, you no doubt are aware of Conservative talker Rush Limbaugh's past week. In the interests of time and space limitations, I won't recount it all here, but suffice it to say the left wing mainstream media were having their way with Limbaugh.

But a column written by Liberal columnist Kirsten Powers that appeared in The Daily Beast last weekend identifies a vicious double-standard between Liberals and Conservatives. You really should check it out. The read will be well worth your time.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html

•We need to repeal The Clean Air Act.

As I am sure most of you know, The Clean Air Act is a U.S. federal law enacted by Congress, and signed by President Richard Nixon in 1970 to control air pollution on a national level. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which Nixon also started, to develop and enforce regulations to protect the general public from exposure to airborne contaminants that are “known” (my parentheses, for obvious reasons) to be hazardous to human health.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 proposed emissions trading, added provisions for addressing acid rain, ozone depletion and “toxic” (there I go again!) air pollution. The amendments also established new auto gasoline reformulation requirements, set gas vapor standards to control evaporative emissions from gasoline, and mandated that the new gasoline formulations be sold from May to September in many states, at huge costs to the industry.

This automobile control part of the bill was extremely contentious at the time it was passed. The automobile industry argued that they could not meet the new standards and Senators expressed concern about the impact of this part of the legislation on the economy. Specific new emissions standards for moving sources passed years later.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed regulations of a list of categorized sources that emitted any number of the 188 “hazardous” (me again) air pollutants, as directed by the Clean Air Act. There are currently 174 categories with plans for the creation of emission standards.

Another title was added as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. It addresses the issue of acid rain which is said to be caused by nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions resulting from electric power plants powered by fossil fuels (or by your backyard barbeque grill). Originally the method for regulating industrial emissions was very controlled, meaning there was a way to decrease the pollution by a certain amount with a particular type of technology. The 1990, amendments gave industries more options including switching to low-sulfur coal and/or adding devices that controlled the harmful emissions. In some cases plants had to be closed down to prevent the “dangerous” (Oops, I did it again!) chemicals from entering the atmosphere. Have you noticed that Pres. Obama's EPA has been closing coal plants all across the country?

The EPA through The Clean Air Act has been responsible for the following:

•Banning the use of DDT, which has led to the deaths of tens of millions of people, mostly children because banning the pesticide allowed malaria to return.

Banning the use of Styrofoam and aerosol spray cans in the name of saving the unthreatened ozone layer. Remember when McDonald's Big Macs came in Styrofoam containers? Remember how hot these efficient containers kept their burgers?

•Banned use of refrigerants that were much more expensive than their replacements, all in the name of “saving” the ozone layer. This is why you have to buy a much more expensive compressor whenever the old one dies.

•Banned use of the pesticide Chlordane which was extremely effective against termites.

•Banned use of the thermal insulator asbestos which spawned litigation that nearly destroyed the fiberglass and mineral fiber insulation industry and may have caused the World Trade Center towers to collapse because the impact of the planes wouldn't have knocked the much tougher asbestos off of the building steel, which precipitated the towers' collapse.

You know they will be caterwawhling over how could we possibly allow the air and water to get dirty if we repeal The Clean Air Act. Was air and water terribly dirty before 1972? I drank lots of water back then. It tasted fine.

We need to reduce our government footprint and we need to repeal The Clean Air Act.

(Increase your Parallax Look intake each week. Go to Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


AN INTERESTING CONTRAST COMES INTO PLAY

Posted 3/4/12

Remember Newt Gingrich's claim in the last debate that then-Illinois Sen. Obama supported infanticide? I'm fairly sure we covered this here back then, but there is an interesting contrast in-play that I'm not sure anyone has specifically noted.
For the facts, I went to www.FactCheck.org. Here they are:

Sen. Obama opposed Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" because he claimed they were intended as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) claims Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus.

Obama loyalists and abortion supporters note that Illinois law had already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
(I find it fascinatingly ironic that doctors will enact every measure in their power trying to save a patient that has gone into cardiac arrest or a victim of an accident or a drowning victim. But if the mother didn't want the baby, the God-given right to life somehow doesn't exist?)

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term "born-alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.
So somebody is lying. You can be the judge of who that might be.

But in his best light on the issue, Obama looks like this – a second or third trimester baby shows the intestinal fortitude to survive an abortion attempt, and is breathing, albeit with difficulty, but is breathing and alive. In the past, before Born Alive laws, doctors could make the judgment that the child should be left on a table to die. Obama's past actions dictate that he believes the baby should have been left to die. Even if the law was intended as a wedge against other abortions, isn't one life like this worth fighting for? What human being can make that judgment?

On the other side of the issue in this campaign, we have Rick Santorum, a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania and current presidential candidate who is a father of seven children. One of their children, a boy they named Gabriel, died only a few hours after birth. The Santorum's knew that Gabriel was facing these odds before he was born. They remained steadfast refusing suggestions to abort him, and after he was born the parents held him for all the time they had which turned out to be only about 2 hours. In Rick Santorum's words, “For two hours he lived a life that knew only love.”

After Gabriel died, the parents brought the body home for a funeral and burial, and made sure that their other children knew that they had a brother. That act has been fodder for liberals scratching at Santorum, with some making claims that they took the body home “so their other kids could play with it.” Outrage from the mainstream media regarding these claims were few and far between.

In 2008, Santorum and his wife Karen welcomed a daughter Isabella into the world. Soon after Bella's birth, they learned she had a rare genetic disorder that would result in her not likely living past a year or so. The parents have loved and supported her throughout and the child is now 3 years of age.

Kind of a telling contrast; on one side, you have a candidate that would prefer a living but struggling baby be left to die rather than move to support its God-given right to life for fear that his side might lose leverage politically. On the other side, you have a candidate that actually walks-the-walk, extending into numerous examples in his own life. For the record, Sen. Santorum was one of the sponsors of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act signed by Pres. Bush into law in 2002.

Isn't the presidency at some degree about character?

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


IS THIS HOW A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE PAYS HOMAGE?

Posted 2/24/12

•Did you catch the video a few weeks ago where Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg told Egyptian television that “…I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012…”.

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

The Constitution gives her the power she has, and this is how she does homage to that great document? This is the kind of stuff that makes people truly hate liberals.

•The following letter was shared with me from a thoughtful reader regarding my column last week about President Obama requiring insurance companies to pay for contraception, including abortions, for employees of church-owned institutions.

The reader asks:
“Where does the President get the power to compel a citizen to give a product away to another citizen? Surely not from the US Constitution. This is a dangerous man who is setting dangerous precedents. This is certainly not the kind of “Hope and Change” the founders would have endorsed.

I have not heard anyone in this present debate ask the following question…..How much time until Obama determines when, which and how often “women employed by such institutions” or any other women for that matter are REQUIRED to use birth control?.... In other words, he is currently trashing the individual liberty of those who provide health insurance, i.e. the employers and the insurers. What then precludes Obama to eliminate the liberty of the individual women to determine if, when and how to use contraception? Someday their “choice” will be eliminated because it doesn't fit the needs of the state i.e. we can't afford the health care costs for single parent pregnancies for example. Or the population is too large. Or we need to increase the population so we will restrict birth control. Or a million other reasons. It can happen here. It has happened in China.

*The following is an excerpt from a house subcommittee hearing that discusses horrible stories that took place in China….while they were 'modernizing:

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, Committee on International Relations, Washington, DC.

'The world has known for well over 15 years now that the Government of China routinely compels women to abort their unauthorized unborn children and that the Chinese men and women are often forcibly sterilized.
Almost 2 months ago, I was approached by human rights activist Harry Wu, who asked for my help in bringing an important defector from the People's Republic of China into the United States. Mrs. Gao Xiao Duan was the senior official at what the Government of China euphemistically calls a ''family planning clinic.'' She had decided that she could no longer live with herself while continuing to do this work and was trying to escape to the United States in order to tell the inside story of the PRC population control program.'”

Read much more here:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa49740.000/hfa49740_0f.htm
China's one child policy was established by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1979 to limit population growth. Although designated a "temporary measure," it continues a quarter-century later. The policy limits couples to one child. Fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization accompanied second or subsequent pregnancies.

It is not an all-encompassing rule because it has always been restricted to ethnic Han Chinese living in urban areas. Citizens living in rural areas and minorities living in China are not subject to the law. However, the rule has been estimated to have reduced population growth in the country of 1.3 billion by as much as 300 million people over its first twenty years. That's the equivalent population of the entire United States!

This rule has caused a disdain for female infants; abortion, neglect, abandonment, and infanticide have occurred to female infants. These measures have resulted in the disparate ratio of 114 males for every 100 females among babies from birth through children four years of age. Normal ratios are 105 males born for every 100 females.

Now that millions of lone children in China are now young adults in or nearing their child-bearing years, a special provision allows millions of couples to have two children legally. If a couple is composed of two people without siblings, then they may have two children of their own, thus preventing too dramatic a population decrease. Minister of the State Commission of Population and Family Planning Zhang Weiqing confirmed in early 2006 that China's one child policy is consistent with the nation's plan for population growth and would continue indefinitely. He denied rumors that the policy become less stringent to permit a second child.

Statistically, China's total fertility rate (the number of births per woman) is 1.7, much higher than slowly-declining Germany at 1.4 but lower than the U.S. at 2.1, which is seen as a stable fertility rate.

Is this where we are heading?

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


ARE WE GOING A BIT OVERBOARD FOR A BIRD?

Posted 2/17/12

•This story is just one of those Big Government stories that leaves you wondering how we ever let it all get this bad.

A story in The Star last week illustrated that a Kansas City federal judge sentenced a Norborne, Mo., father and son to probation Tuesday for illegally destroying two bald eagle nests on THEIR Ray County farm.

Ronald L. Gibson, 70, and Todd A Gibson, 49, admitted in September that they had contracted with a logging company to remove trees from their 235-acre farm near the Missouri River in the spring of 2010.

In March, the Gibsons hired a logger to cut down a cottonwood tree that held a bald eagle nest. The logger returned the following month after Todd Gibson asked why several trees near the Missouri River levee had been left standing. The logger explained that the trees were hollow and had no value. Todd Gibson ordered the tress removed, including one that had another bald eagle nest.

Apparently, there is a federal law that specifically protects bald and golden eagles and their nests. The judge also ordered each man to pay a $5,000 fine and perform 100 hours of community service at the Big Muddy National Wildlife Refuge in Columbia.
They didn't kill the eagles, they only destroyed the nests.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since then, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.”

According to the language of the law, a violation of the Act can result in a fine of $100,000 ($200,000 for organizations), imprisonment for one year, or both, for a first offense. Penalties increase substantially for additional offenses, and a second violation of this Act is a felony.

Isn't that a little bit overboard for a bird?

•The Clint Eastwood "Halftime in America” car ad during the halftime of the Super Bowl last week was largely seen as an affirmation of the Obama Administration's bail-out of the auto manufacturers, General Motors and Chrysler.

Unfortunately, almost nobody in the media has the stones to acknowledge that last November, Eastwood himself ripped the U.S. government for bailing out the car companies. He did so in an interview to promote his new film at the time, J. Edgar.
After all that nonsense, it is somehow telling that the commercial was paid for by an Italian company, Fiat, which owns Chrysler. The Italians are telling us Americans how we can recover our country. Priceless!

•The Obama White House announced today this week, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work.

The plan was immediately denounced by pro-lifers. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else.”.”It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naïve or gullible would accept this as a change in policy.”

President Obama stated that “the insurance company, not the hospital, not the charity, will be required to reach out” to women employed by such institutions to offer birth control “without copays, without hassles.”

I believe that the Obama Administration thinks this action places the Catholic Church in the position of decrying the practice of shifted funding when they themselves have employed such tactics in their defense of using Catholic funds to support the criminal legal defenses of accused pedophile priests.

That's the kind of tactics we deal with when we have Obama as a President.

•The Susan B. Komen foundation fiasco resulted in the following realities:

The mainstream media is not impartial, and they are decidedly pro-abortion.
I never knew that part of the funds given the Komen Foundation through their various enterprises went to Planned Parenthood, which does some 400,000 abortions each and every year.

I will never run in the Komen Race for the Cure again.

(Run here for a Parallax Look each week. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


OBAMA'S TWISTY LIGHT BULB LOGIC

Posted 2/11/12

I have a veritable cornucopia of stuff this week.

•Another boondoggle bites the dust. The parent company of an electric car battery maker that received a $118 million grant from the Obama administration filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Ener1 subsidiary EnerDel received a $118 million stimulus grant from the Energy Department in 2009. The New York-based company said it has been affected by competition from China and other countries.

So why didn't anybody do the due-diligence before these loans were made? Everybody (even me) knew that the Chinese were cornering the market on the metals needed to make electric car batteries.

From the Washington Times on Obama's twisty light-bulb logic: President Obama said in his State of the Union address, “I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution.”

Obama was referring to his support for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule issued late last year by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a December presidential memorandum, Mr. Obama claimed that “by substantially reducing emissions of pollutants that contribute to neurological damage, cancer, respiratory illnesses and other health risks, the MATS Rule will produce major health benefits for millions of Americans – including children, older Americans and other vulnerable populations.”

What he didn't tell you is MATS is the most expensive EPA rule revision in history, and compliance will cost power plants $10-18 billion a year. Guess where these costs are going to be passed to?

Critics have charged that hyping mercury poisoning in MATS was just a cover for the EPA to ramp up its regulatory assault on the coal industry. Trace amounts of mercury from coal-fired power-plant emissions affect almost nobody.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has been trying to force Americans to accept even greater mercury risks by insisting that traditional incandescent light bulbs be replaced with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs).

Did you know that mercury vapor in CFLs is at a much more dangerous concentration than anything coming out of power plants? The associated risks are magnified because the toxic vapors and dust from a broken bulb would be contained in a room or enclosed area.

The same EPA sounding the alarm about mercury emissions from power plants has written a detailed guide explaining how to respond to a broken CFL. It involves: evacuating the room where the breakage occurs, shutting down central heating and air conditioning, airing out the room, carefully collecting bulb fragments and dust with rolled up duct tape, and placing all cleanup materials in airtight bags in a protected area outdoors pending proper disposal.

Who knew that dropping a light bulb would instantly turn a home into a HAZMAT zone?

Truth is, it won't, and neither will saddling our energy grid with additional unnecessary regulations improve the economy.

•They found in a recent survey that 1 in 10 babies along Minnesota's North Shore are born with “unhealthy” levels of mercury in their bodies, according to a new report on contamination around Lake Superior, the first to look for the pollutant in the blood of U.S. infants.

Researchers at the Minnesota Department of Health said they were surprised to find that some of the 1,465 children they tested had very high concentrations. It's the first evidence that infants in the state are “contaminated” by mercury, a pollutant that can cause neurological damage and is distributed around the world, primarily by coal-fired power plants (and by fish too, naturally, but they leave that part out).

Researchers also found that the Minnesota infants were more likely to have unhealthy mercury levels in their blood than their counterparts in Wisconsin and Michigan. That's probably because their mothers ate more fish, the primary source of mercury in people, health officials said. Babies born in the summer months, when local fish consumption is highest, had more mercury than those born in winter, McCann said.

So if you eat more fish, which are high in mercury, you will have more mercury in your system. Got that?

"People could be eating enough fish to cause exposures that we are concerned about," McCann said. Now, health care providers can use the findings to persuade women of child-bearing age to avoid fish such as walleye that are often high in mercury, she said.

Mercury can affect the brain and nervous system development in fetuses and babies. At high levels, it's been shown to affect memory, attention and language. As a result, the EPA has established a health standard for women of childbearing age and infants of 5.8 millionths of a gram per liter of blood. Anything above that is considered unhealthy, though would not necessarily result in neurological problems.

Did you catch that last part? Even though they have mercury in their systems, there are apparently no neurological problems necessarily caused by mercury consumption.
Did they say anywhere that they have proven that the mercury in the fish came from coal fired power plants?

Did you know that the charcoal you burn in the barbecue grill emits mercury?

(Get a healthy Parallax Look each week. Email Bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


NO NEED TO PANIC ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Posted 2/4/12

You won't often see me feature the work of another columnist for my entire contribution, but this one was worth it. From the Wall Street Journal last week; this piece made my millennium. Hat-tip goes to JunkScience.com. (Edited for required brevity.)

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins:

“I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement:
'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth:

“The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.”

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today.

Many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse.

They have good reason to worry.

In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “de-carbonize” the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

(Get a weekly Parallax Look, then email bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)


WHY THE DRIVE OF SOME REPUBLICANS TO DESTRUCT NEWT?

Posted 1/29/12

•Why are so many Republicans working so hard to dismiss Newt Gingrich in his ascendancy versus Mitt Romney? Is Newt so bad compared to the conservative failings of Romney? I don't quite get that drive to destruct.

•As for those that like to say that certain Republicans will not win versus Obama in 2012, remember this: Obama has already had to run again.

In the mid-term elections, President Obama defended liberalism. He defended his cause célèbre, Marxism and liberalism, with every fiber of his being. He talked about the need to look out for the lesser achievers. He talked about high taxes on the wealthy. He advocated socialism.

You know what happened as a result of that effort? He lost miserably. He lost so badly the Congress was turned Democratic to Republican in greater numbers than ever encountered previously.

So what exactly has he accomplished since then to change that outcome in another election?

Just for edification, $1.83 was the average cost of a gallon of gas the day before President Obama was inaugurated.

Just so you know.

•The National Center for Public Policy Research is urging Apple Corporation shareholders to vote for a shareholder proposal, asking Apple to determine if board member Al Gore violated the company's Business Conduct Policy. At issue is whether Gore played a role in Apple's 2009 decision to end its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as part of an effort to pressure the trade group to stop opposing greenhouse gas regulations.

Several companies, including Apple, ended their relationship with the Chamber over the trade group's aggressive opposition to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill and EPA regulation of carbon emissions.

At issue are Gore's significant personal investments in renewable energy and related technologies that would have benefited from these greenhouse gas regulations.
Conflict? You be the judge.

•How about this?

A ridiculous amount of money to capture a trivial amount of CO2 with no guarantee that the CO2 will stay where stored. That should be a winner, shouldn't it?

Climatewire.com reports that the Department of Energy announced recently that a Texas-based utility will buy power from one of the largest planned carbon capture plants in the United States, giving the project an important boost.

Under the finalized agreement, San Antonio-based utility CPS Energy said it would purchase approximately 200 megawatts of power from the $2.4 billion Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP), which, if built, would involve capture of 90 percent of its carbon dioxide from an advanced coal-fired power plant.

It is the first planned purchase of power by a utility from a commercial coal-fired power plant equipped with carbon capture, the department said…About a quarter of the plant's cost — or $450 million — came from the Department of Energy, with about half of that from the stimulus package…yes, TARP.

If constructed, TCEP would sit about 15 miles west of Odessa, Texas, and lead to capture of approximately 3 million tons of carbon dioxide per year for use in enhanced oil recovery in the Texas Permian Basin. It would be an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant that turns coal into synthetic gas before combustion.
Imagine having to capture farts and storing them somewhere. This is what that is…essentially.

I've finally arrived at the point that it is embarrassing defending humans on this.

•Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt caused quite a stir when they showed up at the White House last week.

What was the famous couple doing there?

Jolie recently talked about her trip to the Oval Office, explaining what she discussed with President Obama. Accompanied by Zana Marjanovic, the lead actress of “In the Land of Blood and Honey,” Jolie said they talked to Obama about ongoing issues in Sarajevo, where the film is set.

“We spoke with him briefly," she said. "And then we spoke a lot to the people that work, certainly underneath him, kind of in the trenches and tried to figure out how we could do some stuff to continue the healing in Bosnia and make sure it's heading in the right direction.”

Meanwhile, Pitt “went mainly to speak with Biden about building in New Orleans and other parts of America," she said.

Brad Pitt and Joe Biden talking together? That must have been a scintillating re-par-te.
I don't know about you, but I'm certainly comforted that our president is availing himself of the top minds in society…sheez!

(Get your weekly Parallax Look right here. Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow along at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


CONSERVATIVES OUTNUMBER MODERATES AND LIBERALS

Posted 1/22/12

•I've got a JOB tonight 'cause there's a lot going on. I'm starting with 2600 words. Paring it down to around 800 is going to be a chore on the level of making Ron Paul look presidential.

•A peer reviewed study found that global temperatures have shown a strong correlation between solar activity (also known as magnetic solar flux) and global temperatures.
The relationship isn't perfect, but it represents a significant improvement over the unsupported human-CO2 and global warming/climate change relationship claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) anti-CO2 Climategate scientists (also termed alarmists).

This study was started in1999. The following comments come from the peer review study. If you don't know, peer review is a technical review of a paper or study by scientists on all (or most and at least several) sides of a given issue.

"The authors examined measurements of near-earth interplanetary magnetic field to determine the total magnetic flux leaving the sun since 1868...authors were able to show that the total magnetic flux leaving the sun has risen by a factor of 1.41 over the period 1964-1996...results of this study lead us to wonder just how much of the reported 0.6°C global temperature rise of the last century might be a result of the more than two-fold increase in the total magnetic solar flux over that period. We may now, at long last, be moving closer than ever in our effort to understand the importance of the sun in driving 20th century climate change."

So it really is all about the sun.

•There's no current news story about this next one, but I just thought it was interesting.
The Centers for Disease Control, also known as the CDC, reports that gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC studies as men who have sex with men (MSM), among all races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. The CDC's most recent data show that between 2006 and 2009, the number of new HIV infections that occur each year increased among young MSM — driven by an alarming 48 percent increase among young, black MSM between the ages of 13 and 29.

The facts from the study:

The MSM group account for nearly half of the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States (49%, or an estimated 580,000 total persons).
The MSM group account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300 infections).

According to the latest estimates, white MSM represent the largest number of new HIV infections (11,400) in the United States, followed closely by black MSM (10,800) and Hispanic MSM (6,000).

These statistics were taken from CDC studies taken from the beginning of the epidemic through 2009.

I'm not particularly surprised by these numbers, but I am sure that the media isn't reporting these numbers. Conventional media opinion seems to be spouting talking points like, “White heterosexuals are the most prevalent group of new HIV infections.”

That doesn't appear to be true at all.

For the record, I am pleased that there are drug therapies helping to significantly prolong the lives of those affected, but let's not be afraid to report the truth.
I'm still intrigued about how HIV first made the jump from simians into humans, called Zoonosis.

•While I'm not a poll wonk, because the media usually misrepresents their importance, I did like this.

Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.

The 2011 results are based on 20 Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted between January and December, encompassing interviews with 20,392 U.S. adults, including 5,912 Republicans, 6,087 Democrats, and 8,064 independents. The trends represent annual averages of multiday Gallup surveys conducted each year.

The most important point to take away from this study is the following: the majority of Republicans say they are either very conservative or conservative, but the total proportion of conservatives grew 10 percentage points between 2002 and 2010, from 62% to 72%. At the same time, the percentage of moderates fell from 31% to 23%. Relatively few Republicans say they are liberal -- just 4% in 2011. Republicans' ideology largely held at the 2010 levels in 2011.

•For the record, stop worrying about how the Chiefs administration may or may not be treating their employees. The Chiefs deserve no more scrutiny in the manner that they treat their workers than any other business does. And comparing the GM change from Carl Peterson to Scott Pioli to other GM changes around the NFL is not accurate, because those changes did not involve owner changes as well. Clark Hunt seems to be distinctly different from his father, Lamar Hunt. That may end up being a good thing or a bad thing, the jury is still out, but no doubt about it, they are different.

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow along at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


'GREEN' BUILDINGS ARE NOT USING LESS ENERGY

Posted 1/14/12

•Well, now that the first primary is history, we should be able to focus on a few main points in the Republican race for President.

Rick Santorum seems to be congealing as the main focus of the all-important conservative wing of the Republican Party.

Mitt Romney has enough money to pretty much marginalize any front-runner that threatens his campaign.

Rick Perry is hinging his flailing campaign on a win in South Carolina, which might lead to a win in Florida.

Newt Gingrich must win a state primary or caucus. His recent $5 million donation from a Vegas hotelier will give him some longevity.

And the two most important points that all conservatives, independents, and Republicans MUST NOT forget:

1. Whomever is the Republican nominee, he must get our vote in November; and

2. Sitting out the election or voting for another party's nominee is a vote for Obama.
Defeating Obama is what this election is about.

•Remember this past week when Gov. Rick Perry minced no words in calling Barack Obama a Socialist. A website run by an Austin, Texas newspaper called politifact.org claimed to conduct an objective analysis of this claim. Their conclusion was that Perry's claim is untrue, that Obama is not a socialist. His efforts to extend government influence over the automobile companies, the private health care system, regulation of the use of carbon, etc. all are apparently not sufficient evidence of socialist intent.

What they DID claim was that the progressive taxation system we are subjected to was voted and approved by Republicans and Democrats, therefore, said system which Obama fully supports and is in fact trying to make even more unbalanced, is not evidence of socialism.

Yes, that is indeed what they did. I haven't seen reasoning that lucid since I was 8 and complained to my parents that I could hit my brother because, “He hit me first.”

•Here is more evidence of the lunacy of electric cars.

The Nissan Leaf was recently driven by a reporter, Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, from Knoxville to the Nashville area. His plan was to follow Interstate 40 West, where a series of Cracker Barrel restaurants – equipped with so-called “fast” vehicle chargers (if you want to call 30 minutes or more “fast”) along the route – would provide an electricity re-charge resource as the Leaf's charge diminished.

The only problem was, the car's charge dropped more rapidly than promised. In what has to be a public relations disaster for Nissan, Smith's Leaf was unable to travel no farther than 55 miles on any leg of the trip – and for the most part, much less. The company, and its government backers, proclaimed the Leaf was “built to go 100 miles on a charge,” with a footnoted disclaimer that it travels shorter distances if the air conditioning or the heater is used. Turns out even that was an exaggeration.

It was about 35 degrees when Smith departed Knoxville on Monday. A trip that should take 3 hours ended up taking six hours because of all the stops to recharge. The approximate intervals where they paused for recharging were as follows:

·Knoxville to Harriman: 45 miles
·Harriman to Crossville: 31 miles
·Crossville to Cookeville: 31 miles
·Cookeville to Lebanon: 50 miles
·Lebanon to destination in Antioch, just south of Nashville: 22 miles

Hence Smith required four recharges in order to travel approximately 180 miles.

I can't believe that here we are in the 21st century and they're still trying to make us buy electric cars!

