Legal Notices
Platte
County Foreclosures
Local News
Archives
Between the Lines
by Ivan Foley
The Rambling Moron
by Chris Kamler
The Right Stuff
by James Thomas
Straight from Stigall
by Chris Stigall
Parallax Look
by Brian Kubicki
KC Confidential
by Hearne Christopher
Off the Couch
by Greg Hall
Pleasantly Eccentric
by Aimee Patton
Pig Skin Picks
Letters to the Editor
"Send Your Letter"
Classifieds
Advertising
Subscriptions
 
Weekly publication dates are Wednesdays
 
52 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
 
 
 
 


heading

news@plattecountylandmark.com

Kubicki

Parallax logo

by Brian Kubicki
Landmark columnist

 

IT'S HARD FOR US TO TAKE JOHN KERRY SERIOUSLY
9/10/14

John Kerry last week said that scripture commands the U.S.A. to protect Muslim countries against global warming.

Can we really be expected to take the Secretary of State of the most powerful country in the free world seriously when he says something like this?

From the great website, Climate Depot.com, we read that Sec. Kerry said it was the United States' Biblical "responsibility" to "confront climate change," including to protect "vulnerable Muslim majority counties."

Kerry said Scripture, in particular the Book of Genesis, makes clear it is our "duty" to protect the planet and we should look at Muslim countries "with a sense of stewardship of earth," adding, "That responsibility comes from God."

What in the world does the changing of climate on the planet have to do with the affairs of the U.S. State Department? What's next – NASA engaging in Muslim outreach…wait a minute…!

•Can anyone answer the question why the NFL needed to see the video of Ray Rice knocking out his fiancée before they gave him the boot out of the league? Didn't he admit to hitting her before when he got the original 2 game suspension?

•Palo Alto, California's electric supply is (supposedly) 100 percent carbon-neutral, well, sort of.
Palo Alto is one of the most wealthy and affluent municipalities in America. The town of 65,000 boasts it is officially the first city in America whose electricity supply is 100 percent carbon-neutral.
Now, to be accurate, there's a big difference between “carbon-neutral” and “carbon-free.”

They most certainly do use carbon and generate carbon emissions.

Palo Alto is the only town in California that runs its own utility. Its electricity isn't provided by PG&E, the for-profit utility that serves much of Northern California.

Palo Alto owns 25 percent of a huge hydroelectric generating facility in Calaveras County. Combined with other contracts from hydroelectric producers, about half of their energy comes from the plant.

Also, citizens of Palo Alto have been planting solar panels on their homes and businesses. That accounts for a couple percentage points of the city's 180-megawatt peak load.

They also purchase wind power from the High Winds and Shiloh wind farms in Solano County; about 12 percent of the town's electricity. 8 percent came from biomass and plants that burn gas from landfills (which generates carbon but is considered “renewable” because the gas is released by decomposing garbage).

All of that extremely inefficient energy generation accounts for only about 60 percent of Palo Alto's electricity needs, leaving 39 percent of the town's electricity to come from plants that burn coal or natural gas.

So, they engage in creative accounting. In California, entities that operate renewable energy receive renewable energy certificates, or RECs, which they sell. For each megawatt of coal or natural gas used, they buy one REC. RECs are cheap, about $1.20 per megawatt. Palo Alto spent a little more than $400,000 on RECs to offset its purchase of electricity derived from fossil fuels.

Liberals are just plain nuts!

•To end on a positive note for a change, I came across these quotes from the 20th Century's greatest president:

“It is a great advantage to a president, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man. When a man begins to feel that he is the only one who can lead in this republic, he is guilty of treason to the spirit of our institutions.”

“Wealth comes from industry and from the hard experience of human toil. To dissipate it in waste and extravagance is disloyalty to humanity.”

“Both men and nations should live in accordance with their means and devote their substance not only to productive industry, but to the creation of the various forms of beauty and the pursuit of culture which give adornments to the art of life.”

“The words of the President have an enormous weight and ought not to be used indiscriminately.”

”It was my desire to maintain about the White House as far as possible an attitude of simplicity and not engage in anything that had an air of pretentious display. That was my conception of the great office. It carries sufficient power within itself, so that it does not require any of the outward trappings of pomp and splendor for the purpose of creating an impression. It has a dignity of its own which makes it self-sufficient. Of course, there should be proper formality, and personal relations should be conducted at all times with decorum and dignity, and in accordance with the best traditions of polite society. But there is no need of theatricals.”

“It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness. They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation which sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant.”

[On why he chose not to run for another term] “We draw our Presidents from the people. It is a wholesome thing for them to return to the people. I came from them. I wish to be one of them again.”

Author – Calvin Coolidge

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


COAL IS WINNING THE ENERGY BATTLE
9/3/14

•Coal is winning the energy battle. From the superb www.WattsUpWithThat.com, Anthony Watts posted an essay by Mike Jonas that mentioned the climate impacts of the world's fossil-fuelled power plants are being underestimated because of poor accounting.

Climate crybabies claim governments would get a better picture in their estimates if they included the lifetime emissions of a facility in the year it goes into production.

Climate cannot be “affected” until the CO2 enters the atmosphere. The article does have significance in that it exhibits increasing desperation by those trying to use climate alarmism to shut down the coal industry.

Obama declared war on coal in 2008, via this now infamous quote, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”

A cap-and-trade tax system would be used to squeeze the life out of the coal industry. When attempts to introduce cap-and-trade failed, EPA regulations were used instead. Within the USA, there were some successes in Obama's war against coal, as some coal companies folded and US coal production fell.

But global demand for coal continued unabated. Other countries filled the production gap, and global coal production grew steadily.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects coal production to keep rising: “Coal use has never stopped increasing and the forecasts indicate that, unless a dramatic policy action occurs, this trend will continue in the future."

The simple fact is that in spite of Obama's and the climate alarmists' best efforts, coal production and consumption continue to increase globally, and are expected to continue increasing.

All the wasted government intervention trying to kick us off of coal has in fact done nothing. Coal is winning.

•Tax inversion schemes? Since when is it a bad thing to seek to pay less in taxes? Burger King moving to Canada is a good thing. (From Warner Todd Houston's blog.)

Liberals were angered with news that fast food giant Burger King may move its headquarters to Canada if it buys out the Canadian fast food chain Tim Hortons. They're mad that BK is doing this to skip out on paying America's confiscatory taxes. Good for Burger King!

The accusation Burger King is facing from America's capitalism-hating lefties is that by taking over Tim Hortons and moving its headquarters to Canada, Burger King is skipping out on its “patriotic duty” to pay the American corporate tax rate–which happens to be the highest tax rate in the industrialized, western world.

It is a crime that Canada has a lower corporate tax rate than the United States. What in the name of Adam Smith is going on when socialist Canada has lower taxes and a better business climate than the country famously built on capitalism?

Is there any more evidence needed that the left in the US is truly against every American principle? The left is attacking Burger King for trying to take advantage of a thing called “tax inversion.”
No one should be shamed for trying to starve the US government of tax money. At this point, Washington so abuses its authority to tax, perpetrates so much fraud and waste in the expenditure, and has ranged so far away from legal, constitutional spending that it shouldn't surprise anyone if many people might refuse to pay taxes.

Remember back in May when billionaire Warren Buffett blasted the very corporate “tax inversion” schemes his firm Berkshire Hathaway is about to finance as part of Burger King relocating its headquarters to Canada to lower its tax burden?

CNBC's Joe Kernan cornered the hypocritical Buffett, “Why do you make a distinction between that [investing in wind farms to score tax credits] and what some of the U.S. companies are doing when it comes to an inversion?”

Warren Buffett: “Well, I think they can do it with an inversion if they want. I think that is one that's likely to get—I'm not saying they're doing anything illegal at all in following the rules on inversion. I would personally change that part of the law.”

A tax inversion is when a company acquires a foreign company and then relocates its headquarters in the foreign company to pay a lower tax rate.

In the CNBC interview, Buffett also said he is happy to pay higher tax rates.

“We do not feel that we are unduly burdened by federal income taxes,” said Buffett. “But it does get a little annoying to us when we see other people paying far lower tax rates while engaging in the same sort of business that we engage in.”

Buffett added: “But Berkshire operated under 52 percent tax rates and 48 percent tax rates, and we make a lot of money under U.S. tax rates.”

News of Buffett's investment in Burger King has sparked American ire and charges of hypocrisy, as the “Oracle of Omaha” was a strong backer of President Barack Obama and a vocal critic blasting citizens for not paying their “fair share” in taxes.

Similarly, Obama has said corporate tax inversions are akin to American companies “renouncing their U.S. citizenship.”

Obama added, “You know some people are calling these companies ‘corporate deserters.'”

Unbelievable!

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


CAN WE STOP WITH THE ICE BUCKET CHALLENGES?
8/27/14

•Can we stop with the ice bucket challenges?

From the AP. In Campbellsville, Kentucky two firefighters in a fire truck bucket were seriously injured when they got too close to a power line after helping college students take part in an ice bucket challenge Thursday.

The firefighters had just finished dousing cold water on the Campbellsville University marching band when they were shocked by electricity. One was in critical condition and the other was stable.

Two other firefighters on the main part of the truck were shocked when the bucket was being lowered. They have been treated and released.

No students were hurt.

Power was knocked out for about an hour to 4,500 customers, including the school, said a spokeswoman for Kentucky Utilities, which owns the line. The Public Service Commission will investigate whether the line had the correct clearance from the ground, trees and structures, said Andrew Melnykovich, a spokesman for the state Public Service Commission.

The ice bucket challenge has been sweeping social media websites. The ALS Association said it has raised more than $41 million through the effort.

I'm all in favor of creative ideas to urge people to give to worthy causes, but the ice bucket challenge is getting a bit out of hand.

•That nasty Mother Nature is at it again! Iceland's Bardarbunga volcano began erupting Saturday under the country's largest glacier after a week of seismic activity rattled the area with thousands of earthquakes.

The eruption prompted Iceland to raise its aviation alert level to red — the highest level on a five-point scale — indicating the threat of "significant emission of ash into the atmosphere."

Seismic data indicates that magma from the volcano is melting ice beneath the Dyngjujokull icecap on the Vatnajokull glacier.

The remote area, 200 miles East of the capital of Reykjavik, is uninhabited.

It was not clear when, or if, the eruption would melt through the ice — which is between 100 and 400 meters thick — and send steam and ash into the air. She said it could take up to a day for the ice to melt — or the eruption might remain contained beneath Europe's largest glacier.

Icelandic authorities on Saturday declared a no-fly zone of 100 nautical miles by 140 nautical miles around the eruption, but did not shut the country's airspace.

If you will recall, a 2010 eruption of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokul volcano produced an ash cloud that caused a week of international aviation chaos, with more than 100,000 flights cancelled.

•I'm sure you have heard of some of the criticisms of the ice bucket challenges other than the one I mentioned above. But do you remember the embryonic stem cell issue?

Donated funds typically go to the ALS Association, the group that does a good job advocating for people suffering from the paralyzing, incurable and ultimately fatal neurological disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which killed New York Yankees great Lou Gehrig and affects an estimated 30,000 Americans.

ALSA reports as of Aug. 22 that it received $53.3 million in donations since July 29 when celebrities and lots of other people began posting videos of themselves on Facebook getting doused in ice water. Last year the association raised $2.2 million. The big rush in donations has come not only from existing donors but from more than 1.1 million new donors.

Have you considered how the money is to be used? ALSA indicates on its website that it not only advocates embryonic stem cell research but is encouraging the Obama administration to reverse the current federal policy that restricts funding for the research. Today federal funds can only be used for research that utilizes embryonic stem cell lines derived prior to August 2001.

Those opposed to embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds do so because research should be pursued to treat or cure many serious conditions including ALS, but only where the process does not destroy human life.

With embryonic stem cells derived for research purposes by destroying the human embryo, that moral code is violated.

Stem cells from skin and other tissues donated by adults may be used ethically, and they have already led to therapeutic treatments and cures for scores of conditions and injuries. Stem cell research is proving to be effective without the ethical objections of embryonic stem cell research.
The ALS Association now says that its donors can stipulate where their money goes and can ask that donations not pay for embryonic stem cell research.

But does that really eliminate moral concerns? If I contribute to an organization that conducts helpful research to cure a dreaded disease but the company also engages in a morally unconscionable practice doing other work, am I really not contributing to it? Let's say the Nazis cured a disease in the research they did on exterminating Jews. Can one give them money and have them say, “None of this money will go toward killing even one Jew!”

You want to take the Ice Bucket Challenge? Go ahead, but give the money to some other organization – one that doesn't support creating humans for research purposes.

(Email Brian at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


JOHN KERRY THINKS 'CLIMATE CHANGE' IS OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM
8/20/14

•I have nothing to say about the Ferguson, Missouri situation or the NASCAR Tony Stewart accident either – and for identical reasons. Neither case has been fully investigated and until the authorities in each case complete their work, what anyone thinks outside of the immediately involved parties has nothing to add of importance.

•Did you know that John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, is talking climate change?
What does over-hyped junk science have to do with the matters of protecting American interests in foreign lands?

Nothing.

Secretary of State John Kerry left Sydney, Australia last week. During a brief stop in the Solomon Islands, Kerry called for global action on what he called, "the biggest challenge ... we face right now."

We have seen the establishment of a terrorist state across northern Iraq and Syria. Our ally Israel is under extreme siege by terrorists. A deadly Ebola outbreak in Africa nibbles at US shores. Political disease in U.S. border controls is reinforced by a tidal wave of illegal immigration. Russia is rampaging against Ukraine, and China is engaging in a massive military buildup to directly challenge the U.S. defense supremacy.

But Secretary Kerry thinks "climate change" is our biggest problem?

•Then there was this absolute disaster from one of my ancestral homelands…

Scientists say wind farms will create more global warming than they reduce.

The finding, which threatens the entire rationale of the onshore wind farm industry, will be made by Scottish government-funded researchers who devised the standard method used by developers to calculate “carbon payback time” for wind farms on peat soils.

Wind farms are typically built on upland sites, where peat soil is common. In Scotland alone, two thirds of all planned onshore wind development is on peatland. England and Wales also have large numbers of current or proposed peatland wind farms.

But peat is also a massive store of carbon, described as Europe's equivalent of the tropical rainforest. Peat bogs contain and absorb carbon in the same way as trees and plants — but in much higher quantities.

British peatland stores at least 3.2?billion tons of carbon, making it by far the country's most important carbon sink and (allegedly) among the most important in the world.

Wind farms, and the miles of new roads and tracks needed to service them, damage or destroy the peat and cause significant loss of carbon to the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change.

•Scientists, Dr Jo Smith, Dr Dali Nayak and Prof Pete Smith, of Aberdeen University, say: “We contend that wind farms on peatlands will probably not reduce emissions …we suggest that the construction of wind farms on non-degraded peats should always be avoided.”

Dr Nayak told The Telegraph: “Our full paper is not yet published, but we should definitely be worried about this. If the peatland is already degraded, there is no problem. But if it is in good condition, we should avoid it.”

Another peat scientist, Richard Lindsay of the University of East London, said: “If we are concerned about CO2, we shouldn't be worrying first about the rainforests; we should be worrying about peatlands.

“The world's peatlands have four times the amount of carbon than all the world's rainforests.”

One typical large peat site just approved in southern Scotland, the Kilgallioch wind farm, includes 43 miles of roads and tracks. Peat only retains its carbon if it is moist, but the roads and tracks block the passage of water.

The wind industry insists that it increasingly builds “floating roads,” where rock is piled on a textile surface without disturbing the peat underneath.

So the promise of government subsidies drives the desire to qualify “harming” the environment.
In 2011 the Scottish government's nature protection body, Scottish Natural Heritage, said 67 per cent of planned onshore wind development in Scotland would be on peatland.

In 2008 Dr Smith, Dr Nayak and Prof Smith devised the standard “carbon payback time” calculator used by the wind farm industry to assess the CO2 impact of developments on peat soils.
They got paid to do that.

The researchers initially believed that well-managed and well-sited peatland wind farms could still cut greenhouse gas emissions, over time, compared to electricity generation overall.

But now they say that the shrinking use of fossil fuels in overall electricity generation has changed the equation, making the comparison less favorable to all peatland wind farms.

“Our previous work argued that most peatland sites could save on net [CO2] emissions,” they said. “But emissions factors are likely to drop significantly in the future.

"As a result, peatland sites would be less likely to generate a reduction in carbon emissions, even with careful management.”

The significance of the Aberdeen researchers' work is increased by the fact that they are funded by the Scottish government and are broadly pro-wind.

They wrote in a previous paper that “it is important that wind farm developments should not be discouraged unnecessarily because they are a key requirement for delivery of the Scottish government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

The wind industry insisted that the impact of properly managed wind farms on peat and carbon emissions was minimal. Niall Stuart, director of Scottish Renewables, a trade association, said that damaged peatland could be restored in as little as a year.

Twitter @bkparallax

 


WHAT DOES
‘CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSERVATIVE’ MEAN?

8/13/14

I was originally going to go into a detailed but very interesting refutation of global warming hysteria using something as basic as the Ideal Gas Law, but thought it better to reproduce an excellent synopsis of Constitutional Conservatism which appeared in RedState.com Monday. It is edited here for brevity but can be read in its entirety at:

http://www.redstate.com/diary/bacyclone/2011/04/29/constitutional-conservative/

“What does 'Constitutional conservative' mean?

We are Americans. So for the Founding Fathers, individual liberty was not possible without private property rights. For the Founding Fathers, the only legitimate government was not only one that was instituted with the consent of the people, but one that would preserve and protect the individual's right to property. Jefferson talked about…'tyranny of the legislature.' So the consent of the governed is only part of it.

But the government never has the authority to be tyrannical; it never has the authority to seize your property illegitimately. Private property represents the individual's labor, your labor, your initiative, your industriousness, your ambition, and so forth. We all have an equal right, an unalienable right as they wrote in the Declaration to pursue happiness. That especially involves the pursuit of property and wealth – not that materialism makes you happy, the point was so you can at least subsist, but even more expand your wealth and improve your lifestyle and that of your family. We do not have a 'right' to equal results and outcomes. And this is the battle – we do not have a right to make demands on the labor and property and wealth of another individual, for that individual also has unalienable rights.

The purpose of government in the United States of America, according to the Founders is first and foremost to protect and preserve the individual's unalienable rights. These rights are God-given natural rights: no man, no government has the authority to deny them or destroy them. That is not to say that we as a community or society ought not look out for our fellow man…We did this through good works, through charity, through churches and synagogues, through volunteerism, through good acts all the time. Most of us do not mind being taxed at a rational level to help take care of those who are truly incapable of survival due to physical or mental disabilities. That is different than redistributing the wealth. That is different than 'spreading the wealth.'

Our Constitution is intended to protect us from a central government that would take advantage of us as individuals. It does not grant power to the federal government to violate our unalienable rights. It does not authorize the federal government to take the fruits of our labor, whether physical or intellectual, to 'spread the wealth' for 'economic justice' or anything of the sort. The Constitution does not empower anyone, especially the President of the United States, to take our labor, our property, our wealth from us and our families in order to equalize economic outcomes. I don't care what you are worth. To say that some person has a right to another person's labor simply because one person demands it, or because a politician thinks it can be put to better use…does not make it Constitutional nor does it make it moral, and it clearly violates the unalienable rights of the person who is being targeted. When the government seizes the power to take what you have earned with your own labor and put it to an illegitimate use, then government has power that is not recognized in the Declaration or the Constitution.

Since property rights are inextricably tied to an individual's liberty, the government is expanding its power not only over your labor, but over you, as a human being…This is exactly what you hear Obama saying in these speeches. He is claiming a power he does not have…the power to decide whose labor is to be protected by the government, and whose labor is to be seized by the government. Obama is saying that the government has the power to take whatever it needs from an individual, thereby punishing that individual and rewarding some other individual who has not earned it…This is said to be 'just;' this is said to be 'fair.' This is said to be 'compassionate,' yet it violates the individual's unalienable rights and the limits the Constitution places on the federal government.

The government identifies what's unequal, what program it wants to fund or create, what 'entitlement' it wants to create or expand, calls it a 'right' and then plunders individuals that it targets. You might think 'why do I care? Let me have my piece.' … Your children are also, under God granted unalienable rights, recognized by our Declaration. Your children, and their labor, and their motivation, and their ambition, and their industry, and who they want to be, and how they want to be, is also protected by the United States Constitution. If Obama…is successful,...you, your children...will not have the ability to be successful, to pursue opportunities, to improve their lifestyles, to take care of their families the way that you, your parents, and your grandparents have. This is fundamental…we need to get back to first principles. … What is an American? What is the American society? What is the American culture? It's completely…opposite of what you hear Obama saying day in and day out.”

– Mark Levin, The Mark Levin Show

Boom!

 


THE RISE OF THE ELECTRIC CAR
8/6/14

•So far this year, roughly 55,000 plug-in and battery-electric vehicles have been sold in the United States. That is only 0.67 percent of the total 8.1 million vehicles sold in 2014.

Do those numbers justify the marketing dollars spent shoving electric cars down our throats? Not hardly.

Back in 2011, when the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf first came out, nobody cared. Now, the enviro-nuts will tell you that electric car sales since then have risen nearly fivefold.

So a 5-fold increase in the sales numbers only results in less than 1% of all US car sales this year?

Let's stop wasting valuable resources on already proven failed technologies.

•The great Ben Howe at redstate.com wrote recently that Obama's own stimulus predictions reveal the economy would have been better off without it. In Obama's Friday press conference, the “Um” conference, he launched into an “um” laden tirade about the obstructive Republicans that have “um” gotten in his way so often that the world is “um” now on fire as a result.

His attempt was a way of using the bully pulpit to remind Americans how awesome the Recovery Act was and that it is the reason for all of our wonderful employment which sits at 6.2%. This number ignores that there are 3.6 million fewer full-time jobs than there were in 2007 as well as the millions of workforce dropouts that have simply given up. Don't forget, he's got a new stimulus to hornswoggle us into funding because somehow after spending a trillion dollars, no roads or bridges have been fixed! Isn't that what taxes were collected for in the first place – roads and bridges?

They already have that money!

•For the record, to the global warming nuts, Death Valley, Calif., which is known for being the world's hottest location, had a high of a relatively chilly 89 degrees Sunday. More than 30 degrees below average, the previous record low-high of 104 was set in 1945.

This was only the 8th time a high in the 80s has occurred in Death Valley in July or August, and there hasn't been a high less than 90 since 1984. Weather records in Death Valley go back to 1911.

The average June high in Death Valley is 120 degrees, July is 124 degrees, and August is 122.
So there you go!

•According to the experts that crafted the stimulus, the economy would have done better had there been no stimulus bill in 2009. The predictions showed we should've been at 5% unemployment today, with or without the stimulus. So one can only assume their efforts actually impeded our ability to return to pre-recession employment.

I loved the summary and look back at the true effects on mankind of environmental activism by James H. Rust with the Heartland Institute. The media tends to greatly overlook the facts on this.
Environmentalists are enlisting minority groups such as blacks and hispanics to help them stop use of fossil fuels in the name of “environmental justice.” They claim minorities suffer more from health effects from fossil fuel use because they live closer to power plants. Thus we need to replace fossil fuel power plants with solar and wind. No thought is given to higher priced electricity from these energy sources and how this impacts minorities.

Using junk science, the environmental movement has over time called for banning use of the following products:

DDT for alleged weakening of bird eggshells. FACT: The ban of DDT has allowed the spread of malaria throughout Africa with hundreds of millions sickened and annual deaths estimated at over 600,000!

Genetic modified foods, such as corn and rice, must be banned for alleged health effects. FACT: There is no evidence genetic modified foods produce adverse health effects and their loss has led to food shortages and adverse health effects in Asia and Africa.

Nuclear power should be banned because it is unsafe and spreads nuclear weapons proliferation.

FACT: Nuclear power is demonstrated as one of the safest methods of electric power generation and its use extends the life of fossil fuels.

Greenpeace wants to ban chlorine. FACT: Chlorine is used to treat drinking water and a ban would put the earth in peril; millions would die annually.

Fossil fuel use should be banned because of health effects and catastrophic global warming caused by carbon dioxide from combustion. FACT: The world's vast supply of coal, oil, and natural gas allow cheap electricity for the whole planet with its life-saving benefits.

I would add to those: injury and death caused by catalytic converter fires as a result of the outlawing of leaded gas; the portion of the 40,000 annual deaths in automobile crashes caused by cars becoming lighter in weight as a direct result of CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Standards; and the monumental waste and junk science that has led to: banning incandescent light bulbs, limiting the amount of water used to flush away our poop, low-flow showers, bird-chopping windmills, and bird cooking solar collectors.

A June 29, 2014, article in Forbes “Electrify Africa and Save Hundreds of Millions of Lives” by Jude Clemente quantifies the tragedies of life living in Sub-Sahara Africa because of electricity shortages. One factor for shortages is that the environmental movement demands electricity generation be fossil-fuel free.

