Daily Archives: December 30, 2010

Mr. Why: Gavel Down II. They Rigged the Game in Clackamas County. Here’s How to Fight Back.

E-mail the board no matter where you live   bcc@co.clackamas.or.us. It’s one thing to have the smearing coming from random people but the press and politicians are assisting.
Although the press has received this Nov 22 poll they have refused to publish it.

Clackamas County residents.

Pay for part of Sellwood Bridge    76% NO
New car registration tax                 84% NO
Milwaukie Light Rail                       71% NO


But they have no problem reporting anything cooked up by the County Commissioners.

After 185 opponents show up at one hearing, 175 at a second and the county wide poll County Chair Lynn Peterson rigged the public input and the press reports is over and over again without any evidence at all. 

“We definitely have a feeling from the public on what they think about this. Not only from the testimony, but also from the written testimony that we got under public comment, and it was two-to-one in favor.”
How did Peterson rig it?
She recruited her Metro/TriMet/Bike pals to stack the deck with emails (see it here).

Portlander Jonathan Nicholas (who came and testified) chairs a Metro bike committee Peterson is on along with Scott Bricker, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, Jay Graves, CEO of The Bike Gallery and Rex Burkholder Councilor Metro Council. They put out a call to action for members to email the Board in support of the fee (see it here)

“The Bicycle Transportation Alliance is urging their members to speak up in support of the new fee. Email your comments on the issue by December 8th to bcc@co.clackamas.or.us.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

‘Gunny’ Unloads on Obama

R. Lee Ermey, Former USMC Drill Instructor and Honorary ‘Gunny’ took the opportunity, when appearing at a Roe & Roeper’s Miracle on Indianapolis Blvd. Holiday Extravaganza broadcast inside the Horseshoe Casino December 10, to express his feelings towards the current administration.

Big Hollywood

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

The MoveOn.Commies Choose Abortionists As One of Top 3 Charities

“It’s tough out there this holiday season?” So you urge people to kill their babies? Habitat for Humanity is understandable, feeding the hungry makes sense, but abortions? 
Dear MoveOn member,
It’s tough out there this holiday season. We all see the signs: a family member out of work, a neighbor who still can’t afford health care, or a child not getting enough to eat.

So as a community, MoveOn and its members have chosen a few extraordinary nonprofits to support together. From thousands of nominations, we’ve voted to support Habitat for Humanity, Feeding America, and Planned Parenthood with our combined dollars.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Rivkin: Avastin Decision Gives Us Insight on [Earl Bow Tie Kevorkian Blumenauer’s] ObamaCare Death Panels

We’ve already begun to see how the ‘death panel/rationing’ will be used against us. Bureaucrats are already making decisions on cost and it will only grow worse and intensify under Congressman Blumenauer’s ‘end of life’ discussion language he’s put back into the ObamaCare. The fact he tried to keep it on the QT reveals he knows how unpopular this is AND that there’s something to hide. 
In his piece today in the WSJ (here), Attorney David Rivkin and a co author discuss how the rationing of health care will take place. 

They look no further than the rationing of the anti cancer drug Avastin:

Ponder the FDA’s justification—there wasn’t “sufficient” benefit in relation to Avastin’s risks. Sufficient according to whom? For your wife, mother or daughter with terminal breast cancer, how much is an additional month of good-quality life worth? And what costs should be weighed? Like all drugs, Avastin has side effects including bleeding and high blood pressure. But isn’t the real cost to these women a swifter, less dignified death? The FDA made a crude cost calculation; as everyone in Washington knows, it wouldn’t have banned Avastin if the drug cost only $1,000 a year, instead of $90,000.
The Avastin story is emblematic of the government’s broader agenda to ration care based on cost and politics. Once ObamaCare comes into full force, such rationing will be pervasive. When the government sees insufficient benefit, all but the wealthiest and most politically connected will have to go without.
Think it can’t happen here? Think again. The 2009 stimulus bill spent $1.1 billion to research “comparative effectiveness.” That’s the same approach used by Britain’s National Health Service to ration care, weighing cost against factors such as the ever-elusive concept of quality of life.