•Now this one shows some promise!!!

The U.S. Congress is calling a halt to certain military spending on so-called “green” building in a newly passed defense authorization bill (H.R. 1540) The bill prohibits use of Department of Defense funds to achieve LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Gold or Platinum ratings, with waivers possible if a cost-benefit analysis for the project can demonstrate payback.

The bill “represents a rollback of the federal government at the forefront of pushing green building and LEED,” according to green building attorney Shari Shapiro, Esq. “Over the last five years, the federal government has been one of the largest customers for LEED,” she says. Shapiro sees indications in other legislation that Congress is trying to “push back at the use of LEED particularly but also green building in general.”

Without dedicating this entire page of The Landmark to this issue, LEED and “green” building design has been under fire because early statistics have shown that buildings constructed to these “green” standards are not using less energy – they're in fact using MORE energy than conventional buildings, and the point in building “green” buildings is supposed to be that they use less energy.

(Statistics show you’ll always learn something using a Parallax Look. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


MAKE 2012 THE YEAR WE TAKE BACK THE FREE MARKETS

Posted 1/7/12

•Did you catch this nonsense on your way out the door on New Year's Eve this year?
“Just in time for New Year's Eve…the Hump Smarter Hotline - 1-800-***-****.”
Yes, you read that accurately.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which is the group of nincompoops who first sued to stop development in the name of the Spotted Owl, launched the Hump Smarter Hotline, intended to be an irreverent toll-free phone service urging callers to think twice before taking an unprotected roll in the sheets.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), based in Tucson, Arizona, is a nonprofit membership organization with approximately 220,000 members and online activists, known for its work protecting endangered species through legal action and scientific petitions. Founded in 1989, the group has the stated objective to protect endangered species and critical habitat.

Their goal with the New Year's Eve movement was to bring attention to what the group perceives as a human overpopulation problem, and a somehow connected reduction in animal habitats.

There are two major problems with this movement. First, are you serious that we should forestall creating more humans, or at least in constructing more places where we can live comfortably, so that animals have more land to live on? Seriously? Who is higher on the food chain here?

Second, did they ever consider that in telling people who are dumb enough to listen to them in the first place, environuts, to not procreate that they will in effect breed their movement out of existence?

•Another fire hazard from electric cars came to light.

Fisker Automotive is recalling all 239 of its 2012 Karma luxury plug-in hybrid cars because of a fire hazard, according to a report filed with the NHTSA.
In a report filed recently on the agency's Web site, Fisker said some hose clamps were not properly positioned, which could allow a coolant leak. “If coolant enters the battery compartment an electrical short could possibly occur, causing a thermal event within the battery, including a possible fire in the worse case,” the company told the safety agency.
The National Journal reported last week that Newt Gingrich has killed a chapter on climate change in a post-election book of essays about the environment.

Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech and author of the chapter, said that she had been asked to write a chapter on climate change for the former House speaker's book. She said she was approached by former Palm Beach Zoo CEO Terry Maple, Gingrich's coeditor, at an annual meeting of Republicans for Environmental Protection.

Asked to confirm her chapter was dropped, she replied, “I had not heard that.”

•The climate-change issue arose last week when a woman expressed concern about the chapter to Gingrich. She said she heard about it on Rush Limbaugh's radio program. As she began to tell Gingrich who the author of the piece would be, Gingrich interrupted. “That's not going to be in the book,” he told her. “We didn't know that they were doing that, and we told them to kill it.”

Hayhoe, an avowed KoolAid drinker of anthropogenic global warming nonsense, initially claimed ignorance to the claims.

She has claimed previously that “…among climate scientists…there is no debate regarding the reality of climate change and the fact that humans are the primary cause…”

Hayhoe also said in that interview, “It is primarily laypeople, such as talk-show hosts, or those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, who are perpetuating the idea that there is no scientific consensus.”

Rush Limbaugh picked up on those quotes, including Hayhoe's poke at talk-show hosts. He called her “one of Newt's experts” and said she believes in man-made global warming. That no doubt created heartburn for Team Newt and certainly played a part in his fall in the polls leading up to the Iowa Caucus. .

This following one really has me torqued.

The light bulb efficiency standards began phasing in on January 1 despite intense opposition from conservatives, who have blasted the rules as a textbook unnecessary federal regulation.

While Republicans did get funding blocked for enforcement of the standards in a year-end spending bill, energy efficiency groups claim the provision will have little practical impact. The Energy Department rules will go into effect at the start of 2012.

The spending bill cut funding for enforcement, but the law is still in effect.

So you can still buy 100 watt incandescent light bulbs, but they've got nobody to come and arrest you.

Keep stockpiling the incandescent bulbs folks.

•And welcome to 2012 – the year we take back capitalism and the free markets.

(We’re taking back the free markets each and every week with a Parallax Look. Reach Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


HYDROGEN BATTERY COULD ALLOW I-PHONE TO RUN FOR DAYS OR WEEKS

Posted 12/29/11

•Merry Christmas to all my fantastically intelligent readers, and I hope you have a happy and safe New Year celebration.

•2012 is going to be a very important year in politics. We are going to select the next President in about 10 months' time and that election is going to be the one that sets the course of the United States economy for the coming 4 -5 years.

There are basically going to be two possible choices this time around, and they couldn't be more distinct from each other.

Option One, Obama and the Democrats course, involves growing government even bigger, going into even greater debt, and saddling the already over-burdened energy-burners in our economy with the cost.

Option Two, the Republican (and hopefully the conservatives will call the shots in that tent) course, involves reducing the size and scope of government to be more in-line with what the U.S. Constitution established when the states created the Federal Government. Historically, this option is followed by a tremendous explosion of injection of privately-controlled capital into the free market, which in-turn spurs employment in the private sector and wealth and revenue growth held by millions of Americans.

This will be the most easy-to-decide election in a long, long time.

•The loony story of the past week has to be the following:
www.SustainableBusiness.com reports the first large scale carbon capture project is underway. This is a huge carbon sequestration project which essentially involves pumping carbon dioxide (CO2) underground, presumably so it won't warm the earth's environment, which of course we know is just plain a waste of time and resources because the sun is warming and cooling the planet. CO2 concentrations go up and down in response to temperature changes. They don't cause them.

An estimated 1,000 metric tons a day are being sequestered now, and over the next three years, over a million tons will be stored 7000 feet underground. The site has room for up to 15 billion metric tons of liquefied CO2.

To add some common sense scale to that, the earth's atmosphere has about 3100 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Most of that comes from natural sources, that is to say sources that are not man. (By the way, what is man if not “natural?” Where do they think we came from anyway?) Man produces about 3% of all the carbon dioxide on the planet.

Back to the common sense part – a gigaton amounts to 1 x 10 to the 9th power, or 1,000,000,000 tons. The earth has 3,100,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide. This site is going to theoretically hold 15 billion or 15,000,000,000 tons (It will never reach that capacity because conservatives are going to yank funding for this nonsense as soon as they get control of the White House). Therefore, barely one-two-hundredth of all the carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere, and is going to stay there for a very long time.

By the way, has anybody done any study on the effect of all this carbon dioxide on subterranean life? Perhaps pumping all this pressurized liquefied gas underground is going to mess with plate tectonics and cause a major earthquake somewhere.

"We fully believe it will be safe," officials claim. "We already have excellent baseline environmental data." One of the most extensive environmental monitoring programs in the world is being employed by Schlumberger Carbon Services.

Idiots!

•And for some positive news, Apple has plans to use hydrogen in batteries allowing iPhones and iPods to hold their charge for weeks.

The company hopes to use hydrogen cells to produce lighter batteries that could last for weeks. The company has submitted applications for patents to create new energy sources for their products.

The filings that the company submitted seem to have rather bold promises of allowing electronics to run for days or weeks without having to be recharged.

Products: The new energy sources would be used for many or all Apple products.
By switching from standard batteries which use precious Lithium metal which is in short supply, to hydrogen, the by-products of the new technology would only be water and electrical energy.

The idea of hydrogen fuel technology isn't new, but this is the clearest indication of exactly what the company intends to do to improve users experiences with the iPod or iPhone.

So, at least somebody is trying something on the energy from that doesn't involve the nonsense of windmills or solar panels.

(Get a no-nonsense Parallax Look each week right here. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


ATTORNEY GENERAL NEEDS TO RESIGN OR BE FIRED

Posted 12/23/11

*Christmas Week…what to cover…what to talk about. . .

Why change horses in midstream? Full steam ahead!

Attorney General Eric Holder needs to be fired, or resign at the least. Evidence?

They are trying to, “paint him and other department figures in the worst possible light” as Holder himself said. Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we're both African-American.”

Yes, you read it…last weekend in the New York Times. Eric Holder played the race card. Funny, but I don't remember John Ashcroft ever complaining that his race played a role in the motivations of his opposition.

*U.S Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood last week announced federal guidance to expressly prohibit texting by drivers of commercial vehicles such as large trucks and buses. The prohibition is effective immediately and is the latest in a series of actions taken by the department to combat distracted driving since the secretary convened a national summit on the issue last September.

Their justification?

"Our regulations will help prevent unsafe activity within the cab,” said Anne Ferro, administrator for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). “We want to make it crystal clear to operators and their employers that texting while driving is the type of unsafe activity that these regulations are intended to prohibit.”

FMCSA research shows that drivers who send and receive text messages take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of every 6 seconds while texting. At 55 miles per hour, this means that the driver is traveling the length of a football field, including the end zones, without looking at the road. Drivers who text while driving are more than 20 times more likely to get in an accident than non-distracted drivers.

Because of the safety risks associated with the use of electronic devices while driving, FMCSA is also working on additional regulatory measures that will be announced in the coming months.

During the September 2009 Distracted Driving Summit, the secretary announced the department's plan to pursue this regulatory action, as well as rulemakings to reduce the risks posed by distracted driving. President Obama also signed an executive order directing federal employees not to engage in text messaging while driving government-owned vehicles or with government-owned equipment.

So, if we are not allowed to be on the phone or text in our cars, are police and ambulance and firemen not going to be allowed to be on the radio in their vehicles?

That's not safe either, is it?

*Well apparently, we have been given a reprieve from the evil doings of Thomas Edison, the Greatest Inventor of the 20th Century.

The forces of science and rationalism won a big victory in Congress this week over superstition and religious intolerance, but somehow I doubt the American Civil Liberties Union is celebrating.

Here's the headline: “Congress overturns incandescent light bulb ban.”

That's right. The ban on 100-watt incandescent Thomas Edison light bulbs, which was supposed to begin Jan. 1, has apparently been put off. Congress has denied the green fundamentalists any funds to impose their economic Jihad on the rest of us infidels who have figured out that global warming is a scam.

Is that blasphemy? It seems so, since Republicans and Democrats alike have embraced this strange cult.

Fanatical believers engaged in odd rituals like sorting out their trash, depositing each type in a different bin…paper, plastic, glass, and aluminum. Like all cults, which is what they really are, Enviros have no tolerance for other, more serious religions, because they believe in global warming, it therefore must be true, and anyone opposing them must be shunned.

Their Book of Revelation is Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth.” What they will never acknowledge is that the real inconvenient truth is that the date of the apocalypse keeps getting moved back.

Northern Illinois is instituting the state's Electronic Products Recycling and Reuse Act, which becomes fully effective in January 2012. The act bans virtually all e-waste from landfills expanding on the measure passed in 2008 which outlawed computers, monitors, televisions and printers from landfills.

The new law extends the ban to other electronics, including keyboards, portable music devices, scanners, video game consoles and other items.

“The harmful toxins in these devices are harmful to our air and water,” said Lori Gummow, KNIB executive director. “Many of these items can be repurposed for reuse; it is important to remember that it is irresponsible to simply dump them into our landfills.”

These people are nuts…all of them.

We have plenty of land available for landfills. There is no shortage of landfill space. We made computers from resources gained from the earth. Putting them in a landfill is like sending them home.

Wake up!

(There is no shortage of Parallax Looks. Get one each week right here and follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


KEEP SCIENCE SEPARATE FROM POLITICS

Posted 12/17/11

This column will serve as an exhibition for why politics should never be used in science. Science is discovery and exploration. It is intended to answer basic life questions like, “Why are we here?” “How do certain things work?” and “Where did we come from?” Politics is figuring out what is to be done with the money taken from us through taxation, and how much should actually be taken. Those are two very different things. Combining the two is just wrong, as these factual examples will illustrate.

The Voltsel
Did you catch this on The Drudge Report? The Chevy Volt is said to be “headed down the Edsel Highway.” The Wall Street Journal indicated that GM is looking down the barrel of a thorough investigation into why the batteries on several Chevrolet Volt cars caught fire in recent months. Analysts fear the news potentially harming sales of the electric vehicle, which given the already anemic sales figures would be akin to convincing Todd Haley to buy a Chiefs Season Ticket.

GM has said a coolant leak is behind the problem, which caused three of the Volt's lithium-ion batteries to spark or catch fire days or weeks after being damaged in crash tests. GM has said the battery is safe and that the company likely can fix the problem without a major redesign.

But the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration isn't sure that explanation is correct. Meanwhile, GM dealers face a massive PR fallout from the fires. Already, two dozen Volt owners have taken up GM's offer to buy back their vehicles, and they are complaining to GM about the impact on business, worried that they won't be able to sell the cars, which cost $41,000.

Why the United States Should Exit the UN Post-Haste
Bureaucrats at the UN Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa have indicated plans for a truly imbecilic climate change treaty, under which the west would be mandated to respect “the rights of Mother Earth” by paying a climate debt which would act essentially as a slush fund for bankrolling an all-powerful world government.

Even after the near mortal wounds to the movement's credibility in the aftermath of Climategate 2.0 (which I outlined for you a couple of weeks ago here), the monstrous bureaucracy behind this bogus movement continues to lumber forward like a zombie trying to dance The Charleston.

The treaty calls for the west to achieve a 50% carbon dioxide emissions reduction within the next eight years, a feat that would completely bankrupt the global economy and spark a new great depression, as well as a “more than 100%” reduction by 2050. You would have to literally eliminate billions of humans to prevent them from exhaling carbon dioxide. (Wait a minute – how many people have been killed through abortion and the malaria resurgence thanks to the U.S. government ban on DDT?)

The text of the proposed treaty calls for a 2 degree Celsius drop in global temperatures, which would herald a new ice age.

The reduction in CO2 concentration the text calls for would actually begin to kill all plant life and trees on the planet because they need levels of carbon dioxide above 210 ppmv to survive.

Environmental enforcement arms of the UN would be given the power of a global government in the name of fighting climate change. The draft calls for creation of a global centralization of political, economic and environmental power in the hands of the UN secretariat, an un-elected position.

That's not very democratic.

And They're Talking About Warming?
Bloomberg reports, a wind turbine on a “wind farm” in Scotland caught fire in high storm winds recently.

The nacelle, the case containing the wind turbine's power- generating components, caught fire at the Ardrossan wind farm in Ayrshire, Scotland, Infinis, the turbine manufacturer, indicated in a statement late last night. The fire extinguished itself before firefighters arrived and no one was injured. The cause of the blaze is not yet known.
Wind speeds of as much as 165 miles per hour were recorded the day of the fire. Staff will typically vacate wind farms when wind speeds exceed 55 mph and no one was present on site at the time.

Electric cars on fire, UN global green police, and wind turbines torching the Highlands?

Let's keep our science separate from our politics, thank you.

(Watch Brian separate science from politics at Twitter.com/bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


NEWT HAS NEVER STABBED FELLOW REPUBLICANS IN THE BACK

Posted 12/10/11

*Now that Newt Gingrich seems to be gaining in favorability for the Republican nomination for president, I find myself trying to envision whether he actually fits in the role I envision for someone I am going to vote for in November 2012.

I could do the same thing for an empty Pringles tube, 'cause I'd vote for that over the current occupant of the White House…but I digress.

I did the same thing in 2007-08 as John McCain's nomination appeared to be gaining steam. As a result of that effort, I was left with a very bad taste in my mouth, a lackadaisical attitude for the Republican Party's chances in the coming election, and by virtue of the election results, I definitely wasn't alone.

It's different this time around. Newt has similarities to McCain in his physical appearance and age and political experience. But there's one main difference between the two. Newt hasn't stabbed his fellow Republicans in the back while he was in office. McCain seemed to make that his calling card.

Further to that point, I tried to recall a time when Gingrich did anything contrary to conservatism legislatively, while in elected office. Now, he certainly has a record of soiling the morning Cheerios of conservatives committed while out of office. His venomous betrayal of conservatism by appearing in a pro-global warming commercial with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi floats to the top first and foremost. His open criticism of Congressman Paul Ryan over Ryan's budget proposal as “social engineering from the right” almost got Newt drawn-and-quartered.

I have said previously that Newt's problem is he thinks he is smart enough to re-configure conservative principles. If he leaves that penchant in the basement of this campaign, he just might have a chance.

But I still say it's too early in the process for any one candidate to pull away from the pack.

*Have you ever noticed people in the media always crying about the federal government not getting anything done? They sneer when they call it what it is – gridlock. Neither side gets their agenda implemented and mostly, legislation stalls in one branch or another. Don't they realize that divided government – different parties holding control over the three branches of government with no single party having total power, it exactly what the American voters wanted from their government this time around? If everything government does is wrong, which has been the case from 2008-10, doing nothing is a decided improvement. I like gridlock in government this time around. Remember, if they're not doing anything, they're not spending your money.

*Now here's some good news from the North! Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent says Canada will withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol by the end of 2012.
Speaking in a teleconference from an international climate-change summit in South Africa, Mr. Kent said Canada will not make a second commitment to Kyoto, which would run from 2013 to 2017.

Jean Chrétien's liberal government signed onto Kyoto in 1998, but took little action to meet Canada's targets to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

The conservatives also ignored Kyoto after they came to power in 2006.

The Kyoto accord requires countries to make strict cuts to their greenhouse-gas emissions, but the Tories say making those reductions would hurt the economy.
The world's most productive economies – the United States, China and India – are not part of Kyoto and the conservatives that don't yet know that all of this is nonsense argue that any agreement that does not include the big economies is meaningless.

*As for this BCS controversy, for those that are claiming that having a better, more competitive match-up in a lesser bowl game, like Kansas State and Arkansas do in facing each other in the non-BCS Cotton Bowl in Dallas, consider the following facts:
In terms of the bowl game 2011-12 projected payouts, the AT&T Cotton Bowl pays the involved teams $7,250,000 to take back to their conferences after travel expenses are paid.

Not bad, huh?

The five BCS bowls get to split (in uneven distributions) an estimated $181 million. That runs down to something like $15 million per team, $10-$12 million more than K-State or Arkansas will take back to their conferences. So what exactly did double-digit ranked Michigan and Virginia Tech do to earn $10 million more each than Top 10 ranked Arkansas and Kansas State?

Get back to me when you figure that out.

(Figure out Parallax Look each week and follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)


WANT SAFE DRIVING? DON'T BUY AN ELECTRIC CAR

Posted 12/1/11

This week's, “I Told You So” returns to the Government Motors (GM) Chevy Volt electric car.

Bloomberg reported last week that additional cars have caught fire resulting from crash-test-induced lithium-ion battery punctures. The car maker is now the subject of a U.S. safety probe after its batteries caught fire in crash tests.

As I mentioned recently, a Volt caught fire three weeks after a side-impact crash test May 12 while parked at a testing center in Wisconsin.

Volt battery packs were damaged in three more tests last week, causing two fires.

The NHTSA said it doesn't know of any crashes outside of testing that have led to battery-related fires in Volts or other cars powered by lithium-ion batteries. Chevy Volt owners whose vehicles have not been in a serious crash don't need to be concerned, the agency said.

Just don't get in a serious crash, I suppose is the best advice they can offer.

It's better just to avoid buying and driving an electric car. How's that for safe driving?
At this stage of Volt marketing, the NHTSA investigation will probably not hurt sales, claim industry analysts. Sales already stink. They can't stink much more.

The car has been on sale for a year as the manufacturer ramps up production.
GM sold 5,003 Volts this year through October. They'll push production to a rate of 60,000 a year starting in January. Of the 60,000 GM plans to build next year, 45,000 are earmarked for the U.S., and the rest will be exported.

*So, now a new batch of 5,000 emails among climate scientists that believe humans are causing global warming have been anonymously released to the public last week. The release has generated a new controversy almost two years after a similar email release culminated in the Climategate scandal.

Of course, all the global warming believers, who also happen to be rampant socialists incidentally, claimed at that time that the emails, which largely communicated that the climate scientists were trying to conceal data that did not support their assertion that man is the primary cause of global warming, were being taken out of context.

This time around, the themes emerging from the emails: are: that prominent scientists are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; the scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry; and many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

An example of a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures:

“I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” Phil Jones, with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

And:

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones in another email.

“I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” Jones strikes again!

The new emails also reveal the scientists' attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes, as the following shows:

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what is left out” of IPCC reports. Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC's most recent climate assessment.

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she thinks she's doing, but it's not helping the cause,” wrote Penn State's Michael Mann in another newly released email.

The “cause?”

How about this doozey…

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary.” --Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

I'm starting to like this Thorne guy.

To review, mankind isn't powerful enough to influence the global climate. This is all about implementation of global socialism and destruction of capitalism, which of course is why you have these Occupy movements around the nation.

(Get your weekly Parallax Look fix right here and throughout the week at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


DAUGHTER CORRECTS THE RECORD ON NEWT'S DIVORCE

Posted 11/25/11

*Europe says drinking water does not prevent dehydration. They do so now by law.
Please make this note in your Environmental Log Books – the European Union has concluded, after a three-year investigation, that producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim that drinking water will forestall dehydration. Violators of the new law will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.

NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 liters per day. But don't let the facts stop you. The European government wants you to know that drinking water will not prevent dehydration.

*So, let's get the record straight on Newt Gingrich.

Remember when everyone re-stated the story about Gingrich informing his wife on her cancer death bed that he would be divorcing her? We all heard the stories.
So, here's the truth:.

From Newt's daughter, “My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive, and often spends time with my family. I am lucky to have such a 'Miracle Mom,' as I titled her in a column this week.

“As for my parents' divorce, I can remember when they told me.

“It was the spring of 1980. I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.

“Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.

“It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won't repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here's what happened: My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested. Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother. She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor. The tumor was benign.

“As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.”

So there…you know the truth.

*You ever notice how people out of politics often refer to “Our Leaders” in referencing governmentally elected leaders? Actress Glenn Close did so in a recent interview, saying that “…we lack eloquent leadership…” among our political leaders. But, are elected politicians really “our leaders?” I would posit that they are nothing more than the arbiters of the money we all set aside for the operation of government, and nothing more.

WE are the true leaders of society. We determine how most of the money is spent in this country. Government has, and should have, a very limited role in that process.

*This one will really trip your trigger:

The Fernald School was the site of the 1946–53 joint experiments by Harvard University and MIT that exposed young male children to tracer doses of radioactive isotopes. Documents obtained in 1994 by the United States Department of Energy revealed the following details:

*The experiment was conducted in part by a research fellow sponsored by the Quaker Oats Company.

*MIT Professor of Nutrition Robert S. Harris led the experiment, which studied the absorption of calcium and iron.

*The boys were encouraged to join a "Science Club", which offered larger portions of food, parties, and trips to Boston Red Sox baseball games.

*The 57 club members ate iron enriched cereals and calcium-enriched milk for breakfast. In order to track absorption, several radioactive calcium tracers were given orally or intravenously.

*Radiation levels in stool and blood samples would serve as dependent variables.

*In another study, 17 subjects received iron supplement shots containing radioisotopes or iron.

*Neither the children nor their parents ever gave adequate informed consent for participation in a scientific study.

*The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, reporting to the United States Department of Energy in 1994, reported on these experiments.

*In 1946, one study exposed seventeen subjects to radioactive iron. The second study, which involved a series of seventeen related sub-experiments, exposed 57 subjects to radioactive calcium between 1950 and 1953. It is clear that the doses involved were low and that it is extremely unlikely that any of the children who were used as subjects were harmed as a consequence. These studies remain morally troubling, however, for several reasons. First, although parents or guardians were asked for their permission to have their children involved in the research, the available evidence suggests that the information provided was, at best, incomplete. Second, there is the question of the fairness of selecting institutionalized children at all, children whose life circumstances were by any standard already heavily burdened.

*In fairness, the highest dose of radiation that any subject was exposed to was 330 millirem, the equivalent of less than one year's background radiation in Denver.

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


 

CHEVY VOLT CATCHES FIRE WEEKS AFTER CRASH

Posted 11/18/11

*Alright, without further ado, let's discuss the elephant in the room: Penn State University child abuse scandal. So much has been said about the horrific allegations and those involved thus far, one has to wonder what can be added at this point? Here are a few thoughts:

It ought to be noted that despite the child sex abuse allegations being unproven at this point, the university was justified in dismissing head coach Joe Paterno. By Paterno's own admission, via the grand jury report, he was told that former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was in a locker room shower with a very young boy, and depending on whose words you believe, Sandusky was either raping the boy or “…fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy…”

With that information, Paterno waited an entire day before taking the allegation to the university athletic director. He never followed up and he never took the allegation to the police. Those established facts were enough to dismiss Paterno.

What did Sandusky's wife know? She is probably the only adult who knew whether Sandusky was capable of such horrific acts.

Sandusky has pled not guilty to the charges, and at least one of the witnesses against him is committed to a nursing facility with dementia, and at least one of his alleged victims is still unknown to the authorities. Can you envision a scenario where a jury acquits Sandusky? Before you tell me to get my head examined for making such a preposterous observation, consider the facts: wealthy and influential accused person, potentially more wealthy and more influential persons involved in related crimes, young and frightened and permanently-scarred victims, a jury from some jurisdiction that doesn't know about media or anything about this case. You know the scenario, because we have seen it again and again in this country. O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Casey Anthony. This joke of a legal system we are mired in benefits people like Jerry Sandusky greatly...and hugely disadvantages victims such as these boys.

I hope it doesn't happen again, but I'm not betting that it won't.

*By the way, did you hear that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said last week that a Chevy Volt electric vehicle underwent a 20 mile-per-hour, side-impact test for its five-star crash safety rating. The crash punctured the Volt's lithium-ion battery, and after more than three weeks of sitting outside, the vehicle and several cars around it caught fire. Fortunately, no one was hurt.