 

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


SECOND HIGHEST
COURT APPARENTLY
READS THE LAW

7/30/14

•A three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit Court ruled Obamacare's subsidies for private health insurance were limited to state-run health exchanges. If your state did not set-up an exchange--36 didn't--you aren't eligible for federal subsidies.

Obamacare's defenders responded saying it doesn't make any sense, and nobody who supported the law ever envisioned this. One of the law's architects, Jonathan Gruber, was espousing exactly this interpretation as far back in early 2012.

Gruber, an MIT economist who helped design Romneycare, the Massachusetts model for Obamacare, was a key influence on the creation of the federal health law.

In 2011-12, Gruber told an audience that tax credits, the subsidies available for health insurance, were only available in states that set up their own exchanges.

Gruber said the reason they wrote the law that way was to “force” the states to set up for the state exchanges.

In Gruber's words:

“What's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying [to] your citizens you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.”

Now, of course, Gruber is running around claiming that the wording in the law is a “typo” and people should be able to get federal subsidies if they sign up on the federal exchange and their state has no state-level exchange.

Once again, his words, on MSNBC:

"It is unambiguous, this is a typo. Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it`s a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the federal states."

The second highest court in the land apparently reads the law.

•6 Apollo astronauts, 2 Skylab astronauts, and a pair of former directors of the Johnson Space Center all have indicated that the notion of man-caused global warming is nonsense.

These are among the 49 retired NASA employees who recently asked the space agency to halt what they consider its unscientific advocacy of climate alarmism.

From their letter:

"We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."

The March 28th letter continued:

"We feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself."

The letter's signatories share at least 1,168 years of combined service to NASA.

So there you go! We have good company.

•Remember this one? A recent Wildlife Society survey estimated 1.4 million bats and birds are killed annually by wind turbines. In the past five years, wind farms have destroyed at least 67 eagles, mostly golden eagles.

There has been huge backlash from animal rights people and bird lovers over a controversial 2013 government rule exempting wind farms from prosecution for the unintentional deaths of bald and golden eagles, for up to three decades!

Bald eagles were removed from the endangered species list in 2007, yet killing bald and golden eagles remains a felony punishable by a $250,000 fine and prison time.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency in 2009 first instituted a permit system to allow exemptions from prosecution for five years for wind farms and certain other projects that inadvertently harm or kill eagles. Last year, it extended the duration of permits for the “non-purposeful take of eagles” to 30 years, responding to pressure from the wind industry to provide more certainty for investors.

“The industry suffers a lot from uncertainty about policy of all sorts, environmental as well as tax policy, and a variety of things like that,” said Dan Turner, an analyst with Windustry, a Minneapolis renewable energy advocacy group.

Estimates vary widely on the collateral damage to eagles, bats and birds that tangle with wind turbines. A recent Wildlife Society survey estimated 1.4 million bat and bird fatalities annually. In the past five years, wind farms have destroyed at least 67 eagles, mostly golden eagles.
But the American Wind Energy Association claims turbines account for less than 2 percent of reported golden eagle deaths, and even fewer deaths of bald eagles. The group calls lead poisoning, vehicles and power lines greater threats.

Big difference, if you “lead poison” an eagle (Translation: you shoot it purposefully or accidentally) or run it over, or even chop down a tree where the eagles are nesting, YOU are going to prison and will face huge fines! But not the windmill nuts!

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


CLIMATE ALARMISTS
TEND TO VIEW PEOPLE
PRIMARILY AS POLLUTERS

7/23/14

The Heartland Institute hosted their 9th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas a couple of weeks ago. Some of the world's leading climate scientists and researchers discussed the current status of global warming science, and addressed questions like whether manmade global warming will harm plants, animals, or human welfare.

Specifically refuted was Obama's oft-repeated claim that 97 percent of scientists disagree with so-called global warming skeptics. Actually, as speakers noted, only 0.5 percent of the authors of 11,944 scientific papers on climate and related topics over the past 21 years have said they agree most of the warming since 1950 was manmade.

Also cited was the Remote Sensing Systems satellite record which shows there now has been no global warming for 17 years and 10 months.

Patrick Michaels, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and former program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society; you know, one of those experts that don't know what they're talking about when they call manmade global warming a hoax, explained how government research grants are promoting the false notion of an alarmist consensus. Massive government research grants are handed out almost uniformly to scientists who will promote the notion of a global warming crisis, which ensures more budgetary dollars for government agencies addressing the topic and subsequently more research grants for the participating scientists. Kind of self-serving, isn't it?

Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Connecticut, showed that wind, solar, and other minimal power sources simply cannot meet the nation's energy demands. Wind and solar power require tremendous amounts of land to produce even a very small amount of electricity. Though they may serve as expensive renewable power on the fringe of the market, strategies that aim to shut down oil, coal, and natural gas power will not find enough replacement power to meet demand.

Dr. John Dunn, a medical doctor, attorney, and advisor for the American Council on Science and Health, debunked EPA assertions that restrictions on power plant emissions will save lives and benefit human health. Dunn documented that more humans die during winter months than during heat waves in the summer months. Addressing EPA claims that reductions in particulate matter and other emissions will save lives, Dunn showed that EPA's assertions are totally unsupported and defy voluminous health data.

One of the more salient summary observations from the conference was that climate alarmists tend to be radical environmentalists who view people primarily as polluters who consume Earth's resources and poison the planet in the process. These environuts never see free people as voluntarily serving as good stewards of natural resources. Through the manmade global warming alarm, activists have used governments to deny affordable and reliable energy and other modern blessings to the developing world.

Download lots of interesting stuff from the conference at www.heartland.org.

•In 1983, as the AIDS epidemic was raging, gays and bisexual men were banned from donating blood by the FDA. Now San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener has introduced a resolution to end the ban, and the city board is expected to approve it.

Yeah…I don't see that move ending particularly well.

Weiner said, “It's discriminatory, it has no basis in public health. All donated blood is heavily tested, and it's depriving our country of a lot of blood that could be donated to help save peoples' lives.”

Wiener, who is openly gay, acknowledged in 2011 that HIV/AIDS was still a major problem in San Francisco, saying, “We have a large and aging population of people living with HIV/AIDS. Until we minimize or eliminate new infections, we must focus on prevention. We can't keep letting our community, and particularly our young people, become positive. In addition, after 30 years of the epidemic, we have a large population of HIV-positive people in our community.”

The FDA reported in August 2013:

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Men who have had sex with other men represent approximately 2% of the U.S. population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.

Between 2008 and 2010, the estimated overall incidence of HIV was stable in the U.S. However incidence in MSM increased 12%, while it decreased in other populations. The largest increase was a 22% increase in MSM aged 13 to 24 years. Since younger individuals are more likely to donate blood, the implications of this increase in incidence need to be further evaluated. FDA's deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


GO SEE ‘AMERICA:
IMAGINE THE WORLD
WITHOUT HER’

7/16/14

•Ever engage a liberal on the issue of re-distribution of wealth when they grab a Bible to reinforce their arguments? They like to claim that Jesus said to give to the poor and cite stories like the parable of the likelihood of a rich man going to Heaven and those who are closer to God are those that give away most or all their acquired wealth.

But they are engaging in a very wrong interpretation of religion and charity.

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus clearly communicates the importance of caring for the poor. But nowhere does He ask us to support giving government the power to FORCE OTHER PEOPLE TO GIVE!

That's a very important distinction.

The good that comes from giving of yourself to benefit the poor – or just other people – you can give a rich old lady an escort across a busy street or help an old man change a tire on his Bentley, comes when you CHOOSE to conduct those acts. If someone – government namely, FORCES you to give via taxation you are essentially stealing private property from that person and giving it to someone else.

Painted in any color, theft is wrong.

•I caught Dinesh D'Souza's film, “America” recently and I think it was even better than his very successful, “2016.”

Brent Bozell and Tim Graham had a great piece on Media Research Center that compared the critical response to those films vs. how the media found a way to accept Michael Moore's propaganda films shrouded by a documentary burka. Some highlights follow.

“Dinesh D'Souza shocked the movie world in 2012 with his anti-Obama documentary '2016,' which became the second highest-grossing documentary in U.S. movie history. On July 2, he unveiled his new documentary called 'America: Imagine the World Without Her.' It has already grossed $5 million in its first week.”

Film critics supposedly subjectively judge art. But their liberal politics bleed all over their work.
Take the highest-grossing documentary in history, Michael Moore's 2004 “Fahrenheit 911.” Editor & Publisher magazine reported nine of ten newspaper movie critics recommended the film.
The Washington Post gushed over Moore's film. “Its trajectory is guided with pinpoint accuracy,” wrote Desson Thomson, and it “obviously skews facts to its own advantage, but that's what the game is all about. What counts is the emotional power of Moore's persuasion.”

Here's the key observation in the piece:

“But when it came to the new D'Souza film, the same newspaper's Mark Jenkins suddenly found perceived fact-skewing and one-sidedness to be just awful. 'America' is less successful as a debate, since it isn't one. D'Souza controls the conversation, and thus goes unchallenged when he tries to make real-world points with make-believe scenarios.”

That's just plain not true. D'Souza spends a significant part of the film allowing left wing loons to present their arguments that America is a horrible country – and they do so completely uninterrupted.

Go see “America.”

•Did you know that scientists have NEVER measured ozone when there has not been a hole in it?
Joseph D'Aleo at Weatherbell.com posted an interesting article some time ago that is worth repeating.

The ozone “hole” above the Antarctic reaches its maximum extent for the year, revealing a “hole” in the protective atmospheric layer that rivals the size of North America.

Spanning about 9.7 million square miles, the ozone hole over the South Pole reaches its maximum annual size around September. Then it shrinks down in size over the other months of the year.
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 outside of the polar circulation with the ozone-depleted air inside, the scientists say.

Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total column amount of ozone in the atmosphere disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole. In spring, temperatures begin to rise, the ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to thicken, which of course “closes the hole.”

Remember we first found the ozone hole when satellites that measure ozone were first available and processed (late 70's data and processed in 1985). THE OZONE “HOLE” HAS VERY LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN THERE FOREVER, varying year to year and decade to decade as solar cycles and volcanic events affected high latitude winter vortex strength.

They just don't know.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax. Email him at bkubick@kc.rr.com)

 


THE TRUTH ABOUT WIND ENERGY
7/9/14

•The Hobby Lobby decision delivered by the Supreme Court last week served as a much-needed slap-down of an out-of-control President.

The court determined Hobby Lobby's right to exercise its religious conscience outweighed Obamacare's contraceptive mandate. Less publicized, a divided Supreme Court granted a stay to Wheaton College blocking enforcement actions against it for not complying with the same contraceptive mandate Hobby Lobby resisted.

From Yahoo News:
“The school is among scores of nonprofit religious groups that object to providing all or some of the mandated contraceptives on grounds that they violate sincerely-held religious beliefs.
Faced with those objections, the Obama administration sought to accommodate the groups by providing a mechanism in which an objecting religious organization could notify its insurance providers, who would then take it upon themselves to provide the required contraceptive coverage.

In the government's view, this would insulate the religious groups from involvement in provision of contraceptives.

But Wheaton College and other religious groups objected to that proposed accommodation, saying it still made them complicit in providing objectionable contraceptives to their employees. Specifically, they objected to having to sign a form that would then authorize their insurance carrier to provide the mandated contraceptive coverage.”

They were correct. The Supreme Court should find in favor of Wheaton College when it hears the case. Essentially, the government claims a religious organization's conscience should be soothed if, instead of violating their convictions, they ask someone else to violate them instead. This is the type of semantic game-playing Bill Clinton used in running from his perjury and obstruction of justice impeachment charges. It's also the Hallmark of the Obama Administration.

•Notice if you watch TV on one of the big networks, it seems that gays represent 25-50% of the population instead of the minimal numbers they actually exist in. In reality, if their numbers were as high as TV wants us to believe, you'd likely see a Viagra or Cialis ad catered to homosexual men – both sides of the relationship would be in the market after all.
They don't make those ads, and that should tell you something.

•You've probably seen the news – it has been reported everywhere: the White House has installed 6.3 kilowatts of solar Photovoltaics (PV). How much energy will that system yield in practical terms?

The rated power of a PV system is the power that it will yield when the sun shines straight on to it with an irradiance of 1000 W/m2, and the temperature is 25 degrees C. If those conditions are met for one hour, then the White House PV system will yield 6.3 kilowatt-hours. If they are met for two hours, then it will yield 12.6 kilowatt-hours (kWH), etc.

But those conditions are rarely met exactly. In the United States those conditions will be approximately met around noon time on a cold sunny day if the panels are mounted at the proper angle.

The White House PV system would yield about 27 kWH per day.

How much energy is 27 kWH in practical terms?

Total US yearly energy consumption: 97.4 Quads

This is equal to 28,560,000,000,000 kWH (since one Quad is 293,000,000,000 kWH).
This translates to a daily per capita consumption of 247 kWH per day
Therefore, the solar PV on the roof of the White House provides about 10% of the 247 kWH consumed by the average American each day! In the life of an American President, that's a sparrow fart in a windstorm.

If you are driving down the road at 60 mph in the President's limo, which gets only 8 mpg, then you will burn up your 27 kWH in only 7 minutes. Of course, the President travels with an entourage of about 45 vehicles along with his limo. It is a pretty good bet that most of these vehicles are heavy-duty, low mileage vehicles. I think a good approximation would be an average of 20 miles per gallon. At 60 miles per hour this entourage would burn about 135 gallons an hour, or about 4320 kWH per hour. At that rate they would burn the allotted 27 kWH every 22.5 seconds
Consider the Boeing 747-200B (or its militarized version: the VC25, such as Air Force One). It has a range of 6,100 miles on 48,445 gallons of fuel and a typical cruising speed of 555 mph. That works out to about 8 gallons per mile and about 9 miles per minute, resulting in a fuel consumption rate of about 72 gallons per minute! The energy content of the jet fuel is about the same as gasoline, about 32 kWH per gallon. So, in one minute of cruising the 747 consumes about 2300 kWH of energy.

At that rate, the 747 will consume a day's worth of the energy produced by the White House solar PV system in about 0.7 seconds (after traveling only about 500 feet). A round trip from, say, Washington DC to Hawaii and back is about 9540 miles. At 550 mile per hour that would be about 17.3 hours of flight. How long would the White House Solar PV array have to operate to produce enough energy for that round trip time? Answer: 243 years.

Twitter @bkparallax

 


THE TRUTH ABOUT WIND ENERGY
7/2/14

•Did you know that we (that is to say, the Obama Administration is using our tax dollars) are spending billions upon billions of hard-earned dollars on a resource that generates less than 4% of the energy we need? That's not even worth one-tenth of that kind of money!

In a report earlier this year, the Brookings Institution put green stimulus spending at $51 billion. From 2009 to 2014, Brookings estimates the federal government will spend over $150 billion from both stimulus and non-stimulus funds on green initiatives.

Nearly $100 billion of that will go toward supporting renewable energy, including subsidies for current wind, solar and biofuel projects as well as R&D for promising new technologies.
Did you know that among the chopped-up birds around wind turbines are a bunch of dead bats too? Yes bats.

"Beware: exploding lungs" is not a sign one would expect to see at a wind farm. But a new study suggests this is the main reason bats die in large numbers around wind turbines.

The risk that wind turbines pose to birds is well known and has dogged debates over wind energy. In fact, several studies have suggested the risk to bats is greater. In May 2007, the US National Research Council published the results of a survey of US wind farms showing that two bat species accounted for 60% of winged animals killed. Migrating birds, meanwhile, appear to steer clear of the turbines.

Why bats - who echolocate moving objects - are killed by turbines has remained a mystery until now. The research council thought the high-frequency noise from the turbines' gears and blades could be disrupting the bats' echolocation systems.

In fact, a new study shows that the moving blades cause a drop in pressure that makes the delicate lungs of bats suddenly expand, bursting the tissue's blood vessels. This is known as a barotrauma, and is well-known to scuba divers.

"While searching for bat carcasses under wind turbines, we noticed that many of the carcasses had no external injuries or no visible cause of death," says Erin Baerwald of the University of Calgary in Canada.

Baerwald and colleagues collected 188 dead bats from wind farms across southern Alberta, and determined their cause of death. They found that 90% of the bats had signs of internal bleeding, but only half showed any signs of direct contact with the windmill blades. Only 8% had signs of external injuries but no internal injuries.

The movement of wind-turbine blades creates a vortex of lower air pressure around the blade tips similar to the vortex at the tip of an airplane's wings. Others have suggested that this could be lethal to bats, but until now no one had carried out necropsies to verify the theory.

A GOOD use of tax dollars for a switch!

Bats eat nocturnal insects including agricultural pests, so if wind turbines affected their population levels, this could affect the rest of the local ecosystems. And the effects could even be international. "The species being killed are migrants," says Baerwald. "If bats are killed in Canada that could have consequences for ecosystems as far away as Mexico.”

•In the midst of all this liberal-driven nonsense about the Washington Redskins changing their name, did you know that the name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people?

So where are all the nincompoops screaming about changing the name of a state, a storied university, a less-storied state university?

Go away and leave the Washington Redskins name alone!

•More problems with wind turbines involve inherent inefficiencies, that is, wasting energy.
Turbulence, or "wake," created by the motion of the blades can cut a wind farm's power output by 10 to 20 percent. But assessing the particulars of the problem has been difficult. Computer simulations and wind tunnels have helped, but it's difficult to see the phenomenon on a large, commercial-scale turbine in the real world because minute changes in air patterns are invisible to the naked eye.

Now, researchers at the University of Minnesota have hit upon a novel solution: To see how a utility-scale wind turbine chops into the surrounding air, watch it in a snowstorm.

The scientists published their findings Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications, marking the first time that such air disturbances have been measured in detail on such a large scale.

Wind power is still a relatively small source of energy, accounting for just 2.5% (I guess the rest of the world is smarter than us, we waste 4% of our energy on wind) of the world's electricity generation. But the numbers are growing quickly. Figures from the international trade group Global Wind Energy Council show that the world's wind power capacity has grown by more than 60 percent over the past five years and is expected to double between now and 2018.

That is, unless we the people step in to express our thoughts on election day!

Homework for this week – study on the Single Electron Theory of the Universe.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GO TO JAIL OVER THIS
6/25/14

•This is all you need to know about the massive liberal hoax of global warming. (Courtesy of Steven Goddard's site, Real Science.)

They are making up official temperature data. This has been long-suspected, but now Goddard has shown that the data has been shamelessly manipulated to hide cooling. The graph of U.S. surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been altered measurably.

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA's U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS,” Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the 1930's, which is still the hottest decade on human record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

This is fraud people. Someone needs to go to jail over this!

See the data for yourself… http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/coldest-october-march-in-the-us-in-102-years/

•Oh, and do you recall all the coal-fired power plants being closed because of ridiculous EPA standards?

Pepco is the Potomac Electric Power Company, which serves the D.C. area with electric power. Well, with summer hear in full-swing, PEPCO wants their customers to conserve.

That's what the utility did Wednesday in the Washington area for the first time this season to reduce peak demand between 2 and 6 pm.

Customers can get credited up to $80 per year if they allow PEPCO to install remote control devices on air conditioners to briefly cycle them off on peak days.

You want to let utilities in D.C. take control of your thermostat?

•And for this week's look back, from the late 1980's Nova and the NY Times said we should be dead by now.

''Nova, the public-broadcasting science series, offered viewers an advanced course in worrying. The cause of the concern is all the carbon dioxide that's being pumped into the industrialized and motorized air. The hour-long broadcast is called 'The Climate Crisis: The Greenhouse Effect,' at 9 tonight on Channel 13 (this was written in 1988).

The conclusion, conveyed with great authority by several big-league climatologists from government and private research organizations, is terrible: by the year 2000, the atmosphere and weather will grow warmer by several degrees and life - animal, plant, human - will be threatened. The experts say that melting ice caps, flooded cities, droughts in the corn belt and famine in the third world could result if the earth's mean temperature rises by a mere two or three degrees.

The documentary swings between pictures of green lands and smokestack skies. This, of course, is familiar to readers and documentary viewers, going back at least to Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring.' The pleasant educational lesson on 'Nova' illustrates planetary ecology. In an interesting analogy, we learn from the writer-producer Richard Broad, of Boston's public-television station WGBH, that a single trans-Atlantic flight consumes all the energy that an acre of forest produces in 100 years. The oceans and forests absorb carbon dioxide; that's the good news. The bad news is that these natural safeguards could be imperiled if tropical forests are cut down for agricultural use.

Millions of tons of coal are burned annually around the world. In small amounts, carbon dioxide is necessary, but with the ever-growing consumption of fossil fuels (mainly coal), the air becomes polluted at an intolerable level. The scientists explain that the carbon dioxide released into the air acts like the glass in a greenhouse, sealing the earth in its own warmth - creating the 'greenhouse effect.'

Looking at the clouds of industrial smoke, and then at the crowded highways, a scientist from the National Center for Climate Research says: 'The industrialized West keeps the furnaces burning. This is the high price we pay for prosperity.' It is a grim prognosis. The scientists on the program issue warnings but they cannot quite tell the world to stop the clock of industrialization. The advances made on antipollution devices on automobiles might be applied to cutting down industrial smoke, too.

'The Climate Crisis' was originally produced by WGBH in 1983. It would be useful to do some re-editing, cut down a bit on the original documentary and bring it up to date, even if only with a brief new introduction or conclusion.”

You know, at the end of the day, can someone explain how exactly it is that the government has the right and power to regulate a naturally occurring component of the air around us?

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THERE'S NO REASON TO WORRY ABOUT CARBON DIOXIDE
6/18/14

•Remember how photosynthesis is the process by which plants take in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen? So how much carbon dioxide does plant life take in?

Basically, plant growth of all kinds absorbs carbon dioxide. The oceans absorb it as well, but recent studies indicate oceans absorb more than we used to estimate. But for the conservative purposes of this analysis, let's assume oceans absorb as much carbon dioxide as plants do (even though it is probably more).

Here's the rundown: An acre of greenery absorbs the carbon dioxide output of 90 people give-or-take. Now, if you divided all the land on the planet equally among the world's current population, each person would get 5 acres, or expressed another way, each person's current expanse of land can absorb the carbon dioxide output of 450 people. Not even close to being a concern.

Look at it another way – what would the population of the Earth need to be for carbon dioxide sink-ability to possibly be a problem? Our 6 billion person world population would need to be nearly 3 trillion people! That's an increase of more than 400 times!

For context, it will take about 500 years for the world's population to grow from 6 billion to 1 trillion, assuming constant growth rates and longer if we have some cataclysm.

So, there's no need to worry about carbon dioxide.

•Remember back when the Iatan coal power plant construction was occurring and I warned you about the Sierra Club opposing it because – well they oppose anything that results in cheap and efficient energy – they claimed asthma rates in Missouri would skyrocket? Then they suddenly dropped their opposition when the utility offered to pay the Sierra Club's accumulated legal fees?

•(Credit to WND.com)
In an effort to win public support for the EPA's recently proposed regulations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants an estimated 30 percent by 2030, the Obama Administration began a propaganda campaign where it claims the carbon dioxide “pollution” causes children to get asthma.

Marc Morano, the executive director of Climate Depot, argues, “This is pure propaganda. The White House is trying to demonize carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The idea is to convince people that carbon dioxide somehow causes asthma and puts children in hospitals.”

He pointed out that carbon dioxide, a miniscule trace gas in the atmosphere, is vital to photosynthesis and life on Earth. It is a gas everyone exhales, and plants use it for food.
In a June 6 press release, the White House claimed the effects of climate change “impact the most vulnerable Americans – putting the elderly, kids, and people already suffering from burdensome allergies, asthma, and other illnesses at greater risk.”

To make sure the full emotional impact of the asthma argument was appreciated, the White House press release concluded as follows:

The president believes we have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that's not irrevocably polluted or damaged. While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, we must take steady, responsible action to cut carbon pollution, protect our children's health, and begin to slow the effects of climate change so that we leave behind a cleaner, more stable environment. That's why the president put forward the Climate Action Plan last year and earlier this week, the EPA released a vital component of that plan – common-sense carbon pollution standards for existing power plants.

The press release linked to a seven-page White House-authored paper that repeated the argument, claiming carbon-dioxide emissions cause climate change that in turn causes children to develop asthma.

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, in a press release announced the agency's “Clean Power Plant.”

“About a month ago, I took a trip to the Cleveland Clinic,” she said. “I met a lot of great people, but one stood out – even if he needed to stand on a chair to do it. Parker Frey is 10 years old. He's struggled with severe asthma all his life. His mom said despite his challenges, Parker's a tough, active kid – and a stellar hockey player. But sometimes, she says, the air is too dangerous for him to play outside. In the United States of America, no parent should ever have that worry.”