Rivkin, who’s been a guest on the program several times, is arguing against ObamaCare on behalf of 20+ states in Florida. While those lawsuits invoke undue burden on states, costs and the individual mandate, Rivkin has another theory which he explores again in this piece. It goes something like this: You have individual liberty and the liberty to be secure in your person with (according to Roe v Wade) an implicit right to bodily privacy. Is your right less because the government wants to save money (on an insurance policy it forced you to buy)?

This whole scheme doesn’t stand up to legal scrutiny. Government-imposed cost-benefit rationing raises serious constitutional concerns. Individual bodily autonomy is one of the oldest recognized rights. Its constitutional significance is reflected in Supreme Court decisions acknowledging the rights to refuse unwanted treatment and to access treatments such as contraception and abortion. Freedom to make medical decisions is central to the autonomy and dignity encapsulated by the majestic word “liberty” in the Constitution’s due process clauses.

And finally on ‘death panels’ making a comeback because of  Earl Kevorkian Blumenauer getting them reinserted into the regulations:

The administration has resurrected that provision through regulations, and Medicare will now pay for such counseling as part of elderly “wellness assessments.” Yes, the “death panels” charge is somewhat crude, but combine cost-based rationing with end-of-life counseling and, well, here we are.

Well, here we are, indeed.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Mr. Why: Gavel Down II. They Rigged the Game in Clackamas County. Here’s How to Fight Back.

E-mail the board no matter where you live   bcc@co.clackamas.or.us. It’s one thing to have the smearing coming from random people but the press and politicians are assisting.
Although the press has received this Nov 22 poll they have refused to publish it.

Clackamas County residents.

Pay for part of Sellwood Bridge    76% NO
New car registration tax                 84% NO
Milwaukie Light Rail                       71% NO


But they have no problem reporting anything cooked up by the County Commissioners.

After 185 opponents show up at one hearing, 175 at a second and the county wide poll County Chair Lynn Peterson rigged the public input and the press reports is over and over again without any evidence at all. 

“We definitely have a feeling from the public on what they think about this. Not only from the testimony, but also from the written testimony that we got under public comment, and it was two-to-one in favor.”
How did Peterson rig it?
She recruited her Metro/TriMet/Bike pals to stack the deck with emails (see it here).

Portlander Jonathan Nicholas (who came and testified) chairs a Metro bike committee Peterson is on along with Scott Bricker, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, Jay Graves, CEO of The Bike Gallery and Rex Burkholder Councilor Metro Council. They put out a call to action for members to email the Board in support of the fee (see it here)

“The Bicycle Transportation Alliance is urging their members to speak up in support of the new fee. Email your comments on the issue by December 8th to bcc@co.clackamas.or.us.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Dr. Tim Ball on Latest AGW Claim: It’s Cold Because It’s Warm!

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/12/bundle_up_its_global_warming.html

The earth continues to get warmer, yet it’s feeling a lot colder outside. Over the past few weeks, subzero temperatures in Poland claimed 66 lives; snow arrived in Seattle well before the winter solstice, and fell heavily enough in Minneapolis to make the roof of the Metrodome collapse; and last week blizzards closed Europe’s busiest airports in London and Frankfurt for days, stranding holiday travelers. The snow and record cold have invaded the Eastern United States, with more bad weather predicted.

As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased.

The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere, just as a bigger rock in a stream increases the size of the waves of water flowing by.

The increased wave energy in the air spreads both horizontally, around the Northern Hemisphere, and vertically, up into the stratosphere and down toward the earth’s surface. In response, the jet stream, instead of flowing predominantly west to east as usual, meanders more north and south. In winter, this change in flow sends warm air north from the subtropical oceans into Alaska and Greenland, but it also pushes cold air south from the Arctic on the east side of the Rockies. Meanwhile, across Eurasia, cold air from Siberia spills south into East Asia and even southwestward into Europe.

It’s all a snow job by nature. The reality is, we’re freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it. 