General Motors blames the fire occurred on claims that the NHTSA did not drain the energy from the Volt's battery following the crash, which is a safety step General Motors recommends. NHTSA says they had not been told of the safety protocol.
The finger-pointing begins.

*This one really chaps my hide. Now that the United States Supreme Court has decided to hear the legal challenges to ObamaCare, 74 House Democrats have signed a letter to Clarence Thomas asking the Supreme Court justice to recuse himself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of the national health care overhaul, arguing that his wife's work as a lobbyist creates "the appearance of a conflict of interest."

Many believe the move is nothing more than a ploy to counter Republican demands that Obama-appointed Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself because she served as President Obama's Solicitor General and legal advisor when legal arguments for ObamaCare were being formulated.

Comparing those two situations is patently ridiculous. Clarence Thomas is not answerable for his wife's activities in his work on the Supreme Court. Kagan possibly devised the very legal arguments that are behind the health care law. Of course she should be recused from judging the case. They can't be serious with this claim to recuse Thomas!

Then again, look who signed the letter that the Democrats sent:

The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court Building 1
First Street Northeast
Washington D.C., DC 20543

Dear Justice Thomas:
As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. As members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.

[BLAH…BLAH…BLAH….BLAH….BLAH and the closing…]

We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request.

Sincerely,
ANTHONY D. WEINER
Member of Congress

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


WATER IS A POLITICAL ISSUE, NOT A SCIENTIFIC ONE

Posted 11/11/11

*Have you noticed the phrase, “a high tech lynching” being tossed around a lot as of late? The media has been using it quite a bit in describing the ordeal that Herman Cain is going through in relation to sexual harassment allegations going back a dozen years and more from purported former employees and associates.

For those too young to remember, the actual entire phrase is part of a larger statement made by a Conservative nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, who in his Senate confirmation process some 20+ years ago was faced with sexual harassment claims from a protégé that worked for Thomas many years earlier. For the record, Thomas was ultimately confirmed to the High Court and has served with distinction in the ensuing years.

But something is missing from the original phrase that the ABC/NBC/CBS media world is recounting. The entire phrase that Clarence Thomas used was, “A high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.” Those were Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' exact words. He used those words to describe the character assassination that was being leveled upon him by Democrat Senators Joe Biden (yes, THAT Joe Biden) and Edward Kennedy who were trying their best to keep a Conservative black man from getting placed on the nation's highest court.. But you never hear the “…for uppity blacks…” part when the media is recounting the statement.

Any ideas why they leave out that last part?

*I got a kick out of the woman that came out this week with a graphic description of the harassment she was subjected to by Herman Cain many years ago. But I wasn't entertained so much by her descriptive claims as much as I was by her acknowledgment that she was, “…coming forward to give a face and a voice to those women who cannot, or, for whatever reasons, do not wish to come forward…”
Boy is that a careful lawyer-wording! Might it interest all to realize that those women that had apparently made claims against Herman Cain did end up sealing their silence in discussing the accounts of their supposed encounters with a certain sum of money as settlement? This “whatever reason” is they do not want to be in violation of their confidentiality agreements and they do not want to give up the money they were given in the settlements.

Funny how the media tries to craft this as Cain keeping gags in these ladies' mouths.

*This was most interesting. I read the following in a blog put out by an esteemed (not by me, mind you, but somebody of the Leftie persuasion liked what he thinks generally) environmentalist.

There is enough water in our rivers to quench all thirst AND increase food production.
Water-related conflicts and shortages already abound throughout societies in Africa, Asia and Latin America. But they are completely unnecessary. There actually is more than enough water to sustain food, energy, industrial and environmental needs during the 21st century? According to the report appearing in the peer-reviewed journal, Water International, we have more than enough water, enough to sustainably double food production in the coming decades.

So why is there a perceived crisis of water supply?

The "sleeping giant" of water challenges is not scarcity, argues scientists from the agricultural research group CGIAR's Challenge Program on Water and Food, who spent five years gathering data from 30 countries for the study, but the inefficient and inequitable distribution of water from key rivers such as the Nile, Ganges, Andes, Yellow, Niger and Volta.

“Yes, there is scarcity in certain areas, but our findings show that the problem overall is a failure to make efficient and fair use of the water available in these river basins," says Alain Vidal, director of CGIAR's water and food program in a statement. "This is ultimately a political challenge, not a resource concern.”

So there you go. Water is a political issue and not a scientific one.

Kind of like global warming/climate change/or whatever they are calling the movement these days.

*Congratulations, I think, to the University of Missouri for gaining acceptance to the SEC. If I were a Missouri deep pocketed donor, I’d be ready for the onslaught because the curators are coming with open palms. As ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit said in an interview a couple of weeks ago on the prospects of the Tigers in the SEC, “…get ready to ramp-up your efforts in football. You're going to have to step up to the plate Missouri to compete in the SEC.”

Indeed. I'm gonna miss those old slavers.

(Ramp up each week with a Parallax Look and follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


CONSERVATIVES OUTNUMBER MODERATES

Posted 11/6/11

Have you seen the Gallup polling results on how people describe themselves politically?
In 2011, among Republicans and people who lean in that direction politically, 68% are conservative, 26% are moderate, and 6% are liberal.

Among all adults, those numbers break down as follows: 42% conservative, 37% moderate, and 21% liberal.

Those numbers are up from similar polls taken in 2009.

Given these figures, anyone claiming that the independents, or moderates, are the key group in winning elections are just plain incorrect. The last election in 2008 showed quite clearly than a moderate conservative loses against a liberal, because you have de-energized the largest single group in the election, the conservatives. If they stay home or vote for an alternative party, the conservative candidate loses the election. That's the only guarantee at work.

As I have said all along, the key is to deliver the conservative message with clarity and passion. Independents will go where the lights are brightest – that's why they are moderates.

*Can you imagine Obama, or any liberal candidate extolling the benefits of liberalism? You don't have to think very hard because you are hearing it from President Obama right now. His message is about populism, class envy, and pitting Americans of different income levels against each other.

And once again, we told you he was going to be like this. We told you in 2008.

*You ever stop and wonder where we get certain terms in our English language?
When did we start using the word, biodegrade?

Biodegrigation or biotic decomposition is the chemical dissolution of materials by bacteria or other biological means. The term is often used in relation to ecology, waste management, biomedicine, and the natural environment. It is now only associated with “environmentally friendly” products that are capable of decomposing back into natural elements.

Biodegradable matter is generally organic material such as plant and animal matter. or artificial materials that are similar enough to plant and animal matter to be put to use by microorganisms.

In nature, different materials biodegrade at different rates. But they all degrade. To be able to work effectively, most microorganisms that assist the biodegradation need light, water and oxygen.

Before 1961, nobody even heard of the word biodegrade, because we understood back then that everything degrades eventually back into its compositional elements. For some reason in 1961 we suddenly started to care about how long we would leave remnants of our life here on Earth around. Why were/are we suddenly so obsessed with disappearing from the planet and leaving no trace that we were ever here? Beats me. I want my remnants to last for thousands of years.

*Remember how I warned you to be cautious about Newt Gingrich? Here's why, courtesy of www.ClimateDepot.com.

From January 3, 2008. By Steve Milloy (edited by me for brevity)

“Newt Gingrich has guzzled Al Gore's Kool-Aid. Now he wants us and the Republican 2008 presidential candidates to drink it, too.

The former House Speaker's latest book, “A Contract with the Earth” co-authored with Palm Beach Zoo CEO Terry Maple, is an appalling paean to environmental naivete and taxpayer-subsidized profiteering.

While the book's theme — i.e., let's all just happily pitch in and do what it takes to save the environment — may sound reasonable, at least on a superficial basis, Gingrich's notions are often wrong or simply bizarre, and his prescriptions amount to little more than a full embrace of rent-seeking “green” business and left-leaning eco-activist groups, both of which often masquerade as “protectors” of the environment.

The book opens with the melodramatic line, “We are personally diminished by the loss of each and every species or habitat that cannot resist extinction.”

But nowhere does Gingrich indicate that we've been diminished by the ongoing malarial genocide in Africa caused by the senseless 1972 ban on the pesticide DDT — which was promoted by the Environmental Defense, a command-and-control activist group laughably lauded by Gingrich as an “advocate of market-based solutions to environmental problems.”

Another over-the-top sentiment is Gingrich's endorsement of Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson's doomsday observance, “The living world is dying.”

Gingrich asks, “Who among us lacks a fundamental respect for the earth?” But he simultaneously slams so-called “anti-environmental politicians” as “out of step with the American people” and the “patriotic worldview” — whatever that is. I don't know of any politician who is “anti-environment,” though there are a great many who demand that environmental policy be based on sound science.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

(Our environmental expert gives a Parallax Look each week. Follow him at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


NEWT IS GOOD BUT CAN'T WIN WITHOUT MONEY

Posted 10//28/11

*An astute reader brought to my attention that I left Newt Gingrich off my rundown of the candidates for the Republican nomination for president. I'd like to use the excuse that my omission was on purpose as some kind of shunning of a disappointing candidate. But that's not true because nobody has been more substandard than Gary Johnson and I even profiled him. No, the Newt omission was plain old nincompoopitude on my part.

Please allow me to afford Newt his due.

Newt Gingrich is without a doubt the most intelligent candidate and the best debater in the entire crowd running for president, especially including the current officeholder. Everyone I have spoken with on the issue would pay to see Newt eviscerate Obama in an issues debate, and Gingrich's proposal for an hours' long Lincoln-Douglas style debate would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in a pay-per-view event.

Newt is solid on conservative issues – fundamentally. He is particularly strong on the government-experience side of bringing political reality to a debate. He has fought the wars as a former Speaker of the House. He is solid on fiscal issues. He also serves an important role as media attacker in the debates, never failing to point out that the mainstream media is liberally biased.

Now the downside. Newt doesn't have a lot of money. His campaign staff has largely abandoned him. If he got the nomination, I would most certainly vote for him. But the major difficulty I have in supporting him at this point in the primaries is he thinks that he is so smart that he can arbitrarily change the Republican Party's positions on the issues; case in point his commercial a few years ago with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi where he appeared to side with the Tuna Queen (Her husband owns a huge chunk of StarKist Tuna which has enjoyed huge legislative favors in that enterprise at her behest) on global warming and government's role in addressing it. That was a major gaffe in Gingrich's Conservative credentials and it still dogs him today. That is such a basic issue and one no conservative can abandon, because it is 100% nonsense from beginning to end. I hope Newt gets the debate with Obama that he seeks. I'll be tuned in if he does, but you cannot win without money.

Let me close on Newt with this…he will last longer than Gary Johnson in the race and would make a fantastic member of a Cain, Perry, Bachmann, or Romney cabinet.

*The media keeps talking about Herman Cain's abortion problem. I came in late on the issue but recently got up to speed. Turns out that Cain appeared on something called a Piers Morgan Show on CNN and when asked how he could possibly support an abortion if his daughter was raped and became pregnant, answered something to the effect of, “…government should never be involved with that issue…” (Why do Republicans always get themselves twisted by liberals on this question?) Of course, other Republicans pounced on those comments as inconsistently pro-life (and good for them). Cain doesn't seem to be able to extricate himself adequately, at least to date.

The answer is quite simple. If your daughter or wife is raped and impregnated, life begins at conception. That life is part of your daughter or wife. That child is a victim of rape, just like the mother of the child. Why should that child be punished with death?
(Personally, I'd fire back at the questioner with, “You don't set laws based on obtuse and extremely rare circumstances. You have a hideous show, Piers. Should be ban all television because if it?”)

*Did You Know That?

MRSA (antibiotic-resistant staff infections) is resistant to the following antibiotics: penicillin, amoxicillin, and methicillin.

There are more deaths associated with MRSA than AIDS.

About two tenths of infections of the bloodstream that are in hospitals are caused by the staph bacteria.

Community related MRSA is now a bigger concern than health care related MRSA.

One out of 100 people is dealing with a staph infection.

Stop using anti-bacterial household products. Buy the normal non-antibacterial soaps, wipes, detergents, etc. We're hurting ourselves by giving in to media-driven nonsense.
And NEVER buy anything marketed as a “Green” product. That isn't a health issue, just one that will make me happy.
Thank you.

*Why are so many people getting SOOOO bent out of shape over the appearance of Chiefs head coach Todd Haley on the sidelines? What does it matter what the head coach looks like? Like (RIP) Al Davis liked to say, “Just win baby!”

(Just win with a Parallax Look. Follow Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


ANALYZING THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

Posted 10//22/11

*Alright folks, it appears that the first Presidential Primary is set for early January, right after the holidays, and we are only about 10 weeks or so from the beginning of crunch time. So here's how I see each candidate and the primaries unrolling.

With Sarah Palin and Chris Christie out, we're left with eight candidates: Romney, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman, Paul, and Johnson. The most consistent conservatives, according to their positions on the issues, are limited to: Cain, Bachmann, and Santorum. Romney, Perry and Cain are pretty much polling the highest among the candidates.

By the way, don't you just hate it when the media reports poll results as one candidate “is leading” or “is ahead in the race?” Polls are not road races. Polls are single day snapshots of public opinion, nothing more. In a road race, nobody is going to overcome a multi-lap deficit in the last straight-away. But that can happen in elections – it happens all the time.

So the rundown pretty much goes like this:

Mitt Romney appears to have the most money, has much face and name recognition, has been there before, and has carefully triangulated his positions on the issues so as to garner the favor of the independents among the electorate. He believes man has some role in climate change but doesn't want to hamper the economy in efforts to address it. He seems strong on life, immigration, and the economy.

Romney has the disadvantage of being the former governor of Massachusetts which enacted a government-mandated health care system. He explains it as being a state issue and not a federal government one. But he also is seen to defend state government mandating the purchase of health insurance because of the “precedent” that state governments mandate that car owners purchase insurance for their vehicles, which is a nonsense argument since you are not mandated to own or drive a car. There are also folks who have a problem with Romney's Mormon religion, which is also nonsense for a country purportedly founded on the concept of religious freedom.

Rick Perry is the sitting governor of Texas, seems to be well-funded, and is a recent entry into the race. He initially rocketed to the highest poll numbers but the fervor seems to have settled a bit since then. (See what I told you about polls?). Perry is strong on global warming being made-up nonsense. He is also strong on the economy – low taxes, smaller government. Perry is strongly pro-life.

Perry is weak on immigration though. His in-state tuition subsidies for children of illegal aliens is not striking a chord on the right.

Herman Cain is polling much stronger lately. The former Godfather's Pizza CEO is consistently strong on conservative issues. He also has a great personal story as a cancer survivor who claims that he would be dead right now had he faced his disease under ObamaCare. Reportedly, his finances are weak, but much will be revealed about Cain's chances of getting the nomination in the coming 8-10 weeks.

Probably Cain's only weakness is his political inexperience. Deep-down, Americans who vote are afraid that Washington will chew-up and spit-out the politically inexperienced.

Michelle Bachmann is another strong conservative who can address Cain's weakness in that she is a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Her money is not as strong as Romney and Perry's and she suffered some early missteps by dumping her campaign chairman Ed Rollins and had a few debate stumbles. Perry's entrance into the race seemed to have drawn interest from her campaign.

Bachmann seems strong in Iowa, where the first primary will be held, and a strong performance there coupled with a stumble by Perry or Romney can give her needed fuel for the primaries coming soon after.

Rick Santorum is solid on all the issues, especially life. His conservative positions on the economy, foreign policy, immigration, health care, taxes, and extent of government growth are consistent.

He doesn't seem to have much money though and he has a horrible electoral loss for the U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania hanging around his neck like an albatross. He might be the first candidate to drop out of the race after the Iowa caucuses.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian wearing conservative clothes. He is solid on the constitution being the basis for limiting the size and scope of the federal government. He is strong on life, health care, and taxes from a conservative point of view.

Paul's problems are that his isolationism is so strong, he makes Pat Buchanan look like a travel agent. Ron Paul's world view would see a nuclear-armed Iran and would leave Israel alone to fend for itself.

Jon Huntsman is Obama's former ambassador to China and is the most pro-anthropogenic climate change of all the candidates. I don't think even Obama is as bad on the climate as Huntsman is. He's strong on the economy and health care. He also says he is pro-life but he advocates same-sex marriage, which even Obama opposes.
Huntsman is a mixed bag moderate that likely has no chance at all in this particular election year.

Gary Johnson, the governor of New Mexico, only gets into debates occasionally and wants to legalize marijuana. He has no money to speak of and has no chance at all.
That's the rundown in a nutshell. Enjoy.

(In a nutshell, you can follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


 

THIS 'GREEN JOBS' THING JUST ISN'T WORKING OUT

Posted 10//14/11
 

*It seems like the Obama Administration and the Democrat National Committee are attempting to characterize the Wall Street protesters (I call them Anti-Achievers) as some kind of left-leaning Tea Party.

Wait a minute – I thought that the Tea Partiers are nothing more than racist, homophobic, Nazi-loving rednecks? So is that what these Anti-Achievers are? Looks to me like these folks are the same crowd that protests at the G-8 Economic Summits in Europe every year. That's a same-old, same-old situation.

The best thing these folks can do is go away from the protest lines and come back to Wall Street after a bath, a nice change into a shirt and tie, and with a recently updated resume in hand.

*How exactly do extending jobless benefits improve the national unemployment statistics? There are people out there turning down lower-paying jobs because they will make more money on welfare? This is nuts!

*The Chiefs do seem to be a slow-starting bunch but they can be entertaining. Now, before you dismiss the victory over Indianapolis as a meaningless win over a winless team, recall that just one week before that Colt team gave a tough Tampa Bay team a tough game on the road. Stay tuned.

*RIP to Steven Jobs and Al Davis. Now that's an unusual pairing in the line at The Pearly Gates. It would almost be worth being dead temporarily just to listen-in on their conversation. They kind of looked like they were related.

*By the way, how has that green jobs thing the Obama Administration has been all about working? I think I told you all several years ago that green jobs are just plain a bad investment. Generating electricity by wind or solar is 5-8 times more expensive than generating electricity with fossil fuels. File that one in the ever-expanding I Told You So file of this Administration.

*It seems like the Occupy Wall Street movement protests are basically different from Tea Party protests in that the Tea Party folks went home and cleaned up after themselves.

*Who are the Koch Brothers and where is all the money they are giving to Conservatives? Media Matters and other kook-Left websites always toss-out “The Coke Brothers” as the funding source behind the Tea Party. I'm a Conservative. I've gone to Tea Party events. I sport a “Reduce Your Government Footprint” bumper sticker on my car. These guys have never given me any money.

*If I have moles in my yard, will they go away when it gets cold this winter? Where do they go? Do they just freeze and die underground?

Well, the internet being what it is, apparently no. They don't go away. They just burrow down deeper and eat the worms that dug down deeper. Remember when we learned some time ago that the collective weight of worms under the ground is greater than the weigh of all the life on top of the soil? It a veritable mole smorgasbord underground.

*Imagine all the carbon dioxide that emanates off the soil all over the planet due to decaying plant and animal matter. I wonder if the climate modelers that claim mankind is the main source of global warming take that into account. I highly doubt it.

*As a dedicated Kansas State fan, I really hope Missouri stays in the Big 12. The KSU-MU rivalry grew kind of stale over the years and all this angst over the Tigers possibly moving to the SEC has stoked the fires quite a bit. Rivalries need that once in awhile. It would be a shame to burn off all this unrequited hate among fan bases.

*The caveman commercials have run their course. I can't believe they actually tried to make a TV series out of that.

*You know, a Detroit-Buffalo Super Bowl would be kind of cool.

*Next week, I will be laying out the contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination. Yes folks, it is that time.

(It’s always time for Parallax Look, here and at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


OF THE RINOS,
ROMNEY WOULD
DO LEAST HARM

Posted 10/7/11

*I have been informally polling acquaintances interested in the upcoming Republican Primaries to determine answers to the following question: considering only those who are actually in the race, and assuming you cannot choose one of the consistent Conservatives, which RINO candidate would you object to the least? We agreed that the consistent Conservatives are Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum. The RINOS are Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Newt Gingrich. The Libertarians are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

The answers were consistent across the board. The Libertarians are out because they want to legalize drugs and prostitution and seem to have no sense of the need to protect American interests, home and abroad.

Among the RINO's, Romney believes man causes some degree of global climate change and backed a government mandate for buying health insurance in Massachusetts. Perry likes giving things to illegal aliens and mandating STD shots for 12 year old girls in Texas. Huntsman is more adamant than Romney on global warming. Newt is also soft on global warming, evidenced by his commercial a few years ago with Nancy Pelosi on addressing climate change through government action.
But among all those RINO's, Romney would hurt the country in the least manner. He says that he believes man at least contributes in some minor manner to climate change, but he is adamantly opposed to implementing any kind of carbon tax on corporate America. Also, his argument that the health insurance mandate he backed in Massachusetts is an issue for the states, and not the federal government, and that argument, while easily disagreed with on principle, holds some merit philosophically. States have the right to set their own laws to live by, as long as they do not conflict with an expressed power of the federal government in the U.S. Constitution.

You could stick the Conservatives in the race for the Republican nomination with various eyebrow raises on mostly ancillary issues, Bachmann's Gardisil-causes-mental-retardation faux claim struck some nerves, even though I agree with her on the specific issue; Cain's lack of specificity on the issues and total lack of political experience makes me afraid that he will get chewed-up and spit out by the Washington machine, and Santorum's crushing defeat for his Pennsylvania U.S. Senate seat gives him a permanent stench of losing; but you can make those kind of claims for almost every candidate.

If Palin and Christie get in the race, I'll slot them in the above rundown accordingly.

*Toyota is my favorite car maker, but that Prius commercial they keep playing with a bunch of Millennials forming a larger human character is disturbing on many levels. I want that commercial to go away.

*I don't know what those protesters on Wall Street want, and I don't really care. Most of them look to be in the range of 20-25 years of age. They don't appear to be employed – how else could they be absent from their jobs for so long a period of time? But before anyone tells you that it's too tough out there to find a job, stop them in their tracks. There are jobs out there. I have two spawns that are in that age range and both are working toward their college degrees. Both are gainfully employed, and one of them has voluntarily left jobs because better ones came along.

Neither is in possession of an Ivy League education. Jobs can be found, but you have to actually look for them.

*I did like one of the signs held up by one of the protesters. It said, “Equal Taxes For All!” Now THAT's a protest I can get behind.

*My favorite Twitter blurb (I can't stand the term, “Tweet”) came from Ann Coulter after American woman Amanda Knox was released from an Italian prison Monday after serving 4 years of a conviction for murder of her roommate: “Amanda Knox not guilty, Casey Anthony rolls eyes, says; "well, duh..."

*I've been spending some time on the website www.Real-Science.com and they have been scanning old newspapers going back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries and it is fascinating to see how much research and observation was happening in those years about the environment and climate and weather. There is much to be learned about the present and the future by scanning what those who lived before us went through and learned.

Most interesting is when you do an internet search of old newspapers of terms like, “climate change,” and “global warming,” you find NO mention of such terms before approximately 1970. Want to know what year the EPA was started? Would it surprise you if I were to answer, 1970?

So, did science-based concern about our place and role on the planet only start in 1970? Not hardly.

(Check back here next week for another Parallax Look, and in the meantime follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparalax)


DESPITE WHAT THE RINOS ARE SPEWING, CAIN HAS CREDENTIALS

Posted 9/29/11

*I'm watching Bill O'Reilly compare/contrast Presidents Lincoln and Obama and I had to rub my eyes in disbelief that any kind of comparison could be made between the two. Aside from the obvious; that there were vastly different times in history dealt to the two, one cannot escape the plain fact that Obama would have been killed by Michelle if he dared to ever tell her that her butt looked big in a dress.

*Do not, under any circumstances, buy into any of this garbage being spewed by President Obama and his team of misinformation czars that would lead you to believe that the high achievers in our economy are not paying their fair share of the tax load.

You have no doubt heard all the statistics. The top earners pay most of the taxes. Nearly half of all Americans don't even pay any income taxes. Obama and his minions are out there every day saying that those folks who have actually had some measure of success in this tough economy have to pay their “fair share” of the tax burden.

When a rare reporter asks in return why the top earners paying 70+ percent of the tax burden aren't already paying more than their fair share, they answer, “…well, these people have a lot of money…” So, following that line of thinking, having a lot of money necessitates that money being confiscated by government? How exactly does that nuttiness work? American workers should reject that dangerous and idiotic notion out of hand. Americans, regardless of their earning level, should pay an equal share of the cost of government, flat tax across the income board. No exceptions.

*I like hearing that Herman Cain seems to be getting some love sent his way via the Republican race for the White House. He won the Florida straw poll last weekend and was compelling in the debate last week in Orlando with his story of defeating cancer five years ago. It was a fantastic point that he would have died under ObamaCare waiting for government approval of his MRI's and CAT scans and chemotherapy and surgeries. He got those procedures in a nine-month period under his private health insurance plan. What country with socialized medicine could promise that kind of rapid bureaucratic action, unless of course you are the dictatorial leader of the country with the last name of either Castro or Chavez?

Despite what many of the Rino Idiots are spewing these days, Cain has established credentials as a leader, and precisely the kind of leader this nation needs right now, someone who did not pop from a government womb.

*Can someone tell me why is the University of Missouri trying to screw this Big 12 Conference by playing like the bad cop on the take in The Godfather and snuff-out Vito Corleone (the surviving Big 12) in his hospital bed? Missouri fans, don't you suffer enough in the Big 12 now that you want to make things harder by joining the SEC? You've never been to a BCS Bowl or won a Big 12 Championship yet you are going to suddenly take over the vaunted SEC, which has produced the last five national champions? Get real guys. You are just like your old Big 6/8 friends in Manhattan, Lawrence, and Ames. You're a mutt; a mutt that belongs right here in the Big 12. Stop trying to be something you're not. Come home, guys.

*On the subject of football, I just had a wild weekend in Miami. Now, before you think I've lost my senses and tossed away 25 years of wedded bliss, understand that I am referring to the Kansas State Wildcats' upset victory over the Miami Hurricanes at Sunlife Stadium in Miami. I won't bore you non-Kansas State fans with the details, but I must mention that I don't recall ever seeing any football defense stop an opponent from scoring on 7 straight downs from inside the 15 yard line, not to mention 4 failed downs from the 2 yard line! I can't remember a team buckling-down like that. It was unbelievable to witness.

I don't know if this represents any kind of foretelling of the coming Big 12 season, but I'm much more optimistic than I was a couple of weeks ago as to the fortunes of the Purple.