McCarthy proceeded to claim the EPA's plan to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants would “deliver climate and health benefits up to $90 billion dollars,” while avoiding up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks in the first year alone.

What actually causes asthma?

“Asthma is very common, affecting more than 26 million people in the United States, including almost 7 million children. No one knows for sure why some people have asthma and others don't,” the website of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology notes.

“People who have family members with allergies or asthma are more likely to have asthma. Asthma can occur at any age but is more common in children than adults. Heredity can play a role. In young children, boys are nearly twice as likely as girls to develop asthma, but this sex difference tends to disappear in older age groups. Obesity is a newly identified risk factor for asthma.”

The National Institute of Health Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute website notes that among the causes of asthma are an inherited tendency to develop it, certain respiratory infections during childhood and contact with airborne allergens or exposure to viral infections in infancy or in early childhood when the immune system is developing.

Some things never change. Liberals like to lie a lot.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE WORLD LIBERALS WANT YOU TO LIVE IN
6/11/14

•I know I covered the announcement of Obama's EPA announcement of the new coal plant strangling rules, but I couldn't let it go without noting the following. (HatTip to the Wire)
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy stepped to the microphone Monday morning last week to announce the new rules in a large room heavily illuminated by incandescent light bulbs.
As usual with Democrats, hypocrisy reigns supreme. Energy conservation is important, but EGAD! You don’t expect them to announce that they're going to try and kill the coal industry in a dim fluorescent lit room, do you?

•The consistently atrocious Red Star columnist-and-recycling-officer Yael Abouhalkah tossed out a missive attacking gun rights after the nutbags that shot up folks in Las Vegas on Sunday. He rattled off every shooting (and knifing as though it was a shooting) in an apparent justification for taking guns away from law abiding people.

I won't reprint the column here, you can find it if you want, but I couldn't let this pass:
“In these cases, as in so many more sad ones across the United States, the people who gained rights to carry guns didn't use them as the Second Amendment supposedly alleges they should be used — to protect the freedoms of the United States. Instead, the guns were used by cowards who wanted to kill as many people as possible, then not face the consequences for their actions.”

Now, forgive me here but how exactly are people who kill themselves after shooting other people, “not fac(ing) the consequences for their actions?” It seems like they actually saved taxpayers a bunch of money by killing themselves. Ironic that Yael would be one of those holding a daisy in front of the death chamber chanting to spare the lives of the murderers.

•And this week's proof that liberals are really loons, Karen Beauchemin spends every day in her lab at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) in Alberta, Canada, working on cow feed as part of an international task force of scientists working on a multimillion-dollar project in an effort to avert climate disaster.

It's all about cows, which are assumed to have serious impacts on global climate change. To put it bluntly, these beasts are emitting tons of methane through their burps and farts. (And those burps actually account for around 95 percent of animal methane production.)

Cows have microscopic organisms living in their digestive tract that help them digest green plants. Cows can't digest grass without these microorganisms. The catch is that when the organisms digest the cellulose, they create carbon dioxide and methane gas, which the host animal has to get rid of.

“A cow emits as much carbon dioxide-equivalent as a family car,” says Rasmus Helveg Petersen, minister of climate, energy and building in Denmark. Manure adds further greenhouse gas emissions.

For some time, environmental groups have been promoting Meatless Mondays, which would reduce emissions from cows simply because we'd be eating fewer of them, and therefore raising fewer of them. Governments have imposed stricter rules on manure storage. Even so, global production of both beef and dairy are on the rise. The world's population is increasing, and in developing countries many are moving up into the middle class and starting to adopt Western-style eating habits. Between 1980 and 2005, per capita milk consumption in developing countries almost doubled, and meat consumption more than tripled. In China, where the population is 1.351 billion strong, the average citizen ate about 8.8 pounds of beef a year in 2010; in 2020 the figure is expected to reach 12 pounds.

In North America, any politician knows that asking voters to stop drinking milk and eating beef would risk not just ridicule but fury—particularly in the U.S. But at the same time, no area of climate change is as untapped (HA!) as livestock flatulence. Methane released by cows accounts for about four percent of the globe's (man's really) total greenhouse gas emissions.

All of which is why Beauchemin and her fellow scientists are working on a greenhouse gas-slashing compound that cows can eat with their daily feed.

The team now has a powder that cows can eat with their daily feed. “It interferes with the animal's biological mechanisms,” Beauchemin says. “That stops the microorganisms in the animal's stomach from doing what they're doing.”

“In trials we've managed to reduce methane emissions by up to 60 percent,” says Petra Simic, a biochemist who directs DSM's cow-methane efforts. “We have solid proof of concept that our compound does what it's supposed to do. What we're working on now is figuring out the best way of mixing it into the cow's feed.”

They are also testing the feed's safety. Without a guarantee that it's completely safe for their animals, virtually no farmer would agree to use the additive. Perhaps more important, the scientists are working to make sure the milk and beef will taste the same as the regular variety—if they don't, it will never sell.

The world Democrats want you to live in is dimly lit, with a leaky roof because of the solar collectors, you have to turn all power off at night to be able to charge your electric car, and cows are blowing up like balloons because scientists have corked their fart nozzles!

Calgon take me away!

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL AND
THE 97 PERCENT
6/4/14

•Well, I suppose it's official that the claim by the Obama Administration that “97% of climate scientists agree that man causes global warming” is nonsense. We know this to be so because it has now been debunked in the Wall Street Journal.

By the way, word is leaking out that the Obama EPA is implementing new carbon dioxide rules that will claim to reduce carbon dioxide output by 30% by 2030. How about we just defund and eliminate the EPA so we don't have to worry about climbing electric bills? While we're at it, let's repeal the Clean Air Act. It really is that easy.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer wrote the WSJ piece that quoted Secretary of State John Kerry warning graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists tell us this is urgent."

So where did Kerry get the 97% figure, because you know he didn't come up with it himself?

From the Op-Ed:

“Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.”

From what I have told you long ago, in 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming.

Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers Cook used and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

While I ridicule the Wall Street Journal for being late to the party, it really is an excellent piece worthy of your time and investment.

It's all coming apart…

•Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate given for the total number of polar bears in the Arctic was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”

PBSG has said for years that global polar bear populations were between 20,000 and 25,000, but these estimates are likely much lower than how many polar bears are actually living in the world.
PBSG's admission also comes after academics and government regulators have touted their polar bear population estimates to show that polar bear numbers have grown since the 1960s. PBSG estimates have also been used to show that polar bear populations have stabilized over the last 30 years.

Polar bear populations became the centerpiece of the effort to fight global warming due to claims that melting polar ice caps would cause the bears to become endangered in the near future. Remember when years ago, some scientists predicted the Arctic would be virtually ice free by now.

Polar bears became the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act because they could potentially be harmed by global warming. But some recent studies have found that some polar bear subpopulations have actually flourished in recent years.

“So, the global estimates were… 'simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand' and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used,” Crockford said.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/30/scientists-admit-polar-bear-numbers-were-made-up-to-satisfy-public-demand/#ixzz33QnpoXSZ

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


REMEMBER, IF
YOU WANT TO SAVE
A SPECIES, EAT IT
5/28/14

If you were ever wondering, Jesus now believes in man-caused global warming.

Pope Francis, SUPPOSED TO BE Jesus Christ's representative on Earth, stuck his Argentinian Marxist foot into making the religious case for tackling climate change last week by calling on Christians to become “Custodians of Creation” and issuing a dire warning about the potentially catastrophic effects of global climate change.

“Safeguard Creation,” he said. “Because if we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us! Never forget this!”

“Creation is not a property, which we can rule over at will; or, even less, is the property of only a few: Creation is a gift, it is a wonderful gift that God has given us, so that we care for it and we use it for the benefit of all, always with great respect and gratitude,” Francis said.

“But when we exploit Creation we destroy the sign of God's love for us, in destroying Creation we are saying to God: 'I don't like it! This is not good!' 'So what do you like?' 'I like myself!' – Here, this is sin! Do you see?”

Now, how this twisted world view relates to managing deer populations so that fewer humans are killed in highway collisions with the over-populated and ever-tasty animals, Jesus' representative on Earth offered no answer.

He also gave us no insight into how man's development of alligators, as a food source in America, for example, saved the species from extinction (Remember, if you want to save a species, eat it). It works every time.

•I told you this previously, but a new analysis recently released found that the claim that 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming is false.

(Hat-tip to Marc Morano at Climate Depot)

We've heard countless times that the science of Global Warming is totally settled because 97% percent of climate scientists believe that global warming is man-made.

Science is about forming hypotheses and testing it based on evidence. For science to be settled means that every time one tests the hypothesis you get the same result. For example, every time you heat water up to 212 degrees, it boils. Every time you drop a rock, it falls to the Earth unless something stops it.

Climate scientists cannot make that claim about global warming. None of the many climate models predicted the almost 18 year pause in warming that continues to this day.

Even more important is the study claiming 97% of climate scientists agree with the global warming theory is false. The results are totally misrepresented by the study's author and the media. The study reporting the 97% consensus “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by John Cook, and friends, was published a year ago last week.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% study falsely classifies scientists' papers, according to the scientists that published them Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook's asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues' classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the 'consensus' position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper.”

A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook's team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook's alarmist position. That's less than 0.97%.

How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had an opinion 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind.

The crucial point here is the qualifying clause, “of those who have an opinion.” In other words, even the highly questionable Cook study doesn't actually claim, as President Obama does, that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree.” In fact, when examined closely, one finds that the study says only one-third of the authors of the published research papers they examined expressed an opinion that the Cook team interpreted as either an implicit or explicit endorsement of AGW.

Read more: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/NWlS/~3/fjBVGuD7amE/claim-97-of-climate-scientists-believe.html.

•And to close the book, the CEO of Fiat Chrysler said he hopes people don't buy his company's electric car, the Fiat 500e, which he is forced to sell at a loss because of state and federal mandates.

“I hope you don't buy it because every time I sell one it costs me $14,000,” Sergio Marchionne told an audience at the Brookings Institute last week.

As head of Fiat in 2009, Marchionne stepped in to help guide Chrysler through the automotive bailout and out of bankruptcy.

“I'm honest enough to tell you that I will make the car, I'll make it available which is my requirement but I will sell the limit of what I need to sell and not one more,” said Marchionne.

Fiat Chrysler produces two Fiat 500s. The gas-powered Fiat 500 has a base price of $17,300.

The electric Fiat 500e runs $32,650, according to Reuters.

Marchionne blamed regulations set in place in California and by President Obama.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax and email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


THE DANGERS
OF ‘LOW-ENERGY’
LIGHT BULBS
5/21/14

An interesting article appeared in the UK Daily Mail recently in which ophthalmologists (eye doctors) refuse to use so-called “low-energy” light bulbs in their homes, and they (like moi) have stockpiled old-style incandescent bulbs to protect against skin cancer and blindness.

Dr. John Marshall is one of Britain's most eminent eye experts, the professor of ophthalmology at the University College London Institute of Ophthalmology. His concern prompted him to arrange to possess boxes stacked with old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs in his home.

“I bulk bought incandescent light bulbs before the government made it illegal to import them,” he says. “I can't give you an exact number, but I have enough to see me out.”

Dr. Marshall is not alone. Another eminent British professor, John Hawk, an expert in skin disease, is warning they may cause sunburn-like damage, premature aging and even skin cancer.

Incandescent bulbs had been the standard form of illumination for more than a century. But following an EU directive (like here in the US), the government banned the import of 100-watt bulbs from 2009. This was followed by a ban on 60w bulbs in 2011 and a full ban on all “traditional” bulbs in 2012.

Instead of a glowing filament as used in incandescents, “low-energy” bulbs have argon and mercury vapor within a spiral-shaped tube. When the gas gets heated, it produces ultraviolet light. This stimulates a fluorescent coating painted on the inside of the tube. As this coating absorbs energy, it emits light.

The medical concern regards some of the light rays emitted in high levels by these bulbs, says Professor Marshall. Recent scientific evidence shows these specific rays are particularly damaging to human eyes and skin.

Light is made up of a spectrum of different colored rays of light, which have different wavelengths. Light is a form of radiation. The shorter the wavelength, the more energy it contains. Most damaging is the short wavelength light at the indigo/violet end of blue. Incandescent bulbs do not cause problems, but these low-energy lamps emit high peaks of blue and ultraviolet light at this wavelength.

In the same way ultraviolet rays in sunlight can cause premature aging in our skin if we get sunburnt, there is a similar situation in the eye, says Professor Marshall. “You shed skin every five days, but your retina is with you for life.”

The retina at the back of the eye is vital for sight - it's made up of light-sensitive cells that trigger nerve impulses that pass via the optic nerve to the brain, where visual images are formed. Sustained exposure to ultraviolet light wavelengths increases the risk of two seriously debilitating eye conditions, macular degeneration and cataracts With macular degeneration, the macula, which is at the center of the retina, becomes damaged with age. A cataract is a clouding of the lens inside the eye. These are two of the leading causes of blindness.

•This one will make you sick.

A Planned Parenthood counselor in Arizona intentionally miscoded a sexual assault as a consensual encounter to avoid the “hassle” of reporting it to authorities, months before other victims came forward to stop an alleged 18-year-old serial sex predator, a police report in Arizona reveals.

Tyler Kost, of San Tan Valley, Ariz., has been charged with sexually assaulting 11 girls from the ages of 12 to 17 between October 2009 and April 2014, although authorities believe he has assaulted at least 18 students from Poston Butte High School. The mother of one 15-year-old victim, who became pregnant as a result of the alleged assault, told a Planned Parenthood Arizona staffer about the attack in December, a Pinal County Sheriff's Office report shows.

“The counselor intentionally miscoded the assault as a consensual encounter,” the report states. “The counselor told them that they did not want the hassle of having to report the assault to law enforcement as they were a mandatory reporter.”

Planned Parenthood Arizona said in a statement they learned about the alleged misconduct from a member of the media, and immediately reached out to the Pinal County Sheriff's Department.

So Planned Parenthood doesn't police their own employees sufficiently to ensure that this type of crime is occurring! Isn't that what Phill Kline was investigating in Johnson County a few years ago? The governor and then-attorney general all but ran Kline out of town over those concerns, and HE HAD EVIDENCE IT WAS OCCURRING!

Planned Parenthood further said the organization is discussing the "puzzling" allegations with authorities, saying the incident, if true, would be a "serious violation" of its policies.

"Patient health and safety is our top priority, and Planned Parenthood Arizona takes its role as a mandatory reporter of criminal activity very seriously, including screening for potential abuse, charting answers, and responding to indications of criminal behavior," the statement said.

"The counselor intentionally miscoded the assault as a consensual encounter. The counselor told them that they did not want the hassle of having to report the assault to law enforcement as they were a mandatory reporter."
Kost, who is scheduled to be arraigned on Friday, remains jailed without bail and faces more than 300 years in prison if convicted of all charges. Pinal County Attorney Lando Voyles has said he plans to try Kost as an adult on all charges. Multiple calls seeking comment from his attorney were not returned.

I guess we should hope that Kathleen Sebelius and Paul Morrison don't run for office in Arizona!

(Brian Kubicki can be found on Twitter @bkparallax or email him bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 

THE POPE CONTINUES TO ATTACK CAPITALISM AND THE FREE MARKET
5/14/14

•Pope Francis made headlines last week by once again attacking capitalism and the free market. His comments were, in part, as follows:

“The account of Jesus and Zacchaeus teaches us that above and beyond economic and social systems and theories, there will always be a need to promote generous, effective and practical openness to the needs of others. Jesus does not ask Zacchaeus to change jobs nor does he condemn his financial activity; he simply inspires him to put everything, freely yet immediately and indisputably, at the service of others. Consequently, I do not hesitate to state, as did my predecessors that equitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world's peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State…”

The Pope seems to be using the story of Jesus and Zacchaeus to say it is OK for government to steal private property and give it to those that do not have an equal amount of wealth.

First, Jesus urged Zacchaeus to give willingly to the poor, himself. Jesus didn't ask the government to steal Zacchaeus' money and property and redistribute it to the less successful and he did not ask Zacchaeus to submit to government theft.

It should be noted, and the Pope completely ignored this point, that the story of Zacchaeus points out that he was a tax collector for government - everybody back then hated tax collectors, probably even more than they hated prostitutes, because they cheated money out of hard working people and gave it to oppressive government! Isn't that an important distinction that should be noted by the most recognized religious leader in the world?

•For balance, let's consider the words of Milton Friedman:

“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.… On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”

And:

“Much of the moral fervor behind the drive for equality of outcome comes from the widespread belief that it is not fair that some children should have a great advantage over others simply because they happen to have wealthy parents. Of course it is not fair. However, unfairness can take many forms. It can take the form of the inheritance of property—bonds and stocks, houses, factories; it can also take the form of the inheritance of talent—musical ability, strength, mathematical genius. The inheritance of property can be interfered with more readily than the inheritance of talent. But from an ethical point of view, is there any difference between the two? Yet many people resent the inheritance of property but not the inheritance of talent.”

•If you paid attention to the NFL Draft, you were witness to the effort that ESPN and the NFL put forth toward changing American beliefs and attitudes into something “the political mob” deems worthy and right. On Day 3 of the Draft, former Missouri defensive end Michael Sam – who earlier this year declared himself “openly gay,” was drafted in the last few picks of the last round. ESPN relentlessly promoted the chance that Sam would be drafted. They had a film crew in Sam's domicile, quite unusual for a player slated to likely not be picked, and Sam's presumed boyfriend was also present for the cameras to record their planned expression of affection if/when Sam was selected. ESPN and the NFL got what they wanted. I'll not provide details.

Instead, it should be noted that many qualified football players went undrafted. Among them was another defensive end, Texas' Jackson Jeffcoat. Based on statistics, from their senior years to their NFL combine, Sam is inferior to Jeffcoat in EVERY way.

Tackles: Sam - 48 Jeffcoat - 82; Sacks: Sam – 11.5 Jeffcoat – 13.0; 40 yd dash: Sam – 4.91 Jeffcoat – 4.61; Bench Press: Sam – 17 reps of 225 Jeffcoat – 18 reps of 225; Vertical Jump: Sam 25.5 in. Jeffcoat 36.0 in.

Did Jeffcoat get passed over because he is not “openly gay?” Seems so.

•Recall the ObamaCare Death Panels Sarah Palin warned us about? PAP smears, which are tests women undergo for cervical cancer, are not going to be covered by ObamaCare (or any other insurance company because ObamaCare mandates they not cover the tests) every year. The tests can only be done every three years, unless you are 65 or older. Then you won't be allowed to have the test. So, if a woman has cervical cancer, it will grow in her body for up to three years before it gets detected.

If you have the disease after you turn 65, you get a shovel.

That's a death panel and it's disgusting!

•How's this stat for a Sign of Armageddon? Americans will spend more on taxes in 2014 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined. From the Tax Foundation: Americans will pay $3.0 trillion in federal taxes and $1.5 trillion in state taxes for a total tax bill of $4.5 trillion which represents 30.2% of income. Americans spend $4.25 trillion on food, clothing and housing in 2014.

(Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


SUPREME COURT HELPS EPA SHUT OFF ELECTRICITY IN AMERICA
5/7/14

The Supreme Court is helping the EPA turn off electricity across America.

Recall April 2007 when the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide, inarguably the second most essential gas for life to exist on Earth, was a pollutant. That is the definition the EPA applied to CO2 in order to allow it to be regulated.

Now, in another case, the court concluded the EPA may regulate power-plant emissions that blow across state lines; a law called The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Now that the previous ruling has put nearly 150 coal-fired power plants out of commission, the court's new rule gives the EPA the authority to shutter about a thousand more power plants in the eastern and western regions of the U.S. that will have to adopt new pollution controls or reduce operations.

Think of this as a law against second hand smoking, except for power plants.

In effect, the court has just agreed to a regulation that represents a major increase in the cost of electricity in 28 states deemed to be polluting the air in those states located around them.
EPA policies are forcing the closure of coal-fired plants, which provided 39% of U.S. electricity last year. Before Obama was elected, coal-fired plants provided 50% of the nation's electricity.

American Electric Power, a provider of about 10% of the electricity to eastern states, will close almost one quarter of the firm's coal-fired generating plants in the next 14 months. Some 89% of the power scheduled for closure was needed to meet electricity demand in January.

What is the Obama Administration's response to this? They're pouring billions into the wind and solar energy sector that provides barely 1% of all the electricity used in the nation and can never begin to replace traditional plants. Also, wind and solar energy costs about 4-5 times more to generate per kilowatt-hour!

What happens if you close-down production while demand continues to increase? Well, in addition to the cost of tens of billions of dollars in handouts to wind and solar producers, the states with the highest wind production have seen their electricity rates increase nearly five times faster than the national average. States with at least 7% wind power have seen their electricity rates increase at an average of 17% over the last 5 years compared to an increase of only 4% for the U.S. as a whole.

The Obama Administration has done everything in its power to restrict and slow down access and use of America's huge energy reserves, enough to ensure all the electrical power we will need for hundreds of years to come. The same policy applies to transportation's petroleum needs. Oil and gas production on federal lands is down 40% from levels 10 years ago.

According to the Institute for Energy Research, “North America has enough oil to fuel every passenger car in the U.S. for 430 years, enough natural gas to provide the U.S. with electricity for 575 years, and enough coal to provide electricity for about 500 years.” And that's based on known reserves.
However, that means nothing if the Obama administration continues its efforts to restrict access to the energy resources.

Unless there is a sea-change politically in this country, we’re heading for an energy crisis that will make the gas rationing of the Jimmy Carter years look like the affluence of The Roaring Twenties!

The solution, after getting Obama out of office, and the Democrats sent to exile, is to repeal the Clean Air Act and de-fund the EPA completely.

See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/05/03/the-supreme-court-helps-the-epa-shut-off-electricity-in-america/#sthash.o3oiNCsk.dpuf

•In other news, were you aware that the Obama administration counted unborn children in a 2012 Child Maltreatment report? (Hat-tip to HotAir.com)

An HHS agency on child abuse in the US reported figures for abuse against unborn children. How convenient! We track “maltreatment” of unborn children as a health issue, but fail to include killing unborn children through abortion in the same manner?

The Administration of Children and Families (an arm of the HHS) included “the unborn” in its 2012 Maltreatment Report, where it analyzes child abuse across the United States. The ACF's report accounts for the abuse of unborn children, but does not account for the abuses brought by abortion.
According to the report, more than a quarter of child abuse victims in the United States are under the age of two years. How many babies does that amount to? 207,645. But the report also demonstrates that abuse occurs before some children are even born.

So what would the ACF report look like if it counted all of the unborn victims of child abuse?

According to numbers from the Guttmacher Institute, abortion alone would add more than one million lives to the “Physical Abuse” category.

In Ohio alone, there were more than 11,000 victims of child abuse who were younger than two. If we include the victims of abortion (25,473 children), Ohio would claim more than 36,000 cases of child abuse against children under two—25,473 of which resulted in death.

•Just a note for those of you keeping track: the Los Angeles Clippers are still alive in the NBA Playoffs, and their owner Donald Sterling is still the owner of the team.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 

 


SOME LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES IN THE STERLING SITUATION
4/30/14

•Watching Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling send the media into panty-bunching overdrive was vastly entertaining this week.

In case you were camped-out at Columbia Airport waiting for a golfer to get off a plane disguised as Jay Wright, the 80-year old long-time coach of Los Angeles' best NBA team was secretly recorded by his 30-something year old girlfriend expressing that he did not want her posting pictures on social media of herself with black people going to the team's home games.

The media and NBA players are screaming the comments revealed the secret heart of a racist and are demanding Obama take the team away from Sterling and throw the old Jewish person in jail. (O.K. thus far they haven't expressly called for that, but I can almost see it!)

The NAACP was going to give Sterling a Lifetime Achievement Award in a couple of weeks, but they changed their plans after this incident. Only problem is, the NAACP had already given him a Lifetime Achievement Award back in 2009. Amazing how one life can get two Lifetime Achievement Awards!

The new NBA Commissioner, Adam Silver, announced the league was conducting an investigation into the issue and will be reacting appropriately. Meanwhile, everyone remotely interested in the NBA – which is in the midst of its playoff “season” – are offering their two-cents about what should be done.
Outside of the absolute idiocy of a team owner in a league where at least 78% of the players happen to possess dark-colored skin opining in a racial nature, there are a few logical inconsistencies with the responses to all this…

Larry Bird once said that the NBA needed more white players to be successful. Bird, who was at the time (and remains today) an executive with the NBA's Indiana Pacers along with a Hall of Fame former player, said those words in 2004, and nobody raised an eyebrow.

About 10 years earlier, when Bird was still playing, Detroit Pistons guard Isaiah Thomas said that if Larry Bird was black, he would be perceived as "just another good player" and not the best player in the game. After he said that, there was some furor in the media, but nothing close to this.
Obama has appeared most ridiculous of all by offering his admonition toward Sterling in the midst of a state visit to Malaysia. (WHY?! Does he have to comment on EVERYTHING?)