 When scrambling to explain all the cold weather people only expose their ignorance of climate science. They also, fortunately, produce statements that, even those who don’t understand the science, see as illogical. Notice Dorling says “climate change” as he tries to suggest the current cold is just an anomaly in an overall warming trend. Others point to storms and flooding as further evidence of changes due to warming.

Andrew Revkin former New York Times reporter who quit after it was disclosed he was sharing information and basically being used by the people at the Climatic research unit from which the e-mails were leaked, is trying to rehabilitate himself and the NY TImes. He sent a group of us a copy of Cohen’s paper. Here was my response:

None of what Cohen presents is new. If he knew anything about climatology and the history of climate research he would know that existence of the Circumpolar Vortex and its pattern of Rossby waves has been in the literature since the Jet Stream was discovered in WWII and then the identification of the Waves by Carl Rossby in 1946. The concept of the Waves were linked with the concepts of Air Masses and their movement in determining patterns of weather in the Middle and High latitudes. Marcel Leroux claimed to have rediscovered these and named cold Polar outbreaks, formerly called continental Arctic (cA) or maritime Arctic (mA) air masses, as Mobile Polar Highs. What is not explained is the sinuosity in the Vortex and changing patterns over time that create differing weather patterns that drive these outbreaks of cold air south. There’s evidence that they are related to changes in the Sun that result in changes in the Solar Wind and its varying impact on the earth”s atmosphere. The science of all the current thinking is so wrong that they forget that it is the cold air that is in charge and dictates the patterns of middle latitude weather. 


What has happened in the interim was the formation of the IPCC and the diversion of virtually all climate research to proving the false theory that human CO2 was causing first warming, then climate change and now climate disruptions. Almost 40 years of potentially meaningful, rather than politically motivated research, has been lost. The New York Times was and is a major promoter of the false science and actively belittled those who dared to question. It was journalism at its absolute worst. Now the credibility of climate science is so discredited by that funding to catch up and explain will simply not be available. There are many people who have a lot of explaining to do. Of course, they will never be held accountable for the greatest deception, amplified by the mainstream media, and damage they have done.

To which Revkin replied:
Another assinine comment. The snow in Siberia is a result not a cause. 
What is going on here is they are scrambling to recover from the exposure of the climate fraud that they not only studiously avoided but actively promoted and attacked those who dared to question. They are also claiming the cooling is due to warming. It is the theatre of the absurd, although there is  value in that it has become so illogical that even those who don’t understand the science are convinced it’s a scam. 
I will be happy to come on and talk about it. I am available tomorrow.
Meanwhile it is briefly explained in this article;
Tim B

‘Gunny’ Unloads on Obama

R. Lee Ermey, Former USMC Drill Instructor and Honorary ‘Gunny’ took the opportunity, when appearing at a Roe & Roeper’s Miracle on Indianapolis Blvd. Holiday Extravaganza broadcast inside the Horseshoe Casino December 10, to express his feelings towards the current administration.

Big Hollywood

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

The MoveOn.Commies Choose Abortionists As One of Top 3 Charities

“It’s tough out there this holiday season?” So you urge people to kill their babies? Habitat for Humanity is understandable, feeding the hungry makes sense, but abortions? 
Dear MoveOn member,
It’s tough out there this holiday season. We all see the signs: a family member out of work, a neighbor who still can’t afford health care, or a child not getting enough to eat.

So as a community, MoveOn and its members have chosen a few extraordinary nonprofits to support together. From thousands of nominations, we’ve voted to support Habitat for Humanity, Feeding America, and Planned Parenthood with our combined dollars.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Rivkin: Avastin Decision Gives Us Insight on [Earl Bow Tie Kevorkian Blumenauer’s] ObamaCare Death Panels

We’ve already begun to see how the ‘death panel/rationing’ will be used against us. Bureaucrats are already making decisions on cost and it will only grow worse and intensify under Congressman Blumenauer’s ‘end of life’ discussion language he’s put back into the ObamaCare. The fact he tried to keep it on the QT reveals he knows how unpopular this is AND that there’s something to hide. 
In his piece today in the WSJ (here), Attorney David Rivkin and a co author discuss how the rationing of health care will take place. 