(The always optimistic for Purple Brian Kubicki can be followed at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

IGNORE OBAMA'S EFFORT TO PIT THE CLASSES AGAINST EACH OTHER

Posted 9/23/11

Wow. President Obama continues to forward this raise taxes mantra no matter how low his public opinion ratings slide, despite huge public electoral mandates (November 2010 mid-term election results) against the notion of raising taxes, and in the face of many in the Democrat Party screaming for a primary challenger to Obama.
What could his advisors be telling him?

Nothing he does economically works. In 2.75 years, unemployment has remained high and the national mood (expressed by Consumer Confidence polls) remains in the dumper.

So in response to all this economic malaise, President Obama goes to the Rose Garden on Monday morning and announces the Buffett Plan, designed – at least the PR part - around Warren Buffett, Omaha's most famous corporate capitalist. The Buffett Plan is designed to take those who already pay way more than half of the current federal income tax load, and force them to pay even more. He says that is a “fairer” system.
You know between the Nebraska Cornhuskers turning from beloved Big 8 Perennial Poster Child for Success to the envious bunny-boiling former lover torching the family home to the ground, and Buffett, I've had about all I care to take from the state of Nebraska. Can we trade the state to Canada for Quebec?

Ignore Obama and his Marxist efforts to pit the classes against each other.

Yes, I said Marxist. Look it up. It's easy to find what it means. Defining people according to classes whose dividing lines are set according to the money they make is defined as pitting the classes against each other, just like Karl Marx and Frederic Engels advanced the notion of class struggle between the petit-bourgeois and the proletariat.

*Incidentally, not to overlook basic issue of class struggle that we must fight against with all of our being, were you aware that you could take ALL of the income generated by ALL of those Americans making more than $250,000 and you would not even make an ant's fart worth of difference in the $14 trillion in debt the Obama Administration has saddled us with in his short time in office?

*I would like somebody to ask the president why he expects wealthy people to sit still and allow him to raise their taxes. History has shown that when you raise taxes, investment goes elsewhere away from the taxes. It's almost human nature. Poor people do it. Middle income people do it. The wealthy do it too. They do it really well though. That's probably how they became wealthy.

*I spent Monday this week largely circling the western half of the continental United States from 30,000 feet altitude; looking out the window of the plane from KC, to Las Vegas, to Los Angeles, to Denver, and back home to KC, and I noticed something.
Folks, there is a lot of land out there, and that land has no people on it and has had no development on it, and likely won't for many years in the future. I'll bet it would stagger you to know that only 5% of America's available land has been developed in some way.

And through all that area covered, I am proud to declare that I didn't see a single wind turbine. Let's hope and pray that the energy nonsense goes the way of Obama's basketball prowess, fading further every day.

*Before the Chiefs jokes start taking hold, here's what we have to take away from this coming disposable season. If we're ever going to learn about how good a football coach Todd Haley is, it is going to be under these circumstances. Massive injuries to key players on both sides of the ball and constantly shifting coaching staffs (Oops, except for on the defense; what gives with Romeo Crennell?) is how great coaches are discovered.

Then again, didn't Bill Belichick lose miserably in his first stint at Cleveland?
Watch Haley wear out his welcome in KC, get hired for a second stint at Miami and then turn the Dolphins into the Patriots of South Beach. That would be the final futile thrust of fate's spear through the faint beating heart of the last Chiefs fan.

*Reduce your government footprint.

(Get tips on how to reduce your government footprint by following Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


HOW TO MAKE THIS WIN FOR TEA PARTY, GOP, AMERICA

Posted 9/16/11

*I've been watching the Republican debates with a bit of a different eye this time around. Usually, when we watch debates, we feel compelled to pick a winner. But in this case, in the primary season, a winner in a debate involving eight candidates is just not a realistic expectation.

What IS realistic and important in the primary season in a race against an unpopular incumbent is to garner as much interest among the electorate as can be created. The ideal situation is for each of the eight candidates to have two things in common:

·They each should have as large a support base among the electorate as they can develop; and

·They should care the common central theme of repealing ObamaCare.

Once a candidate wins the nomination, each of the candidates should pledge their delegates and supporters to the Republican Party nominee.

Accomplish that in the debates, and the Tea Party wins, the Republican Party wins, and America wins.

*While we're addressing debates, did you catch in the last one on MSNBC when Jon Huntsman claimed that “…98 out of 100 climate scientists…” have claimed that they believe man is significantly affecting the global climate.

RealScience.com noted shortly afterward that the “survey” Huntsman was referring to actually didn't even poll 100 people. The two-question survey was mailed to hundreds of climate scientists who actually publish frequently on the subject of climate science and only 77 chose to participate.

The two questions were quite simple for being directed toward such smart people: First, have global temperatures risen during the past 200 years? Second, are humans a significant contributing factor to this?

Understand that only 77 scientists volunteering to participate in a survey is in no way indicative of what the entire climate science community believes and scientist or not, since when is science “settled” by opinion polls? One of the more significant so-called heretics in history, referred to briefly by Rick Perry in the debate last week, was that of Galileo Galilei who in 1615 was tried by the Inquisition for maintaining that the earth rotated around the sun instead of accepting church dogma that the sun rotated around the earth. Wonder who was right in that case, the 98% or the 2%?

Beyond this aside, of course temperatures have increased over the last 200 years. They better have because this planet has been warming since the 1400's out of the last Little Ice Age. We'd be in a world of hurt if we hadn't been warming over the last 200 years.
Also, how does one uniformly define the term, “significant?” To one scientist, significant might be 10% of the total. When you have thousands of contributing compounds to a global atmosphere, 0.00114% (which is how much carbon dioxide humans are responsible for) can be termed significant.

*Here's one to wrap your noodles around. You notice how the United Nations is always trying to get all nations to contribute reductions of carbon emissions in equal percentages? The United States is supposed to curb its use of energy back to 1990 levels or some ridiculous number like that.

O.K. Let's extend that argument to a per capita basis. Let's allocate responsibility for the earth's atmosphere to each person on the planet. Basically crunching the numbers, the earth's atmosphere is about 1000 kilometers thick and accounting for the volume of the earth plus its atmosphere out that far, we're left with the result that each of the earth's 6 billion people are allocated 383 trillion cubic feet of atmosphere to take care of.

I realize that's kind of hard to visualize, so let's simplify it. Assume you build a building on the planet to house “your” chunk of the atmosphere, to keep it at the proper temperature. Assuming the building is 100 ft. tall, the walls of your building would have to extend for 370 miles in each direction in order to house all of that atmosphere. Let's put the most prolific energy-consumer on the planet in that massive building – say it was me. I couldn't rob and plunder both Warren Buffet AND Bill Gates of all their riches and be able to put enough air conditioners in that building to affect the temperature – there simply isn't enough energy available with current technology to effect that kind of change.

Just think of a building 100 feet tall and 400 MILES on a side ON ALL FOUR SIDES!

We are not that significant folks. We just aren't.

So let's stop government from handicapping industry as though we are.

(Numbers are often viewed in a Parallax Look. Email our scientific numbers guy at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


MORE PROOF GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX

Posted 9/9/11

*I caught this little snippet from www.realscience.com about rampant winter snows and spring melts leading to massive flooding…in 1927.

Visit http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/flooding-1927 and compare the similarity of the destruction caused by, as the accompanying article's author asserts, “Mother Nature.” You can go to www.google.com/newspapers for the entire newspaper edition the article came from, the 1927 Rock Hill, South Carolina Evening Herald.

“Mother Nature hasn't given the nation even a breathing spell and the worst of it is that no one has the slightest idea what terrible tricks we will be up to next.”

Looks like the weather people stunk at predicting weather back in 1927 too!

After the rain and flooding, came the tornados. From the article:

“In February came the first real tornado and 25 persons were killed by a cyclone which hit hardest in Sabine Parish, LA and at Rose Hill, Miss. The Red Cross did relief work at those points and more flood relief work in Oregon, California, and Kentucky, helping about a thousand more persons.

The Mississippi floods began in earnest in April, after March tornadoes had taken 30 lives in Arkansas and put 500 to 600 persons under temporary Red Cross care.

Ninety more were killed in April's tornadoes, 57 of them at Rock Springs, Tex., and the others elsewhere in Texas, Oklahoma, and Illinois.

There were more tornadoes in Southern Illinois, Eastern Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri.

During that fiscal year (ending June 30, 1927) the Red Cross rendered aid in 111 disasters, which included 29 tornadoes, 24 floods, 23 fires, 4 earthquakes, 6 mine disasters, and numerous cloudbursts, explosions, railroad wrecks, typhoons, and epidemics.”

It's a wonder we survived. We go absolutely bonkers after a simple heat wave, a single earthquake, and an East Coast hurricane. Sounds like at least 10 cities got hit in 1927 by Joplin-like tornadoes.

So, that round of heavy snow, heavy spring rains, and other natural climatic events clearly came about without the influence of humankind, industrial or otherwise. The nation was about 75% agricultural back then. In 1927, the population of the United States was only 117 million. We're nearly three times that number today and we STILL don't cause any more impact on the weather than we did nearly 100 years ago.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax and a farce, always has been, and the people that have tried to convince us otherwise are criminals that should be tried in a court of law for criminal fraud and fined and jailed once found guilty.

*Did you catch labor leader James Hoffa last Monday in a Labor Day address declaring that labor union people should “take these 'SOB's' out” referring to Tea Partiers? The White House, as of Monday evening, issued no admonition of the harsh words that Preident Obama's Tucson speech earlier this year declared we should be avoiding in our political discourse.

Looks like that entire Giffords-Obama Tucson nonsense was just a political ploy after all.

*Another implicit admission the government regulation hurts business was exhibited by the Obama Administration last week when they ordered the EPA to halt on enacting stricter ozone emission standards. Obama's decision was announced shortly after disheartening employment numbers were released Friday morning. It drew harsh reaction from environmentalists and their allies — including a statement from MoveOn.org questioning why its members should work for the president's reelection — highlighting the dangers the White House faces as it seeks middle ground among competing interests.

In a statement, Obama said he had asked to withdraw the draft standards because they were scheduled to be reconsidered two years from now anyway.

“I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens (emphasis added) and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover,” Obama said. “Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered.”

So even Obama admits that government regulation places burdens on people and business.

*By the way, for those who try to tell you that we don't have enough land in this country for trash dumps and landfills, hit them with the following: the average household commits 200 times more living area in their homes for trash collection than we do with land in the continental United States. Briefly, there are 100.2 trillion square feet in America. Only 7.2 billion square feet is allocated to landfills. That's less than one-hundredth of 1%. Your average 2,400 square foot house allocates about 30 square feet for trash collection, or about 1.3%. So in summary, we live in homes that are on average 200 times dirtier than the average square foot in America.

(No regulation can prevent a Parallax Look. Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


ESPN WON'T LET ITS PEOPLE SPEAK ILL OF OBAMA

Posted 9/2/11

*Well, I am glad that tropical storm Irene didn't wreak the havoc that all the Chicken Littles ran around last week warning everybody about. It's bad enough when you have the nation's largest population density complaining about impending doom. It would be much worse if we actually had to listen to them deal with impending doom.

*Incidentally, I have heard people say that global warming caused the hurricane to get stronger as it approached the U.S. coast, and I heard others say that it was global warming that diffused the hurricane once it hit the Carolina shore.

Apparently, warm moist air from the coastline – presumably warm because of global warming, I'm sticking to the notion that it was just due to plain old summer – fed the storm into its Category 3 peak power status. But dry warm air from the central plains, yes OUR warm dry air, hit the storm and knocked its power down several notches.
You're welcome.

*My favorite quote of all time, from Prof. Richard Feynman, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts."
That pretty much says it all.

*I caught on www.michellemalkin.com last week this interesting snippet of liberal media inconsistency. Golf pro Paul Azinger offended the brass at ESPN by joking on Twitter about Obama golfing. Elisabeth Meinecke at Townhall.com noticed his light-hearted tweet: “Facts: Potus has played more golf this month than I have. I have created more jobs this month than he has.”

The cyber jab apparently set off the ESPN censor alarm. As reported in USA Today:

“ESPN is coming down on Paul Azinger for mocking President Obama on Twitter. The golf analyst tweeted Thursday the commander in chief plays more golf than he does — and that Azinger has created more jobs this month than Obama has.

On Friday ESPN 'reminded' Azinger his venture into political punditry violates the company's updated social network policy for on-air talent and reporters.

'Paul's tweet was not consistent with our social media policy, and he has been reminded that political commentary is best left to those in that field,' spokesman Andy Hall told Game On! in a statement.

ESPN's Hall would not comment on whether Azinger, who won the 1993 PGA Championship, will be fired, suspended or punished in some way. 'We handle that internally,' he said.

After being publicly chastised, Azinger declined an interview request. Hall said he just wants to move on.

Michelle Malkin noted, “Sure, they want to move on. ESPN would rather not have to answer questions about their blatant political double standards, as exposed by Dana Loesch (with assists from Marooned in Marin, The Scruff, and First Team Tommy) over at Big Journalism.

“ESPN personality Kenny Mayne was apparently free to tweet anti-Palin vitriol, bemoaning being stuck in traffic behind a car with a Palin bumper sticker. In 2007, Mayne made “Obama!” his signature sports call.

ESPN personality Adam Schefter railed about a looming government shutdown on Twitter in April.

“And of course, ESPN and its whopping set of political double standards were on full display during the Rush Limbaugh/Donovan McNabb debacle.

“Double standard? You make the call..”

*I got one of those emails seemingly perennially making the rounds through cyberspace the other day about Obama being a Muslim. The evidence behind this claim was that he wasn't wearing his wedding ring or a watch during the month of August, which is the Muslim period of fasting and repentance know as Ramadan. (Is that the plural for Ramada?)

I could easily submit documentation to refute these claims. It takes about a few seconds to come up with photos of the President taken during the past couple of weeks, both wearing a wedding ring and a watch.

But why bother?

I want this President replaced as much, and perhaps more, than anybody. But why should I defend the closest thing to a Marxist that we have ever had in The White House? Let the folks that want to believe he is a Muslim have their way. I have always thought that the guerilla approach to opposition is inherently better than a unified attack.

*I still have yet to find anyone who wants to explain why the principal component of glass, sand, is allowed to exist in perpetuity on beaches and deserts all over this fine country without threats from environmentalists to recycle it or collect it and keep it deposited in the big green recycle bins, but sand utilized in its most practical form, glass bottles, cups, jars, dishes, pint glasses (my personal favorite!!!), etc. can't be thrown into landfills because they are taking up “valuable” landfill space and therefore they must be recycled. I'll entertain any argument. Tell me why sand is O.K. but superheated sand is not, environmentally speaking?

(Get superheated reports from Brian right here and follow him at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE THE EPA

Posted 8/26/11

*The EPA, also known as, the Economic Pulverization Agency, is doing, in essence NOTHING! What are they doing? Are they making the planet's air cleaner and more breathable? What human on this planet EVER has fallen to the ground dead due to the quality of the air he had been breathing?

Is the EPA making the planet's water more drinkable? I have drunk at least a gallon of water a day, out of my faucet tap, for each and every day I have been alive. In my formative 15 years, there was no EPA. I was healthier then than I am now. If you ask me, the EPA has harmed my health via drinking water controls since they were conceived in 1972.

Is the EPA making the soil more farmable? That concept is inherent nonsense.
Has the EPA made the world's waterways more amenable to human life? I don't even think that is their goal.

Eliminate the EPA. It is long since time to turn the world around toward the betterment of mankind.

*Did you see where Warren Buffett advocates taxing the super-rich more heavily?
A recent New York Times article (I still refuse to read that pre-school reader) points out that Warren Buffett, the so-called Wizard of Omaha, asserts that the super-rich do not pay enough taxes. He suggested that any new U.S. federal government budget deal should raise rates on the super-rich, especially on their "unearned" income from interest, dividends and capital gains--that so called hidden income.

Buffett is just plain wrong, and ill-advised. Bad government policies play a major role in generating inappropriately high incomes, but singling out the super-rich is erroneous, and the policy Buffett criticizes most -- low tax rates on capital income -- should be expanded, not eliminated. Digest that one.

The first problem with Buffett's view is that the raw number of super-rich is too small for higher rates to make much difference to our budget problems. In 2009, the income earned by the 250,000 taxpayers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income was about $700 billion, effectively imposing a 10% surcharge on the income, which would only generate at most $70 billion in new revenue; about 2% of federal spending.

Most importantly, targeting the super-rich distracts from the real problem: the myriad policies that make no sense in the first place because they inhibit economic growth and simultaneously redistribute from low-income households to the middle and upper classes.

*Did you catch the O'Reilly Factor last week where criminal House Representative Charlie Rangel tried to diffuse tough questioning from fill-in host Laura Ingraham by referring to her in deference to her obvious physical attractiveness?

Ingraham returned fire on Rangel for his sexist dismissive remark, and he deserved it. There is nothing more apparent toward intellectual ineffectiveness than defaulting to commenting on your opponent's physical features. Generational excuses aside, if you remain on the stage, bring the goods, otherwise shut up and go away. That's really what it comes down to.

*That incident where Christine O'Donnell walked off of an obstinate interview with CNN's Piers Morgan last week was enjoyable to say the least. She has been on a nationwide book promotion tour for a tome that recounts her election battles in 2010, which is an interesting story to say the least. O'Donnell objected to Morgan's line of questioning, as it steered toward the left's inevitable, “What do you think about gay marriage?” (I should be in politics, because I would have one helluvan answer, along the lines of, “…our country is spiraling into the sewer economically and you want to know what business government has in defining the American family?”) The resulting awkwardness said more about the flailing Morgan than it did about O'Donnell.

*Tell the truth. Do it objectively. Do you see Obama in a positive light these days as a result of his accomplishments or is he largely an embarrassment to the country due to rampant errant moves that have harmed the country and its people? I will objectively tackle any argument made that President Obama has done anything positive in the last six months. His presidency has been a train wreck from all perspectives, and not one that is a great deal of fun watching.

*Peeking into the sports world, the voices are all atwitter (bkparallax if you were wondering) over the rumored fight between the Chiefs' heavily-muscled Thomas Jones and rookie receiver Jonathan Baldwin that left Baldwin with a cast on his hand. Everyone assumes that the veteran Jones beat-up the rookie. Why make that assumption? Muscles don't always result in fighting victory. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger. He got pummeled by an 180-lb. Hispanic version of Rosie O'Donnell.

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


THE RIGHT AND THE RINOS DON'T AGREE ON ANYTHING

Posted 8/19/11

*So after the Iowa Straw Poll, the Republican race for the nomination to run against the Democrat nominee in 2012 appears to have been whittled-down to a handful of folks - realistically. (I'm not saying who is in that handful because as I have said, I mostly like them all. Any of those in the race would get my vote against Obama – he is THAT bad of a President.)

This is an interesting race. Usually, there is considerable acrimony between two or more camps in the race to the degree that envisioning those sides coming together to support a common candidate in the General Election seems impossible. Remember the Clinton vs. Obama camps? Who'd have thought they'd bury their spears after that primary battle royal? The only spear burying that most of us could imagine was Hillary burying one in Barack's behind. She might be looking to dig that puppy back up for 2012. Stay tuned!

*This time around, however, I don't see any kind of uncertainty over whether the sides can unite. The Right and the Rino clans aren't in agreement on everything. The debt ceiling fiasco was evidence of that. But they appear to be united behind a single cause – giving a pink slip to Barack Obama. At the rate that his approval ratings are sliding southward, Obama may break Truman's record of unpopularity.

*I am enormously sympathetic to those that want us to knuckle-down and finally nominate a true conservative now that we have this opportunity to unseat a seemingly perennially unpopular president, but you have to be careful to not tear each other apart to the degree that we nominate another John McCain or Bob Dole. Let's not do that again.

*I have always said, the key is not to cater to the Independents. The key to success in getting a conservative nominee is to articulate conservative principles clearly, positively, and thoroughly. It's kind of like one of those, “If you build it, they will come” things.

*I was following the results of the Wisconsin State Senate recall elections last Tuesday evening, and without distraction from TV since it was an election up in Wisconsin only, I had to rely on the internet for coverage of the returns. Interestingly enough, Twitter outdid all the traditional outlets in terms of speed, accuracy, and rapid updates. Twitter beat the AP, the Wisconsin newspaper websites, even the Wisconsin Secretary of State's office.

*The New York Times reported last week that the EPA war against coal-generated electricity threatens availability of air conditioning during the high electrical load periods associated with heat waves.

As 60 million people across 13 states sweltered through the monstrous heat wave last month, power demand in North America's largest regional grid hit a record high. Did you notice that there was no shortage, no rolling blackouts, and no brownouts in the massively electrified area that stretches from Maryland to Chicago?

However, that may not continue in the future if the stricter air quality rules currently being implemented by the EPA are put in place. These Eastern utilities met demand that this time, thanks to some hefty electrical output from dozens of 1950's and 1960's coal-burning power plants.

Because of new EPA rules, many of those coal plants are going to close in coming years, due to their inability to meet ridiculous standards for emission of acid gases, soot, mercury and arsenic into the air. Those newer standards are based on nonsense. U.S. coal fired-power plants collectively are responsible for only about 0.5% of global mercury emissions which is 99.5% less than Mother Nature emits.

The real threat to public health during heat waves is the lack of air conditioning, not air quality. As reported by USA Today in September 2003, the death toll in France from a heat wave in August 2003 reached nearly 15,000 — many of them elderly, because France is a country where air conditioning of indoor spaces is rare.

Actually, the EPA – if they are not stopped -- will actually do what it alleges ambient air quality does — kill Americans. (Credit to www.JunkScience.com – great site!)

*There has been a lot of talk about what could be cut in an effort to reduce government – how about the EPA? It was started by Nixon after all. For crying out loud, RICHARD MILHOUS NIXON! That's $10 billion right there.

(The EPA can’t stop a weekly Parallax Look. Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


OBAMA'S JOB POLICY: VOLUNTEER, IT'S BETTER THAN WORKING

Posted 8/14/11

*With all this talk about a downgrade of the United States' credit rating lately, I found it interesting that Warren Buffet, he of Berkshire Hathaway's billions and rabid Obama supporter, came out recently saying that the downgrade was not necessary because the federal government is no threat to default on the service of its debts and obligations. He said that the U.S. has plenty of cash to more than handle those obligations. President Obama quoted Buffet in his address Monday afternoon, echoing the same sentiments.

So why then did Obama say in the days leading up to the supposed Aug. 2 deadline to avoid default, in an interview with CBS's Scott Pelley, that he couldn't guarantee that senior citizens dependent on Social Security would get their checks in August? That statement seems completely diametrically opposed to the one delivered by Buffet.
Was Obama lying? The mainstream media in this country is truly pathetic in the degree that they are in the tank for Obama.

*If you've been watching commercials carefully, you've noticed a plethora of new commercials urging Americans give their time: to the Peace Corps, to serve government types of endeavors…etc. I guess this is how the Obama Administration implements a jobs policy, get out of work Americans into unpaid volunteer organizations. If you don't know how to get government out of the way of the free market, take the unemployed people out of the job market. So THAT'S how it works?

Who can argue with that kind of logic?

*Did you see where Philips Electronics has designed a 60-watt incandescent bulb that uses 83% less electricity?

The bad news is that the bulb will cost $22 (after rebates), and the bulb will possibly cost only $8 by year 3 of production (Thanks to the forced generosity of the average American Achiever).

So while the bulb uses 83% less energy than existing 50-cent 60-watt incandescent light bulbs, its cost is 4,400% more. What a bargain!

Even more incredible is that Phillips just won $10 million from taxpayers for designing this limousine light bulb.

Al Gore, the former vice president, Presidential campaign loser, and climate “crusader” told an Aspen Institute communications seminar Thursday that people who doubt climate science are the same ones who helped tobacco companies over four decades question the dangers of cigarette smoking.

To quote Big Al directly, "Some of the exact same people — by name I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this," Gore said. "And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: 'This climate thing, it's nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn't trap heat. It may be volcanoes.' BS (he said the word. I have greater standards. 'It may be sun spots.' 'It's not getting warmer.' (Bad word again).

Gore's speech to the Aspen Institute was reported by Real Aspen. “There about 10 names out there,” Gore added. “When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. They have polluted the (bad word – again!). There's no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea!"

Climate skeptics, Gore added, have made it nearly impossible to talk about the issue anymore.

"It's no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the (Blasphemer!) word climate," he said. "It is not acceptable. They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.”

According to Real Aspen, Gore also railed against conservative groups like American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity for the commercials they aired during the debt ceiling debate on Capitol Hill.

“Unnoticed in Washington and New York as the debt ceiling debate was going on, the ratio of television advertisements was nine to one on the 'Don't-lift-the-debt-ceiling debate. Spending is the problem.' And now we're going to tip the country back into recession. It's absolutely insane,” Gore said.

Gore's climate remarks come on the heels of a June essay in Rolling Stone where he lambasted the media's he said, she said reporting on climate science, as well as President Barack Obama's handling of the issue.

*The U.S. less than three thousandths of one percent of the population are going to contract bacterial meningitis. That's hardly reason to go on a campaign to stick every teenager in the country with another vaccination that introduces its own set of concerns.

For your information, and from the Voices of Meningitis website, the National Association of School Nurse's Voices of Meningitis educational initiative is made possible through a “collaboration” (re: money in wheelbarrows) with the largest vaccine maker in the world, Sanofi Pasteur.
Just so you know.

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


THE TEA PARTY'S WORK IS NOT YET DONE

Posted 8/8/11

*If you consider yourself aligned with the beliefs of the Tea Party, understand that this debt ceiling issue has proven one thing with ultimate clarity, our work at restoring Constitutional sanity in the federal government has only just begun. We tossed-out a handful of Rinos and Blue Dog Democrats in 2010. Now the time is coming for the Second Wave.

I would put John Boehner in that Second Wave. He's not my representative, but what better way to let the Republican political establishment know that the people mean business than to push the sitting Speaker of the House out of his seat, ensuring that the House Speaker seat goes to someone with backbone with regard to the Constitution?

*Did you catch where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (Democrat) made a dramatic appearance in the House of Representatives chamber earlier this week to cast her vote in favor of the raising of the debt ceiling? Her affirmative vote, no doubt, was designed to be delivered at a time to push squishy Rinos and Bluedog Democrats into voting yes on raising the debt ceiling. Perhaps the ploy worked, perhaps not. I don't have that much faith, yet, in the current Republican Party either way.