Where is media outrage, and why hasn't Obama opened his yapper on rapper JayZee for appearing at NBA games wearing a huge golden pendant around his neck that represents a controversial group called the Five Percenters?

The Five Percenters believe, “…the black man is God and created the universe, is physically stronger and intellectually stronger and more righteous naturally,” says Michael Muhammad Knight, an author of two books on the radical group.

Whiteness is weak and wicked and inferior — basically just an errant child who needs to be corrected. The group was founded in 1964 in Harlem by Clarence Smith, who later changed his name to Allah, a former student of Malcolm X who disagreed with the Nation of Islam over the nature of God.

Smith rejected the notion of a supernatural deity and instead believed that all black men had God in them and that black women were “earths” who took on a complementary yet subordinate role to their gods.

White people don't enjoy an exalted status in the narrative of the Five Percenters.

“The first lesson I learned from the Five Percent was simple: F&*% white people. White people are devils,” Knight, 36, who is white and converted to Islam as a teenager, once wrote.

“Jay Z is not an active member — no one has vouched for him” Saladin Allah, a representative of the group's upstate region, told The NY Post. “It was always understood that you don't wear the (medallion) if you don't totally subscribe to the life.”

Asked once if the group's symbol, an eight-pointed star with the number 7 in the middle, held any meaning for him, JayZee shrugged, “A little bit.”

Where was all this race fury when Sterling was sued by Elgin Baylor, his black former GM, for race discrimination? Where was the outrage from Magic Johnson when Sterling was sued by people for refusing to rent to people of certain skin colors in past years? Sterling has been known to convey such thoughts for a long time apparently. Nobody said a word. Former Commissioner David Stern said and did nothing. Doc Rivers, the Clippers' current coach, has seemed to allude that he was somewhat aware of Sterling's racial thought patterns – yet he willingly agreed to work for the man.

•Climate Depot found this very telling statistic: 143,000 solar industry workers produce just 1% of U.S. electricity; while 87,000 coal employees produce 40%.

How's that for Solar Efficiency?

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him at on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


ABOUT THAT CERVICAL CANCER VACCINE
4/23/14

•As I write this on the eve of Earth Day 2014, it seems appropriate to look back at what rampant environmentalism has done for…err, to, mankind.

Let's first go to Marc Morano's excellent site, www.ClimateDepot.com for this piece from The Skeptical Environmentalist author, Bjorn Lomborg:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bj-rn-lomborg-says-that-the-un-climate-panel-s-latest-report-tells-a-story-that-politicians-would-prefer-to-ignore

An excerpt:

“We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases; one in eight deaths stem from air pollution, mostly from cooking indoors with dung and twigs; and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food. We ought never to have entertained the notion that the world's greatest challenge could be to reduce temperature rises in our generation by a fraction of a degree.”

As Lomborg mentions and we all know, global warming has been non-existent in the last 17 years.
Politicians say global warming is “humanity's greatest challenge.” But, they promise it's a challenge that can be met at low cost. We now know that's nonsense. Climate change has been portrayed as a huge catastrophe costing as much as 20% of world GDP, though politicians could counter it at a cost of just 1% of GDP. The reality is just the opposite: We now know that the damage cost will be perhaps 2% of world GDP, whereas climate policies can end up costing more than 11% of GDP.

That's not very honest at all! Pay attention to Lomborg!

•On the gay mafia's agenda, remember I warned you about this…

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India allowed transgender people to identify as a third gender and directed the central and state governments to give full legal recognition to them.

The top court was responding to a public interest lawsuit filed by the National Legal Services Authority, which provides free legal services to the poor and disadvantaged. The group had argued that treating transgender people as legal nonentities, unable to apply for official identification documents, meant that they were deprived of basic human rights.

The court agreed with the organization and directed governments to treat the transgender community as a minority group that is eligible for welfare programs, health care and employment and help transgender people to become part of mainstream society.

Colin Gonsalves, a lawyer who has been fighting cases for the transgender community, called the judgment “extraordinary.”

“It comes after decades of pursuit,” Mr. Gonsalves said. “It is the first step toward recognizing the transgender community as a third sex.”

•And then there's this. Are you a parent of a pre-teen or a teenager? Has your child's doctor tried to convince you to get your child injected with Gardasil?

From Judicial Watch, the controversial government-backed cervical cancer vaccine is ineffective and has deadly side effects, according to a physician who worked at the major pharmaceutical company that's made huge profits selling it to girls and young women.

Gardasil, which is manufactured by pharmaceutical giant Merck, was fast-tracked by the FDA and has been ardently promoted by the Obama administration as a miracle shot that can prevent certain strains of cervical cancer caused by Human Papillomavirus (HPV).

Instead it's been linked to thousands of debilitating side effects, according to the government's own daunting statistics. Since 2007 Judicial Watch has been investigating the Gardasil scandal and exposed droves of government records documenting thousands of adverse reactions associated with the vaccine, including paralysis, convulsions, blindness and dozens of deaths.

Now a one-time pharmaceutical industry physician, Dr. Bernard Dalbergue, who worked with Merck has come forth with shocking inside information about Gardasil.

Dr. Dalbergue confirms that Gardasil is useless, costs a fortune and that decision-makers at all levels are aware of it. “I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all times because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill…”

The story also links to a press release issued this month by a member of the French Parliament blasting Gardasil's safety record in Europe.

In the United States the government has heavily pushed the vaccine while covering up its debilitating side effects. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends it for girls starting at age 9 and just a few months ago distributed a 13-minute DVD claiming the side effects are limited to a “little pain and discomfort” and “dizziness and stomach aches.” The video was designed to reach “underserved areas” and “minority populations.”

And the next time you hear Democrats blathering-on about a Republican war on women, remember this fact:

The Obama administration has given dozens of state and municipal health agencies tens of millions of dollars to boost the number of adolescents that get Gardasil. This includes targeting low-income and ethnic minority populations that receive “culturally sensitive” intervention in a variety of languages, including Spanish, Mandarin, Armenian and Korean.

To date, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has awarded nearly $6 million to dozens of victims in claims made against the very HPV vaccine it is pushing on children.

Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax

 


THE STAR COULDN'T WAIT TO PUSH ITS ANTI-GUN AGENDA
4/16/14

•This dirt-bag that shot three people to death last Sunday will not be named in this column, nor will his “cause” get mentioned. The victims of these horrendous crimes however, Terri LaManno, Reat Underwood and his grandfather, Dr. William Lewis Corporon, WILL get named and should be remembered. Their families are going through unbelievable pain right now and deserve our thoughts, support and prayers. They have mine.

•One more note on the shootings in Overland Park, it is utterly despicable that The Star pounced upon the media hype around the tragedy to once again advocate for gun control. The days following such tragedies are for comforting the families and remembering the victims, not using the increased attention to push your personal political causes. Shame on you, Barb Shelly, and whoever else at that biased rag approved the editorial.

And for elucidation of my location of blame, look to Twitter where I had the following exchange with Shelly after she Tweeted to promote the editorial:

barb shelly @bshelly "We cannot accept the deaths of innocent people as a part of living in a free country." @KCStar editorial. kansascity.com/2014/04/13/495… - 14 Apr

bkParallax @bkparallax @bshelly @KCStar Despicable to use this to forward your political agenda so early in the families' grieving! - 14 Apr

barb shelly @bshelly @bkparallax @KCStar If wanting to stop violence against innocent people is "an agenda" I guess I'm guilty. 04:56 PM - 14 Apr 14

I noted in the law enforcement aftermath of the Overland Park tragedy that the feds were quick to jump-in to declare that the crimes were being investigated as hate crimes. Aren't all violent crimes hate crimes? What is the advantage of investigating this crime, or any crime as a hate crime? The accused assailant is surely facing the death penalty for the crimes themselves. After he gets a life sentence or the death penalty, is the hate crime prosecution going to add another life sentence or kill him again?

What's the point?

Further, hate crimes are intended to enhance the penalties for crimes that are enacted upon so-called “protected classes.” What's the protected class in this crime? If it's Jewish people, the people killed were Christians. So is it a hate crime if the assailant was either too dumb or to apathetic to actually enact a “hate crime?” Nonsense!

•The United Nations (UN) delivered its latest verdict on the measures necessary to “save the world from global warming,” and the news is not welcome if you like cheap power, meat, low prices, and private property.

The report asks for:

More taxpayer subsidies for expensive, inefficient solar and wind power.

Abandonment of fossil fuels.

Reduced meat consumption.

A single, globally-regulated price for carbon dioxide.

Local-government-enforced walking, cycling and public transportation.

Back-door wealth redistribution from the West to the developing world in the name of "sustainability."
These are the recommendations of Working Group III of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be officially announced in Berlin on Monday.

Breitbart.com had a great run-down on the report in advance of its release next week.

The report notes that almost half of the rise in post-industrial anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 levels since 1750 occurred during the last forty years. Therefore, it argues, a dramatic decarbonization of the world economy - including more renewable energy and less fossil fuel - must begin immediately if global warming is to be kept below 2 degrees C by the end of the century.

This action will set back economic growth, involve significant "behavioral change" and "devalue fossil fuel assets."

The report actually admits this! But only with "major institutional and technological changes" can the world avert an even greater threat. If no action is taken, it warns, temperatures may rise by as much as 4.8 degrees C by 2100, they claim.

It's all nonsense.

It does make you wonder why don't they just use socialism as the justification for redistributing the wealth of the world? Why use a climate calamity ruse to try to scare people into acting? Isn't socialism scary enough all by itself?

•And for this week's sign that Armageddon is upon us, from the NY Post: More and more US women are forgoing motherhood and getting their maternal kicks by owning handbag-size dogs.

Data from the CDC shows a big drop in the number of babies born to women ages 15 to 29, corresponding with a huge increase in the number of tiny pooches owned by young US women.

“I'd rather have a dog over a kid,” declared Sara Foster, 30, a Chelsea equities trader who says her French bulldog, Maddie, brings her more joy than a child. “It's just less work and, honestly, I have more time to go out. You don't have to get a baby sitter.”

Good luck getting those dogs to manage your affairs after you get old, ladies. Sheesh!

•And for a brief moment of intentional and much-needed levity:

A Swedish man kept things short and simple when announcing his death to the world. His obituary was just three words long: “I am dead."

Stig Kernell, 92, had given the instructions to his funeral home before he died on April 6. According to his son, Kernell didn't feel there was much more to be said. "He was a special man with a lot of humor and a twinkle in his eye... It has helped us to cope with the loss of him, in that he was not at all scared of death," Lars-Åke Kernell told the local newspaper.

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


IS GLOBAL COOLING COMING AND DOES THE GOVERNMENT KNOW IT?
4/9/14

•Do not forget this one folks!

Steve Milloy's website, www.JunkScience.com has been all over the story that the EPA has been exposing children to pollution as part of an experiment at USC.

President Obama's EPA has been exposing human guinea pigs to high levels of carcinogens and potentially lethal pollutants in order to justify tough new air quality standards.

The experiments involved subjects made to inhale freshly pumped-in diesel truck exhaust fumes and measuring the resulting adverse health effects. In many cases, the exposure was done without advising the test subjects of the risks to their health.

The disturbing findings are contained in a new investigative report by The Daily Caller's Michael Bastasch. The article comes on the heels of a new report by the EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that says the EPA's experiments exposed individuals, including those with asthma and cardiac problems, to pollutants such as diesel fumes in quantities up to 50 times greater than the levels the agency deems safe for humans.

Now here's the real kicker – the EPA sought to prove that particulate matter was harmful to human health by conducting the tests. Test subjects were paid $12-an-hour for essentially being hooked-up to the tailpipe of an 18-wheeler. In congressional testimony in late 2011, then-EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson told a congressional committee in effect that her agency was putting at risk the lives of study subjects. “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn't make you sick. It's directly causal to dying sooner than you should,” said Jackson. “If we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country,” Jackson added.

So if the particulate matter is so bad for humans, why did the EPA expose humans to it? Were those humans “expendable” because they were paid slightly above Obama's professed minimum wage?

The outraged Milloy stated the question best:

“Which do you find more shocking: that the Environmental Protection Agency conducts experiments on humans that its own risk assessments would deem potentially lethal, or that it hides the results of those experiments from Congress and the public because they debunk those very same risk assessments?”
Read more and pass along: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/obama-epas-monstrous-human-experiments/

•Then this…is global cooling coming and does the government know it?

John Holdren, President Obama's Science Advisor, once tried to reframe the climate debate in terms of his prediction of, “global climate disruption.” Holdren stated at the time, that the term “global warming” is “a dangerous misnomer.”

The question – does John Holdren believe that “global climate disruption” might actually lead to global cooling?

There is some very circumstantial evidence that America, and other governments, may already be planning ahead, for the possibility that the world will cool. Over the last few years, a number of major Australian newspapers have posted stories about the rising issue of large scale foreign buyouts of Australian farmland.

But why would Chinese and American companies, some perhaps government backed, be so interested in large scale ownership of Australian farmland, land which the IPCC and Australian CSIRO predict will shortly become worthless desert?

The reason of course is the land will not shortly become worthless. The land may shortly become valuable.

Back in 2006, the Russian Academy of Science predicted imminent severe global cooling, beginning in 2012-2015, peaking at around 2055. Their prediction is based on the historic correlation between solar cycles and global climate.

Humans have been aware of the 11 year solar climate cycle since the dawn of history – several good years followed by several bad years is a fact of life. But there are also other, longer, more powerful cycles, which have an even larger impact on global climate.

One of them is the 200 year cycle. Every 200 years or so, solar activity falls to a sustained low. These long periods of low activity, known by the names of the scientists who discovered them – Maunder, Dalton, etc., coincided with periods of extreme cold; which involved: plummeting temperatures, decreased food production, and drastically shorter and less reliable growing seasons in the Northern Hemisphere.

At the peak of these cold periods, history records widespread famines and other disasters, such as the Year Without a Summer in 1816, a food production catastrophe triggered by low solar activity during the Dalton Minimum, combining with an unusually severe series of major volcanic eruptions. In the Year without a Summer, over vast areas, crops in the Northern hemisphere were destroyed by snow and frost in mid-Summer, which created global famine and social unrest.

If the Russian Academy of Science is correct, the world is on the brink of a new cold period, which will start to bite in the next few years.

We could even see another year without a summer – there are several large volcanoes which are overdue for major eruptions, such as Katla in Iceland and Merapi in Indonesia. When they erupt, they shall add to downward pressure on global temperatures.

Given the risk, what could a nation whose grain belt is vulnerable to global cooling do, to protect its future food supply?

The obviously solution is to buy up farmland in another country.

Such a purchase would require a country which is warm enough, so that even if global temperatures fall significantly, the land purchased would remain productive.

A country like Australia.

 


BUYING AN ELECTRIC CAR IS NUTS
3/26/14

•This one is just astounding. We have indeed fallen down the rabbit hole.

The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as clinical waste by hospitals in Britain with some used in waste-to-energy plants. Sarah Knapton, science correspondent for The Telegraph, reported Ten NHS (the national health system in Great Britain) trusts have admitted burning fetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in waste-to-energy power plants.
One of the country's leading hospitals, Addenbrooke's in Cambridge, incinerated 797 babies below 13 weeks gestation at their own waste-to-energy plant. The mothers were told the remains had been cremated.

Ipswich Hospital incinerated 1,101 fetal remains between 2011 and 2013.

They were brought in from another hospital before being burned, generating energy for the hospital site. Ipswich Hospital claims to dispose of human remains by cremation.

Ipswich Hospital Trust said it was concerned to discover that fetal remains from another hospital had been incinerated on its site.

Unbelievable! Is there any other evidence needed that Leftist political policy dehumanizes? Create financial incentive to conduct research on human embryos,

Attack pro-life religious organizations like the Catholic Church by forcing them to pay for abortive drugs,

Institute a national health system that allows euthanization of “undesirable” humans, place 8 of every 10 abortion clinics in predominantly black neighborhoods,

Incinerate human remains to generate heat for the living.

Now THAT'S progress? Sounds like Soylent Green to me!

Kind of makes you wonder what is done with the human remains from the 1.3 million abortions done in the United States every year.

Why is the media in America so silent on this issue? I'll bet there would be loads of media outrage, not to mention immediate government action if the hospitals were burning dead puppies to heat their buildings.

Just WOW!

•Tesla, the heavily subsidized electric car company, has been learning the hard way that crony capitalism will eventually bite the feeding hand.

The company got slapped last week by New Jersey's powerful car dealership lobby by keeping the electric car manufacturer from selling directly to consumers. New Jersey sided with the state's own local car dealerships. These dealerships have long-benefited from New Jersey's franchise law, which makes it illegal for car manufacturers to sell directly to consumers.

So far, Tesla was able to make do with the law by operating showrooms where the company demonstrates the features of their vehicle for potential customers who may then buy the car online. New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Commission now deems even these showrooms illegal.

For its part, the company accused the state of implementing the state's laws at the behest of a special interest group looking to protect its monopoly at the expense of New Jersey consumers. The company called this an affront to the very concept of a free market.

“Free market?” Tesla was quite privileged by Obama. In 2010 the company launched its initial public offering, raising some $226 million. That same year, Tesla got a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy and began reaping the benefits from a $7,500 federal income tax credit offered to each of its customers.

Also, were you aware that the distance an electric car can travel on one charge varies widely depending on the weather? Frigid temperatures can reduce that distance by 57%.

Tests were conducted on a 2013 Nissan Leaf, a 2012 Mitsubishi iMiEV and the electric version of a 2014 Ford Focus. Tests were conducted to rate for city driving to mimic stop-and-go traffic and to better compare with EPA ratings.

The average EV battery range was 105 miles at 75 degrees but dropped 57% to just 43 miles at 20 degrees. Heat also sliced the cars' ranges but by not as much: The cars averaged 69 miles per full charge at 95 degrees, 33% less than in 75-degree weather.

Buying an electric car is absolutely nuts!

•Finally, if you thought a carbon tax was the nuttiest thing you ever heard coming from the left, consider this…

The Guizhou province in southwestern China plans to produce cans of fresh air to sell as tourist souvenirs.

The idea reportedly came from tourist shops near Mount Fuji in Japan, where cans of fresh air have been a big hit. China's president, Xi Jinping, brought up the idea during the recent meeting of the National People's Congress in remarks on tackling the country's air pollution problems in which he said air quality is closely related to public well-being.

The provincial has been seeking designs for the cans. The chief of the provincial tourism bureau, Fu Yingchun, predicts big things for the product and its potential to expand to other products relating to vacations, healthcare, organic foods and even carbon trading.

Wait for it…they don't get a carbon tax, so they're coming at us with canned air to sell!

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


REJECT WELFARE
IN FAVOR OF
SELF-HELP
3/19/14

Larry Elder had a superb piece last week posted at www.jewishworldreview.com that discussed two economists, who happen to be black, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, and who also happen to be two of the most brilliant minds on the planet.

“For over 30 years, Thomas Sowell, currently with the Hoover Institution, and Walter Williams, chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, led the charge against the 'victicrat' mindset. Through decades of weekly columns, books, speeches and lectures before often-hostile crowds, they long argued that racism cannot be blamed for poverty, crime, illegitimacy, and under-performing schools.

Over 20 years ago, Sowell appeared on William F. Buckley Jr.'s PBS show, "Firing Line," and calmly dismantled the basis for affirmative action, arguing it immoral, divisive, and unconstitutional.
In his 1989 book, "South Africa's War Against Capitalism," Williams noted that white racists under South Africa's apartheid used minimum wage laws to suppress black employment.

Both men demonstrated with -- get this -- facts, data, studies, experience, and personal observation that, no, the black middle class did not spring from affirmative action, urban renewal programs, enterprise zones, welfare benefits or set-aside programs. Racism, they point out persuasively, is bad for capitalism.”

And can you guess what these great minds got in return from “their own people?” Elder continues:

“Their reward? Former NAACP President Benjamin Hooks called people like Sowell and Williams 'a new breed of Uncle Tom ... some of the biggest liars the world ever saw.' Liars? For saying that the welfare state has done more to destabilize the black family than Jim Crow laws ever did?”

Oh, that wasn't the end of the name-calling…as Elder elucidates:

“Oreo. Uncle Tom. Boot-licking Uncle Tom. Straight-up Uncle Tom. Judas. Boy. Bug-eyed. Foot-shuffling. Sugarcane Negro. Handkerchief head. Trojan Horse. Anti-black. Pro-white. Remus. Sambo. Sambo-Tom. The Anti-Christ. Clarence Thomas supporter. Sniveling weasel. Evil. A-s-kisser. Coconut. Wannabe white. Nickering nabob of negativity.”

And Elder notes that Sowell and Williams had statistics:

“We now see the damage done by LBJ's War on Poverty, during which time the black illegitimacy rate grew from 25 percent to today's nearly 70 percent. Evidence shows the existence of a growing, thriving, black middle class well before the advent of affirmative action. Nor does history support the hysterical, emotional view that affirmative action accelerated the black middle class growth. Sowell and Williams urge blacks to reject welfare in favor of self-help -- breaking the monopoly of public education, privatization of Social Security, and the adherence to responsible moral, personal, and sexual behavior. So who's the Uncle Tom? Those proposing the same old 'solutions,' or those, like Sowell and Williams, recommending real change? Will Sowell and Williams get their apology? Hey, many pundits, present company included, felt Vice President Al Gore unlikely to use the "C" (concession) word in his speech. He did. So maybe, just maybe, we can begin a healthy, personal attack-free debate about what's right, just, and proper in America. An apology to Sowell and Williams would be an excellent start.”

Check out the entire excellent piece, and do some more research on Sowell and Williams.

•Reuters.com last week very surprisingly summarized the facts of the core of the contraception and religious freedom issue being argued before the Supreme Court in an almost completely unbiased manner.

I can't reproduce it all here, but please do check-out the link at the bottom for the entire piece.

“U.S. top court case highlights unsettled science in contraception
BY SHARON BEGLEY
(Reuters) - - As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a religious dispute over the Obamacare contraception mandate, advocates on both sides are trying to set the court straight on the science.
The case, to be heard on March 25, is one of the most closely watched of the year, partly because it taps into the enduring debate over abortion and reproductive rights.

The dispute turns on the legal question of whether corporate employers with religious objections must include contraceptive coverage in their employee health plans. But it also raises a scientific dilemma that could influence the court's nine justices.

That scientific question is deceptively simple: whether certain forms of birth control prevent conception or destroy a fertilized egg. After decades of research the answer is not absolutely clear.

Please DO familiarize yourself with this case. The media is way in the pocket of the pro-abortion side on this so be wary about the accuracy of anything you hear from the left on this issue.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/us-usa-court-contraception-analysis-idUSBREA2A07720140311#comments

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


ARE THERE REALLY GAY PEOPLE?
3/12/14

Now that the dust has settled on the whole gay agenda in America, I came across a couple of columns that look at the core of the homosexuality issue.

One appeared in Slate (a very liberally-biased website) and took issue with another column that was written by a man who is preparing to enter the religious life.

Snippets, with my commentary, are summarized below. Use the authors' names to find the latter column because it's very good, despite what Slate says.

From Slate…”Gay Denialism Is the New Homophobia—and It's Terrifying
By Mark Joseph Stern

Last week, Michael W. Hannon published an article you haven't read, 'Against Heterosexuality,' in a magazine you probably haven't heard of, First Things. The article is lengthy and dense, and the magazine is little known outside of certain faith communities. But you should read it right now—twice over, if you have the time—because 'Against Heterosexuality' is one of the most alarming anti-gay polemics I have ever encountered, and it provides a valuable glimpse into religious conservatives' next plan of attack against gay rights: gay denialism.”

Now THAT's a vivid illustration of the tolerance of the homosexual movement, isn't it? “Read this and heed because we need to stamp-out these ideas like we would exterminate cockroaches!”

“The article's layers of illogic are so slick with casuistry that they're almost too slippery to untangle…”

TRANSLATION: He's making solid points that are hard to disagree with, so he'll call them “slippery.”
That's enough from Slate's loon-du-jour. Now the original column:

“AGAINST HETEROSEXUALITY
by Michael W. Hannon

Heterosexuals, like typewriters and urinals (also, obviously, for gentlemen), were an invention of the 1860s. Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called 'orientation essentialism,' 'straight' and 'gay' are not ageless absolutes. Sexual orientation is a conceptual scheme with a history, and a dark one at that.

Over the course of several centuries, the West had progressively abandoned Christianity's marital architecture for human sexuality. Then, about one hundred and fifty years ago, it began to replace that longstanding teleological tradition with a brand new creation: the absolutist but absurd taxonomy of sexual orientations. Heterosexuality was made to serve as this fanciful framework's regulating ideal, preserving the social prohibitions against sodomy and other sexual debaucheries without requiring recourse to the procreative nature of human sexuality.