No interviews were granted with Giffords. She gave no speech. Her staff sent out a message, attributed to her, saying, in effect, this vote to save our country was too important to miss.

Increasing the credit card limit, yet again, on an out-of-control federal government is too important to miss? Gutting the military to the term of more than a trillion dollars is too important to miss?

Now, was her attending THIS particular vote evidence of Democrats trying to use the media to employ the obvious sympathy that Giffords' plight conjures for maximum political advantage? Why didn't she attend any of the previous votes on this issue?

The last time we heard from anyone on Giffords' condition, less than two months ago in an extensive interview with the Arizona Republic, Pia Carusone, Giffords' chief of staff, said Giffords uses gestures and facial expressions to communicate basic needs but "when it comes to bigger and more complex thought that requires words, that's where she's had the trouble," Carusone said. Carusone said she believes (my emphasis added) Giffords has normal comprehension, and is frustrated with her inability to communicate more fully. She said it is unclear if Ms. Giffords will be able to run for re-election in 2012.

Now, I hope Giffords makes a complete recovery and is able to resume her previous life to its fullest extent. But are we to expect that Giffords read the entire debt ceiling bill and understood the ramifications of her vote? Then again, if we aren't going to expect that kind of effort by the uninjured members of Congress, must we demand more of those like Giffords?

*Truth be told, this issue shows once again that Democrats will exploit any tragedy for political gain. Just like when President Obama swooped in to Tucson shortly after Giffords being shot by a lunatic to sell the public on the idea (his campaign's first after the election right-hook delivered by voters to Obama's Change in 2010) that we needed to “raise the tone of debate.” Of course, he was implying that Giffords' injury was a product of vociferous political debate, which we know was incorrect.

I thought the Tucson debacle was the lowest Obama could go, but apparently not.

*Also, on the subject of this debt ceiling compromise, and as I'm sure you've been told by your nearest Congressman that voted in favor of raising the debt ceiling by $3 trillion, thus putting this money in President Obama's hands, the administration is being “forced” to accept nearly $2.1 trillion in cuts, nearly half of which come from the military. But fret-not war hawks! Thanks to baseline budgeting, it isn't really a cut, the way you and I look at a cut in your budget.

For the unaware, baseline budgeting is a method of developing a budget which uses existing spending levels as the basis for establishing future funding requirements. The concept assumes that the organization is generally headed in the right direction and only minor changes in spending levels will be required. The baseline is normally enhanced by adding adjustment factors based on issues such as inflation, new programs, and anticipated changes to existing programs.

Changes that merely slow the growth of federal spending programs have often been described as cuts in spending, when in reality they are actually reductions in the rate of spending growth. That's what we have in this deal.

There have been attempts to eliminate the baseline budget concept and replace it with zero based budgeting, which requires all spending be re-justified each year or it will be eliminated from the budget regardless of previous spending levels.

Sounds like a good campaign theme for the yet-unknown GOP Presidential nominee.

(Follow Brian Kubicki at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


WE ARE IN A MONEY WAR IN THIS COUNTRY

Posted 7/31/11

*I've listened long and hard to all this debt ceiling nonsense for several weeks now. There have been pundits and plaudits everywhere, some knowing it all, and others knowing nothing. And through it all, I think I have figured it all out.

There are three camps at play in this deal.

One is the Status-Quo Camp, which is a group that is used to LOTS of deficit spending, which means, despite the fact that they are spending funds that they do not have, they are still to expect the same amenities that they have enjoyed for eons in this country.

They spend on the poor, they spend on the middle class, they spend on the rich. They have to lift the Middle Class and they have to “raise the poor.” They somewhat suppress the understanding that in the process, they have to crush the achievers in our economy, which in truth, leaves nobody anywhere positive.

President Obama is in this camp. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in this camp. Nancy Pelosi is in this camp, wherever she is. The Democrats are in this camp. They maintain that to spend is to be virtuous. To account is to be superfluous.

The Opposite Camp is the one that believes that we are NOT going to proceed any further spending money we do not have; effectively stealing from our children and grandchildren. We must live within our means. We all must live so. Spending funds that our children and grandchildren must assemble is the height of irresponsibility to this group. This humble columnist lives and thrives, and hones his sword in the fires of this camp.

There is a third camp at play. This camp is a very dangerous one. This camp is the most dangerous and detrimental of all the involved camps. This appears to be the group that has learned how to make money in a deficit-spending-driven economy. They, as money people always do, have figured out a way to make money when the government is spending more money than they take in. They bet on losses. They gamble on gains. They are the TRUE capitalists. They will make a profit wherever the government goes. You hear these folks on the radio and TV shows on the weekends, involving “corporate intelligence,” “fund stores,” or, “money talk.” All these clowns want is the government to keep spending so they can continue to make money.
You must run very fast from these folks. They are the wolf in sheep's clothing – Joy Behar in a Jenny McCarthy suit. Trust not the seething from said jowls.

The reason these folks are dangerous is, they will encourage you to spend more than you take in because they are positioned to make money if you do. They can give two side-by-side doo-doo piles if you are financially ruined in the process. As long as they make money, all is good – at least in their world.

We are at war in this country. This is a green war – A TRUE green war, green meaning money. Choose your camp folks. I've chosen mine. To the winner go the spoils!

*I saw the 1940's flick, “A Tree Grows In Brooklyn” last week on late night TV. Nothing to do…scrolling the channels…intrigued for some reason. Wow! What a depressing, yet somehow uplifting film! Weird late night fare, I must admit. But…Oh well. Such is life at times.

Football is BACK! Stay tuned.

(Follow Brian on Twitter at Twitter.com/bkparallax or email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


YOU REALLY NEED TO SEE 'THE UNDEFEATED'

Posted 7/22/11

*The Undefeated is out. This is the film made by filmmaker Stephen Bannon that tells the story in documentary style about Sarah Palin's rise in politics.

You need to see this movie.

If you hate Sarah Palin, you need to see this movie.

If you love Sarah Palin, you still need to see this movie.

If you think women get a fair shake in business and politics, you really need to see this movie.

If you think a woman's place is in the home, you really, really need to see this movie.

The film is currently playing only at the AMC Independence Commons near the Independence Center mall.

*While we were waiting outside the auditorium for our 7:15 p.m. showing to start, we heard the doors to Auditorium No. 7 burst open and out stomped a couple of bearded, acid-spitting Liberals, and they were moving with great velocity ahead of the rest of the audience. They were clearly angry at what they just saw. I couldn't make out their exact conversation, but I did hear the name Alinski, and they were speaking as though they vociferously disputed the way Saul Alinski's opinions were portrayed in the movie.

If these numbskulls hated the movie, I knew it was going to be telling the truth about Sarah Palin, and it is apparent that they really hate her. Any liberal that tells you that they actually want Sarah Palin running in 2012 because they believe Obama will crush her are lying to you, just like President Obama was lying last week when he said that he couldn't guarantee seniors and soldiers would get their Social Security checks in August if he wasn't given the green light to unlimited spending limits via the debt ceiling.

Go see this movie…seriously.

The opening several minutes of the film will leave your jaw on the floor.

*Aug. 2 is our new Independence Day. If the Republicans leading the House of Representatives hold to their principles – the same principles that the Tea Party elected them to office in 2010 on – and hold the debt ceiling at its current level, and pass the “Cut Cap and Balance Act” this week, the Obama Administration will be forced to pay seniors and soldiers, pay debt service, and pay the other basic entitlements, then he will be forced to slash federal spending on all the nonsense programs he has been shoving down our throats for the past two and a half years. C'mon Republicans…hold your mud. Stand firm.

*Can you imagine living without government mandating that you must use fluorescent light bulbs? Can you envision going back to being able to use leaded gas in your car and being able to buy gas that is more than a dollar cheaper because oil refineries and fuel sellers were able to remove all the Federal taxes? Can you imagine living without those little sewn-on labels the government puts on our mattresses? Can you envision being able to deliver water to farmers without nonsensical limits placed on agricultural irrigation enforced to save snail darters? Can you imagine life going on without NPR? Can we possibly survive without the National Weather Service? Can we possibly get by without the federal government flying Michelle Obama across the globe on yet another exotic vacation for 400 friends? Can you imagine controlling mosquitoes and malaria with DDT and using Chlordane again as a pesticide around your home? That stuff rocked as a pesticide, you could spray once and be pest controlled for years. But your federal government decided that the risk of us humans actually drinking full-strength pesticide was too great so they banned its use in 1983. The bugs have never been happier.

*Did you ever consider that Pay-As-You-Throw trash policies essentially are charging you for the disposal of air? By far, the biggest characteristic of trash picked-up at the curb is volume. An empty cracker box has 24 times greater volume than one that is collapsed. That's why landfill companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on manpower and equipment to compress the trash in the landfill.

When your city or county charges you extra for trash that must fit in bags set outside your provided dumpster, it forces one to compress the trash they dispose of so they can actually fit more trash in their dumpster without having to pay extra. When you don't compress the trash as much as possible, it becomes obvious that you are actually paying to throw away air!
Now isn't that silly?

*I'm ready for football to start.

(Follow Brian Kubicki at Twitter.com/bkparallax as he anxiously awaits gridiron action)


HOLD FAST, REPUBLICANS, IGNORE THE RINOS

Posted 7/15/11

*Some week this was!

The battle between the Obama Administration and the Republicans in the House of Representatives is getting interesting. Basically, you have three battle-fronts.
On one side, you have the Democrats who are aligned behind Preident. Obama screaming for more than a trillion dollars in new taxes along with budget cuts extending out for 10 years or more.

On the other side, you have the Republicans in the House of Representatives pushing back for no tax increases and bigger and more immediate budget cuts.

In the middle, you have a bunch of middle-of-the-road RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) who just want everybody to get along, and are willing to let taxes get increased in the midst of a horrid economy along with some budget cuts extending out however far (basically giving up the Republican Farm), and are causing the Republicans on the right to fight a war on two separate fronts.

Hold fast, Republicans! Some of us are behind you. Ignore the RINOs.

*About the Casey Anthony trial, I actually heard Sean Hannity and the alternate juror who was first to be flapping his gums that the pictures of Casey Anthony with Calee in happier times showed that she was a “good mom.”

WHAT!!!??!!!

Now, they based this claim on the family photos and videos shown indicating Casey Anthony laughing and playing with the two-year old child. Happy times indeed.
So exactly who poses for pictures when beating your child or in a moment of low patience when the child is crying or going through a Terrible-Two's tantrum? Those photos don't often surface in family remembrances.

*For reference, I read the facts in the Scott Peterson trial. I seemed to recall that Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence, with no established cause of death, no time of death, no proven motive, and no DNA evidence whatsoever. Also, Peterson was shown to exhibit erratic behavior while his wife was missing, much like Casey Anthony did.

But Scott Peterson was found guilty – of double murder, and is awaiting the death penalty in California. Why the difference?

Do you suppose gender played any part in the vastly different outcomes? Both cases were capital murder cases and the death penalty awaited guilty verdicts.

We have to face facts. Americans in this time are less likely to want to believe that a pretty woman will kill her own child, much less be executed for the crime, than they are a man who is suspected of killing his wife and unborn child. These are different states and different laws, but those are the facts, unfortunately.

What this trial, and the Scott Peterson trial showed is, the legal justice system in this country is far from the best in the world.

Juries are generally comprised of people too dumb to avoid jury duty or too dumb or just plain unlucky (I'll give them that in this Obama-economy) to hold down a job. Almost anybody in this economy who is lucky or accomplished enough to maintain employment will do whatever they can to avoid having to take a pay cut to serve on a jury.

Attorneys being able to craft juries by picking through available candidates is a farce. They're accepting or rejecting candidates based on their interests in either convicting or acquitting their respective clients. There's nothing in the Constitution that allows attorneys to select jury candidates.

Sequestering juries is nonsense. If a juror is hidden from the world for as long as six months or more, they are not a jury of the accused person's “peers.”

The judge should not be allowed to conceal evidence from the jury. If a murder weapon was obtained by what is termed to be unconstitutional means, the judge can tell the jurors of this, but the evidence must remain within the jurors' purview.
Both sides, the prosecution and the defense, should have it in their professional code of ethics to determine what happened in the crime at hand.

Finally, this nonsense of requiring a unanimous jury to convict the accused is ridiculous, especially when considered in the face of a Supreme Court that can come within one vote of taking the guns out of every law abiding American's hand.

Now go out there and fix things, folks! I've given you the template.

*By the way, U.S. Rep. Mary Bono Mack from California is following me on Twitter (bkparallax if you were wondering). Not sure what that means, but stay tuned.

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


HERE'S HOW TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TRASH IN A BIN

Posted 7/8/11

*I am figuring-out the magic involved in skirting the hidden cost increases that our trash companies and local governments are sneaking into our mailboxes via the nonsensical mandatory recycling and Pay As You Throw trash policies. So they limit you to only what you can squeeze into a 64-gallon trash bin. So you need to reduce the amount of trash that goes into the bin. Here's how I've been figuring it out:

1. ALL food, sans bones, goes down the garbage disposal. That measure also keeps the smell controlled in your trash can.
2. Break-down all the paper and cardboard boxes that go into the trash bags.
3. Every time you throw something into a trash bag, compress it. Stop letting the trash company and the city charge you for the air they are throwing away into the landfill.
4. DO NOT recycle.
5. As for lawn clippings, when you mow, alternate paths so that you throw the newly cut grass toward the inside of the circle you're mowing, then outside the circle you are mowing. That measure evenly distributes the clippings on your lawn without the need to rake and bag stuff the trash Nazis won't take anyway.
6. Buy yourself extra beer with the money you save not having to buy excess trash stickers from the city.

Next time, I'll give you the Top 10 Uses for your Recycling Bin for those of you who are smart enough to realize that recycling is nonsense and a waste of our limited time on this planet.

You know…with water levels rising all along the Kaw (what I grew up calling the Kansas River) and Missouri Rivers, it would appear wise for the Corps of Engineers and city/county officials to encourage people in the suburbs all over the region to maximize their usage of water. The longer showers we take, the more we water our lawns, wash our cars, and hose-off the patio, the more the utilities will need to draw from the rivers to replenish suburban water supplies. The more water we “highlanders” use, the lower the water levels are for folks along the rivers' deltas. They should be all over the media with that one. You know darn well that when the drought of late summer hits they'll be all over us to conserve water, just like those Niedermeyers are every late summer.

*Just saw True Grit – the re-make done by the Coen brothers a year or two back. For all the hype that was heaped on it, I just can't see why. It wasn't as good as the first movie and Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn, though he was good, was nowhere near as good as John Wayne was. And for the so-called purists that say this version was more pure to the book, put a sock in it. The book is the book. That's the original. Movies aren't intended to be original illustrations of the book. That's why they are movies.

*I have signed my first petition. Normally, I'm not keen on petitions. I would rather let my voting record serve as my petition. But this one seemed appropriate. The Oregon Petition project (www.petitionproject.org) is a voluntary petition project whose goal is to keep the United States government unencumbered by global government wealth redistribution efforts such as the Kyoto Protocol, which are devised under the ruse that humans are harming the planet earth.

The text of the petition is as follows:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

To date, there are more than 31,000 signers (31,467 to be precise and when mine gets verified 31, 468!). Signer qualifications are a minimum of a Bachelor of Science degree (which I have) and the petition website boasts 9,029 signers with a PhD. The famous physicist Edward Teller is one of the more notable signers. That's good company.

*And though you are reading this bit after the official celebration, Happy 235th Birthday America!

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


DID WALLACE EVER REFER TO OBAMA AS A FLAKE?

Posted 7/2/11

*You always hear, when Global Warming/Climate Change/etc. are being discussed, regardless of your side on the issue, that “…we don't know whether mankind contributes to global warming to any measurable degree, but we need to act nonetheless…”

Why say that we do not know how mankind's contribution measures on the global scale when we know for a fact that man is still too insignificant to have any measurable effect?

If anybody doubts that claim, remember that of all the global warming chemicals in the atmosphere, plain old water vapor constitutes 97% of it all. The remaining 3% of the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen and an amalgam of other trace gases.
Among these trace gases is carbon dioxide, the gas that the EPA and Pres. Obama wants to strictly regulate. Of all the carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, and the total amounts to only 0.038% (that's 1 percent of the total atmosphere cut into 1000 pieces and scooping 38 of those 1000 pieces into a very tiny teaspoon – hardly daunting.) Man generates about only 3% of that amount, or 0.00014%. If that was the volume of a fart in a steamy room, even your dog wouldn't smell it.

Scientists trying to claim man has a significant role in the climate equation use the “tipping point” argument for mankind being the cause of climate change. In that scenario, they claim that the earth's atmosphere is nearly saturated with carbon dioxide – like a glass filled to the brim with water – and the next drop of carbon dioxide added to the glass will cause the glass to overflow (global warming).

Now if such a scenario were possible, it's not because the planet never stays the same temperature and hasn't for the four billion years it has existed, and man was adding the last drop of carbon dioxide that tipped the scale, in any frame of reference, it is not man's responsibility for the small amount generated. That's akin to blaming the breaking of the camel's back for the last piece of straw loaded on his pack. That's just silly. Don't let anyone try to get away with that idiotic argument.

*Another significant point to consider is, IF we were able to cause the entire environment of the planet to change in temperature, if we had that awesome power, wouldn't we want to use that power in smaller measure to warm up a city or a town or a region? The last time I looked, we aren't in possession of such abilities.

The truth is we are still weak, sick tiger food running to get out of the way of storms. We are not as significant as we sometimes like to believe we are.

*Did you catch in the race for the Republican nomination for President that Fox News' Chris Wallace is getting skewered for asking Michele Bachmann whether she was “a flake” – referring to verbal gaffes that have been attributed to Bachmann? Wallace apparently got eviscerated by viewers in the aftermath for (in his terms) being rude to the U.S. Representative from Minnesota to the degree that he recorded an apology for “screwing up” in asking the question in that manner.

The further aftermath of the situation showed media people asking Rep. Bachmann if she accepted Wallace's apology. Then those same media people were ripping Bachmann for refusing to acknowledge acceptance of Wallace's apology. What apology does she need to accept? I listened to Wallace's statement. He is apologizing to those who were listening and goes on further to explain his position for why he asked the question. He also says that he “screwed up” in asking the question that way. I listened to his statement twice. He never apologized to Michele Bachmann. If I were her, I wouldn't accept his apology either – even if he delivered one to me personally.

Wallace did considerable damage to Bachmann and to women in general. Michele Bachmann is hardly the first politician to make an occasional verbal mistake. Our current President is one of the most flatulent of verbal farters. He of “57 states…and two more to visit,” “bowling like the Special Olympics,” introducing the Scotland Prime Minister to himself, and the latest, identifying a soldier and posthumous recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor as the first CMH winner he awarded in person.
Did Wallace ever refer to President Obama as a flake? How about Vice President Biden? Biden makes Billy Carter look like a brain surgeon. Wallace ever refer to Biden as a flake? How about any other male politicians? President Bush mispronounced nuclear readily. Was President Bush a flake?

And why are we hearing all these declarations that if Bachmann is a legitimate candidate, Palin won't enter the race? Is there a quota on the number of women that can enter a Presidential race? The sexism that occurs openly in the media is tacitly embarrassing in this “modern” day and age.

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


RECYCLING IS FALLING 'VICTIM' TO CAPITALISM AND FREE MARKET FORCES

Posted 6/24/11

 

*The “Recycling is Nonsense” entry of the week involves a personal observation from a major hotel chain that has strapped its marketing campaign heavily to the Green Political Movement. This hotel, like many other businesses in this upside-down world we live in today, provides segregated trash receptacles throughout their facilities, along with lots of signage around the hotel directing patrons to use the appropriate trash can for recyclables.

So my lovely wife, who just so happens to speak and understand Spanish, is staying in one of these hotels and overhears one of the Spanish speaking maids being advised by a guest where the recycled trash is in the room as well as the regular non-recyclable trash. The maid nods and smiles and as the guest leaves says to another maid, while laughing, “Ha-ha-ha…toda la basura va en una bolsa.” Which means, all the trash goes into one bag…Har-de-har-har.”

So I guess you could say that recycling is falling victim to capitalism and free market forces. The hotel chain doesn't want to incur the added expense to equip each maid with the capability of lugging two bags of trash out of every room of the 1000+ room facility, which would require twice the number of trash bags, twice the number of trash storage on-site, considerably more time for the staff to have to move full bags from floor-to-floor, etc.

It really is the simple things in life that you grow to appreciate most.

*By the way, did you know that ALL of the trash generated by the United States of America over the next century could be stored in a single 10 miles square landfill? Ted Turner's Flying D ranch outside of Bozeman, Montana could donate enough land for our next 100 years of trash tossing and he'd still have 50,000 acres left for raising bison.

Did you catch this story on Drudgereport,com last week about scientists once again falsifying climate data, this time in the form of sea levels?

The Sea Level Research Institute in Colorado stands accused of “adjusting” their data. You know, Al Gore has argued that rising temperatures are raising sea levels because melting ice would cause the sea level to rise, all other related factors notwithstanding, of course. So are the climate scientists adjusting or doctoring the data?

Here are the facts:

The University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters — or about the thickness of a fingernail — every year to its actual measurements of sea levels.

Apparently they claim that they must do so because of glacial isostatic adjustment, which basically describes the gradual, slight rise of continental land masses out of the earth's crust, which means that the ocean basins can hold a bit more water.

So it seems the institute decided to fudge the sea level data, just a smidgen, to represent how high the sea levels would be if land wasn't rising also. How can anyone believe anything these charlatains are saying about climate?

*Hat-tip to hotair.com for some really good insight on the Susan B. Anthony List pro-life pledge that Mitt Romney and refused to sign last week.

Romney, who doesn't seem to miss an opportunity to poke a stick, McCain-Style, into conservative ribs these days, anticipated a backlash and tried to fight back via the website, National Review Online by claiming, “…I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.”

“I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine.”
“I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. And as president, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services.”

So why exactly is a facility that does abortions only occasionally somehow better than those that abort children primarily? Is that the wiggle room he's trying to create for himself? Why? He doesn't need wiggle room. He already said he is pro-life. Is the “nuance” between being opposed to abortion in all forms and being O.K. only if they are done once-in-a-while, enough to sway a significant number of squishy Republicans into voting for him?

That seems very unlikely. Squishy Republicans are just looking for somebody with enough ability to actually articulate either side with clarity and purpose, without crushing the world economy in the process.

(Follow Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


SEXISM IS ALIVE AND WELL IN THE WORLD OF CRIME, PUNISHMENT

Posted 6/18/11

So 25,000 Sarah Palin emails were combed through by every Anti-Palin faction in the media and nothing was found to implicate the former Alaska Governor in any form of impropriety?

Seriously? This is the story that they anticipated?

So when are charges going to be filed on those that claimed a legal right to access of this information, in the hopes of digging up some dirt on a woman that they hope to ruin publicly, yet came up with nothing? Shouldn't they have to answer for all the wasted effort?

The truly illustrious Rep. Anthony Weiner has proven once again that Democrats embrace moral scumbags as leaders with absolutely no hesitation or remorse, and they have no understanding of the concept that once one develops a stench, hanging around in close proximity with those you have common interests with is not viewed as a desirable quality.

Translation, “Weiner, you stink. You have no standards. Go away.”

He just doesn't get that angle apparently.

Did you see this? While sitting can be restful and comfortable, sitting longer than you should can be harmful. According to statistics, sitting kills more than 300,000 Americans annually. It is the third leading cause of death in the United States, right after heart disease and cancer. Yes, sitting excessively is more harmful to your health than cancer or heart disease.

They say that being habitually sedentary can cause diabetes, depression and osteoporosis, as well as sexual dysfunction. It is estimated to cost the U.S. $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

They compare inactivity to indulging in excessive smoking.

Stated another way, for you smokers, it is safer to smoke than it is to sit at a desk for 8-10 hours a day and work.

Hey, if they can ban my free-market purchase of basic incandescent light bulbs, where does it stop?

I am truly tired of Bill O'Reilly's “lookin' out for the folks” routine. He imprints that mantra on almost every show on Fox News. He likes to couch his overt Conservatism with a thought that he is looking out for the common man.

But we need only look inward at conservatism to understand what it means. If we are truly as resourceful as Conservatism would have us believe, do we really need the likes of Bill O”Reilly looking out for us?

The NBA Finals was on the nation's stage right alongside Major League Soccer the other night, in the form of Sporting KC's debut at their new soccer-only stadium, Livestrong Park. I was a bar-side viewer, watching Game 5 of the NBA Finals on a TV right next to one showing the soccer game. It was not a good showing for the sport of soccer in KC.

And on the subject of the NBA Finals, let it be once again be stated in abundantly clear terms: a good player does not make a good basketball team. A good basketball team is composed of PLAYERS (emphasis on the plural). The Dallas Mavericks whipped the Miami Heat because the Dallas TEAM was superior to the Miami TEAM. LeBron James is not Michael Jordan and couldn't carry the ball bags of Larry Bird or Magic Johnson.

That's all we need to know about that.

In the Caylee Anthony murder trial, we have the following players: the prosecution believes that the girl's early-20's year old mother killed her daughter by smothering her with duct tape and is seeking to have the mother executed; the defense which says that the little girl drowned in the family pool and nobody called the police and want the mother released; and you have a judge and jury that are trying to determine which fabrication is most believable. Evidence of duct tape and remains that were in skeletal form and internet searches on chloroform and hand-to-hand combat and photos of the mother partying night-after-night-after-night in nightclubs only days after her daughter went missing and was actually dead. Do we need to look deeply into such lunacy? What mother has knowledge that her daughter accidentally drowns in a pool and then heads out to party the nights away for the succeeding weeks?

Truth-be-told, this case will likely end up like most other trials where the mother has harmed the children -- life in prison with parole consideration at some point. American sexism is alive and well in the world of crime and punishment.

(You can now follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


A SALUTE TO ACTOR GEORGE KENNEDY--HE'S STILL KICKIN'

Posted 6/11/11

Rep. Anthony Weiner's admission that he lied regarding the posting of naughty pictures of himself on the internet is being bounced around the media in various lights. You recall of course that he first claimed that his internet account was hacked. The next day he was granting interviews to everyone but the Nickelodeon Channel, describing himself as a victim, particularly singling out internet news reporter Andrew Breitbart, who first broke the Weiner story, as being the hacker.

When Breitbart broke-out with even more pictures with more women, Weiner came clean. You can listen to whomever you like on this issue, and the opinions have ranged from, “I want an apology!” (From Breitbart) to “Weiner's wife must be partially to blame, if she knew about it.” (That gem came from MSNBC's Chris Matthews…unbelievable!)

But I have yet to hear anybody note that this is a case when a Democrat politician once again is caught in a lie. This is Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky all over again. Weiner didn't have an attack of shame. He didn't suddenly get a twinge of morality. A Democrat was once again caught in a lie. He saw that the lie wasn't going to be believed. So he came clean. That's the Democrat Party for you.

*You know how you always hear of an aged actor or famous person that dies and you have a retrospective in the media about all they did in life? We went through that recently with Elizabeth Taylor and before her with Leslie Nielson and before him with Kenneth Mars (not quite as famous as the others, but he gets special mention for playing Police Inspector Hans Wilhelm Friedrich Kemp in Young Frankenstein).
Well today, I'm starting a new trend (at least I'm hoping it'll become a trend). I wondered about famous actor George Kennedy the other day and checked if he was still kicking. Turns out he is!

He enlisted in the Army during World War II and went on to serve 16 years, both in combat, and in his later years, as an Armed Forces Radio and Television officer.
As a US Army officer in World War II, he served under Gen. George S. Patton. Before his acting career really took off, he served as a military consultant on The Phil Silvers Show in 1955.

One of his first roles in film was that of a slave in Spartacus in1960. When the crowd was asked for Spartacus, he was the last close-up of a slave yelling "I am Spartacus.” He is the only actor to appear in all four of the "Airport" movie series.
Due to his tall, enormously broad frame, Kennedy was frequently cast in the 1960s and 1970s as bullies and thugs, and had the distinction of brutalizing stars like Cary Grant, Paul Newman and Clint Eastwood on screen while gaining a reputation off-screen as one of the nicest actors around. By his 60's he finally got the chance to play friendlier characters, such as his lovable Capt. Ed Hocken in the "Naked Gun" films.

Kennedy was considered for the role of Lex Luthor in 1978's Superman.

He and wife Joan adopted their granddaughter in 1998, after their daughter was ruled unfit, and they also have adopted 4 children. Kennedy is currently 86 years of age and living in Idaho.

(Hat-tip to www.imdb.com and www.Wikipedia.org)

That's worth noting. If you see George Kennedy around, toss him a salute.

*Well, just two weeks after I tried my best to shag the flies off of Mitt Romney, he himself dove headfirst into the poo-pile by declaring proudly that he believes the earth is getting warmer and that mankind is contributing to it, to some degree. Sheesh! Try to help somebody and this is what I get!

Truthfully, Romney does steer the goal of the left's original reason for wanting to believe man causes global warming – carbon taxes and greater government control over the free market – into a market-based “solution,” but why ascribe to their nonsense in the first place?

A perfect closing to this subject is something I learned this week inspired by Actor Dick Van Dyke, who was doing a commercial about the need to contribute to some wild animal benefit fund. Van Dyke was talking about how tigers were particularly endangered. So I looked it up, and it turns out there are about 3,000 tigers in the wild around the world. But in India, their numbers are absolutely thriving. More than half of the world's wild tigers live in India and they are feeding off of the plethora of Indian people. One particular region of the country has about 100 people killed by tigers each year. Now I looked into this closer. It turns out that most of the wild tigers that become man eaters do so because they are injured or become unable to hunt normally for some reason. So, unable to hunt for prey the way nature designed, these tigers move down the food chain to us fat, slow-moving humans.

So for all those who like to claim man is “all-that,” it should be a sobering thought that we are essentially low-hanging fruit to the sick tigers of the world.

(Brian Kubicki and his low hanging fruit can be reached via email to bkubicki@kc.rr.com or followed at Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND ITS ONGOING
PEDOPHILIA PROBLEMS

Posted 6/2/11

The Catholic Church and its on-going pedophilia problems have been brought into the public light once again with the arrest of Father Shawn Ratigan on child pornography charges. Ratigan was serving as a priest at St. Patrick's Catholic Church in the Northland and had previously worked at a Catholic church in St. Joseph. He was, at the time of his arrest a couple of weeks ago, saying mass at a convent in Independence.

Basically, the gist of the timeline of what has occurred – so far as known publicly today, anyway – is as follows:

Back in May of 2010, the principal of St. Patrick's grade school sent a letter to the Diocese of Kansas City/St. Joseph alerting them to the problems parents and teachers had experienced with Ratigan pertaining to his interactions with children, particularly little girls. Diocese officials apparently did nothing officially – like contacting police, until December of that same year when Ratigan's laptop computer was taken to a computer tech for repair. That tech discovered disturbing images of little girls on the computer and turned it over to the church where Ratigan worked. St. Patrick's officials then turned the computer over to the Diocese's IT people.

The bishop of the Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese, Bishop Robert Finn, claimed to have contacted “...a Kansas City, Missouri police officer and described one of the more disturbing images. At the same time the diocese showed the images to legal counsel. In both instances we were told that, while very troubling, the photographs did not constitute child pornography as they did not depict sexual conduct or contact…”
Pardon me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.

Ratigan had apparently attempted to commit suicide after the discovery of the images on his computer. After hospitalization for the suicide attempt, Ratigan was sent by the Diocese for psychological counseling. After he was released from that treatment, Finn assigned Ratigan to a convent in Independence where he would say mass for the sisters.

During all this time, nobody is monitoring Ratigan's daily movements. Apparently, Ratigan had been noted around events involving children, attending the St. Patrick's Day Parade in the Northland and attending the family birthday party of a child from the St. Patrick's Parish. After several other perceived problems in this regard (apparently) church officials formally filed a report with the Cyber Crimes Against Children Unit with the Kansas City Police Department. Ratigan was arrested days later.

Why weren't the police notified to at least investigate the priest when the school principal first brought the school's concerns to light?

Why weren't the police officially contacted the moment the tech turned the photos in to St. Patrick's Church?

Why weren't the police notified when Ratigan attempted suicide?

Why isn't the bishop facing charges for destroying evidence of a crime for turning the laptop over to Ratigan's family? Did you know that police reportedly have looked at computers in the St. Joseph Diocese that Ratigan used and found more evidence of child pornography?

Am I looking at this in some odd way that the St. Patrick's Church officials and the Diocese don't see these things as egregious and serious errors in judgment?

*Loyal readers will recall that I addressed this issue in this column back in 2002 when the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops gathered in Dallas to discuss setting formal policy regarding treatment of clergy abuse allegations. I called the Bishops to task at that time for their failure to go the full extent and agree to immediately remove offending priests from the priesthood after their first offense is proven. I had an email exchange with then-KCK Archbishop Keleher, who defended church policy, saying in effect that laicization (removing a priest from the priesthood) is a difficult process.

I think we see now why that policy was wrong. How many times have similar issues like this one in the Northland occurred around this country and children have been harmed by the inaction of the church?

Bishop Finn has admitted that he mishandled the investigation involving Ratigan. But he only says that he should have filed a police report in December after the tech found the pictures. He still thinks that he was in the right to not involve the police when concerns about Ratigan were first brought to his office's attention seven months earlier.

He still doesn't get it, and after my experiences nine years ago, I'm not surprised.
It's up to us in the end, as parents. If you are concerned about something or someone in this regard contact the police. DO NOT contact the church or the Diocese first. Call the police.

And if you are a Catholic who is defending the church and the Diocese as acting appropriately in this case and you feel the need to attack those who are speaking out against the church and the Diocese (bring it on in my case, I can take it), do some soul searching and ask yourselves who you are really defending, the church or the children?

(Parallax Looks can be had right here each week. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


THE STORY OF BIG DADDY DON GARLITS

Posted 5/27/11

*What a week!

*The devastation felt by the residents of Reading, Kansas and Joplin, Missouri when tornadoes wrecked their towns this past weekend will be short-lived. Not as short as the national busybody media's attention span, who will forget what a Joplin is by this weekend, but it will be short-lived nonetheless, because the people that make up those towns are folks who don't waste any time getting right back up on their feet after getting knocked down.

Nonetheless, a hand of assistance – either in the form of donated blood or monetary donations to the relief organization of your choice, will no doubt be greatly appreciated.

*I'd spend a few sentences on Arnold Schwarzenegger, but he just isn't worth the effort when there are more important things to talk about.

*The presidential field on the Republican side seems to be shaping up quite well. The perceived dabblers and dilettantes have exited the race. Serious money contenders are still in the race and seem to be gaining their footing. President Obama keeps doing stupid things and pushing really bad liberal policies. Everything is shaping up nicely.

*In the face of all the heroism being displayed across the nation's breadbasket this week, I thought it appropriate to relate a story about another real hero. (Hat-tip to Randy Covitz of the Kansas City Star.)

Recall the name, Big Daddy Don Garlits? I remember hearing his name whenever auto racing was being discussed in my youth in Kansas City, Kan. Garlitz was one of the originators of drag strip racing, which in his own words, happened this way:

“We wanted to go fast. That's what it was all about. And we went fast in our original cars which we drove back and forth to work…and we realized if we put one of those engines in a roadster, it went faster, and if we took the roadster body off, it went even faster. … The dragster is the evolution of trying to go as fast as you possibly can in that given distance. And the NHRA made it respectable. They took a bunch of hoodlums off the streets and made respectable citizens out of them.”

*Don Garlits ought to be remembered not for all the drag racing wins, but instead for his actions after a terrible crash he was involved in on March 8, 1970, at Long Beach, Calif., when his transmission exploded, sending debris everywhere and slicing off the front of his right foot. Another fragment from the crash cut off the right arm of a teenage boy named Tim Ditt, who was rushed to the nearest hospital along with Garlits.

However, only one surgeon was available, and Garlits told him to work on the boy and save his arm before working on Garlits' foot.

Six-and-a-half hours later, the boy's arm had been reattached. The boy eventually recovered and even worked for a year on Garlits' crew.

But, the well-crafted key to Covitz’s' story, and a lesson of why you shouldn't go to places like Wikipedia.org for the real story, is while Garlits lay in a hospital bed for about eight weeks recovering, he came up with the idea of a faster, but safer, dragster by moving the engine from the front to the rear of the vehicle. Garlits came up with his own revolutionary invention.

“I thought to myself, 'My God, they go around at Indianapolis in traffic at 200 mph with rear engines. Why can't we go straight for a quarter of a mile?' Garlits said. “I went home, put it all together, went out and tested for three months.”

After several needed steering adjustments, and some eventful pass/fail test runs, the modified dragster went dead straight ahead.

“We went to California, won the Winter Nationals, won the U.S. Fuel and Gas Championships,” he said. “Then we put a wing on the back of it, and it dropped a full quarter of a second in speed and added an extra 10 mph. That was the end of the slingshot dragster. Sooner or later we would have had rear-engine cars, but it wouldn't have been then. And we were killing (drivers) right and left. That's probably the most important thing I ever did in drag racing, and it certainly did equate to lives, possibly even my own.”

And for the record, I still despise the Star for their political bias, but they do have some good writers left that can knock one out of the park occasionally.

(Parallax Look is a home run every week. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMACARE AND ROMNEYCARE

Posted 5/20/11

*Well, this has been an eventful week as far as Presidential Election 2012 goes. Mike Huckabee is out. Donald Trump is out as well. Newt Gingrich is in. Ron Paul appears to be in, at least as far as setting up the proverbial exploratory committee. Tim Pawlenty appears to be in as well.

Then you have Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Mitch Daniels, John Huntsman, Gary Johnson…and Mitt Romney. Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman appear to be toying with the idea as well.

So what about Romney? He was my preference in 2008, but the worst Republican candidate for president since Bob Dole somehow found a way to squeak his way around Romney for the nomination.

Was the McCain for President campaign the worst you've ever seen? Goodness that was a putrid campaign – a bad candidate wrapped around an even worse strategy. If McCain for President in 2008 was a food, it would be something really nasty like blood sausage with lima beans on the side. Bleegh!

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney raised $11 million last night toward a presidential run.

*So, what's wrong with Romney? The criticism in 2008 seemed to be his Mormon religious faith, though a candidate's religion of choice is no concern of mine or anyone. What's wrong with Mormons?

The criticism that the media likes to raise about Romney this time around seems to be his record of creating government run health care in Massachusetts when he was governor of the state years ago. The critical media say he can't possibly be opposed to ObamaCare when he created RomneyCare in Massachusetts.

There's one major thing wrong with that criticism though.

You see, our government is set up in a way so that states can pretty much create whatever system of laws the people of that state wish to create. Oregonians wants assisted suicide made legal in their state, so be it. Californians want marijuana use made legal under certain circumstances. That's the choice of the people of that state. If Massachusetts wants to enact a health care system run by the government for their state, it is their right to do so, and Kansans and Missourians have absolutely no say so on the matter.

However, instituting government-run health care at the federal government level is another matter completely. The United States Constitution is very clear on the subject of where the powers of the federal government stop and where the powers of the state and the people pick up.

Mitt Romney seems to have this issue in good perspective.

So all you people ripping Romney for RomneyCare keep your yappers zipped. Provided we aren't residents of Massachusetts, it's none of our concern what happens in that state. Mind your own business.

*Now, don't take this as a tacit endorsement of Romney in 2012 – at this point, I'd vote for George Romney vs. Obama. I don't know yet who I'm endorsing in 2012. I like something about all the supposed declared candidates thus far. I wouldn't reject any of them outright.

And if you hear anyone talking one candidate or another down in the coming weeks, tell them (politely) that they need to let the candidates define themselves before we do the work of the liberal media and start chopping good people down. The liberal media elected Obama; let's not make it easier for them.

*On that subject, I am completely sick and tired of hearing people who are supposed to be on our side politically absolutely declaring with no hesitation that Barack Obama would trounce ANYBODY on our side. Despite being factually incorrect, such statements absolutely play directly in to the hands of the liberal media in chopping our candidates down before they even have a chance to define their campaign. You have my permission to verbally excoriate anyone on our side performing that action.

*By the way, Newt Gingrich calling Obama “the most successful Food Stamp President” in U.S. history was nails. Nice work! Keep it coming Newt.

*Please keep former Royals pitcher, Royals Hall of Famer, and broadcaster Paul Splittorff in your prayers. Splitt is one of the Good Ones.

(Parallax Look gets an endorsement each week in The Landmark. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


ENVY IS WRONG NO MATTER WHO IS PLAYING THE GAME

Posted 5/13/11

*I have a major conundrum bouncing around my noggin. Can anyone explain why waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is supposed to be out of bounds in terms of acceptable U.S. policy and cannot be done, but executing an unarmed Osama bin Laden, possibly with a shot in the back (yeah for the Navy Seals if that rumor is true), is suitable fodder to fuel President Obama going on a ball-spiking tour across the country, and just fine in American foreign policy?
I first heard this question posed by Fox News' Chris Wallace on Sunday but I actually came up with it first, on Saturday night (honest!). It's a good question that should be asked of every single person in the Obama Administration, especially of Obama himself. I want to hear his answer. Obama's minion answering to Fox's Wallace answered the question horribly.

*Obama was seen today running the warning track in Yankee Stadium high-fiving fans for his execution of bin Laden. (No, Obama didn't actually shoot bin Laden, but you'd think he did with all the self-congratulation he's been lauding himself with since they shot bin Laden.) I don't think I've seen a victory lap this extended since O.J. beat the double murder rap. (Can you believe STILL there are people out there that believe O.J. really didn't do it?)

*On Oct. 7, 2008, in the second presidential debate, on foreign policy, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged, "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”
That's the direct quote.

*So, the Democrat Party stands by the political policy of executing a perceived enemy of the state. Really? Has an American political candidate EVER based their campaign on a promise to, if elected, kill the perceived leader of a foreign state or enemy? I can't find another example. FDR didn't. Truman didn't. I don't recall President Bush ever saying so regarding Saddam Hussein.

*The Obama interview on 60 Minutes last week reminded me of the Saturday Night Live skit where Chris Farley interviewed Paul McCartney with fan-gushing fervor. That was a slap-and-tickle fest that should have embarrassed Correspondent Steve Kroft, especially after CBS's embarrassing display in the Dan Rather memo-gate incident a few years back that resulted in his being fired.

*The Republican Presidential debate last week was interesting. There was a lot of grandstanding for the cameras, lots of lip-service toward stopping ObamaCare, and for some indefensible reason, lots of hand-raising initiated by the moderators and questioners. Let the record show that hand-raising during a debate is dumb-dumb-dumb. These folks are trying to distinguish themselves before a nation of hundreds of millions of people and they don't need to be reduced to hand-raising. Move that one to the nearest landfill.

*I saw a poster on the internet of President Bush wearing a cowboy hat and looking confident with the caption below, “Vindication: when the loudest critic of your policies achieves his greatest success because of them.” That one absolutely nailed it.

*Why do people always scream about corporations paying little or no income tax? Every time Democrats take power politically, a principle tenet of their effort is to pit the money classes against each other, and part of that is to toss out stats on major corporations paying little or no income taxes. Stop worrying about corporate income taxes. Envy is wrong no matter who is playing the game. Besides, companies simply pass those taxes on to their customers, and truth be told, corporations did not create the federal government. People created the federal government. Let people pay for it and leave the corporations alone.

*Reduce your government footprint. It's time. Let's get it done this time. You've got to start somewhere.

(Increase your Parallax Look footprint by following Brian on Twitter at twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


 

OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS THE MONEY GUY

Posted 5/5/11

*So I'm watching Fox News Sunday night about 9:30 p.m. and for lack of anything else remotely compelling, I settle upon Geraldo Rivera's show which typically runs Sunday nights and covers anything from Lady Gaga's latest body piercing to Geraldo running around in Libya dodging bullets for no other reason than to be dodging bullets.

So I see this crawl below the screen that the President is going to address the nation from the White House in a few minutes. No subject is given.I speculated in my head that he was going to resign over some extramarital scandal, or just that he tired of Michelle haranguing him over his smoking (Can't you just see him storming down the hall away from her crossed arms and tapping foot muttering, “Awww…leave me alone woman – I AM the president after all!”). But that was wishful thinking. Then as the time rattles on before the president appears on-camera, Geraldo is heard conversing with his brother, Craig Rivera, off camera, and Geraldo says, “…I'm just speculating, but wouldn't it be something if the President announced that bin Laden was killed…mind you, that's not my report…I have nothing in that regard…but wouldn't it be wonderful if that's what it was about?” Then, not more than a minute later, Geraldo starts calling on sources that are alluding to that precisely being the case. That Osama bin Laden is dead.

So I scroll around the other channels: CNN, MSNBC, etc. and none of them have any mention of bin Laden's death. The Drudgereport.com says nothing. It's still covering the White House Press Corps dinner that had Obama skewering Donald Trump. I return to Fox News and Geraldo's now talking to sources that are confirming bin Laden's death.

So…either Geraldo Rivera completely pulled a story out of his keyster and was right, or he knew via sources that something was up and deliberately made it look like he was just guessing that bin Laden was dead.

*Did you notice that Obama in his speech Sunday night finally did use the word “terrorist” in association with Osama? I guess it's O.K. now. He never did that before.

*I would be the first to give credit where it is due to a president for an action under his command, and if that was indeed bin Laden that was shot and killed, congratulations are due the president for keeping the policies of his predecessor, Preident Bush, in place rather than scuttling them all as he said he would do in his campaign for the presidency.

But, I must be honest. With this president's proven record of prevarication, I'm going to need to see some proof that they actually shot Osama bin Laden.

*Obama called this, during his Sunday night comments, the most significant action in the war on al Qaida. (So now he admits it's a war?) I disagree. The capture, interrogation, and waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and use of the information gleaned from said actions were way more beneficial to this country's security than the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

Truthfully, bin Laden was nothing more than another figurehead in the Al Qaida organization. He was, by all accounts, the moneyman in support of the wide range of worldwide Islamic terrorism conducted around the world for the last 30-plus years. Why did nobody celebrate in the streets when Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured? Why no parades when we killed the guy that sawed-off Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl's heads? The guys that perpetrated 9/11 are all dead.

*By all accounts, Terry Nichols was the brains behind the Oklahoma bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was the figurehead of the attack. We celebrated McVeigh's execution, though not with as much fervor. Nobody cares about Terry Nichols and whether he lives or dies.

*The difference between these situations is the media. We were told that Osama bin Laden was the guy that masterminded 9/11. Was he? If you read even a little, you know that bin Laden was the money guy - important, but no more or less significant than Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Chemical Ali, and Ayman al-Zawahiri. If the media wasn't pumping Osama bin Laden up as THE guy behind 9/11, would anybody care whether he was alive or dead? So what just happened here? Have we all been used by our government and the media into putting all of terrorism into the life of one man?

*As for Obama riding this to victory in 2012, good luck with that. President Bush 41 had an 89% approval rating in the days following Desert Storm, which was about this time relative to the 1992 election in looking ahead to Obama's 2012 campaign. Bush finished with a 29% approval rating.

*I still maintain that Osama bin Laden has been dead for a long time, 5 years or more.
The administration disposed of the evidence - conveniently, so nothing can be proven now. Had President Bush handled Saddam like this, the press would be in a whirlwind right now about cover-ups.

I say again, before anyone gets credit politically, I need to see some proof -- Bush gave us that with Saddam. The hanging was fairly convincing. With Obama's history and track record of secrecy and obfuscation, I'm going to have to see something more than his word.

(Get a weekly Parallax Look from Brian Kubicki right here in The Landmark and email the columnist at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


IT'S TOO EARLY FOR REPUBLICANS TO CRITICIZE TRUMP

Posted 4/29/11

*I ruptured (either partially or totally – that question will be answered tomorrow) one of my Achilles tendi tonight. Stretch those Achilles and calves before you work out folks – both of them.

*Why is everyone so worked-up about a possible Donald Trump presidential run? Trump has seized the podium right now, at a point very early in the process. Nobody else has been able to curry any favor with the drive-by media. Trump is laying the course for how to attack an incumbent candidate who has high disapproval numbers. Those Rinos out there jumping in the air to sniff dismissively at Donald Trump should put a cork in it. Remember Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment – never criticize your own in front of the enemy; or was that Vito Corleone?

*I like Sen. Rand Paul's idea that we should agree to raise the debt limit only if the Democrats agree to a balanced budget amendment. It's time to play tough. Thus far, we Republicans haven't been. We've been about as soft in the budget fight as a man who admits to caring about the Royal Wedding.

Rep. Ron Paul has announced his intention to form an exploratory committee for a run for the Presidency in 2012. I'm not fully on-board with all of Paul's ideas, but I'm closer than I was three years ago. The little guy kind of grows on you.

*980 KMBZ's octogenarian Mike Shanin, the oldest Rino I know of in KC, says he will vote Third Party if Ron Paul gets the nomination. That right there makes me take a second look at Paul.

*Have you noticed that the average daily temperatures outside have magically risen by about 50 degrees in the last 4 months? 50 degrees – and it has had absolutely nothing at all to do with how much energy we burn. Because we burn more now than we ever have before. So what gives? They want us to worry ourselves silly over 0.6 of a degree over 50 years but 50 degrees in 4 months is nothing?

I want Al Gore arrested, brought to face charges of fraud and treason, convicted and jailed.

*Please avoid recycling paper, glass, plastic, or aluminum. Life is too short to spend any part of it picking through your trash.

*Life seems kind of quiet without basketball or football to follow.

*You know, I had been having some trouble with a sore left Achilles tendon the last couple of weeks. In preparation for it, I spent some time last night stretching and strengthening my left tendon and calf. But I didn't pay any attention to the right one. Note to self, what you do for the left side, you do for the right side.

The internet doctor says that I'm looking at eight weeks after surgery for rest and repair. Darn – it's getting hot outside soon. This is going to be a tough couple of months.

*I don't care about the Royal Wedding. Why should an American care one iota about a couple of well-to-do trust fund babies that are getting married? Celebrate those that have been married for oodles of years and stay married – like the Queen and Prince Philip, who have been married for some 55 plus years. Now that’s something to celebrate.

*Those Geico commercials where they use a narrator to compare the 15% savings to something else that seems like a sure thing are circling the drain now. After the Abe Lincoln, “Does this dress make me look fat?” spot, they have jumped the shark big time, especially with the Foghorn Leghorn ad. Really?

*So the Supreme Court is heading to recess without agreeing to fast track their review of ObamaCare. That's disappointing news for most of America, especially considering the underhanded way in which that joke of a law was passed. Well, patience is a virtue I suppose.

*For those of you twisted into knots over Donald Trump's possible candidacy, try this: sit back, calm down, and listen to what he has to say. Listen to what other potential candidates have to say. Think about their relative merits. Then let them go on with their possible forays into the political realm. Don't criticize. It's too early. Let the natural forces at play work their way through it all.

(Enjoy the natural forces of a Parallax Look each week. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


ENJOY EARTH DAY BY ENJOYING THE FRUITS OF PLANET EARTH

Posted 4/22/11

*Friday is Earth Day 2011. Please do me a favor and burn something you no longer need on that day. Belch loudly. Wipe the hamburger grease on your face off on your sleeve. Perform a jackrabbit start in your car when the stoplight changes from red to green. Saw down a tree or burn loose underbrush to help prevent wildfires. Enjoy the empowerment of living human life. There are not very many people (that we know of anyway) in this universe that are afforded that luxury.

*Remember when President Obama called for forming a bipartisan group in Congress to begin negotiating a $4 trillion debt-reduction package? The Democrat and Republican parties have not even agreed on the membership, yet six senators; three Democrats and three Republicans, say they are close to an agreement on a plan.

Apparently, Republicans must accept higher taxes and lower military spending. Democrats must agree to curbs on growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending, and tweaks to Social Security, to avert a big shortfall in 2037 and as a trade-off for Republican support of increased taxes. Don't hold your breath on those things actually happening.

*Remember when Obama appointed a fiscal commission last year to come up with solutions? They came up with…solutions. They wanted to increase taxes and seriously cut spending. Obama disavowed their solutions. Why did he appoint them in the first place? Why hasn't anyone in the media asked him about it?

Isn't this a situation where leadership is needed, and none is being provided? I think it was college basketball coach Bob Knight that has derided college athletic directors for appointing panels to seek and find new coaches for a revenue generating sport when the athletic director should be doing that work all by themselves.