On this novel account, same-sex sex acts were wrong not because they spurn the rational-animal purpose of sex—namely the family—but rather because the desire for these actions allegedly arises from a distasteful psychological disorder…

…Sexual orientation has not provided the dependable underpinning for virtue that its inventors hoped it would, especially lately. Nevertheless, many conservative-minded Christians today feel that we should continue to enshrine the gay–straight divide and the heterosexual ideal in our popular catechesis, since that still seems to them the best way to make our moral maxims appear reasonable and attractive.”

BAM! More succinctly – we are human beings. All human beings have sexuality. To identify a human being by their expression of sexuality is to effectively dehumanize that person and extend the meaning and purpose of sexual expression far beyond that which it was designed for.

Hannon continues:

“'Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person.' True, the firm natural division between the two identities has proven useful to the 'gay rights' activists on the ground…most academics throughout the humanities and the social/behavioral disciplines today—will readily concede that such distinctions are fledgling constructs and not much more. Many in this camp aim to expose the counterfeit credentials of sexual orientation and, taking a page from Nietzsche, to genealogically explain it away once and for all.

My (Hannon's, though I agree) own prediction is that we will see this binary thoroughly deconstructed within our lifetimes…we…should see the impending doom of the gay–straight divide not as a tragedy, but as an opportunity.

Of course, given our immersion in a culture for which these categories seem as connatural as the English language, uprooting them from our vocabulary and worldview will not be anything like a simple task. So why bother? As long as we do not succumb to sinful acts, why does it matter if people…continue to identify as homosexuals or heterosexuals?

Definitely check this column out in its entirety.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO BE SORTING THROUGH YOUR TRASH
3/5/14

•With all the happenings in Ukraine, it's worthy to recall that during the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin warned us if Obama was elected president, his "indecision" and "moral equivalence" may encourage Russia's Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine.

For those comments, Palin was mocked by Foreign Policy magazine and its editor Blake Hounshell, who now is one of the editors of Politico magazine.

Hounshell wrote back then that Palin's comments were "strange" and "this is an extremely far-fetched scenario.” “And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine's pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don't see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel," Hounshell dismissively wrote.

Politico wrote this past weekend that Palin "said she was derided for her comments" but conveniently left out the reference to their now-editor Hounshell that Palin had clearly included in her post.

In her note on Facebook last week, Palin wrote, "Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I'm usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as 'an extremely far-fetched scenario' by the 'high-brow' Foreign Policy magazine."

Palin is the woman who should consider running in 2016.

•Bill Nye is a dunderhead that gives mechanical engineers a bad public image. When it comes to global warming and hurricanes, he can come across as downright ignorant.

But Mr. Nye showed-up on Fox Business with the great Charles Payne and embarrassed himself. If you can find the video on Fox business' website, do so. Once you watch the video and read the transcript, Nye's utter lack of comprehension of the topic was exposed naked by the non-scientist Payne.

Below are some of the more elucidating parts of the exchange:

Charles Payne: “While hurricane Irene brought more than just wind damage and flooding to the east coast, it's revived a national debate as to whether global warming might be causing an increase in hurricanes and other extreme weather. In fact a recent cover story in Newsweek declared that this kind of wild weather may be quote 'the new normal.' Here with insights on this is Bill Nye, otherwise known as the science guy.

Ok Bill, I'm going to come right at you. Um…Hurricane Irene – proof of global warming?”

Bill Nye: “Oh, I don't think the word proof is what you are looking for – evidence of, a result of, yeah, yeah. Now here's what the people will tell you that run these climate models. Now everybody, the word model in this usage is a computer program…So you take data from satellites about the thickness of clouds and the extent of cloud-cover over the sea. You take data about the temperature of the sea surface. You take data about the existing weather…Then you compute how much rain fell out of it, how much energy must have been put into it to create that much rain. It takes many months to analyze an event like Irene. Now the climate colleagues that I have will not tell you today that Irene was evidence or a result of climate change but check in with them about March next year after they have a few months to collect all of these millions and millions of data from weather services and satellites and compile them and run a climate model and show that Irene was a result of the world having more energy in the Earth's atmosphere.”

Notice how Nye reframes Payne's question – '…you shouldn't be looking for proof…' before attempting to answer it. (He wrapped himself into a pretzel trying to do that!) By the way, what data is there about how much rain falls out of the clouds? How in the world would someone go about measuring that with any degree of meaningful accuracy?

Charles Payne: “But here's the thing here Bill, ever since Katrina, right, we've heard that every year the hurricane season is going to be more devastating and apocalyptic, and the reality is we haven't seen that. So how can Newsweek say 'hey, this is a new normal?' is that irresponsible – is there any science behind that?”

Bill Nye: “Well there's a lot more science behind that than just saying it's not. But, uh, that aside. That's only 6-years – in geologic time in terms of climate events, is not very long. Furthermore there is a lot of debate about this cool thing or remarkable thing is that the Sea-surface in the Pacific gets warmer, in the Pacific Ocean! Okay, tens of thousands of nautical miles away. As that gets warmer, it will strangely serve to decapitate certain hurricane or cyclonic storms off the coast of Africa – and actually get a few fewer hurricanes.”

First of all, Nye says 6 years is not a lot of time to draw any meaningful conclusions from, and we're looking At 6 years as a portion of 100 years of reliable climate observations as modern industrial humans. But Nye can claim to know that we must tax every molecule of carbon based on 100 years of data on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old?!? 6% of a pattern we can disregard as too small but we must pay heed to 0.000002% is solid enough to know we must act?

Second, “tens of thousands of nautical miles away?” The entire planet earth is only a little over 20 thousand nautical miles in circumference! “Tens of thousands” of nautical miles is circling the entire planet several times over.

Please stop recycling. Life is too short to spend any time sorting through your trash.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


GLOBAL WARMING IS
THE GREATEST
HOAX EVER FOISTED
2/26/14

•There's so much going on this week I'm going to have to pay my editor double!

•Last weekend Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, tweeted the following about Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was in Pakistan in 2002 working on a story and was captured by al Qaida and beheaded for no other reason than he was Jewish:

Samantha Power @AmbassadorPower (that's her Twitter handle)
“Daniel Pearl's story is reminder that individual accountability & reconciliation are required to break cycles of violence. @DanielPearlFNDN”
10:51 PM - 23 Feb 2014

Mark Levin rightly shredded Ambassador Power her on his show Monday for her comments and gave a reasoned explanation for why Samantha Power should resign.

What in the world does “individual accountability & reconciliation” have to do with terrorists kidnapping a journalist, binding him at the hands and feet, blindfolding him, and then sawing his head off of his living body? Did Pearl contribute to his demise by not being accountable, in the Ambassador's eyes? Aren't U.S. Ambassadors supposed to be people of responsibility and tact; experts at diplomacy?

If she doesn't resign, she should be fired. Don't hold your breath for that happening, though. Thus far, she has not retracted or apologized. I think she really thinks that way, and her boss does too.

•Remember Christine O'Donnell? She was the 2010 Republican nominee for US Senate in Delaware. She was characterized by the likes of RINO King Karl Rove as one of those “Republicans who can't win.”

On March 9, 2010, around 10 a.m., O'Donnell announced plans to run for the U.S. Senate. Later that same day, her office received a call from a reporter asking about her taxes.

It has now been revealed that a Delaware Department of Revenue employee named David Smith accessed her records that day, at approximately 2 p.m. “out of curiosity,” Smith says.

The fact that these tax records ended up in the hands of the press is just a coincidence, says the IRS.
The truth of it all was the tax records weren't even accurate. O'Donnell had never fallen behind on her taxes, and a supposed tax lien was on a house she no longer owned.

The lien was highly publicized and used as political ammunition by O'Donnell's political opponents. The IRS later withdrew the lien, blaming it on a computer glitch. The damage in the election was complete.

Think it's time to shake things up, 2014 voters?

•My favorite resource on climate issues, Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., had a superb piece on his website (www.drroyspencer.com) last week. The better bits are reproduced below.

“When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it. They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics' view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi's extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It's time to push back.

I'm now going to start calling these people 'global warming Nazis.'

The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.
They are just as guilty as the person who cries 'fire!' in a crowded theater when no fire exists, except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.”

Now, THAT'S something you've heard here before folks. How many poor people around the world are harmed by environmental regulations and fear-mongering associated with it?

Spencer continues,

“Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).
Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.
Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.”

The criminal irony in that is they claim to be the political movement that exists to help cure poverty. Instead, they're making more poor people and reducing the quality of life of everyone, including the poor.

More Spencer:

“They invoke 'consensus,' which results from only like-minded scientists who band together to support a common cause.

This authoritarianism tends to happen with an over-educated elite class…I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I'm not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.

So, as long as they continue to call people like me 'deniers,' I will call them 'global warming Nazis.'
I didn't start this fight…they did. Yeah, somebody pushed my button.”

The whole anthropogenic global warming notion is the greatest hoax ever foisted upon a people. Think of the billions of dollars that have been wasted trying to curb an imagined problem.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


SAM'S NFL CAREER BEING USED BY A POLITICAL LOBBY
2/19/14

•If I were to estimate the number of homosexual people in the American population based on the amount of coverage the issue gets today in the media, I'd peg the number a few points up or down of 50%!

I don't care to even think about how politicians, athletes, actors, or anybody else outside of my spouse seeks sexual pleasure. It's none of my business.

That being established, MU's Michael Sam making an issue of it seems fairly clear that his NFL career is being used by the political lobby that influences government much in the same way that the Sierra Club uses asthma sufferers whenever a coal-fired power plant is being proposed.

I have stated this concept before – we are all human. All humans have sexuality. Sex feels good so we humans will reproduce. How humans choose to express sexuality is highly varied. Some of those expressions are normal, and others are abnormal. Heterosexual acts are normal. Homosexual acts are abnormal. Celibacy (resisting sexual urges or not having any for some reason) is abnormal as well.

That's pretty much how it goes. Homosexuals are not another gender, as it seems the gay lobby wants to claim. There are two genders, despite Facebook's claims of 50 gender identities.

Don't allow the political left to redefine humanity, people!

•This from Joel Pollak at Breitbart.com:

Recall when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) apologized to the White House for shouting, "You lie!" as Obama told Congress Obamacare would not cover illegal immigrants. Covered California, the flagship of state Obamacare exchanges, is recruiting illegal immigrants to sign up, regardless of their eligibility.

The Covered California website includes a special page entitled: "No temas si eres indocumentado/a y quieres inscribir a tu familia en un seguro médico" which translates to: "Fear not if you are undocumented and want to enroll your family in health insurance.” The website goes on to explain that information shared with Obamacare cannot be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It does not explicitly warn that illegal aliens are ineligible.

Bravo to Texas Senator Ted Cruz for forcing the RINO establishment Republicans to show their stripes in the raising of the debt limit vote last week.

Cruz forced a 60-vote threshold for the measure which forced Mitch McConnell, John Conyers, Jeff Flake, and several other back-stabbing RINO's to show themselves, despite their efforts to hide their votes on increasing debt limit from public view.

From The Right Scoop, these Republicans kept the Senate from announcing which of them switched their votes. It appeared McConnell and Cornyn were the 59th and 60th vote as they “ayed” together, but no one can be sure. A few Republicans even switched their votes as a move to show solidarity with the RINO Republicans, perhaps to help hide which ones voted to put the tally at 60.

More from CNS News:

Typically, roll-call votes in the Senate occur very publicly. People watching from the galleries or tracking action via C-SPAN can watch democracy in action. 15 minutes into the vote, the tally clerk rose to recite the vote. A Senate aide alerted Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the six Republicans who later switched his vote from “nay” to “aye.” McCain intervened, and the clerk sat right back down. “Would you …” McCain said before the live microphone cut off.

A McCain spokesman denied he intervened. “McCain didn't know that they weren't going to read the names and he didn't care if they did. He didn't have input on that,” emailed spokesman Brian Rogers.
Yeah, we believe McCain! How's that dang border fence?

•If you follow me on Twitter (@bkparallax) you saw me duking it out last week with an entity refuted to be “Republican strategist” (not my characterization!) Frank Luntz. He's the guy on Hannity always gathering undecided nincompoops in the waning days of an election to see what they think about who we should vote for. (If you're undecided that close to an election, stay home and stop polluting the electorate with your nonsense!) The subject of our verbal fisticuffs was the item below – Luntz was in favor of the solar plant and thought it was not a political issue. I reminded him that we taxpayers paid over a billion dollars for it, and that made it political.

Anyway, regulators are having second thoughts about approving new solar projects due to growing evidence tower-and-mirror solar technology is killing birds. The Wall Street Journal's Cassandra Sweet reported on it last week.

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Station, a giant solar-power project officially opened last week in the California desert. The project received a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee.

The owners of the project, NRG Energy Inc. call the plant a major feat of engineering that can light up about 140,000 homes a year. Temperatures around the towers can hit 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Utility-scale solar plants have come under fire for their costs. Ivanpah costs about four times as much as a conventional natural gas-fired plant, but will produce far less electricity and waste huge expanses of real estate.

That means expensive power. Electricity from giant solar projects will cost at least twice as much as electricity from conventional sources. But neither the utilities that have contracted to buy the power nor state regulators have disclosed what the price will be, only that it will be passed on to electricity customers.

Nice!

(Follow Brian @bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


WHY COPENHAGEN ZOO
EUTHANIZES A
HEALTHY GIRAFFE
2/12/14

•This story has so many levels of AWESOME written all over it that I can't cut it down.

“The Copenhagen Zoo is under major fire for putting a perfectly healthy giraffe to death in front of visitors, including children, and then proceeding to skin, slice and feed it to the zoo's lions. The public event, promoted as a teaching exercise for the children, was well attended.

According to the zoo, the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) recommended it put down Marius The Giraffe, because there were already too many giraffes with similar genes in the breeding program. Plus, the Copenhagen Zoo already has seven other giraffes.

The zoo went through with the euthanization even though more than 20,000 people signed an online petition to save Marius and one individual offered to buy the animal for $680,000. The zoo also refused offers from Britain's Yorkshire Wildlife Park because Marius' older brother lives there, and the Copenhagen Zoo's scientific director Bengt Holst didn't want Marius to take up space that could be used by a 'genetically more valuable giraffe.'

The zoo veterinarian, who shot the lethal bullet, described the killing in a similarly stark manner:

The zoo veterinarian said the giraffe was coaxed into a yard and over to a zookeeper who held out rye bread - a food the giraffe was especially fond of. 'I stood behind with a rifle, and when he put his head forward and ate the rye bread, then I shot him through the brain,' he said. 'It sounds violent, but it means that Marius had no idea of what was coming. He got his bread, then he died.'

Zoo spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro was less than sentimental when defending the zoo's decision to show children the vicious circle of life, even when it includes the dismembering of giraffes with human names. 'I'm actually proud because I think we have given children a huge understanding of the anatomy of a giraffe that they wouldn't have had from watching a giraffe in a photo.' What a nice lesson in death and eugenics for our children.

Holst also questioned motives of those raising an uproar about Marius, wondering if anyone would care if a less attractive animal were the victim.

'I know the giraffe is a nice looking animal, but I don't think there would have been such an outrage if it had been an antelope, and I don't think anyone would have lifted an eyebrow if it was a pig.' The children of Denmark are learning all of life's lessons in one go, apparently.

Per the Zoo's website, which poses the question 'Why does Copenhagen Zoo euthanize a healthy giraffe?' offers this explanation:

“If an animal's genes are well represented in a population further breeding with that particular animal is unwanted. As this giraffe's genes are well represented in the breeding programme and as there is no place for the giraffe in the zoo's giraffe herd, the European Breeding Programme for Giraffes has agreed that Copenhagen Zoo euthanize the giraffe. This is a situation that we know from other group animals that breed well. When breeding success increases it is sometimes necessary to euthanize.”

The statement adds, 'we see this as a positive sign,' and reminds readers that 'the same type of management is used in deer parks where red deer and fallow deer are culled to keep the populations healthy.'

Well there you have it, kids. Giraffes live, genetically redundant giraffes die. If they're lucky, they get some bread before their body is ripped apart and eaten by carnivorous creatures in front of a rapt audience. Welcome to the cruel, dark world.

In my glee over seeing this case of responsible wildlife management, I am cautiously aware that they call what we understand as necessary genetic diversity among managed species, EUGENICS, we might not be so supportive if they applied that to humans. Oops!

•MU football player Michael Sam announced that he was gay this week. Supposedly, it should not affect his status in the upcoming NFL draft. Some say he did this to force NFL teams to accept him as a player, above and beyond that which would be warranted by his level of skill and ability. Others say he did it under pressure from the Gay Political Lobby.

This is what I wondered. Many videos of Sam from his playing days at MU showed him running down a quarterback from behind and wrapping his arms around his rear-end and forcing him to the ground. If a heterosexual player were doing the same thing to a shapely female derriere would we expect the tackler to not become sexually aroused? Why is it supposed to be different for a homosexual player?

Presumably, the opposing quarterbacks that Sam played against this year did not know that he identifies himself as homosexual. If they did, would that make them feel different? A woman in the quarterback's position would no doubt be uncomfortable with her tackler becoming aroused tackling her.

Why is this different?

•There was a march last week in North Carolina opposing voter ID laws in the state. Marchers were bussed into the state and were given written instructions to follow. Instructions ranged from the obvious, “…know your bus number…” “…ignore any taunts and jeers from the public…” to the curious, “…watch for people who join the march from the public and notify a Marshall…”

But this one takes the cake, “DO bring photo identification (driver's license, passport or other valid photo id) with you and keep it on your person at all times.”

So, “…we want you to protest Voter ID requirements, but bring your ID so we can verify who you are.”

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM, EVERYTHINGTO DO WITH RIGHT/WRONG
2/5/14

•The Coke ad during the Super Bowl (We must call it “Big Game?” Seriously? C'mon NFL!) was insulting.

There are a number of conservatives and RINOs who like to refer to themselves as conservative that voiced displeasure with the ad that featured a wide swath of racially diverse people singing America the Beautiful in non-English languages. Liberals and pro-amnesty Republicans liked the ad as being respectful of America. Conservatives took offense to the ad because of the implication that assimilation (exhibited by learning English, the official language of the United States of America) is not as important as just accepting people of different races.

The notion that people of non-Caucasian races are not acceptable to Americans is idiotic and buried in the past.

Context is why the Coke ad was so offensive.

The left, and the left-biased media with the RINOs in-tow, is currently embroiled in efforts to re-vamp immigration laws so that some form of amnesty is created for illegal aliens here in America right now. They also would like America to open the borders by enforcing them even less than they do right now.
This has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with right and wrong, legal and illegal.

America is a land of immigrants. But at the core of each and every one of those immigrants that came here in the early 1900's was assimilation into American culture – understanding the founders' principles established for this country. Learning the official language of the country was the first test of the assimilation process. It denotes respect for the country that is accepting you.

Ads that ignore the importance of assimilation imply that something current needs to change, and the minority political left want us to look away when borders should be enforced, immigration should be ordered, and criminals should be prosecuted for breaking the law.

Did you notice that whenever the Coca-Cola logo was shown in the ad it was shown in English? “Hey, we think diversity exhibited by amnesty and open borders is important, but we're not crazy!”

•Interesting to see that multiple U.S. governments including NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Energy are being accused of manipulating temperature data to show global warming. The scandal, sparked by an in-depth analysis of the data by independent analyst Steven Goddard at www.RealScience.com, relies on official records to suggest that federal agencies have been fudging temperature measurements to make past decades seem colder and recent years appear warmer.

The problems identified by Goddard in the temperature records relate to the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), the official data-set covering the continental United States. While the agencies admit the records are adjusted, Goddard and multiple scientists suggested that biased methodology was used to adjust the data to show an unjustified and “spurious” warming trend.

“Bottom line is there is clearly a huge error in the USHCN adjustments which has added a non-existent one degree hockey stick warming to the official US temperature record, and I now know just where to look for it in their code,” Goddard wrote. “NOAA made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA and NASA U.S. temperature graphs, and is part of the cause of this famous shift.”

Citing satellite data, Goddard also said that by 2008, U.S. temperatures had cooled down below 1980s and 90s levels.

Respected climatologist and NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer actually showed evidence of what Goddard described as early as April of 2012, saying that “virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data.” Commenting on the latest findings, Dr. Spencer said that his own examination of the data and corrections to account for urban heat island (UHI) effects “support Steve's contention that there's something funny going on in the USHCN data.” He also called the NOAA methodology for adjusting the data “opaque” and said he believes it is prone to serious errors. Follow this one more at Real Science.

•Secretary of State John Kerry actually said this last week, to the Munich Security Conference in Germany on Saturday.

"We created the greatest wealth the world has seen during the 1990s, greater even in America than the period of the Pierponts and the Morgans and the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Mellons -- much greater. You know what it was? It was a $1-trillion market with 1 billion users. It was the high-tech market, the personal computer mostly, communications.

“The energy market that we are staring at -- that is the solution to the climate change. Energy policy is the solution to climate change. That market, my friends, is a $6-trillion market today with 4 to 5 billion users today, and it will grow to some 9 billion users over the course of the next 20 to 30 years.”
Kerry urged his listeners to read the latest report from the IPCC. "It's really chilling," he said. "And what's chilling is not rhetoric; it's the scientific facts, scientific facts. And our history is filled with struggles through the Age of Reason and the Renaissance and the Enlightenment for all of us to learn some respect for science. The fact is that there is no doubt about the real day-to-day impact of the human contribution to the change in climate."

No doubt?

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE ‘INCOME GAP’
HAS SKYROCKETED
UNDER OBAMA
1/29/14

•From www.WattsUpWithThat.com, comes this in advance of the coldest Super Bowl in history:
Contributor Ryan Scott Welch writes:

“…many people don't know much about the earth's atmosphere. For example, when questioned about how much CO2 is in our atmosphere most people give me a guess of somewhere between 30% and 70%. When I tell them that CO2 is only 0.04% or really about 395 ppm (parts per million) they generally look at me as if I was speaking some kind of foreign language. The layman simply cannot convert 0.04% of the atmosphere or 395 ppm into anything they can picture or relate to. In searching for some way to help the layman to understand the earth's atmosphere, CO2, and the human contribution to atmospheric CO2, I came upon the idea of relating a sample of the atmosphere to something that nearly every person has seen, a football stadium……How much atmospheric CO2 is from human activity? If a football stadium represented a sample of our atmosphere, how many seats would be human caused CO2? The Dallas Cowboys Stadium seats 100,000 for special events……Nitrogen is 78% of the atmosphere, Oxygen is 21%, and Argon is 0.9% giving you a total of 99.9% of the atmosphere.

“So, where is the CO2? CO2 is a trace gas that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere which in this sample = 40 seats.

“But of the 40 seats, or parts per 100,000 of CO2 in the atmosphere, 25 were already in the atmosphere before humans relied on hydrocarbon fuels (coal, gas and oil) leaving 15 seats.
“And since humans only contribute 3% of all CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year (97% is from nature), the human contribution is 3% of the 15 remaining seats in our sample. 3% of 15 is 0.45.
“So in our stadium sample of 100,000 seats the human contribution of CO2 is less than half of one seat. That is less than one half of one seat from 100,000 seats in a Dallas Stadium sized sample of our atmosphere is human caused CO2.”

Here is the presentation uploaded on slideshare.net

http://www.slideshare.net/ryanswelch/how-much-atmospheric-co2-is-from-human-activity-23514995

•Now think about that for a minute…Democrats, Liberals, Obama and Al Gore will have you believe that the equivalent of one-half of one seat in 100,000 seats in a stadium is enough to control the temperature for an entire planet! Does that sound logical to you?

•If you missed John Stossel's piece on Fox Business last week on climate change, you missed an excellent segment with Alex Epstein, president of the Center for Industrial Progress.

“The fossil fuel industry is not taking a safe climate and making it dangerous. They are taking a dangerous climate and making it safe…

…Anyone who contradicts me should try to go outside right now (in brutal cold) and live in naturally in harmony with nature.

“It's not noble to use less energy, that is like saying its noble to have less money, No. You might misuse energy, you might be inefficient, but more is always better because energy has the capacity to be productive.”

Epstein continued: “I admire natural gas industry, and I admire the oil industry and the coal industry because this is the only industry in the world that produces cheap, plentiful reliable energy on a global scale. So these are the guys that are allowing us to be comfortable in a studio when it’s freezing outside, they make it possible for us to have clean water, to do what we want in life, to have time to do scientific research. It's amazing. So that is why I have a pin here that says 'I Love Fossil Fuels.'”

Here-here!

•While I don't have an advance script for Obama's State of the Union address this week, I have a suspicion that he's going to mention more than once that we need to address the Income Gap. What he will be referring to is the difference in dollars between what the top earners and the bottom earners make per year. Apparently, in the Perfect World that Obama sees for America, everyone makes the same amount of money.

Is should be of interest to all that according to the Census Bureau, the Income Gap under Obama has skyrocketed compared to previous presidents. Under Clinton, the Income Gap grew at a 1.8% rate. Under President Bush, the gap grew at 0%, being the same as he exited office as it was when he entered office.