We need a leader. We need someone to take charge, grab the bull by the horns, and make the tough decisions. These important decisions shouldn't be delegating to other people to make. If you want the big jog, you have to be willing to make the tough calls. This country is sorely lacking in leadership

*I am sick and tired of complaining about tax day. I am more tired of asking the achievers in our economy to pay a larger share of the burden of the federal government than does the average citizen. All citizens should bear an equal burden of the financing of the government. Either make the taxes flat or give more votes in elections to people who pay taxes – the more tax you pay, the more votes you get.

*I don't care about the wedding in Britain. Why do women care so much about it? I suspect this is a sign of why weddings have gotten so very ridiculous in this country. Weddings today become a race for who can blow the most money on the event, and that has nothing at all to do with whether the union survives for the long term, which is what we ought to be concerned with

*Are the Royals for real? I still don't care much.

*Those polls today that say Donald Trump would get trounced by Barack Obama were the Presidential election of 2012 actually held today in 2011 conveniently omit the caveat that those same polls said in 2007 that Hillary Clinton would trounce Barack Obama if that election was held early.

Have you asked your president why gas prices are so high today? Why are we approaching $4 per gallon at the gas pump? What is President Obama doing to lower gas prices? Why has he said that $4 per gallon for gas does not disturb him? These questions need to be answered.

Truth be told, expensive gas is exactly what President Obama and his administration wants. They want us to be so tired of high gas prices that we will turn to his expensive wind and solar energy. Good luck with that wind powered car.

*To continue the Earth Day thoughts, use a tank of gas on Friday. Mow your lawn. Throw away paper. Put bottles into your regular trash bin. Store your recycling container bin way down in the basement where nobody will be tempted to use it.

Enjoy Earth Day by enjoying the fruits of Planet Earth.

(Earth Day expert advice and other information always available at bkubicki@kc.rr.com and by following Brian at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


SHOULDN'T GOVERNMENT BE FORCED TO FEEL THE STING LIKE THE REST OF US?

Posted 4/15/11

•Should I be ashamed to admit that I wanted the federal government shut down? I'm not. It needs to be. Depending on where you live, 10-20% of the American workforce has been effectively “shut down” for at least the past year.

Shouldn't government be forced to feel the sting that the rest of America has had to endure? Why are they immune to the economic pain, especially when you consider that part of the reason this malaise has gone on so long is the economy has had to keep funding the huge monolith continually throughout the recession?

And before you jump down my throat about the military, they are more essential than Congress. Send the House and Senate home in a shut down, without pay. That should fund all the military all over the world for a considerable amount of time.

•How about some facts about our wonderful federal government?

The United States government is over $14 trillion in debt.

The federal government's budget deficit grew by $222.5 billion in February, which was the LARGEST one-month increase for a deficit in United States history. Forecasts say the deficit for the year will be the biggest on record.

Why in the world should we be tossing our hats in the air over a budget deal that delivers just $39 billion in cuts? That's why I am not. That's why I despise this compromise. Besides, hats just don't fit my head right.

•More facts?

The federal debt increased $54.1 billion in the eight days preceding the deal made by Obama, Reid, and Boehner to cut $38.5 billion in federal spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, and that only runs through September.

Let's cut to the chase. A measly $38.5 billion in cuts or whatever skinny compromise they propose, the Republicans in Congress swung and missed badly. Are these the people that are going to promote and defend Paul Ryan's truly superb FY2012 budget proposal that cuts $6.2 trillion in government spending over the next decade compared to the President's budget?

Are these the people who are going to print flyers, posters, and run TV ads to promote Ryan's sound solutions to save Medicare, repair Medicaid, simplify the tax code, and reduce the size and scope of government? Dick Morris said it very well:

“Having failed to stand firm for just $61 billion in cuts in a budget of $3.7 trillion, how can we expect him to stand firm over the debt limit extension or the 2012 budget?” We'd have to be crazy to believe that.

Now, we are supposed to be pleased within the spirit of compromise over the idea that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will allow two floor votes on Republican legislative priorities, both of which would never have otherwise been seen in the Senate chamber before 2013, thanks to the supposedly pro-life Harry Reid's compromising leadership of the Senate.

The first is the effort to defund Planned Parenthood, a rider that got stripped out of the final compromise, which would have an uncertain future in the Senate anyway, thanks to the supposedly pro-life Reid.

The second, though, may hold some political risk for Democrats. The Republicans also won inclusion of a provision that will require the Senate to vote on a bill to de-fund the ObamaCare.

That means Senators like Bill Nelson in Florida, Jon Tester in Montana, Claire “Wings” McCaskill in Missouri (I'm really going to miss being able to vote her out!), and Ben Nelson in Nebraska, will have to go back on the record to support ObamaCare in order to keep the House-originated repeal from passing Congress, and that comes after the clear expression of voter disapproval in last year's midterms.

I'll believe the Republicans can pull this off when I see it--call me a Doubting Thomas on this Congress thus far.

•If these Democrats peel away from ObamaCare in an effort to win re-election, and Obama has to veto it to keep it in place, he suddenly looks very extreme and out of touch. He will have to explain why his only real legislative accomplishment has become so toxic that his own Democrat party no longer backs it.

If Republicans can pull that off, I will be a happy man. But I want more cuts in government.

Reduce your government footprint!

(Feel the footprint of a Parallax Look each week in your Landmark. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


AN ANALOGY TO USE ON SAVE-THE-PLANET FOLKS

Posted 4/7/11

•Just got back in KC after a whirlwind one-day business trip to San Diego. Nobody should have to endure four flights in one day under our horrendous commercial aviation system. I feel like I need to have my skin scraped with steel wool and flushed with iodine and chlorine.

I should take flying lessons so I can fly myself where I need to go.

•I have developed the perfect analogy to help you enviro-recycling-save-the-planet folks understand the folly of your thinking.

Imagine that the government one day passed a series of laws that forced you to have to use the greatest amount of energy in your daily life. For example, let's imagine they set standards that cars cannot exceed 15 mpg in fuel efficiency, so every car has to have 8-cylinder engines or larger. Your house must be kept at 66 degrees in the summer and 74 degrees in the winter.

Recycling of any trash would be illegal. You would be required by building codes to have every light in the building connected to one switch so that the government can decide when you can stop using energy in your home. The government forced you to leave your windows open year 'round while making your air conditioning systems run constantly in order to overcome the infiltrating hot/cold air from outside.

Would you think it fair for the government to make you do these things? Well, why not? Why is it OK when you want to believe we are running out of energy (we aren't) and you want the government to force us to recycle trash and drive 4-cylinder tin cans on wheels, but it's not OK when we know that we are not running short on energy and we would like everyone else to be forced to experience that for themselves?

Now, I am in no way supportive of taking away your freedoms in such a manner. If you want to spend valuable time in your life sorting through your trash, have at it --just don't try to force me and everyone else to.

Isn't it liberals who always complain that conservatives are trying to tell them how to live their lives? I guess that's just not the case.

•Did you catch the little snippet where the U.S. Secret Service said that some federal vehicles used for law enforcement and security purposes will be exempt from President Barack Obama's directive that all federal vehicles purchased starting 2015 be advanced technology models, A.K.A. green automobiles, like electric cars and cars that burn ethanol.

Here's Obama's explanation for the policy exemption: last year, he asked the Secret Service if he could ride in a hybrid vehicle--he was rejected.

"Now, the reason is not because Secret Service are bad guys. It's because the cars that I'm in are like tanks. I mean, they, as you might imagine, they're a little bit of extra stuff on it. They're a little reinforced, so they weigh twice or three times what an ordinary car weighs. So they just couldn't get the performance, in terms of acceleration, using a hybrid engine," Obama said.

So what he is saying is, HE is entitled to the most safety in a vehicle, but you and I are not.

•Do we really need to see Geraldo Rivera traipsing around Libya dodging bullets? What is he doing there? Who among us needs to have him or any reporter in a war zone dodging bullets? I nether need, nor want to see a reporter dodging bullets in a war zone. I will purposely avoid watching any more reports involving Geraldo Rivera because of this.

•That's it…I'm out of gas. Time to refuel.

(Refuel yourself with an email to Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


WHAT EXACTLY ARE OUR INTERESTS WE ARE PROTECTING IN LIBYA?

Posted 4/1/11

•What exactly are the United States' interests that we are protecting in our military efforts in Libya? We don't buy any oil from them. We don't import any precious metals. Libya isn't a particularly strategic piece of real estate. Why are we exercising military force there? What's in it for us? Forget the ‘We Are The World's Police’ argument. Walk right back out the door if that's all you're coming with.

•Rest In Peace to Joseph William Perkins, A.K.A. Pinetop Perkins, who passed away last week, on March 21, 2011, at the age of 97. He was one of the blues greats, emanating with the likes of John Lee Hooker and McKinley Morganfield (A.K.A. Muddy Waters). Perkins began his career as a guitarist, but switched to piano when he injured the tendons in his left arm in a fight with a choir girl in Helena, Arkansas.

It was noted that Perkins was one of the last two living musical artists to have known and played with the legendary Robert Johnson. The other is David "Honeyboy" Edwards, who is 95 and the lone living claimant to have written the blues classic, Sweet Home Chicago.

Another good one gone for the Better Life. The band in the afterlife kicks butt over the best we can put forth on the terrestrial plane.

•Kansas' loss this year was monumental on the scale of bad and painful losses. I feel for my in-state brethren. Yes, they brought some of this pain on themselves by setting unrealistic expectations after last year's humbling at the feet of Northern Iowa. But nonetheless, self-inflicted carnage is still hard to watch at times.

But you have to love those that try to justify or explain the loss of a Number 1 seed to a Number 11 seed by saying, “well, if the two teams played 10 times, the number 1 seed would win 9 of them.” Really? O.K., so following that line of logic, if those two teams are only playing once, and they know they're only going to play once, they realize going in that they cannot relax because a 5 or 7 game series lies ahead. They know this is IT for all the marbles. Don't you think if such is the case, they're going to bring their best game to the table on this one night? If this one game is for everything, and for Kansas and VCU on Sunday at 1:20 p.m., “everything” represented The Final Four, we ought to be confident that both teams are bringing their all.

So I guess VCU was and is the best team on the floor Sunday afternoon between those two teams.

•But in closing-out another vaunted Kansas Jayhawk basketball season, we turn to the Kansas City Star--not the actual paid content of the paper, but to the comments section for this truly visionary work of retro-assimilation:

Imagining a radio report coming over the airways from a remote broadcast somewhere near Lawrence, Kansas:

“It's flying something behind it and I can't quite make it out. It's a large banner and it says F-I-N-A-L F-O-U-R K-A-N-S-A-S! What a sight, ladies and gentlemen. What a sight. The 'copter seems to circling the parking area now. I guess it's looking for a place to land. No! Something just came out of the back of a helicopter. It's a dark object, perhaps a skydiver plummeting to the earth from only two thousand feet in the air... There's a third... No parachutes yet... Those can't be skydivers. I can't tell just yet what they are but... Oh my God! They're jayhawks! Oh no! Johnny can you get this? Oh, they're crashing to the earth right in front of our eyes! One just went through the windshield of a parked car! This is terrible! Everyone's running around pushing each other. Oh my goodness! Oh, the humanity! People are running about. The jayhawks are hitting the ground like sacks of wet cement! Folks, I don't know how much longer... The crowd is running for their lives. I think I'm going to step inside. I can't stand here and watch this anymore. No, I can't go in there. Children are searching for their mothers and oh, not since the Hindenberg tragedy has there been anything like this. I don't know how much longer I can hold my position here, Johnny. The crowd...

Which proves my long held claim that the readers of that horrid paper are much more talented than are the paid writers. With due respect to WKRP in Cincinnati.

(Parallax Look is always for all the marbles. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


WHEN ARTICULATED CLEARLY, CONSERVATISM WINS, LIBERALISM LOSES

Posted 3/25/11

•I like Sarah Palin.

I like Mitt Romney. I like Newt Gingrich. I like Donald Trump. I like Tim Pawlenty. I like almost all the rumored candidates for the Republican nomination for President in 2012. Some are better than others in public speaking ability, leadership, residentiality (A.K.A. the ability to LOOK and compose themselves like an American President should).

I like them all because I like what they stand for. Their issues are my issues. All the rest is just fluff for the media to batter about in the Primary season. I will vote for any of these candidates against Obama in 2012.

But the most important aspect of the coming election next year is the candidate that will win is the candidate that will articulate the message of Conservatism most clearly. What Ronald Reagan proved beyond the shadow of a doubt is Conservatism wins when it is articulated clearly.

Likewise, Barack Obama proved in the run-up to the 2010 mid-term elections is that liberalism loses when it is articulated clearly. Liberal political philosophy was displayed by the Obama Administration is its full regalia in the campaign of 2010. What happened at the polls is what happens when Liberalism is communicated clearly.

That's Election 2012 in a nutshell.

•With these 80 degree temperatures, it has become time to dust all the snow-salt off the running shoes and start hitting the road. NICE! Watch the side of the road for us hot weather running fools.

Have you heard or read some of Sarah Palin's recent speeches on U.S. current energy policy and her comments that the United States should have instilled a No Fly Zone in Libya more than three weeks ago? I didn't think so. Hardly any of the major news media in this country covered it. If they aren't covering Sarah Palin, you pretty much know she is on her game, because they don't want you to see or hear it.

In case you missed it, Palin, in addition to the No Fly Zone declaration mentioned weeks ago, also addressed last weekend in New Delhi, India the importance of strengthening the United States by making full use of our own land's natural energy resources. She made a point that Pres. Obama never seems to make, that is that we should not be dependent on natural energy resources from governments that do not respect the United States of America or factions that wish to do us harm.

That is such a simple and salient point. Why is it so hard for our current administration to make?

•In the following, Palin absolutely nailed it:

“Unfortunately, some have stymied resource development - like responsible domestic oil drilling. As a result, hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs won't be created in the U.S. until we change course; it means Americans get hit with huge gas prices at the pump unless we change course; it means we're continuing to transfer hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars to foreign regimes to purchase energy from them - regimes that don't have our best interests at heart.

“And I'm not just talking about gasoline here. Remember that 'petroleum products' are all around you! Look at your everyday surroundings - the foodstuffs; the agriculture products grown with fertilizer; the plastics all around you; medical supplies; the transportation of all these products. It's not just gas that increases as the price of crude increases: Everything is affected. Basic commodities.

“So as government locks up land & we lose good jobs in the 'Conventional Resource' arena, you may hear that "green jobs" will be the savior! But look around the world & try telling that to the thousands of English & Scottish workers who've lost jobs as a result of government investments in "green energy" projects. A recent UK study shows that for every "green job" created, nearly four jobs were lost elsewhere in the economy due to lack of affordable energy! Same story in Spain - investment in "green jobs" brought massive debt, skyrocketing energy costs & 20% unemployment.

“This push for 'green' at the expense of 'conventional, reliable' sources is not a credible energy policy or economic policy. It's "Social Engineering" by Central Government Planners. And it leads to nothing but more debt & more job loss. And taxpayers will be stuck subsidizing the failure and paying more for energy.”

And Boom Goes The Dynamite. She's going to be one of the good ones.

(Send a Parallax Look to Brian by email to bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him on Twitter at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


CONSERVATIVES, NOT RINOS, FIT THE GOP PARTY PLATFORM

Posted 3/18/11

•As the tsunami in Japan comes into focus, one must, of course, feel great empathy for those devastated by this natural disaster. But you also have to be in utter awe at the raw expression of Nature's fury.

Have you noticed the general notion that the Rino (Republican In Name Only) Lobby at work in the media seems to be most interested only in defining themselves as the voice of the Republican Party. It's fascinating to hear them characterize the “far right fringe of the Party” as though conservatism at its core is a moderate-conservative philosophy. If such was the case in reality, would not the party platform reflect the moderate beliefs of the Rino Lobby? In fact, the Republican Party Platform espouses the conservative philosophy. They always skip over that easily observable fact.

•The undersea earthquake that launched the destructive waves was no doubt a large scale tremor, called by experts the 7th largest earthquake of all time, but it was hardly an epoch-maker. In the roughly 4.5 billion years that the planet we call earth has existed, there have been some monumental earthquakes. Some moved entire continents and created new oceans.

•Interesting that with all this devastation in Japan, there appear to be no riots and no looting.

Put the scale of this earthquake into these terms: the average human lives almost 80 years. Compared to the scale of the earth's life span, nobody knows for sure, but a total lifespan for the planet of 10 billion years (give or take a billion years) is probably not far off, but placed into that scale, a single second out of your life is the same as about 5 years in the earth's lifespan. Can you judge your entire life in the span of a single second you have lived? Nor, then, can you judge the planet based on a 5 year time frame.

•Don't let the problems with the nuclear reactors in Japan as a result of the tsunami dissuade you from supporting the only advance we currently have on the tables in terms of energy production. Squelching nuclear power as a result of this would be like cavemen tossing all their smoldering coals into the lake because Thag sat on one and got burned on the tushie.

The nincompoops in the media running around like a bunch of crazy people with their hair on fire over fear of nuclear meltdown are pointing to the wrong crisis. These nuclear plants are power plants, and they won't be able to produce electricity anymore. Remember, energy is progress. That is the real crisis facing Japan. Where are they going to get the power to run their hospitals and computers, and start their emergency generators?

•Has the thought crossed anyone else's mind that the Obama Administration is currently hard at work conjuring-up a way to exploit this tragedy for political gain? Good…I suspected I wasn't alone.

•Did you notice that there were several people in the days after Bill Grigsby died that tried to “push-back” against the kind remembrances of Ole Grigs with stories of his alcohol consumption? My thought on that was kind of, “He lived to a ripe old age! Mind your own business.” Where were those same people in the wake of the passing of local radio icon, Mike Murphy? He was known to not be shy of tipping a few. Why did he get a pass? Oh well…raise a glass of cheer toward the heavens in kind remembrance of two kindly souls that we will definitely miss here on this plane of existence.

•If you were to venture a guess, what produces most of the oxygen present in the earth's atmosphere? If you guessed algae, you would be correct. Algae, that green slimy plant-like material that grows in water releases oxygen as a waste product of photosynthesis.. The net oxygen output of the planet's algae is greater than that produced by all of the trees and other land-based plants all put together.
Now that’s something to be in awe about.

•My predictions for the exits of the Big 12 teams from the NCAA Tournament go something like this: Missouri--First Round; Texas A&M--First Round; Kansas--Second Round; Kansas State --Regional Semifinal; Texas --Regional Semifinal.

(Compete against Brian Kubicki in The Landmark’s annual bracket contest. In the meantime, email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


SALES RESULTS FOR ELECTRIC CARS NOT ENERGIZED

Posted 3/11/11

•Government Motors' February sales statistics for the Chevrolet Volt are oddly missing from company press releases. Now why would that be? The actual number--a lowly 281 cars--can be found if you dig mightily through the company's detailed marketing data, but nobody's crowing about the numbers, especially when you consider that the sales number is lower than the 321 they sold during the previous month. That's really embarrassing when you consider that more people voted for Mark Funkhouser than bought electric cars this year. Ouch!

•Of course, let us not fail to notice that Nissan is strangely quiet as well on the sales performance of their entry in the “let's-waste-time-and-money” sweepstakes. Their monthly sales literature made no mention of Nissan Leaf (their electric car) sales. That's probably because back in January, the company sold a staggering 87 Leafs (leaves?). In February, Nissan sold only 67.

•Jackass 3 DVD is coming out soon. Get it if you like to laugh-- just don't let the little ones see it.

•While electric cars are falling out of favor with the public faster than Charlie Sheen's chances of attending the Royal Wedding in the United Kingdom, environmental crazies are starting to ask big questions, like, "Why?"

•DO you ever notice your blood starting to boil whenever you hear somebody on the Right (or more accurately, from the Rino Wing of the Republican Party) start to criticize a potential candidate for the Republican nomination for President in 2012? Why do these ninnies insist on running down potential candidates? There are no bad candidates (McCain hasn't announced another run in 2012 has he?) at this early point in the race. Back off from running down your own.

•Are the poor electric car sales statistics due to production and delivery problems or are the dismal numbers due to weak demand? When will sales start to climb? Answers to those questions are for smarter people than I. But it seems clear that the American car buyer is just a bit smarter than the average auto company executive. There's no performance advantage to be gleaned from tossing your 300-400 mile-range SUV into the landfill in favor of an electric car with a range of 40 miles.

Did they REALLY think that would go over well?

•Good golly, here we are in March, five full months after the November 2010 mid-term elections and I'm still smacking myself in the noggin' asking God, “How did Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and John McCain get re-elected?” What were you folks in San Francisco, Arizona, and Nevada thinking?

•On the subject of that alleged 40 mile range for the electric cars now limping off the line, Consumer Reports said the Volt model it tested got only 23-28 miles per charge and cost $48,700, and I don't believe that included the thousands in government incentives to buy the car in the form of tax rebates. Sheesh! When will they ever learn?

•To the sports world, specifically, NCAA basketball:

For the record, I am not a fan of Player of the Year/MVP/Athlete of the Decade awards or ceremonial recognitions in general. It's presumptuous that somebody HAS to be recognized every year for excellence. Can't EVERYBODY have an off year?

However, if you are going to award one Big 12 basketball player as the Player of the Year, it should be Jacob Pullen and not Marcus Morris, and for one main reason: if you look at each player's scoring average during the big games--games against ranked opponents during the season, you will find that Pullen averaged 27 points per game while Morris only averaged 17 per game. Pullen got robbed.

•Have they repealed the incandescent light bulb ban yet? I'm still stockpiling them. Whenever I go to a store that sells them, I buy one or two packs. I'm going to corner the incandescent light bulb market! I should become an incandescent light bulb black marketeer!

Pssst, hey buddy…want some light?

(Car shopping? Electric cars aren’t worthy of a Parallax Look. What is a worthy thing is an email to Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


EVEN OPRAH THINKS OBAMA IS SCREWING UP

Posted 3/3/11

•Check-out your KC Star Letters to the Editor from Monday, Feb. 28. Somebody you know got a letter to the editor printed. It was on a subject you know is near and dear to my conservative heart. I even got a call from Editor Lewis Diuguid to verify I am who I claim to be.

If you are like me and gave up subscribing to that paper long ago, check it out online at www.kansascity.com in the Opinion section.

•If man really had the power to cause global warming, don't you think we would want to warm just a small region--say a section of Siberia, where farmers can grow food? Or cool a section of the desert in Africa where people are starving? I understand that we can environmentally control a building for the most part heating and cooling. But that's about the extent of it. If we were really as powerful as environmentalists want you to think we are, we ought to be able to warm or cool just a small part of the planet.

Man does not cause global climate change. He never has, and probably won't have the ability for a very long time. (Never underestimate the benefit of kicking your opponent when they are down.)

•Remember a couple of weeks ago when Oprah Winfrey called on President Obama's critics to show "a certain level of respect.”

She said, "I feel that everybody has a learning curve, and I feel that the reason why I was willing to step out for him was because I believed in his integrity and I believed in his heart," she said on MSNBC's “Morning Joe” in Chicago.

Of the negative mood of the country, Oprah added, “I think everybody complaining ought to try it for once.”

Winfrey also said the presidency is a position that “holds a sense of authority and governance over us all,” and that “even if you're not in support of his policies, there needs to be a certain level of respect.”

There are two interesting elements to these quotes from the most powerful woman in media. First: “…everybody has a learning curve.” So, Oprah is admitting that Obama is screwing-up royally in his job. A learning curve implies that you are learning; that what you are doing is acting in absence of knowledge and experience that you need to do the job at hand. So Oprah agrees with all the rest of us that Obama is doing a terrible job.

Second: About a “certain level of respect.” Where was this call for respect and civility when President Bush was in office? I don't remember Oprah coming out and saying anything like that then, during any of the numerous years that the Liberals were skewering President Bush.

Hypocrites…

•Mass. Sen. Scott Brown said in an interview about his book that he stole food in his youth. When questioned about that on his recent tour to promote his new book, Brown explained that he was, at the time of the arrest, in the midst of a huge growth spurt, as some form of explanation for stealing the food.

Seriously?

I went through such a growth spurt. I grew 6” in height in successive summers. At that time, I was hungry constantly. Had I entered eating contests, I would have set records. I still remember the personal bests: 24 pieces of fried chicken, 20 tacos, 10 grilled cheese sandwiches, 4 fried eggs and piles-upon-piles of hash-browned potatoes. I could never eat enough. Now, granted, filling my appetite probably wasn't cheap. But I had caring and patient parents, and three brothers who wrestled, so they were always trying to lose weight. So there was always plenty of food for me.

But I never stole food, or thought to steal to get food. I like Scott Brown less and less the more I learn about him.

•Those commercials you hear on the radio and see on TV telling us how sad it is that we have to potentially put so many dogs and cats to sleep if they aren't adopted by willing families are overlooking a HUGE opportunity to solve another world problem. There are foreign countries where food is in short supply. Many of these countries consider dogs and cats as a food staple. Why not adopt a policy whereby once an animal is destined to be euthanized, ship them off to starving countries as food aid.

Where's the negative?

(Don’t steal his food but you can steal a few moments of Brian’s time with an email to bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


WHOSE PRESIDENT IS OBAMA, ANYWAY?

Posted 2/24/11

This issue in Wisconsin between the governor and the teachers' unions is downright surreal. Normally, I am one to urge states to conduct their own business and the rest of us should keep our noses within our own state borders.

But this situation, with the Obama-fueled SEIU and Organizing For America groups bussing people into the state capitol to aid with the protests against the governor and the Republicans, makes it appear to be the United States federal government vs. Wisconsin state government, incidentally just like it was in Arizona when they tried to enforce their border with Mexico and the Obama administration sued the state government to stop implementation of the law.

President Obama thrust himself and his political operation directly into Wisconsin's broiling budget battle, and worked to mobilize opposition to a Republican bill that would curb public-worker benefits.

•Notice how President Obama came out and publicly criticized the Wisconsin governor, Scott Walker, immediately, but took days and days before saying anything about Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and even then it was just about nothing but a word of support for the now deposed Egyptian leader? What's with that? Whose president is he anyway?

•As I said, state government is an issue for residents of that particular state, but I would be monstrously incensed if my state representatives and state senators ran away from the state to avoid allowing a vote on the labor issues on the table, which is what Wisconsin state legislators did last week. The voters spoke. The voters decided on the distribution of Republicans vs. Democrats in the last two elections. Running away from your office to avoid doing what you were elected to do should be an impeachable offense. What else are they elected to do?