Under Obama, who of course has only been in office for five years, the Income Gap has risen 2%!
He ought to address that first, if he's going to be making a case that incomes need to be equal, because he's failing miserably at that (along with many other things).

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


BENGHAZI MAKING ITS WAY TO THE TOP OF THE CESSPOOL
1/22/14

Amid all the hullabaloo the media is generating over Chris Christie's bridge fiasco, it's fascinating to watch the media seem to be flabbergasted that a government officials staff would use government resources to enact revenge for political umbrage. Where were they when the IRS was discovered to be targeting Tea Party groups?

Then there's this: Sarah Palin's brother, Chuck Heath Jr. posted the following about his father on his Facebook page a few days ago:

“My father, who worked multiple jobs and faithfully and honestly paid his taxes for fifty years, had never heard a word from the IRS. In 2008, his daughter was tapped to run for vice president of the United States. Since that time, he has been, in his words 'horribly harassed' six times by the agency. They've tried to dig up something on him but he's always operated above board.”

Not to be perceived to be defending Christie, but where was the media when the IRS scandal broke. They seemed to accept Obama's narrative of a “phony scandal.”

The great Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. reminded us recently that it's been eight years since Al Gore told us in January 2006 that we had only 10 years left to solve the global warming problem. His prognostication is not shaping up too well, as there has still been no statistically significant warming.

Now that the Australasian Antarctic Expedition has become a comedy goldmine for climate realists, humor aside, events such as this indicate dark days for green enthusiasts.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's likely repeal of the unpopular carbon tax in his country this year is reflecting an apparent global trend of push-back against this socialist income redistribution movement masked by junk science fear-mongering.

The Kyoto Treaty effectively expired a year ago. Prospects for a replacement are virtually zero. Rich nations are rejecting climate compensation for the developing world. Europe is in the midst of a coal frenzy.

Germany, previously a green trend-setter, is slashing expensive subsidies for renewables companies.
Meanwhile, the European Parliament is losing confidence in the EU emissions trading scheme. No Asian nation has an emission trading scheme in operation. China's and India's net emissions are growing dramatically and governments, Japan as an example, are abandoning earlier pledges to reduce their nations' carbon footprints. Even here in the US, despite President Obama's aggressive “kill coal” energy plan, Congress won't pass any carbon taxes.

Meanwhile, 2013 marked the 15th year of flat-lined global surface temperatures, despite record levels of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere since 1998.

Of course, the doomsayers remain in committed Chicken-Little mode. They abuse, intimidate and victimize anyone who dares to criticize the fanaticism of their movement by calling them “deniers.”

Historians will probably look back at the years 2006-09 as the time when the climate hysteria reached its peak, when rational debate was most restricted and politicians were most gullible.

The idea of climate mitigation - carbon taxes, cap and trade, channeling taxpayer subsidies to wind and solar power – is seen for what it is – another attempt to redistribute wealth and grow government.

It seems like somebody warned us about this when Obama was first elected…I can't recall who it was though.

•According to Republican officials in Arizona, Sen. John McCain has sided with liberal Democrats too many times over the years, and as a result (finally!), the Maricopa County Republican Party has voted to censure him.

Members of the group feel the senator has failed to stand behind the Republican Party's principles and crossed the aisle and voted with Democrats too many times. The vote was 1,150 for the censure and 351 against.

I only have one question: What took them so long?

This is the same guy who called Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Justin Amash “wacko birds” last year (though he did apologize) and he consistently votes with liberal Democrats in support of their legislation. As to the charge he runs as a conservative but legislates as a liberal, remember in 2010 when he was running for re-election and pledged to build “the danged fence” -- in order to enhance border security in his home state?

Well, in June 2013, when he had an opportunity to stand up for conservative values, he voted against that very measure.

I'm sure McCain will be losing lots of sleep over this.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


WHERE WAS THE
MEDIA WHEN THE
IRS SCANDAL BROKE?
Posted 1/18/14

Amid all the hullabaloo the media is generating over Chris Christie's bridge fiasco, it's fascinating to watch the media seem to be flabbergasted that a government officials staff would use government resources to enact revenge for political umbrage. Where were they when the IRS was discovered to be targeting Tea Party groups?

Then there's this: Sarah Palin's brother, Chuck Heath Jr. posted the following about his father on his Facebook page a few days ago:

“My father, who worked multiple jobs and faithfully and honestly paid his taxes for fifty years, had never heard a word from the IRS. In 2008, his daughter was tapped to run for vice president of the United States. Since that time, he has been, in his words 'horribly harassed' six times by the agency. They've tried to dig up something on him but he's always operated above board.”

Not to be perceived to be defending Christie, but where was the media when the IRS scandal broke. They seemed to accept Obama's narrative of a “phony scandal.”

The great Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. reminded us recently that it's been eight years since Al Gore told us in January 2006 that we had only 10 years left to solve the global warming problem. His prognostication is not shaping up too well, as there has still been no statistically significant warming.

Now that the Australasian Antarctic Expedition has become a comedy goldmine for climate realists, humor aside, events such as this indicate dark days for green enthusiasts.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's likely repeal of the unpopular carbon tax in his country this year is reflecting an apparent global trend of push-back against this socialist income redistribution movement masked by junk science fear-mongering.

The Kyoto Treaty effectively expired a year ago. Prospects for a replacement are virtually zero. Rich nations are rejecting climate compensation for the developing world. Europe is in the midst of a coal frenzy.

Germany, previously a green trend-setter, is slashing expensive subsidies for renewables companies.
Meanwhile, the European Parliament is losing confidence in the EU emissions trading scheme. No Asian nation has an emission trading scheme in operation. China's and India's net emissions are growing dramatically and governments, Japan as an example, are abandoning earlier pledges to reduce their nations' carbon footprints. Even here in the US, despite President Obama's aggressive “kill coal” energy plan, Congress won't pass any carbon taxes.

Meanwhile, 2013 marked the 15th year of flat-lined global surface temperatures, despite record levels of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere since 1998.

Of course, the doomsayers remain in committed Chicken-Little mode. They abuse, intimidate and victimize anyone who dares to criticize the fanaticism of their movement by calling them “deniers.”

Historians will probably look back at the years 2006-09 as the time when the climate hysteria reached its peak, when rational debate was most restricted and politicians were most gullible.

The idea of climate mitigation - carbon taxes, cap and trade, channeling taxpayer subsidies to wind and solar power – is seen for what it is – another attempt to redistribute wealth and grow government.

It seems like somebody warned us about this when Obama was first elected…I can't recall who it was though.

•According to Republican officials in Arizona, Sen. John McCain has sided with liberal Democrats too many times over the years, and as a result (finally!), the Maricopa County Republican Party has voted to censure him.

Members of the group feel the senator has failed to stand behind the Republican Party's principles and crossed the aisle and voted with Democrats too many times. The vote was 1,150 for the censure and 351 against.

I only have one question: What took them so long?

This is the same guy who called Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Justin Amash “wacko birds” last year (though he did apologize) and he consistently votes with liberal Democrats in support of their legislation. As to the charge he runs as a conservative but legislates as a liberal, remember in 2010 when he was running for re-election and pledged to build “the danged fence” -- in order to enhance border security in his home state?

Well, in June 2013, when he had an opportunity to stand up for conservative values, he voted against that very measure.

I'm sure McCain will be losing lots of sleep over this.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 

FOR EARLIER COLUMNS, CLICK HERE.

 

THE POPE CONTINUES TO ATTACK CAPITALISM AND THE FREE MARKET
5/14/14

•Pope Francis made headlines last week by once again attacking capitalism and the free market. His comments were, in part, as follows:

“The account of Jesus and Zacchaeus teaches us that above and beyond economic and social systems and theories, there will always be a need to promote generous, effective and practical openness to the needs of others. Jesus does not ask Zacchaeus to change jobs nor does he condemn his financial activity; he simply inspires him to put everything, freely yet immediately and indisputably, at the service of others. Consequently, I do not hesitate to state, as did my predecessors that equitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world's peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State…”

The Pope seems to be using the story of Jesus and Zacchaeus to say it is OK for government to steal private property and give it to those that do not have an equal amount of wealth.

First, Jesus urged Zacchaeus to give willingly to the poor, himself. Jesus didn't ask the government to steal Zacchaeus' money and property and redistribute it to the less successful and he did not ask Zacchaeus to submit to government theft.

It should be noted, and the Pope completely ignored this point, that the story of Zacchaeus points out that he was a tax collector for government - everybody back then hated tax collectors, probably even more than they hated prostitutes, because they cheated money out of hard working people and gave it to oppressive government! Isn't that an important distinction that should be noted by the most recognized religious leader in the world?

•For balance, let's consider the words of Milton Friedman:

“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.… On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”

And:

“Much of the moral fervor behind the drive for equality of outcome comes from the widespread belief that it is not fair that some children should have a great advantage over others simply because they happen to have wealthy parents. Of course it is not fair. However, unfairness can take many forms. It can take the form of the inheritance of property—bonds and stocks, houses, factories; it can also take the form of the inheritance of talent—musical ability, strength, mathematical genius. The inheritance of property can be interfered with more readily than the inheritance of talent. But from an ethical point of view, is there any difference between the two? Yet many people resent the inheritance of property but not the inheritance of talent.”

•If you paid attention to the NFL Draft, you were witness to the effort that ESPN and the NFL put forth toward changing American beliefs and attitudes into something “the political mob” deems worthy and right. On Day 3 of the Draft, former Missouri defensive end Michael Sam – who earlier this year declared himself “openly gay,” was drafted in the last few picks of the last round. ESPN relentlessly promoted the chance that Sam would be drafted. They had a film crew in Sam's domicile, quite unusual for a player slated to likely not be picked, and Sam's presumed boyfriend was also present for the cameras to record their planned expression of affection if/when Sam was selected. ESPN and the NFL got what they wanted. I'll not provide details.

Instead, it should be noted that many qualified football players went undrafted. Among them was another defensive end, Texas' Jackson Jeffcoat. Based on statistics, from their senior years to their NFL combine, Sam is inferior to Jeffcoat in EVERY way.

Tackles: Sam - 48 Jeffcoat - 82; Sacks: Sam – 11.5 Jeffcoat – 13.0; 40 yd dash: Sam – 4.91 Jeffcoat – 4.61; Bench Press: Sam – 17 reps of 225 Jeffcoat – 18 reps of 225; Vertical Jump: Sam 25.5 in. Jeffcoat 36.0 in.

Did Jeffcoat get passed over because he is not “openly gay?” Seems so.

•Recall the ObamaCare Death Panels Sarah Palin warned us about? PAP smears, which are tests women undergo for cervical cancer, are not going to be covered by ObamaCare (or any other insurance company because ObamaCare mandates they not cover the tests) every year. The tests can only be done every three years, unless you are 65 or older. Then you won't be allowed to have the test. So, if a woman has cervical cancer, it will grow in her body for up to three years before it gets detected.

If you have the disease after you turn 65, you get a shovel.

That's a death panel and it's disgusting!

•How's this stat for a Sign of Armageddon? Americans will spend more on taxes in 2014 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined. From the Tax Foundation: Americans will pay $3.0 trillion in federal taxes and $1.5 trillion in state taxes for a total tax bill of $4.5 trillion which represents 30.2% of income. Americans spend $4.25 trillion on food, clothing and housing in 2014.

(Twitter.com/bkparallax)

 


SUPREME COURT HELPS EPA SHUT OFF ELECTRICITY IN AMERICA
5/7/14

The Supreme Court is helping the EPA turn off electricity across America.

Recall April 2007 when the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide, inarguably the second most essential gas for life to exist on Earth, was a pollutant. That is the definition the EPA applied to CO2 in order to allow it to be regulated.

Now, in another case, the court concluded the EPA may regulate power-plant emissions that blow across state lines; a law called The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Now that the previous ruling has put nearly 150 coal-fired power plants out of commission, the court's new rule gives the EPA the authority to shutter about a thousand more power plants in the eastern and western regions of the U.S. that will have to adopt new pollution controls or reduce operations.

Think of this as a law against second hand smoking, except for power plants.

In effect, the court has just agreed to a regulation that represents a major increase in the cost of electricity in 28 states deemed to be polluting the air in those states located around them.
EPA policies are forcing the closure of coal-fired plants, which provided 39% of U.S. electricity last year. Before Obama was elected, coal-fired plants provided 50% of the nation's electricity.

American Electric Power, a provider of about 10% of the electricity to eastern states, will close almost one quarter of the firm's coal-fired generating plants in the next 14 months. Some 89% of the power scheduled for closure was needed to meet electricity demand in January.

What is the Obama Administration's response to this? They're pouring billions into the wind and solar energy sector that provides barely 1% of all the electricity used in the nation and can never begin to replace traditional plants. Also, wind and solar energy costs about 4-5 times more to generate per kilowatt-hour!

What happens if you close-down production while demand continues to increase? Well, in addition to the cost of tens of billions of dollars in handouts to wind and solar producers, the states with the highest wind production have seen their electricity rates increase nearly five times faster than the national average. States with at least 7% wind power have seen their electricity rates increase at an average of 17% over the last 5 years compared to an increase of only 4% for the U.S. as a whole.

The Obama Administration has done everything in its power to restrict and slow down access and use of America's huge energy reserves, enough to ensure all the electrical power we will need for hundreds of years to come. The same policy applies to transportation's petroleum needs. Oil and gas production on federal lands is down 40% from levels 10 years ago.

According to the Institute for Energy Research, “North America has enough oil to fuel every passenger car in the U.S. for 430 years, enough natural gas to provide the U.S. with electricity for 575 years, and enough coal to provide electricity for about 500 years.” And that's based on known reserves.
However, that means nothing if the Obama administration continues its efforts to restrict access to the energy resources.

Unless there is a sea-change politically in this country, we’re heading for an energy crisis that will make the gas rationing of the Jimmy Carter years look like the affluence of The Roaring Twenties!

The solution, after getting Obama out of office, and the Democrats sent to exile, is to repeal the Clean Air Act and de-fund the EPA completely.

See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/05/03/the-supreme-court-helps-the-epa-shut-off-electricity-in-america/#sthash.o3oiNCsk.dpuf

•In other news, were you aware that the Obama administration counted unborn children in a 2012 Child Maltreatment report? (Hat-tip to HotAir.com)

An HHS agency on child abuse in the US reported figures for abuse against unborn children. How convenient! We track “maltreatment” of unborn children as a health issue, but fail to include killing unborn children through abortion in the same manner?

The Administration of Children and Families (an arm of the HHS) included “the unborn” in its 2012 Maltreatment Report, where it analyzes child abuse across the United States. The ACF's report accounts for the abuse of unborn children, but does not account for the abuses brought by abortion.
According to the report, more than a quarter of child abuse victims in the United States are under the age of two years. How many babies does that amount to? 207,645. But the report also demonstrates that abuse occurs before some children are even born.

So what would the ACF report look like if it counted all of the unborn victims of child abuse?

According to numbers from the Guttmacher Institute, abortion alone would add more than one million lives to the “Physical Abuse” category.

In Ohio alone, there were more than 11,000 victims of child abuse who were younger than two. If we include the victims of abortion (25,473 children), Ohio would claim more than 36,000 cases of child abuse against children under two—25,473 of which resulted in death.

•Just a note for those of you keeping track: the Los Angeles Clippers are still alive in the NBA Playoffs, and their owner Donald Sterling is still the owner of the team.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax and email him at bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 

 


SOME LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES IN THE STERLING SITUATION
4/30/14

•Watching Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling send the media into panty-bunching overdrive was vastly entertaining this week.

In case you were camped-out at Columbia Airport waiting for a golfer to get off a plane disguised as Jay Wright, the 80-year old long-time coach of Los Angeles' best NBA team was secretly recorded by his 30-something year old girlfriend expressing that he did not want her posting pictures on social media of herself with black people going to the team's home games.

The media and NBA players are screaming the comments revealed the secret heart of a racist and are demanding Obama take the team away from Sterling and throw the old Jewish person in jail. (O.K. thus far they haven't expressly called for that, but I can almost see it!)

The NAACP was going to give Sterling a Lifetime Achievement Award in a couple of weeks, but they changed their plans after this incident. Only problem is, the NAACP had already given him a Lifetime Achievement Award back in 2009. Amazing how one life can get two Lifetime Achievement Awards!

The new NBA Commissioner, Adam Silver, announced the league was conducting an investigation into the issue and will be reacting appropriately. Meanwhile, everyone remotely interested in the NBA – which is in the midst of its playoff “season” – are offering their two-cents about what should be done.
Outside of the absolute idiocy of a team owner in a league where at least 78% of the players happen to possess dark-colored skin opining in a racial nature, there are a few logical inconsistencies with the responses to all this…

Larry Bird once said that the NBA needed more white players to be successful. Bird, who was at the time (and remains today) an executive with the NBA's Indiana Pacers along with a Hall of Fame former player, said those words in 2004, and nobody raised an eyebrow.

About 10 years earlier, when Bird was still playing, Detroit Pistons guard Isaiah Thomas said that if Larry Bird was black, he would be perceived as "just another good player" and not the best player in the game. After he said that, there was some furor in the media, but nothing close to this.
Obama has appeared most ridiculous of all by offering his admonition toward Sterling in the midst of a state visit to Malaysia. (WHY?! Does he have to comment on EVERYTHING?)

Where is media outrage, and why hasn't Obama opened his yapper on rapper JayZee for appearing at NBA games wearing a huge golden pendant around his neck that represents a controversial group called the Five Percenters?

The Five Percenters believe, “…the black man is God and created the universe, is physically stronger and intellectually stronger and more righteous naturally,” says Michael Muhammad Knight, an author of two books on the radical group.

Whiteness is weak and wicked and inferior — basically just an errant child who needs to be corrected. The group was founded in 1964 in Harlem by Clarence Smith, who later changed his name to Allah, a former student of Malcolm X who disagreed with the Nation of Islam over the nature of God.

Smith rejected the notion of a supernatural deity and instead believed that all black men had God in them and that black women were “earths” who took on a complementary yet subordinate role to their gods.

White people don't enjoy an exalted status in the narrative of the Five Percenters.

“The first lesson I learned from the Five Percent was simple: F&*% white people. White people are devils,” Knight, 36, who is white and converted to Islam as a teenager, once wrote.

“Jay Z is not an active member — no one has vouched for him” Saladin Allah, a representative of the group's upstate region, told The NY Post. “It was always understood that you don't wear the (medallion) if you don't totally subscribe to the life.”

Asked once if the group's symbol, an eight-pointed star with the number 7 in the middle, held any meaning for him, JayZee shrugged, “A little bit.”

Where was all this race fury when Sterling was sued by Elgin Baylor, his black former GM, for race discrimination? Where was the outrage from Magic Johnson when Sterling was sued by people for refusing to rent to people of certain skin colors in past years? Sterling has been known to convey such thoughts for a long time apparently. Nobody said a word. Former Commissioner David Stern said and did nothing. Doc Rivers, the Clippers' current coach, has seemed to allude that he was somewhat aware of Sterling's racial thought patterns – yet he willingly agreed to work for the man.

•Climate Depot found this very telling statistic: 143,000 solar industry workers produce just 1% of U.S. electricity; while 87,000 coal employees produce 40%.

How's that for Solar Efficiency?

(Email bkubicki@kc.rr.com and follow him at on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


ABOUT THAT CERVICAL CANCER VACCINE
4/23/14

•As I write this on the eve of Earth Day 2014, it seems appropriate to look back at what rampant environmentalism has done for…err, to, mankind.

Let's first go to Marc Morano's excellent site, www.ClimateDepot.com for this piece from The Skeptical Environmentalist author, Bjorn Lomborg:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bj-rn-lomborg-says-that-the-un-climate-panel-s-latest-report-tells-a-story-that-politicians-would-prefer-to-ignore

An excerpt:

“We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases; one in eight deaths stem from air pollution, mostly from cooking indoors with dung and twigs; and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food. We ought never to have entertained the notion that the world's greatest challenge could be to reduce temperature rises in our generation by a fraction of a degree.”

As Lomborg mentions and we all know, global warming has been non-existent in the last 17 years.
Politicians say global warming is “humanity's greatest challenge.” But, they promise it's a challenge that can be met at low cost. We now know that's nonsense. Climate change has been portrayed as a huge catastrophe costing as much as 20% of world GDP, though politicians could counter it at a cost of just 1% of GDP. The reality is just the opposite: We now know that the damage cost will be perhaps 2% of world GDP, whereas climate policies can end up costing more than 11% of GDP.

That's not very honest at all! Pay attention to Lomborg!

•On the gay mafia's agenda, remember I warned you about this…

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India allowed transgender people to identify as a third gender and directed the central and state governments to give full legal recognition to them.

The top court was responding to a public interest lawsuit filed by the National Legal Services Authority, which provides free legal services to the poor and disadvantaged. The group had argued that treating transgender people as legal nonentities, unable to apply for official identification documents, meant that they were deprived of basic human rights.

The court agreed with the organization and directed governments to treat the transgender community as a minority group that is eligible for welfare programs, health care and employment and help transgender people to become part of mainstream society.

Colin Gonsalves, a lawyer who has been fighting cases for the transgender community, called the judgment “extraordinary.”

“It comes after decades of pursuit,” Mr. Gonsalves said. “It is the first step toward recognizing the transgender community as a third sex.”

•And then there's this. Are you a parent of a pre-teen or a teenager? Has your child's doctor tried to convince you to get your child injected with Gardasil?

From Judicial Watch, the controversial government-backed cervical cancer vaccine is ineffective and has deadly side effects, according to a physician who worked at the major pharmaceutical company that's made huge profits selling it to girls and young women.

Gardasil, which is manufactured by pharmaceutical giant Merck, was fast-tracked by the FDA and has been ardently promoted by the Obama administration as a miracle shot that can prevent certain strains of cervical cancer caused by Human Papillomavirus (HPV).

Instead it's been linked to thousands of debilitating side effects, according to the government's own daunting statistics. Since 2007 Judicial Watch has been investigating the Gardasil scandal and exposed droves of government records documenting thousands of adverse reactions associated with the vaccine, including paralysis, convulsions, blindness and dozens of deaths.

Now a one-time pharmaceutical industry physician, Dr. Bernard Dalbergue, who worked with Merck has come forth with shocking inside information about Gardasil.

Dr. Dalbergue confirms that Gardasil is useless, costs a fortune and that decision-makers at all levels are aware of it. “I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all times because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill…”

The story also links to a press release issued this month by a member of the French Parliament blasting Gardasil's safety record in Europe.

In the United States the government has heavily pushed the vaccine while covering up its debilitating side effects. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends it for girls starting at age 9 and just a few months ago distributed a 13-minute DVD claiming the side effects are limited to a “little pain and discomfort” and “dizziness and stomach aches.” The video was designed to reach “underserved areas” and “minority populations.”

And the next time you hear Democrats blathering-on about a Republican war on women, remember this fact:

The Obama administration has given dozens of state and municipal health agencies tens of millions of dollars to boost the number of adolescents that get Gardasil. This includes targeting low-income and ethnic minority populations that receive “culturally sensitive” intervention in a variety of languages, including Spanish, Mandarin, Armenian and Korean.

To date, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has awarded nearly $6 million to dozens of victims in claims made against the very HPV vaccine it is pushing on children.

Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax

 


THE STAR COULDN'T WAIT TO PUSH ITS ANTI-GUN AGENDA
4/16/14

•This dirt-bag that shot three people to death last Sunday will not be named in this column, nor will his “cause” get mentioned. The victims of these horrendous crimes however, Terri LaManno, Reat Underwood and his grandfather, Dr. William Lewis Corporon, WILL get named and should be remembered. Their families are going through unbelievable pain right now and deserve our thoughts, support and prayers. They have mine.

•One more note on the shootings in Overland Park, it is utterly despicable that The Star pounced upon the media hype around the tragedy to once again advocate for gun control. The days following such tragedies are for comforting the families and remembering the victims, not using the increased attention to push your personal political causes. Shame on you, Barb Shelly, and whoever else at that biased rag approved the editorial.

And for elucidation of my location of blame, look to Twitter where I had the following exchange with Shelly after she Tweeted to promote the editorial:

barb shelly @bshelly "We cannot accept the deaths of innocent people as a part of living in a free country." @KCStar editorial. kansascity.com/2014/04/13/495… - 14 Apr

bkParallax @bkparallax @bshelly @KCStar Despicable to use this to forward your political agenda so early in the families' grieving! - 14 Apr

barb shelly @bshelly @bkparallax @KCStar If wanting to stop violence against innocent people is "an agenda" I guess I'm guilty. 04:56 PM - 14 Apr 14

I noted in the law enforcement aftermath of the Overland Park tragedy that the feds were quick to jump-in to declare that the crimes were being investigated as hate crimes. Aren't all violent crimes hate crimes? What is the advantage of investigating this crime, or any crime as a hate crime? The accused assailant is surely facing the death penalty for the crimes themselves. After he gets a life sentence or the death penalty, is the hate crime prosecution going to add another life sentence or kill him again?