•Remember when President Obama said the following words, “Talk to each other in a way that heals, not wounds,” in his speech after the shootings in Tucson? You remember…that was the issue when the Obama administration used the death of a little girl in order to try and stem the tide of a monstrous defeat at the polls in the mid-term elections.

Remember back in the campaign of the 2008 elections when then- candidate Obama said, “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

Has anyone asked President Obama what caused his dramatic change in message?

•Incidentally, this administration's use of that little girl's tragic death for political gain is the most despicable act I have ever seen out of a United States president.

•You know, I was a state employee years and years ago. I worked for the State of Missouri. Granted it was my first job out of college, and I had a lot of learning to do, but as I recall, it was the most low-gear and slow-paced year of my entire work life. There were some good people working there, but the motivation to reach-out and inspire or do something different and amazing was completely absent from the environment.

I do recall that the sole motivation for making buildings energy efficient in those days was to save money on energy bills. There was no green nonsense--no SAVE THE PLANET. Those were the days!

•And the work benefits I had at as an employee of the state government still far exceed those I have ever encountered in 25 subsequent years in the private sector.

Why government employees should have benefits that outnumber those earned in the private sector by many multiples of thousands of dollars is an anomaly that has long needed correction.

•Please be kind and don't recycle. Throw it all away.

(Never miss an opportunity for a Parallax Look. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


GOLFERS ARE WALKING ON EARTHWORM POOP

Posted 2/18/11

•Did you see where Tiger Woods was fined by the European Golf Tour on Monday for spitting during the final round of the Dubai Desert Classic last weekend?

The tour's code of conduct apparently states that when a player becomes a member, he "voluntarily submits himself to standards of behavior and ethical conduct beyond those required of ordinary golfers and members of the public."

Television cameras spotted Woods spitting in an earlier round in the Dubai tournament.
On Sunday, after Woods spit on the 12th green, an announcer said on air that "somebody now has to come behind him and maybe putt over his spit. It does not get much lower than that."

WHAT?!?! Walking over spit is nasty? What do they think golfers walk on when they stroll across the greens in their khakis? He, and every golfer walking the globe, is walking on earthworm poop--largely. What could be nastier than earthworm poop?

•Charles Darwin yes, that Charles Darwin, estimated that fertile land contains up to 53,000 worms per acre, but more recent research from Rothamsted Experimental Station has produced figures suggesting that even poor soil may support 250,000 worms per acre, while rich fertile farmland may have up to 1,750,000 worms per acre, meaning that the weight of earthworms beneath the farmer's soil could be greater than that of his livestock upon its surface. One thing is certain however: rich, fertile soil that is cared for organically and well-fed and husbanded by its steward will reap its reward in a healthy worm population, whilst denuded, overworked, and eroded land will almost certainly contain fewer, scrawny, undernourished specimens.

And there is nothing more fertile than a golf course.

So how is Tiger walking on earthworm poop? Earthworm populations reaching several million under golf-course fairways, with millions more in the roughs going unnoticed due to higher mowing heights for that particular area of the course, are going to have copious quantities of doo-doo. Earthworms feed on fairway clippings returned after mowing and on organic matter in the soil. They love the consistent, moist, fertile conditions that typically are present in fairway turf.

Earthworms cast (a verb usage for the word ‘poop’) on the surface for two primary reasons. First, after they ingest organic matter, decaying leaf tissue and mineral soil, they must excrete the leftover material. Second, earthworms live in relatively permanent burrows. When soil fills the burrows (often after heavy rains), earthworms ingest the soil and move it up to the surface to perform "house cleaning." Researchers working with earthworms have estimated that they may bring 20 to 25 tons of soil per acre to the surface each year.

So there you go. I never did like golf much.

•Still think that mankind has a meaningful and influential impact on the environment?

•The goings-on in Egypt need to be monitored very closely by the United States and our allies in the region. If the movement there to force Mubarak to resign is truly one borne of democracy, then free and fair elections should result. If, however, as many fear, a theocracy controlled by Radical Islam emerges, we're in for a load of trouble.

•Incidentally, if we are truly wanting to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, how about we start drilling in and around our own country? It is time to open the ANWR fields in Alaska, re-start drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and also off the coast in Florida.
Let's get moving…there is no better reason than unrest in the Middle East. If we don't act now, or soon, $10 per gallon gas may not be too far off from reality.

•Kudos to my Kansas State Wildcats for knocking off the No. 1 ranked Kansas Jayhawks on Monday night. That was the kind of effort I grew up watching K-State bring against their in-state rival every time they played. It's nice to see that kind of energy return to the court. There are lots of purple people that missed it for a very long time.

(Talk Purple People, earthworm poop and other topics with Brian via email to bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


WHERE DID ALL THIS PLANET'S DIRT COME FROM?

Posted 2/11/11

•I tripped and fell on my wrist in the closet while trying to change my pants tonight and my injury causes me great pain in bringing this to you. But, the Show Must Go On, so I'm sucking it up in the interests of liberty and freedom.

Ouch!

•I have to admit, that when I first heard of all the unrest in Egypt, I too wondered, “Why should we, here in the United States, care about what happens in Egypt?” The answer, it appears, is quite simple. The Suez Canal.

The Suez Canal is the passage point of about half of all the oil and natural gas that we use in the U.S. That's the same as saying that half the fuel you use every day to keep your family warm, their food cooked, and the house warm in the frigid winter, is controlled by Radical Islam. Do you suppose that Radical Islam would like nothing more than to control the rules under which energy resources are delivered to the world's largest economy? I would have to manage a guess that they would be more than eager to have that kind of power.

It is quite easy to ask for the Egyptian people to be able to live free, but be painfully honest…would you pay $8 per gallon for gasoline if it meant the Egyptian people would be free from the constraints of a dictator?

Freedom must be won from within--earned by the work of patriots. Liberty is not something you buy. It is hard to imagine a free society existing where women are viewed as second class citizens.

These are hard questions, but isn't that always the case when the freedom of self-determination is sought?

•And from the, “I can't believe how dumb government is!” department, two weeks ago the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule that subjects dairy producers to the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure program, which was created in 1970 to prevent oil discharges in navigable waters or near shorelines.

Naturally, it usually applies to oil and natural gas outfits. But the EPA has discovered that milk contains “a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil,” as the agency put it in the Federal Register.

In other words, the EPA thinks the next big environmental blowout may happen in rural Vermont or Wisconsin where farmers spill a quart or two of milk while making their daily rounds at and before the crack of dawn every day. Other dangerous pollution risks that somehow haven't made it onto the EPA docket include leaks from maple sugar taps and the vapors at Badger State breweries. Then of course, there is also cow flatulence.

Please do me a personal favor and don't recycle paper, plastic, aluminum, or glass.

•Congratulations to the Green Bay Packers. They earned it.

Now it is on to college basketball! This is going to be a good one. I have a feeling.

•Did you ever wonder where all the dirt that exists around us all over this planet came from originally? To back up a bit, you must understand that when the Earth was first formed, it started out as a big ball of mostly iron (chemical symbol, Fe). This metal orb began to gradually attract dust from space as it spun around the sun.There were likely some microbes and other organisms from outer space that caused the formation of plant forms which started to grow in the collected dust and moisture that also found its way to the infant planet's surface.

Then plants became more complex, and something (perhaps divine) came along to infuse life with a “gitalong” that caused a lot more of this life material to start growing. Over millions of years, this living material died, and decayed, and became the soil that we see all around us today. Soil is the organic remnants of life, in all its forms that appear on this planet.

Soil is the evidence of nature engaging in the act of recycling.

So why do we want to get in the way of nature doing its recycling by engaging in our own form of recycling of stuff made from the most abundant raw materials we have on this planet?

Why doesn't snow ever fall on the ocean?

(Get a scientific Parallax Look here each week and email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


MAKING THE ARGUMENT AGAINST RECYCLING

Posted 2/5/11

•John Boehner, The Speaker of the House, told Fox News' Chris Wallace last Sunday to, “leave me alone!” regarding his smoking habit. A-cotton-pickin'-men! Kudos to Speaker Boehner for saying what needed to be said to Nanny State Liberalism.

•Well, did you survive Snowmageddon 2011? How did the cavemen ever survive this kind of weather without central heating systems and running hot water?

•Did you know that if current laws go unchallenged, you will no longer be able to buy the most common incandescent light bulbs used to light your homes starting in January 2012? Yes, I'm talking about the cheap screw-in bulbs invented by the late, great Thomas Alva Edison that have served our illumination needs for more than a century. You know, the truly staggering, yet humbling admission of that invention is that it remains to this day, the most influential discovery of the last 300 years.

Without the incandescent bulb, we would be at least half as productive as we have become. We would be less in number, because a larger number of us would have burned to death in fires caused by unattended flames lit for nighttime illumination.
There is a superb summary of the impending government ban on incandescent light bulbs on conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly's website, http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2011/jan11/psrjan11.html.

Some highlights of note:

•If we want to continue to enjoy the freedom that bright, warm light Edison's invention, the incandescent bulb, radiates, Congress will have to repeal Subtitle B of Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

•Environmental "standards" will start eliminating 276 versions of incandescent light bulbs in 2012, and the drop-dead date for our favorite 100-watt light bulb is just one year away.

•We will be “urged” to buy more expensive but allegedly more energy-efficient compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) that are supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and force us to do our duty to save the planet.

•CFLs are toxic because of the mercury in the glass tubing, and the cleanup procedure spelled out by the Environmental Protection Agency warns that if we break a CFL, we must take the pieces to a recycling center and not launder "clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage." .
•CFL bulbs do not work well in colder temperatures and cannot handle dimmer switches.

•The advertised capacity to save energy is greatly exaggerated because, since CFLs do not emit as much heat, we'll have to compensate by turning up our thermostats in winter months.

•CFLs export American jobs to China where manufacturers enjoy the benefit of cheap labor. General Electric has already closed factories in Kentucky and Ohio, and its major light bulb factory in Winchester, Virginia that employed 200 people.

•Cuba in 2005 exchanged all incandescent light bulbs for CFLs and banned their sale and importation. We're following a lead from Cuba?!!?

•Regarding the argument that says you have to recycle natural resources, like paper, plastic, and aluminum, because we need to make sure there are sufficient resources for your descendants hundreds to thousands of years from now, consider the following: if you had a thousand years' supply of money currently in the bank, or even hundreds years' worth, would you worry whether there would be enough available for your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-greatgrandkids? That's looking 2000 years into the future. I don't think I would. I don't even know who any of my descendants were 2000 years ago. Might even have been Jesus, but it more than likely would have been Judas or (doubting) Thomas, many might estimate.

I think most would agree with that. I don't even think about saving beyond my grandkids.

•So why do we worry about what resources will be available in 2000 years when it comes to aluminum, paper, or plastic and the other things we are coerced to shove into recycling bins? By ALL accounts, we have access TODAY to enough bauxite (aluminum ore), paper, and plastic raw materials to last for thousands of years. Why are we worrying about it now by recycling?

Are you worried about limited landfill space? In the continental United States alone, less than 5% of all land aboveground has been developed to date. We have LOTS of room for more landfills.

Are you worried about the NIMBY's (the Not-In-My-Back-Yard crowd who usually travel with lawyers hoovering the crumbs behind them). Tell them to take a hike.
Let's stop allowing the EFL (Enviro-Fruitcake Lobby) free rein to hornswaggle us into picking through our trash every day. Throw it all away and move on. You are wasting valuable time sorting your garbage - time that could be better spent: kissing, noodling (something on my bucket list), skydiving, swimming, eating, sleeping, hunting, joyriding, parasailing, etc.

(Skydive and parasail with Brian Kubicki via email to bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 

 

ENERGY USE LEADS TO PROGRESS

Posted 1/28/11

•If you missed President Obama's State of the Union Address, welcome to the club. What…did you think you could skip it because I was going to watch it for you? Forget that. I can't stand listening to his lies anymore than you can. 2012 can't get here soon enough for my tastes.

•My Master Po (reference from the old 70's Kung Fu series, in case you were wondering), Richard Feynman, once said, “All things we (mankind) make are of nature.”

That phrase is so very wise in its poignancy and simplicity that you almost miss the real meaning at first glance. To truly appreciate it, you have to understand that Feynman's most known contribution to theoretical physics, quantum electrodynamics, is at its most simplistic level, like visualizing a multi-dimensional chess game with 1000 players at once all occurring on a table no bigger than the head of a pin!

With all that cerebral computing power that bounced around Feynman's cranium (he died back in the late '80's), it has to be appreciated when one in possession of such power is capable of recognition of such simplicity as to acknowledge that mankind is part of nature, and everything he creates is also a part of nature.

So please stand in polite but uncompromising re-direction when you hear someone refer to man as being something outside of nature.

•Now back to the important stuff…in Portland, Maine recently, they discovered an artifact nearly 10,000 years old that indicated man's best friend provided protection and companionship, along with an occasional meal.

Researchers are saying, after finding a bone fragment from what they are calling the earliest confirmed domesticated dog in the Americas, that humans dined on dogs after analyzing a dried-out sample of human waste unearthed in southwest Texas in the 1970s.

A carbon-dating test put the age of the bone at 9,400 years, and a DNA analysis confirmed it came from a dog not a wolf, coyote or fox, Belknap said.

Because it was found deep inside a pile of human excrement and was the characteristic orange-brown color that bone turns when it has passed through the digestive tract.

I wonder who the prehistoric animal rights zealots were back then? They must have been the ancestors of Pitch editors.

•You realize that this entire notion of minimizing energy use (you hear it on tons of radio and TV ads paid for by the Department of Energy) originally came from the idea that we wanted to use as little money as possible toward doing things like work and play that require energy use, allowing us to free-up funds to spend on other things. But somewhere along the way, the political Left hijacked the notion of “sustainability” onto the backs of the desire for low energy use. Thus we have this movement to make us use less and less energy.

That is precisely opposite of what we should be doing.

Why does using less energy make us more sustainable? Energy use is how we warm our houses, power incubators that keep newborn babies alive, do research on cures for cancer and heart attack. That's progress, isn't it?

If anything, humans are more sustainable as a life form if we use more and more energy as we learn and grow because we are advancing technology (or moving in that direction) by increasing our demand for more and more energy.

Dating back to the time we were gnawing on the bones of one of the family dogs 10,000 years ago, humans have been using more and more energy for life and progress with each advancing year. That isn't going to stop for the first time in human history simply because Barack Obama occupies the White House.

•And finally, R.I.P. Jack LaLanne, who passed away last Sunday at the age of 96 of pneumonia. He was a health icon.

Why doesn't anybody ask what caused his pneumonia? When one gets cancer, the media hops all over some factor in their lives, such as they worked in shipyards, smoked or drank. Heart attacks are always accompanied by some story about how little the victim exercised. (Remember Jim Fixx that running nut--he died of a heart attack at the age of 52, and he ran every day of his life, ate nothing but tofu, and got 8 hours of sleep every night. Yul Brynner smoked, drank, and womanized everyday of his adult life and died with a sloppy grin on his face at the age of 65.)

When it's your time…it's your time. I'll run as much as I can. But I refuse to give up the sloppy grin.

(Run and grin sloppily with Brian Kubicki via email to bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


MEDIA VIRTUALLY IGNORES CRAZED DEM'S THREAT TO TEA PARTIER

Posted 1/21/11

•I'm sure nearly none of you heard about this, because the mainstream media barely covered it (even though the incident occurred on mainstream stalwart ABC), but one of the victims of the Tucson massacre was taken into custody Saturday after saying "You're dead!" to a Tea Party spokesman contributing to a forum during the taping of an ABC-TV town hall event hosted by Christianne Amanpour. Eric Fuller, 63, was involuntarily committed to a medical facility subsequent to the incident. He faces charges of threats and intimidation and disorderly conduct.

Now, just so I can get this straight, Democrats have been telling us since the tragic events of a week ago last Saturday that Republican talk radio-inflammatory rhetoric caused the Loughner shootings in Tucson. They blamed Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Shawn Hannity, and every other popular radio talk show host.

But, an enraged Democrat threatened a Tea Party Republican this time. Was Rush at fault there too? So, he exhorts the Republicans to do violence and enrages the Democrats to the point of violence too? I think I get it…?!?

Juan Williams on Fox News said in the aftermath of the Obama launch of his 2012 campaign on the backs of the dead and wounded victims of the Tucson massacre that Obama and the White House were taken by surprise by the raucous rally-like response of the audience.

Are you kidding me?

Team Obama would never have agreed to the speech if they didn't know what every detail about it was. Who paid to print all those T-shirts with the, “Together We Thrive” mantra? News sources now have uncovered that apparently the idea, the theme, if not the actual T-shirt printing came from Obama's Organizing for America organization.

Is that really hard to comprehend? That entire event had his signature all over it.

•This nonsensical suggestion from the Democrats to intermingle seating arrangements for Republicans and Democrats at the upcoming State of the Union Address should die in the lonely room it was conjured in.

The American electorate spoke in the last election. They spoke louder than they have ever spoken on the subject. They do not want everybody to compromise on their core beliefs. They want Democrats to stick to theirs, and they want Republicans to stick to theirs. Because voters made sure there were many more Republicans in the House of Representatives than Democrats, it is absolutely crystal clear that they want Republican ideas implemented, and they want those ideas voiced on the floor of Congress during the State of the Union Address.

This dumb togetherness notion from the Democrats is nothing more than a defeated party that lost miserably in the mid-term elections vainly fighting to get the opposition to stop fighting them. This is like the British soldiers complaining that the Colonial Army was fighting unfairly by purposely targeting Commanders on the battlefield.

Fart on the Democrats complaints. Full steam ahead!

Is that clear?

•It seems like the good news coming from the hospital treating Rep. Gabrielle Giffords brings another hopeful “step” forward with each coming day, and that seems like a true miracle, given the devastation of her injuries sustained in the massacre.

In the spirit of being happy that Rep. Giffords improves, I could understand President Obama wanting to be the one that shared the news with the nation when Giffords opened her eyes for the first time after the shooting. And darned if it didn't happen just that way! Well, at least in Obama's speech it did.

I'm sure you heard the words in his speech…he said it enough times, Helen Keller could have heard him:

“And I want to tell you -- her husband, Mark, is here, and he allows me to share this with you. Right after we went to visit, a few minutes after we left her room and some of her colleagues from Congress were in the room, Gabby opened her eyes for the first time.

(APPLAUSE)

Gabby opened her eyes for the first time.

(APPLAUSE)

Gabby opened her eyes.

(APPLAUSE)

Gabby opened her eyes, so I can tell you, she knows we are here, she knows we love her, and she knows that we are rooting for her through what is undoubtedly going to be a difficult journey.”

It wasn't exactly the truth. I recall reading a story in the Tucson Sun from the Sunday before this speech that noted that Giffords had opened her eyes several times on that day, three days before Obama was there. She was in a drug-induced coma to allow her brain injuries to heal without taxing the organ excessively. Doctors could make her open her eyes whenever they needed to by simple drug manipulation. Obama didn't cause it.

I could forgive Obama wanting to re-assure thousands hanging on his every word that Giffords was going to get through her ordeal. But he clearly made it sound like HE caused her to open her eyes. And he said that it happened as soon as he left the room, and it happened “FOR THE FIRST TIME…”

Sheesh!

(Eyes are always open during a Parallax Look. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com, and now you can follow him on Twitter at Twitter.com/bkparallax)


CHARGED POLITICAL OPPOSITION IS FIRE THAT FORGED THIS COUNTRY

Posted 1/13/11

•The tragic massacre in Tucson last Saturday seems to have been steered away from what really happened.

What seems to be lost amidst all this finger-pointing from liberals toward conservatives, and especially Tea Party members, is that the entire discussion of who was to blame started when the Pima County Sheriff spouted-off his anti-conservative talk radio rants in front of the cameras when he was supposed to be informing the public regarding the official investigative work occurring around the tragic shooting in Tucson last Saturday.

After Sheriff Clarence Dupnik emptied his rhetoric tank on Rush Limbaugh, he was followed by, in close succession: Keith Olberman, Tom Brokaw, Wolf Blitzer, Nora O'Donnell, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, Emmanuel Cleaver, and any other liberal Democrat within spitting distance of a microphone. All claimed, in one form or another, that (in their opinion anyway) the shooter was driven to kill by the “hate-filled rhetoric of the political Right.” Sheriff Dupnik, of course, admitted that he had no evidence to support his opinions.

So after Sheriff Gasbag vomits his politically biased message on the public's collective heads, the nation was suddenly supposedly aware that fiery rhetoric occurs between the two political parties. Well isn't THAT a revelation?

When is there not fiery opposition between the right and the left in this country? The right and the left have been at odds since well before Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804 in New Jersey.

(Incidentally, did you know that although quite common in the early 19th Century, dueling had been outlawed in New York, with the punishment for conviction for dueling being death. That's kind of a weird irony. If the duel itself doesn't kill you, the State of New York will. Dueling was illegal in New Jersey also, but the consequences were less severe.).

Charged political opposition is the fire that forged this country and the flame that keeps us interested today. This namby-pamby crap you hear from the media that we have to compliment each other all the time and compromise our views to include the other side is hooey. There are supposed to be politically disparate views. The voting public is supposed to be sorting out how many players appear on each side of the field.

And for the last time, fiery rhetoric did not kill or wound anybody last Saturday in Tucson. A mentally disturbed person did that. There is no justification for a crazy person's illegal actions.

•Staying on the East Coast, did you hear that New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan called for efforts to make abortions in New York City “rare” in response to city's high abortion rate, revealed in a city health department study that showed 39 percent of pregnancies ended with abortion in 2009?

The statistic that caused my jaw to hit the floor was that New York blacks are aborting 6 out of every 10 babies! You want to talk genocide, that is a genocide. What a terribly sad statistic. It's more than bad enough that statewide, 4 in 10 babies are aborted race-wide…but 6 of 10!! Where’s the hope?

•I'm keeping my eyes and ears on the repeal process of the health care takeover law. Signed 10 months ago, it is clear now that the law is very vulnerable. Several threats have emerged that could take down the complicated new system. Among them include:
Court Challenges. Thus far, one judge has struck down the individual mandate, the centerpiece. Future decisions are likely to break down on partisan lines. Given the makeup of the Supreme Court, this should concern liberals most.

False projections. Cost projections are wildly inaccurate. New Hampshire's plan only has about 80 members, but the state has already burned through nearly double the $650,000 that the federal government allotted to help run the program. If other projections are off by this much, the results will be disastrous.

Employee dumping. Companies and unions are learning they would be better off if they induced poorer and sicker employees to move to public insurance exchanges, where subsidies are much higher. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

The Large Number of Waivers. Companies and unions are getting waivers from the HHS because they claim if they were forced to meet the mandate requirement, they would lay-off millions of people to recover lost costs. I thought the government health care takeover was going to save and create jobs?

And my personal favorite:

Public hostility. About 53 percent of Americans oppose the health care law.

Complaints are high among doctors. Unhappy people will blame the Obama law for everything they hate about the health care system. Political opposition was fierce last November, and it could easily shape the 2012 election and lead to changes or repeal.
Kill the bill. Repeal. We'll figure out the rest later.

(We’ll never repeal and always figure out a Parallax Look. Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)


HERE’S WHAT THE VOTERS
ARE INTERESTED IN, AND
IT’S NOT COMPROMISE

Posted 1/10/11

•I'm growing increasingly tired of those folks in the political middle of this country demanding that Congress “work together to get something done.” Working together is what got us where we are today, with double digit unemployment and a near record national economic malaise. They use the example of working to repeal ObamaCare as soon as possible in the coming year as unrealistic and a waste of time given that Obama can simply veto the bill. “Work on the economy” is what the Democrats are saying.

Where were the Democrats and Obama when they first took over Congress and the White House? When Pelosi and Reid took over Congress in 2006, unemployment was about 5%. When Obama entered the White House, it was about 7%. Now, it's about 10%. Looks to me like compromising with Democrats will only harm the economy further.

The American people spoke in a loud voice and sent Republicans to power in Washington and in statehouses all over the country for one reason: stop the Democrats' expansion of government. That is their marching orders.

This is the only compromise we are interested in: Democrats get in line behind the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and cut taxes and cut spending. We are tightening our personal and business budgets around the country, so should government, at all levels.

We aren't interested in compromise--we want a reduction of taxes, spending, and government.

•Californians have been told with the start of the New Year to say goodbye to traditional 100-watt incandescent light bulbs now that the state has become the first in the country to require a new standard for the bulbs which have been in widespread use throughout the world for more than a century.

“Experts” claim the new rules will save residents money and energy. California is already the nation's leader in energy-efficiency standards.

As for the money part, if you look at the energy saved in terms of dollars per square foot of living area, the money saved is in the order of fractions of a cent, at best. On the other side of the coin, the main reason we design living spaces for humans, comfort from the elements, is valued in terms of dollars per square foot of living area in the order of hundreds to thousands of times greater. For example, the average home price in this country is somewhere near $200,000. With an average square footage of 2,300, you can easily see that a homeowner is spending about $90 per square foot to make their family comfortable and protected from wind, rain, snow, and storms.

So why are they trying to make us jump through all these hoops for a few fractions of a penny when the value of the comfort we bought in the first place is in the hundreds of thousands? Are we dogs chasing our tails on this or what?
The new rule does not ban incandescent light bulbs; it just requires those bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient. And it only affects incandescent light bulbs manufactured in 2011 or later, not those already in use or on store shelves.

Why is anybody worrying about reducing energy use? Since the days that man first discovered fire (no doubt so he could see what he was paying in utility bills), we have as a people used more energy in the subsequent year than we did in the previous year. That has been the case for millions of years.

•Folks, relax on the Chiefs. They're in the playoffs. The Raiders were a different team in a completely different mindset last week. Their season was over. This was all they had to show, and they were supremely motivated to show what they could do against the playoff bound Chiefs. The only change I would have made is to sit Cassell and Charles and Bowe for most of the game against the Raiders. The Chiefs knew they were in the playoffs and probably let up a bit psychologically. It happens with young teams.

Now as for the Ravens, if the Chiefs come out this lackadaisical against them next Sunday, the Chiefs are done early and it's time to start thinking about the 2011 season. Interestingly enough, the Chiefs have to put themselves into the mindset that the Raiders were in last week.

(Don’t try to compromise him, but you can email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

For earlier columns click here