What's the point?

Further, hate crimes are intended to enhance the penalties for crimes that are enacted upon so-called “protected classes.” What's the protected class in this crime? If it's Jewish people, the people killed were Christians. So is it a hate crime if the assailant was either too dumb or to apathetic to actually enact a “hate crime?” Nonsense!

•The United Nations (UN) delivered its latest verdict on the measures necessary to “save the world from global warming,” and the news is not welcome if you like cheap power, meat, low prices, and private property.

The report asks for:

More taxpayer subsidies for expensive, inefficient solar and wind power.

Abandonment of fossil fuels.

Reduced meat consumption.

A single, globally-regulated price for carbon dioxide.

Local-government-enforced walking, cycling and public transportation.

Back-door wealth redistribution from the West to the developing world in the name of "sustainability."
These are the recommendations of Working Group III of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be officially announced in Berlin on Monday.

Breitbart.com had a great run-down on the report in advance of its release next week.

The report notes that almost half of the rise in post-industrial anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 levels since 1750 occurred during the last forty years. Therefore, it argues, a dramatic decarbonization of the world economy - including more renewable energy and less fossil fuel - must begin immediately if global warming is to be kept below 2 degrees C by the end of the century.

This action will set back economic growth, involve significant "behavioral change" and "devalue fossil fuel assets."

The report actually admits this! But only with "major institutional and technological changes" can the world avert an even greater threat. If no action is taken, it warns, temperatures may rise by as much as 4.8 degrees C by 2100, they claim.

It's all nonsense.

It does make you wonder why don't they just use socialism as the justification for redistributing the wealth of the world? Why use a climate calamity ruse to try to scare people into acting? Isn't socialism scary enough all by itself?

•And for this week's sign that Armageddon is upon us, from the NY Post: More and more US women are forgoing motherhood and getting their maternal kicks by owning handbag-size dogs.

Data from the CDC shows a big drop in the number of babies born to women ages 15 to 29, corresponding with a huge increase in the number of tiny pooches owned by young US women.

“I'd rather have a dog over a kid,” declared Sara Foster, 30, a Chelsea equities trader who says her French bulldog, Maddie, brings her more joy than a child. “It's just less work and, honestly, I have more time to go out. You don't have to get a baby sitter.”

Good luck getting those dogs to manage your affairs after you get old, ladies. Sheesh!

•And for a brief moment of intentional and much-needed levity:

A Swedish man kept things short and simple when announcing his death to the world. His obituary was just three words long: “I am dead."

Stig Kernell, 92, had given the instructions to his funeral home before he died on April 6. According to his son, Kernell didn't feel there was much more to be said. "He was a special man with a lot of humor and a twinkle in his eye... It has helped us to cope with the loss of him, in that he was not at all scared of death," Lars-Åke Kernell told the local newspaper.

(Follow Brian Kubicki on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


IS GLOBAL COOLING COMING AND DOES THE GOVERNMENT KNOW IT?
4/9/14

•Do not forget this one folks!

Steve Milloy's website, www.JunkScience.com has been all over the story that the EPA has been exposing children to pollution as part of an experiment at USC.

President Obama's EPA has been exposing human guinea pigs to high levels of carcinogens and potentially lethal pollutants in order to justify tough new air quality standards.

The experiments involved subjects made to inhale freshly pumped-in diesel truck exhaust fumes and measuring the resulting adverse health effects. In many cases, the exposure was done without advising the test subjects of the risks to their health.

The disturbing findings are contained in a new investigative report by The Daily Caller's Michael Bastasch. The article comes on the heels of a new report by the EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that says the EPA's experiments exposed individuals, including those with asthma and cardiac problems, to pollutants such as diesel fumes in quantities up to 50 times greater than the levels the agency deems safe for humans.

Now here's the real kicker – the EPA sought to prove that particulate matter was harmful to human health by conducting the tests. Test subjects were paid $12-an-hour for essentially being hooked-up to the tailpipe of an 18-wheeler. In congressional testimony in late 2011, then-EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson told a congressional committee in effect that her agency was putting at risk the lives of study subjects. “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn't make you sick. It's directly causal to dying sooner than you should,” said Jackson. “If we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country,” Jackson added.

So if the particulate matter is so bad for humans, why did the EPA expose humans to it? Were those humans “expendable” because they were paid slightly above Obama's professed minimum wage?

The outraged Milloy stated the question best:

“Which do you find more shocking: that the Environmental Protection Agency conducts experiments on humans that its own risk assessments would deem potentially lethal, or that it hides the results of those experiments from Congress and the public because they debunk those very same risk assessments?”
Read more and pass along: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/obama-epas-monstrous-human-experiments/

•Then this…is global cooling coming and does the government know it?

John Holdren, President Obama's Science Advisor, once tried to reframe the climate debate in terms of his prediction of, “global climate disruption.” Holdren stated at the time, that the term “global warming” is “a dangerous misnomer.”

The question – does John Holdren believe that “global climate disruption” might actually lead to global cooling?

There is some very circumstantial evidence that America, and other governments, may already be planning ahead, for the possibility that the world will cool. Over the last few years, a number of major Australian newspapers have posted stories about the rising issue of large scale foreign buyouts of Australian farmland.

But why would Chinese and American companies, some perhaps government backed, be so interested in large scale ownership of Australian farmland, land which the IPCC and Australian CSIRO predict will shortly become worthless desert?

The reason of course is the land will not shortly become worthless. The land may shortly become valuable.

Back in 2006, the Russian Academy of Science predicted imminent severe global cooling, beginning in 2012-2015, peaking at around 2055. Their prediction is based on the historic correlation between solar cycles and global climate.

Humans have been aware of the 11 year solar climate cycle since the dawn of history – several good years followed by several bad years is a fact of life. But there are also other, longer, more powerful cycles, which have an even larger impact on global climate.

One of them is the 200 year cycle. Every 200 years or so, solar activity falls to a sustained low. These long periods of low activity, known by the names of the scientists who discovered them – Maunder, Dalton, etc., coincided with periods of extreme cold; which involved: plummeting temperatures, decreased food production, and drastically shorter and less reliable growing seasons in the Northern Hemisphere.

At the peak of these cold periods, history records widespread famines and other disasters, such as the Year Without a Summer in 1816, a food production catastrophe triggered by low solar activity during the Dalton Minimum, combining with an unusually severe series of major volcanic eruptions. In the Year without a Summer, over vast areas, crops in the Northern hemisphere were destroyed by snow and frost in mid-Summer, which created global famine and social unrest.

If the Russian Academy of Science is correct, the world is on the brink of a new cold period, which will start to bite in the next few years.

We could even see another year without a summer – there are several large volcanoes which are overdue for major eruptions, such as Katla in Iceland and Merapi in Indonesia. When they erupt, they shall add to downward pressure on global temperatures.

Given the risk, what could a nation whose grain belt is vulnerable to global cooling do, to protect its future food supply?

The obviously solution is to buy up farmland in another country.

Such a purchase would require a country which is warm enough, so that even if global temperatures fall significantly, the land purchased would remain productive.

A country like Australia.

 


BUYING AN ELECTRIC CAR IS NUTS
3/26/14

•This one is just astounding. We have indeed fallen down the rabbit hole.

The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as clinical waste by hospitals in Britain with some used in waste-to-energy plants. Sarah Knapton, science correspondent for The Telegraph, reported Ten NHS (the national health system in Great Britain) trusts have admitted burning fetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in waste-to-energy power plants.
One of the country's leading hospitals, Addenbrooke's in Cambridge, incinerated 797 babies below 13 weeks gestation at their own waste-to-energy plant. The mothers were told the remains had been cremated.

Ipswich Hospital incinerated 1,101 fetal remains between 2011 and 2013.

They were brought in from another hospital before being burned, generating energy for the hospital site. Ipswich Hospital claims to dispose of human remains by cremation.

Ipswich Hospital Trust said it was concerned to discover that fetal remains from another hospital had been incinerated on its site.

Unbelievable! Is there any other evidence needed that Leftist political policy dehumanizes? Create financial incentive to conduct research on human embryos,

Attack pro-life religious organizations like the Catholic Church by forcing them to pay for abortive drugs,

Institute a national health system that allows euthanization of “undesirable” humans, place 8 of every 10 abortion clinics in predominantly black neighborhoods,

Incinerate human remains to generate heat for the living.

Now THAT'S progress? Sounds like Soylent Green to me!

Kind of makes you wonder what is done with the human remains from the 1.3 million abortions done in the United States every year.

Why is the media in America so silent on this issue? I'll bet there would be loads of media outrage, not to mention immediate government action if the hospitals were burning dead puppies to heat their buildings.

Just WOW!

•Tesla, the heavily subsidized electric car company, has been learning the hard way that crony capitalism will eventually bite the feeding hand.

The company got slapped last week by New Jersey's powerful car dealership lobby by keeping the electric car manufacturer from selling directly to consumers. New Jersey sided with the state's own local car dealerships. These dealerships have long-benefited from New Jersey's franchise law, which makes it illegal for car manufacturers to sell directly to consumers.

So far, Tesla was able to make do with the law by operating showrooms where the company demonstrates the features of their vehicle for potential customers who may then buy the car online. New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Commission now deems even these showrooms illegal.

For its part, the company accused the state of implementing the state's laws at the behest of a special interest group looking to protect its monopoly at the expense of New Jersey consumers. The company called this an affront to the very concept of a free market.

“Free market?” Tesla was quite privileged by Obama. In 2010 the company launched its initial public offering, raising some $226 million. That same year, Tesla got a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy and began reaping the benefits from a $7,500 federal income tax credit offered to each of its customers.

Also, were you aware that the distance an electric car can travel on one charge varies widely depending on the weather? Frigid temperatures can reduce that distance by 57%.

Tests were conducted on a 2013 Nissan Leaf, a 2012 Mitsubishi iMiEV and the electric version of a 2014 Ford Focus. Tests were conducted to rate for city driving to mimic stop-and-go traffic and to better compare with EPA ratings.

The average EV battery range was 105 miles at 75 degrees but dropped 57% to just 43 miles at 20 degrees. Heat also sliced the cars' ranges but by not as much: The cars averaged 69 miles per full charge at 95 degrees, 33% less than in 75-degree weather.

Buying an electric car is absolutely nuts!

•Finally, if you thought a carbon tax was the nuttiest thing you ever heard coming from the left, consider this…

The Guizhou province in southwestern China plans to produce cans of fresh air to sell as tourist souvenirs.

The idea reportedly came from tourist shops near Mount Fuji in Japan, where cans of fresh air have been a big hit. China's president, Xi Jinping, brought up the idea during the recent meeting of the National People's Congress in remarks on tackling the country's air pollution problems in which he said air quality is closely related to public well-being.

The provincial has been seeking designs for the cans. The chief of the provincial tourism bureau, Fu Yingchun, predicts big things for the product and its potential to expand to other products relating to vacations, healthcare, organic foods and even carbon trading.

Wait for it…they don't get a carbon tax, so they're coming at us with canned air to sell!

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


REJECT WELFARE
IN FAVOR OF
SELF-HELP
3/19/14

Larry Elder had a superb piece last week posted at www.jewishworldreview.com that discussed two economists, who happen to be black, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, and who also happen to be two of the most brilliant minds on the planet.

“For over 30 years, Thomas Sowell, currently with the Hoover Institution, and Walter Williams, chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, led the charge against the 'victicrat' mindset. Through decades of weekly columns, books, speeches and lectures before often-hostile crowds, they long argued that racism cannot be blamed for poverty, crime, illegitimacy, and under-performing schools.

Over 20 years ago, Sowell appeared on William F. Buckley Jr.'s PBS show, "Firing Line," and calmly dismantled the basis for affirmative action, arguing it immoral, divisive, and unconstitutional.
In his 1989 book, "South Africa's War Against Capitalism," Williams noted that white racists under South Africa's apartheid used minimum wage laws to suppress black employment.

Both men demonstrated with -- get this -- facts, data, studies, experience, and personal observation that, no, the black middle class did not spring from affirmative action, urban renewal programs, enterprise zones, welfare benefits or set-aside programs. Racism, they point out persuasively, is bad for capitalism.”

And can you guess what these great minds got in return from “their own people?” Elder continues:

“Their reward? Former NAACP President Benjamin Hooks called people like Sowell and Williams 'a new breed of Uncle Tom ... some of the biggest liars the world ever saw.' Liars? For saying that the welfare state has done more to destabilize the black family than Jim Crow laws ever did?”

Oh, that wasn't the end of the name-calling…as Elder elucidates:

“Oreo. Uncle Tom. Boot-licking Uncle Tom. Straight-up Uncle Tom. Judas. Boy. Bug-eyed. Foot-shuffling. Sugarcane Negro. Handkerchief head. Trojan Horse. Anti-black. Pro-white. Remus. Sambo. Sambo-Tom. The Anti-Christ. Clarence Thomas supporter. Sniveling weasel. Evil. A-s-kisser. Coconut. Wannabe white. Nickering nabob of negativity.”

And Elder notes that Sowell and Williams had statistics:

“We now see the damage done by LBJ's War on Poverty, during which time the black illegitimacy rate grew from 25 percent to today's nearly 70 percent. Evidence shows the existence of a growing, thriving, black middle class well before the advent of affirmative action. Nor does history support the hysterical, emotional view that affirmative action accelerated the black middle class growth. Sowell and Williams urge blacks to reject welfare in favor of self-help -- breaking the monopoly of public education, privatization of Social Security, and the adherence to responsible moral, personal, and sexual behavior. So who's the Uncle Tom? Those proposing the same old 'solutions,' or those, like Sowell and Williams, recommending real change? Will Sowell and Williams get their apology? Hey, many pundits, present company included, felt Vice President Al Gore unlikely to use the "C" (concession) word in his speech. He did. So maybe, just maybe, we can begin a healthy, personal attack-free debate about what's right, just, and proper in America. An apology to Sowell and Williams would be an excellent start.”

Check out the entire excellent piece, and do some more research on Sowell and Williams.

•Reuters.com last week very surprisingly summarized the facts of the core of the contraception and religious freedom issue being argued before the Supreme Court in an almost completely unbiased manner.

I can't reproduce it all here, but please do check-out the link at the bottom for the entire piece.

“U.S. top court case highlights unsettled science in contraception
BY SHARON BEGLEY
(Reuters) - - As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a religious dispute over the Obamacare contraception mandate, advocates on both sides are trying to set the court straight on the science.
The case, to be heard on March 25, is one of the most closely watched of the year, partly because it taps into the enduring debate over abortion and reproductive rights.

The dispute turns on the legal question of whether corporate employers with religious objections must include contraceptive coverage in their employee health plans. But it also raises a scientific dilemma that could influence the court's nine justices.

That scientific question is deceptively simple: whether certain forms of birth control prevent conception or destroy a fertilized egg. After decades of research the answer is not absolutely clear.

Please DO familiarize yourself with this case. The media is way in the pocket of the pro-abortion side on this so be wary about the accuracy of anything you hear from the left on this issue.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/us-usa-court-contraception-analysis-idUSBREA2A07720140311#comments

(Email Brian Kubicki at bkubicki@kc.rr.com or follow him on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


ARE THERE REALLY GAY PEOPLE?
3/12/14

Now that the dust has settled on the whole gay agenda in America, I came across a couple of columns that look at the core of the homosexuality issue.

One appeared in Slate (a very liberally-biased website) and took issue with another column that was written by a man who is preparing to enter the religious life.

Snippets, with my commentary, are summarized below. Use the authors' names to find the latter column because it's very good, despite what Slate says.

From Slate…”Gay Denialism Is the New Homophobia—and It's Terrifying
By Mark Joseph Stern

Last week, Michael W. Hannon published an article you haven't read, 'Against Heterosexuality,' in a magazine you probably haven't heard of, First Things. The article is lengthy and dense, and the magazine is little known outside of certain faith communities. But you should read it right now—twice over, if you have the time—because 'Against Heterosexuality' is one of the most alarming anti-gay polemics I have ever encountered, and it provides a valuable glimpse into religious conservatives' next plan of attack against gay rights: gay denialism.”

Now THAT's a vivid illustration of the tolerance of the homosexual movement, isn't it? “Read this and heed because we need to stamp-out these ideas like we would exterminate cockroaches!”

“The article's layers of illogic are so slick with casuistry that they're almost too slippery to untangle…”

TRANSLATION: He's making solid points that are hard to disagree with, so he'll call them “slippery.”
That's enough from Slate's loon-du-jour. Now the original column:

“AGAINST HETEROSEXUALITY
by Michael W. Hannon

Heterosexuals, like typewriters and urinals (also, obviously, for gentlemen), were an invention of the 1860s. Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called 'orientation essentialism,' 'straight' and 'gay' are not ageless absolutes. Sexual orientation is a conceptual scheme with a history, and a dark one at that.

Over the course of several centuries, the West had progressively abandoned Christianity's marital architecture for human sexuality. Then, about one hundred and fifty years ago, it began to replace that longstanding teleological tradition with a brand new creation: the absolutist but absurd taxonomy of sexual orientations. Heterosexuality was made to serve as this fanciful framework's regulating ideal, preserving the social prohibitions against sodomy and other sexual debaucheries without requiring recourse to the procreative nature of human sexuality.

On this novel account, same-sex sex acts were wrong not because they spurn the rational-animal purpose of sex—namely the family—but rather because the desire for these actions allegedly arises from a distasteful psychological disorder…

…Sexual orientation has not provided the dependable underpinning for virtue that its inventors hoped it would, especially lately. Nevertheless, many conservative-minded Christians today feel that we should continue to enshrine the gay–straight divide and the heterosexual ideal in our popular catechesis, since that still seems to them the best way to make our moral maxims appear reasonable and attractive.”

BAM! More succinctly – we are human beings. All human beings have sexuality. To identify a human being by their expression of sexuality is to effectively dehumanize that person and extend the meaning and purpose of sexual expression far beyond that which it was designed for.

Hannon continues:

“'Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person.' True, the firm natural division between the two identities has proven useful to the 'gay rights' activists on the ground…most academics throughout the humanities and the social/behavioral disciplines today—will readily concede that such distinctions are fledgling constructs and not much more. Many in this camp aim to expose the counterfeit credentials of sexual orientation and, taking a page from Nietzsche, to genealogically explain it away once and for all.

My (Hannon's, though I agree) own prediction is that we will see this binary thoroughly deconstructed within our lifetimes…we…should see the impending doom of the gay–straight divide not as a tragedy, but as an opportunity.

Of course, given our immersion in a culture for which these categories seem as connatural as the English language, uprooting them from our vocabulary and worldview will not be anything like a simple task. So why bother? As long as we do not succumb to sinful acts, why does it matter if people…continue to identify as homosexuals or heterosexuals?

Definitely check this column out in its entirety.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email him at bkkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO BE SORTING THROUGH YOUR TRASH
3/5/14

•With all the happenings in Ukraine, it's worthy to recall that during the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin warned us if Obama was elected president, his "indecision" and "moral equivalence" may encourage Russia's Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine.

For those comments, Palin was mocked by Foreign Policy magazine and its editor Blake Hounshell, who now is one of the editors of Politico magazine.

Hounshell wrote back then that Palin's comments were "strange" and "this is an extremely far-fetched scenario.” “And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine's pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don't see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel," Hounshell dismissively wrote.

Politico wrote this past weekend that Palin "said she was derided for her comments" but conveniently left out the reference to their now-editor Hounshell that Palin had clearly included in her post.

In her note on Facebook last week, Palin wrote, "Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I'm usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as 'an extremely far-fetched scenario' by the 'high-brow' Foreign Policy magazine."

Palin is the woman who should consider running in 2016.

•Bill Nye is a dunderhead that gives mechanical engineers a bad public image. When it comes to global warming and hurricanes, he can come across as downright ignorant.

But Mr. Nye showed-up on Fox Business with the great Charles Payne and embarrassed himself. If you can find the video on Fox business' website, do so. Once you watch the video and read the transcript, Nye's utter lack of comprehension of the topic was exposed naked by the non-scientist Payne.

Below are some of the more elucidating parts of the exchange:

Charles Payne: “While hurricane Irene brought more than just wind damage and flooding to the east coast, it's revived a national debate as to whether global warming might be causing an increase in hurricanes and other extreme weather. In fact a recent cover story in Newsweek declared that this kind of wild weather may be quote 'the new normal.' Here with insights on this is Bill Nye, otherwise known as the science guy.

Ok Bill, I'm going to come right at you. Um…Hurricane Irene – proof of global warming?”

Bill Nye: “Oh, I don't think the word proof is what you are looking for – evidence of, a result of, yeah, yeah. Now here's what the people will tell you that run these climate models. Now everybody, the word model in this usage is a computer program…So you take data from satellites about the thickness of clouds and the extent of cloud-cover over the sea. You take data about the temperature of the sea surface. You take data about the existing weather…Then you compute how much rain fell out of it, how much energy must have been put into it to create that much rain. It takes many months to analyze an event like Irene. Now the climate colleagues that I have will not tell you today that Irene was evidence or a result of climate change but check in with them about March next year after they have a few months to collect all of these millions and millions of data from weather services and satellites and compile them and run a climate model and show that Irene was a result of the world having more energy in the Earth's atmosphere.”

Notice how Nye reframes Payne's question – '…you shouldn't be looking for proof…' before attempting to answer it. (He wrapped himself into a pretzel trying to do that!) By the way, what data is there about how much rain falls out of the clouds? How in the world would someone go about measuring that with any degree of meaningful accuracy?

Charles Payne: “But here's the thing here Bill, ever since Katrina, right, we've heard that every year the hurricane season is going to be more devastating and apocalyptic, and the reality is we haven't seen that. So how can Newsweek say 'hey, this is a new normal?' is that irresponsible – is there any science behind that?”

Bill Nye: “Well there's a lot more science behind that than just saying it's not. But, uh, that aside. That's only 6-years – in geologic time in terms of climate events, is not very long. Furthermore there is a lot of debate about this cool thing or remarkable thing is that the Sea-surface in the Pacific gets warmer, in the Pacific Ocean! Okay, tens of thousands of nautical miles away. As that gets warmer, it will strangely serve to decapitate certain hurricane or cyclonic storms off the coast of Africa – and actually get a few fewer hurricanes.”

First of all, Nye says 6 years is not a lot of time to draw any meaningful conclusions from, and we're looking At 6 years as a portion of 100 years of reliable climate observations as modern industrial humans. But Nye can claim to know that we must tax every molecule of carbon based on 100 years of data on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old?!? 6% of a pattern we can disregard as too small but we must pay heed to 0.000002% is solid enough to know we must act?

Second, “tens of thousands of nautical miles away?” The entire planet earth is only a little over 20 thousand nautical miles in circumference! “Tens of thousands” of nautical miles is circling the entire planet several times over.

Please stop recycling. Life is too short to spend any time sorting through your trash.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


GLOBAL WARMING IS
THE GREATEST
HOAX EVER FOISTED
2/26/14

•There's so much going on this week I'm going to have to pay my editor double!

•Last weekend Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, tweeted the following about Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was in Pakistan in 2002 working on a story and was captured by al Qaida and beheaded for no other reason than he was Jewish:

Samantha Power @AmbassadorPower (that's her Twitter handle)
“Daniel Pearl's story is reminder that individual accountability & reconciliation are required to break cycles of violence. @DanielPearlFNDN”
10:51 PM - 23 Feb 2014

Mark Levin rightly shredded Ambassador Power her on his show Monday for her comments and gave a reasoned explanation for why Samantha Power should resign.

What in the world does “individual accountability & reconciliation” have to do with terrorists kidnapping a journalist, binding him at the hands and feet, blindfolding him, and then sawing his head off of his living body? Did Pearl contribute to his demise by not being accountable, in the Ambassador's eyes? Aren't U.S. Ambassadors supposed to be people of responsibility and tact; experts at diplomacy?

If she doesn't resign, she should be fired. Don't hold your breath for that happening, though. Thus far, she has not retracted or apologized. I think she really thinks that way, and her boss does too.

•Remember Christine O'Donnell? She was the 2010 Republican nominee for US Senate in Delaware. She was characterized by the likes of RINO King Karl Rove as one of those “Republicans who can't win.”

On March 9, 2010, around 10 a.m., O'Donnell announced plans to run for the U.S. Senate. Later that same day, her office received a call from a reporter asking about her taxes.

It has now been revealed that a Delaware Department of Revenue employee named David Smith accessed her records that day, at approximately 2 p.m. “out of curiosity,” Smith says.

The fact that these tax records ended up in the hands of the press is just a coincidence, says the IRS.
The truth of it all was the tax records weren't even accurate. O'Donnell had never fallen behind on her taxes, and a supposed tax lien was on a house she no longer owned.

The lien was highly publicized and used as political ammunition by O'Donnell's political opponents. The IRS later withdrew the lien, blaming it on a computer glitch. The damage in the election was complete.

Think it's time to shake things up, 2014 voters?

•My favorite resource on climate issues, Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., had a superb piece on his website (www.drroyspencer.com) last week. The better bits are reproduced below.

“When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it. They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics' view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi's extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It's time to push back.

I'm now going to start calling these people 'global warming Nazis.'

The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.
They are just as guilty as the person who cries 'fire!' in a crowded theater when no fire exists, except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.”

Now, THAT'S something you've heard here before folks. How many poor people around the world are harmed by environmental regulations and fear-mongering associated with it?

Spencer continues,

“Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).
Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.
Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.”

The criminal irony in that is they claim to be the political movement that exists to help cure poverty. Instead, they're making more poor people and reducing the quality of life of everyone, including the poor.

More Spencer:

“They invoke 'consensus,' which results from only like-minded scientists who band together to support a common cause.

This authoritarianism tends to happen with an over-educated elite class…I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I'm not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.

So, as long as they continue to call people like me 'deniers,' I will call them 'global warming Nazis.'
I didn't start this fight…they did. Yeah, somebody pushed my button.”

The whole anthropogenic global warming notion is the greatest hoax ever foisted upon a people. Think of the billions of dollars that have been wasted trying to curb an imagined problem.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


SAM'S NFL CAREER BEING USED BY A POLITICAL LOBBY
2/19/14

•If I were to estimate the number of homosexual people in the American population based on the amount of coverage the issue gets today in the media, I'd peg the number a few points up or down of 50%!

I don't care to even think about how politicians, athletes, actors, or anybody else outside of my spouse seeks sexual pleasure. It's none of my business.

That being established, MU's Michael Sam making an issue of it seems fairly clear that his NFL career is being used by the political lobby that influences government much in the same way that the Sierra Club uses asthma sufferers whenever a coal-fired power plant is being proposed.

I have stated this concept before – we are all human. All humans have sexuality. Sex feels good so we humans will reproduce. How humans choose to express sexuality is highly varied. Some of those expressions are normal, and others are abnormal. Heterosexual acts are normal. Homosexual acts are abnormal. Celibacy (resisting sexual urges or not having any for some reason) is abnormal as well.

That's pretty much how it goes. Homosexuals are not another gender, as it seems the gay lobby wants to claim. There are two genders, despite Facebook's claims of 50 gender identities.

Don't allow the political left to redefine humanity, people!

•This from Joel Pollak at Breitbart.com:

Recall when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) apologized to the White House for shouting, "You lie!" as Obama told Congress Obamacare would not cover illegal immigrants. Covered California, the flagship of state Obamacare exchanges, is recruiting illegal immigrants to sign up, regardless of their eligibility.

The Covered California website includes a special page entitled: "No temas si eres indocumentado/a y quieres inscribir a tu familia en un seguro médico" which translates to: "Fear not if you are undocumented and want to enroll your family in health insurance.” The website goes on to explain that information shared with Obamacare cannot be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It does not explicitly warn that illegal aliens are ineligible.

Bravo to Texas Senator Ted Cruz for forcing the RINO establishment Republicans to show their stripes in the raising of the debt limit vote last week.

Cruz forced a 60-vote threshold for the measure which forced Mitch McConnell, John Conyers, Jeff Flake, and several other back-stabbing RINO's to show themselves, despite their efforts to hide their votes on increasing debt limit from public view.

From The Right Scoop, these Republicans kept the Senate from announcing which of them switched their votes. It appeared McConnell and Cornyn were the 59th and 60th vote as they “ayed” together, but no one can be sure. A few Republicans even switched their votes as a move to show solidarity with the RINO Republicans, perhaps to help hide which ones voted to put the tally at 60.

More from CNS News:

Typically, roll-call votes in the Senate occur very publicly. People watching from the galleries or tracking action via C-SPAN can watch democracy in action. 15 minutes into the vote, the tally clerk rose to recite the vote. A Senate aide alerted Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the six Republicans who later switched his vote from “nay” to “aye.” McCain intervened, and the clerk sat right back down. “Would you …” McCain said before the live microphone cut off.

A McCain spokesman denied he intervened. “McCain didn't know that they weren't going to read the names and he didn't care if they did. He didn't have input on that,” emailed spokesman Brian Rogers.
Yeah, we believe McCain! How's that dang border fence?

•If you follow me on Twitter (@bkparallax) you saw me duking it out last week with an entity refuted to be “Republican strategist” (not my characterization!) Frank Luntz. He's the guy on Hannity always gathering undecided nincompoops in the waning days of an election to see what they think about who we should vote for. (If you're undecided that close to an election, stay home and stop polluting the electorate with your nonsense!) The subject of our verbal fisticuffs was the item below – Luntz was in favor of the solar plant and thought it was not a political issue. I reminded him that we taxpayers paid over a billion dollars for it, and that made it political.

Anyway, regulators are having second thoughts about approving new solar projects due to growing evidence tower-and-mirror solar technology is killing birds. The Wall Street Journal's Cassandra Sweet reported on it last week.

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Station, a giant solar-power project officially opened last week in the California desert. The project received a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee.

The owners of the project, NRG Energy Inc. call the plant a major feat of engineering that can light up about 140,000 homes a year. Temperatures around the towers can hit 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Utility-scale solar plants have come under fire for their costs. Ivanpah costs about four times as much as a conventional natural gas-fired plant, but will produce far less electricity and waste huge expanses of real estate.

That means expensive power. Electricity from giant solar projects will cost at least twice as much as electricity from conventional sources. But neither the utilities that have contracted to buy the power nor state regulators have disclosed what the price will be, only that it will be passed on to electricity customers.

Nice!

(Follow Brian @bkparallax or email bkubicki@kc.rr.com)

 


WHY COPENHAGEN ZOO
EUTHANIZES A
HEALTHY GIRAFFE
2/12/14

•This story has so many levels of AWESOME written all over it that I can't cut it down.

“The Copenhagen Zoo is under major fire for putting a perfectly healthy giraffe to death in front of visitors, including children, and then proceeding to skin, slice and feed it to the zoo's lions. The public event, promoted as a teaching exercise for the children, was well attended.

According to the zoo, the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) recommended it put down Marius The Giraffe, because there were already too many giraffes with similar genes in the breeding program. Plus, the Copenhagen Zoo already has seven other giraffes.

The zoo went through with the euthanization even though more than 20,000 people signed an online petition to save Marius and one individual offered to buy the animal for $680,000. The zoo also refused offers from Britain's Yorkshire Wildlife Park because Marius' older brother lives there, and the Copenhagen Zoo's scientific director Bengt Holst didn't want Marius to take up space that could be used by a 'genetically more valuable giraffe.'

The zoo veterinarian, who shot the lethal bullet, described the killing in a similarly stark manner:

The zoo veterinarian said the giraffe was coaxed into a yard and over to a zookeeper who held out rye bread - a food the giraffe was especially fond of. 'I stood behind with a rifle, and when he put his head forward and ate the rye bread, then I shot him through the brain,' he said. 'It sounds violent, but it means that Marius had no idea of what was coming. He got his bread, then he died.'

Zoo spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro was less than sentimental when defending the zoo's decision to show children the vicious circle of life, even when it includes the dismembering of giraffes with human names. 'I'm actually proud because I think we have given children a huge understanding of the anatomy of a giraffe that they wouldn't have had from watching a giraffe in a photo.' What a nice lesson in death and eugenics for our children.

Holst also questioned motives of those raising an uproar about Marius, wondering if anyone would care if a less attractive animal were the victim.

'I know the giraffe is a nice looking animal, but I don't think there would have been such an outrage if it had been an antelope, and I don't think anyone would have lifted an eyebrow if it was a pig.' The children of Denmark are learning all of life's lessons in one go, apparently.

Per the Zoo's website, which poses the question 'Why does Copenhagen Zoo euthanize a healthy giraffe?' offers this explanation:

“If an animal's genes are well represented in a population further breeding with that particular animal is unwanted. As this giraffe's genes are well represented in the breeding programme and as there is no place for the giraffe in the zoo's giraffe herd, the European Breeding Programme for Giraffes has agreed that Copenhagen Zoo euthanize the giraffe. This is a situation that we know from other group animals that breed well. When breeding success increases it is sometimes necessary to euthanize.”

The statement adds, 'we see this as a positive sign,' and reminds readers that 'the same type of management is used in deer parks where red deer and fallow deer are culled to keep the populations healthy.'

Well there you have it, kids. Giraffes live, genetically redundant giraffes die. If they're lucky, they get some bread before their body is ripped apart and eaten by carnivorous creatures in front of a rapt audience. Welcome to the cruel, dark world.

In my glee over seeing this case of responsible wildlife management, I am cautiously aware that they call what we understand as necessary genetic diversity among managed species, EUGENICS, we might not be so supportive if they applied that to humans. Oops!

•MU football player Michael Sam announced that he was gay this week. Supposedly, it should not affect his status in the upcoming NFL draft. Some say he did this to force NFL teams to accept him as a player, above and beyond that which would be warranted by his level of skill and ability. Others say he did it under pressure from the Gay Political Lobby.

This is what I wondered. Many videos of Sam from his playing days at MU showed him running down a quarterback from behind and wrapping his arms around his rear-end and forcing him to the ground. If a heterosexual player were doing the same thing to a shapely female derriere would we expect the tackler to not become sexually aroused? Why is it supposed to be different for a homosexual player?

Presumably, the opposing quarterbacks that Sam played against this year did not know that he identifies himself as homosexual. If they did, would that make them feel different? A woman in the quarterback's position would no doubt be uncomfortable with her tackler becoming aroused tackling her.

Why is this different?

•There was a march last week in North Carolina opposing voter ID laws in the state. Marchers were bussed into the state and were given written instructions to follow. Instructions ranged from the obvious, “…know your bus number…” “…ignore any taunts and jeers from the public…” to the curious, “…watch for people who join the march from the public and notify a Marshall…”

But this one takes the cake, “DO bring photo identification (driver's license, passport or other valid photo id) with you and keep it on your person at all times.”

So, “…we want you to protest Voter ID requirements, but bring your ID so we can verify who you are.”

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM, EVERYTHINGTO DO WITH RIGHT/WRONG
2/5/14

•The Coke ad during the Super Bowl (We must call it “Big Game?” Seriously? C'mon NFL!) was insulting.

There are a number of conservatives and RINOs who like to refer to themselves as conservative that voiced displeasure with the ad that featured a wide swath of racially diverse people singing America the Beautiful in non-English languages. Liberals and pro-amnesty Republicans liked the ad as being respectful of America. Conservatives took offense to the ad because of the implication that assimilation (exhibited by learning English, the official language of the United States of America) is not as important as just accepting people of different races.

The notion that people of non-Caucasian races are not acceptable to Americans is idiotic and buried in the past.

Context is why the Coke ad was so offensive.

The left, and the left-biased media with the RINOs in-tow, is currently embroiled in efforts to re-vamp immigration laws so that some form of amnesty is created for illegal aliens here in America right now. They also would like America to open the borders by enforcing them even less than they do right now.
This has nothing to do with racism. It has to do with right and wrong, legal and illegal.

America is a land of immigrants. But at the core of each and every one of those immigrants that came here in the early 1900's was assimilation into American culture – understanding the founders' principles established for this country. Learning the official language of the country was the first test of the assimilation process. It denotes respect for the country that is accepting you.

Ads that ignore the importance of assimilation imply that something current needs to change, and the minority political left want us to look away when borders should be enforced, immigration should be ordered, and criminals should be prosecuted for breaking the law.

Did you notice that whenever the Coca-Cola logo was shown in the ad it was shown in English? “Hey, we think diversity exhibited by amnesty and open borders is important, but we're not crazy!”

•Interesting to see that multiple U.S. governments including NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Energy are being accused of manipulating temperature data to show global warming. The scandal, sparked by an in-depth analysis of the data by independent analyst Steven Goddard at www.RealScience.com, relies on official records to suggest that federal agencies have been fudging temperature measurements to make past decades seem colder and recent years appear warmer.

The problems identified by Goddard in the temperature records relate to the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), the official data-set covering the continental United States. While the agencies admit the records are adjusted, Goddard and multiple scientists suggested that biased methodology was used to adjust the data to show an unjustified and “spurious” warming trend.

“Bottom line is there is clearly a huge error in the USHCN adjustments which has added a non-existent one degree hockey stick warming to the official US temperature record, and I now know just where to look for it in their code,” Goddard wrote. “NOAA made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA and NASA U.S. temperature graphs, and is part of the cause of this famous shift.”

Citing satellite data, Goddard also said that by 2008, U.S. temperatures had cooled down below 1980s and 90s levels.

Respected climatologist and NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer actually showed evidence of what Goddard described as early as April of 2012, saying that “virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data.” Commenting on the latest findings, Dr. Spencer said that his own examination of the data and corrections to account for urban heat island (UHI) effects “support Steve's contention that there's something funny going on in the USHCN data.” He also called the NOAA methodology for adjusting the data “opaque” and said he believes it is prone to serious errors. Follow this one more at Real Science.

•Secretary of State John Kerry actually said this last week, to the Munich Security Conference in Germany on Saturday.

"We created the greatest wealth the world has seen during the 1990s, greater even in America than the period of the Pierponts and the Morgans and the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Mellons -- much greater. You know what it was? It was a $1-trillion market with 1 billion users. It was the high-tech market, the personal computer mostly, communications.

“The energy market that we are staring at -- that is the solution to the climate change. Energy policy is the solution to climate change. That market, my friends, is a $6-trillion market today with 4 to 5 billion users today, and it will grow to some 9 billion users over the course of the next 20 to 30 years.”
Kerry urged his listeners to read the latest report from the IPCC. "It's really chilling," he said. "And what's chilling is not rhetoric; it's the scientific facts, scientific facts. And our history is filled with struggles through the Age of Reason and the Renaissance and the Enlightenment for all of us to learn some respect for science. The fact is that there is no doubt about the real day-to-day impact of the human contribution to the change in climate."

No doubt?

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


THE ‘INCOME GAP’
HAS SKYROCKETED
UNDER OBAMA
1/29/14

•From www.WattsUpWithThat.com, comes this in advance of the coldest Super Bowl in history:
Contributor Ryan Scott Welch writes:

“…many people don't know much about the earth's atmosphere. For example, when questioned about how much CO2 is in our atmosphere most people give me a guess of somewhere between 30% and 70%. When I tell them that CO2 is only 0.04% or really about 395 ppm (parts per million) they generally look at me as if I was speaking some kind of foreign language. The layman simply cannot convert 0.04% of the atmosphere or 395 ppm into anything they can picture or relate to. In searching for some way to help the layman to understand the earth's atmosphere, CO2, and the human contribution to atmospheric CO2, I came upon the idea of relating a sample of the atmosphere to something that nearly every person has seen, a football stadium……How much atmospheric CO2 is from human activity? If a football stadium represented a sample of our atmosphere, how many seats would be human caused CO2? The Dallas Cowboys Stadium seats 100,000 for special events……Nitrogen is 78% of the atmosphere, Oxygen is 21%, and Argon is 0.9% giving you a total of 99.9% of the atmosphere.

“So, where is the CO2? CO2 is a trace gas that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere which in this sample = 40 seats.

“But of the 40 seats, or parts per 100,000 of CO2 in the atmosphere, 25 were already in the atmosphere before humans relied on hydrocarbon fuels (coal, gas and oil) leaving 15 seats.
“And since humans only contribute 3% of all CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year (97% is from nature), the human contribution is 3% of the 15 remaining seats in our sample. 3% of 15 is 0.45.
“So in our stadium sample of 100,000 seats the human contribution of CO2 is less than half of one seat. That is less than one half of one seat from 100,000 seats in a Dallas Stadium sized sample of our atmosphere is human caused CO2.”

Here is the presentation uploaded on slideshare.net

http://www.slideshare.net/ryanswelch/how-much-atmospheric-co2-is-from-human-activity-23514995

•Now think about that for a minute…Democrats, Liberals, Obama and Al Gore will have you believe that the equivalent of one-half of one seat in 100,000 seats in a stadium is enough to control the temperature for an entire planet! Does that sound logical to you?

•If you missed John Stossel's piece on Fox Business last week on climate change, you missed an excellent segment with Alex Epstein, president of the Center for Industrial Progress.

“The fossil fuel industry is not taking a safe climate and making it dangerous. They are taking a dangerous climate and making it safe…

…Anyone who contradicts me should try to go outside right now (in brutal cold) and live in naturally in harmony with nature.

“It's not noble to use less energy, that is like saying its noble to have less money, No. You might misuse energy, you might be inefficient, but more is always better because energy has the capacity to be productive.”

Epstein continued: “I admire natural gas industry, and I admire the oil industry and the coal industry because this is the only industry in the world that produces cheap, plentiful reliable energy on a global scale. So these are the guys that are allowing us to be comfortable in a studio when it’s freezing outside, they make it possible for us to have clean water, to do what we want in life, to have time to do scientific research. It's amazing. So that is why I have a pin here that says 'I Love Fossil Fuels.'”

Here-here!

•While I don't have an advance script for Obama's State of the Union address this week, I have a suspicion that he's going to mention more than once that we need to address the Income Gap. What he will be referring to is the difference in dollars between what the top earners and the bottom earners make per year. Apparently, in the Perfect World that Obama sees for America, everyone makes the same amount of money.

Is should be of interest to all that according to the Census Bureau, the Income Gap under Obama has skyrocketed compared to previous presidents. Under Clinton, the Income Gap grew at a 1.8% rate. Under President Bush, the gap grew at 0%, being the same as he exited office as it was when he entered office.

Under Obama, who of course has only been in office for five years, the Income Gap has risen 2%!
He ought to address that first, if he's going to be making a case that incomes need to be equal, because he's failing miserably at that (along with many other things).

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


BENGHAZI MAKING ITS WAY TO THE TOP OF THE CESSPOOL
1/22/14

Amid all the hullabaloo the media is generating over Chris Christie's bridge fiasco, it's fascinating to watch the media seem to be flabbergasted that a government officials staff would use government resources to enact revenge for political umbrage. Where were they when the IRS was discovered to be targeting Tea Party groups?

Then there's this: Sarah Palin's brother, Chuck Heath Jr. posted the following about his father on his Facebook page a few days ago:

“My father, who worked multiple jobs and faithfully and honestly paid his taxes for fifty years, had never heard a word from the IRS. In 2008, his daughter was tapped to run for vice president of the United States. Since that time, he has been, in his words 'horribly harassed' six times by the agency. They've tried to dig up something on him but he's always operated above board.”

Not to be perceived to be defending Christie, but where was the media when the IRS scandal broke. They seemed to accept Obama's narrative of a “phony scandal.”

The great Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. reminded us recently that it's been eight years since Al Gore told us in January 2006 that we had only 10 years left to solve the global warming problem. His prognostication is not shaping up too well, as there has still been no statistically significant warming.

Now that the Australasian Antarctic Expedition has become a comedy goldmine for climate realists, humor aside, events such as this indicate dark days for green enthusiasts.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's likely repeal of the unpopular carbon tax in his country this year is reflecting an apparent global trend of push-back against this socialist income redistribution movement masked by junk science fear-mongering.

The Kyoto Treaty effectively expired a year ago. Prospects for a replacement are virtually zero. Rich nations are rejecting climate compensation for the developing world. Europe is in the midst of a coal frenzy.

Germany, previously a green trend-setter, is slashing expensive subsidies for renewables companies.
Meanwhile, the European Parliament is losing confidence in the EU emissions trading scheme. No Asian nation has an emission trading scheme in operation. China's and India's net emissions are growing dramatically and governments, Japan as an example, are abandoning earlier pledges to reduce their nations' carbon footprints. Even here in the US, despite President Obama's aggressive “kill coal” energy plan, Congress won't pass any carbon taxes.

Meanwhile, 2013 marked the 15th year of flat-lined global surface temperatures, despite record levels of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere since 1998.

Of course, the doomsayers remain in committed Chicken-Little mode. They abuse, intimidate and victimize anyone who dares to criticize the fanaticism of their movement by calling them “deniers.”

Historians will probably look back at the years 2006-09 as the time when the climate hysteria reached its peak, when rational debate was most restricted and politicians were most gullible.

The idea of climate mitigation - carbon taxes, cap and trade, channeling taxpayer subsidies to wind and solar power – is seen for what it is – another attempt to redistribute wealth and grow government.

It seems like somebody warned us about this when Obama was first elected…I can't recall who it was though.

•According to Republican officials in Arizona, Sen. John McCain has sided with liberal Democrats too many times over the years, and as a result (finally!), the Maricopa County Republican Party has voted to censure him.

Members of the group feel the senator has failed to stand behind the Republican Party's principles and crossed the aisle and voted with Democrats too many times. The vote was 1,150 for the censure and 351 against.

I only have one question: What took them so long?

This is the same guy who called Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Justin Amash “wacko birds” last year (though he did apologize) and he consistently votes with liberal Democrats in support of their legislation. As to the charge he runs as a conservative but legislates as a liberal, remember in 2010 when he was running for re-election and pledged to build “the danged fence” -- in order to enhance border security in his home state?

Well, in June 2013, when he had an opportunity to stand up for conservative values, he voted against that very measure.

I'm sure McCain will be losing lots of sleep over this.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 


WHERE WAS THE
MEDIA WHEN THE
IRS SCANDAL BROKE?
Posted 1/18/14

Amid all the hullabaloo the media is generating over Chris Christie's bridge fiasco, it's fascinating to watch the media seem to be flabbergasted that a government officials staff would use government resources to enact revenge for political umbrage. Where were they when the IRS was discovered to be targeting Tea Party groups?

Then there's this: Sarah Palin's brother, Chuck Heath Jr. posted the following about his father on his Facebook page a few days ago:

“My father, who worked multiple jobs and faithfully and honestly paid his taxes for fifty years, had never heard a word from the IRS. In 2008, his daughter was tapped to run for vice president of the United States. Since that time, he has been, in his words 'horribly harassed' six times by the agency. They've tried to dig up something on him but he's always operated above board.”

Not to be perceived to be defending Christie, but where was the media when the IRS scandal broke. They seemed to accept Obama's narrative of a “phony scandal.”

The great Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. reminded us recently that it's been eight years since Al Gore told us in January 2006 that we had only 10 years left to solve the global warming problem. His prognostication is not shaping up too well, as there has still been no statistically significant warming.

Now that the Australasian Antarctic Expedition has become a comedy goldmine for climate realists, humor aside, events such as this indicate dark days for green enthusiasts.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's likely repeal of the unpopular carbon tax in his country this year is reflecting an apparent global trend of push-back against this socialist income redistribution movement masked by junk science fear-mongering.

The Kyoto Treaty effectively expired a year ago. Prospects for a replacement are virtually zero. Rich nations are rejecting climate compensation for the developing world. Europe is in the midst of a coal frenzy.

Germany, previously a green trend-setter, is slashing expensive subsidies for renewables companies.
Meanwhile, the European Parliament is losing confidence in the EU emissions trading scheme. No Asian nation has an emission trading scheme in operation. China's and India's net emissions are growing dramatically and governments, Japan as an example, are abandoning earlier pledges to reduce their nations' carbon footprints. Even here in the US, despite President Obama's aggressive “kill coal” energy plan, Congress won't pass any carbon taxes.

Meanwhile, 2013 marked the 15th year of flat-lined global surface temperatures, despite record levels of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere since 1998.

Of course, the doomsayers remain in committed Chicken-Little mode. They abuse, intimidate and victimize anyone who dares to criticize the fanaticism of their movement by calling them “deniers.”

Historians will probably look back at the years 2006-09 as the time when the climate hysteria reached its peak, when rational debate was most restricted and politicians were most gullible.

The idea of climate mitigation - carbon taxes, cap and trade, channeling taxpayer subsidies to wind and solar power – is seen for what it is – another attempt to redistribute wealth and grow government.

It seems like somebody warned us about this when Obama was first elected…I can't recall who it was though.

•According to Republican officials in Arizona, Sen. John McCain has sided with liberal Democrats too many times over the years, and as a result (finally!), the Maricopa County Republican Party has voted to censure him.

Members of the group feel the senator has failed to stand behind the Republican Party's principles and crossed the aisle and voted with Democrats too many times. The vote was 1,150 for the censure and 351 against.

I only have one question: What took them so long?

This is the same guy who called Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Justin Amash “wacko birds” last year (though he did apologize) and he consistently votes with liberal Democrats in support of their legislation. As to the charge he runs as a conservative but legislates as a liberal, remember in 2010 when he was running for re-election and pledged to build “the danged fence” -- in order to enhance border security in his home state?

Well, in June 2013, when he had an opportunity to stand up for conservative values, he voted against that very measure.

I'm sure McCain will be losing lots of sleep over this.

(Follow Brian on Twitter @bkparallax)

 

FOR EARLIER COLUMNS, CLICK HERE.