They look no further than the rationing of the anti cancer drug Avastin:

Ponder the FDA’s justification—there wasn’t “sufficient” benefit in relation to Avastin’s risks. Sufficient according to whom? For your wife, mother or daughter with terminal breast cancer, how much is an additional month of good-quality life worth? And what costs should be weighed? Like all drugs, Avastin has side effects including bleeding and high blood pressure. But isn’t the real cost to these women a swifter, less dignified death? The FDA made a crude cost calculation; as everyone in Washington knows, it wouldn’t have banned Avastin if the drug cost only $1,000 a year, instead of $90,000.
The Avastin story is emblematic of the government’s broader agenda to ration care based on cost and politics. Once ObamaCare comes into full force, such rationing will be pervasive. When the government sees insufficient benefit, all but the wealthiest and most politically connected will have to go without.
Think it can’t happen here? Think again. The 2009 stimulus bill spent $1.1 billion to research “comparative effectiveness.” That’s the same approach used by Britain’s National Health Service to ration care, weighing cost against factors such as the ever-elusive concept of quality of life.

Rivkin, who’s been a guest on the program several times, is arguing against ObamaCare on behalf of 20+ states in Florida. While those lawsuits invoke undue burden on states, costs and the individual mandate, Rivkin has another theory which he explores again in this piece. It goes something like this: You have individual liberty and the liberty to be secure in your person with (according to Roe v Wade) an implicit right to bodily privacy. Is your right less because the government wants to save money (on an insurance policy it forced you to buy)?

This whole scheme doesn’t stand up to legal scrutiny. Government-imposed cost-benefit rationing raises serious constitutional concerns. Individual bodily autonomy is one of the oldest recognized rights. Its constitutional significance is reflected in Supreme Court decisions acknowledging the rights to refuse unwanted treatment and to access treatments such as contraception and abortion. Freedom to make medical decisions is central to the autonomy and dignity encapsulated by the majestic word “liberty” in the Constitution’s due process clauses.

And finally on ‘death panels’ making a comeback because of  Earl Kevorkian Blumenauer getting them reinserted into the regulations:

The administration has resurrected that provision through regulations, and Medicare will now pay for such counseling as part of elderly “wellness assessments.” Yes, the “death panels” charge is somewhat crude, but combine cost-based rationing with end-of-life counseling and, well, here we are.

Well, here we are, indeed.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Pete the Banker: Gubmint Motors’ ChevyVolt = Cash for Clunkers 3.0 (Psst:Your Mileage May Vary)

It certainly now looks like the fix was in when the Chevy Volt was named “Motor Trend Car of the Year.” Collective guffaws were heard in many quarters especially when the government motors touted the car as the virtual vehicle version of the perpetual motion machine. As Motor Trend cooed: “The Chevy Volt earns the coveted Motor Trend Magazine “Car of the Year” award” and Chevy boasted, “Powered by electricity without being tethered to electrical outlets, the Volt does everything a great car does and, according to Motor Trend, better than any other.”
And check out that mileage! Wow! The equivalent of 93 miles per gallon! That’s not just good, that’s AMAZING! And as it turns out, untrue. Put another way: YOUR mileage may vary. See that EPA fuel economy sticker for the hybrid Volt trumpeting 93 mpg equivalent (here)?  Read the fine print.  There seems to be more than a “little” deception by GM and the EPA in calculating the fuel efficiency of the Chevrolet Volt.  Is this really truth in advertising? 
Is the EPA culpable in deceiving the public by approving this Volt mileage sticker?  Is this just another example of the Administration’s effort to mandate a green political agenda through government owned General Motors and sustained by deceptive advertising?  

I’m a banker and I run numbers all the time, so I decided to do a few calculations on the Volt.  
By my calculations if the range of the vehicle is 344 miles on a full tank of gas and it gets 37 mpg in gas only mode then the tank will hold 9.3 gallons.  Now if the Electric/Gas MPG equivalent is 93 mpg then a 9.3 gal tank X 93 equals a range of 865 miles.  Deducting the gas only range of 344 miles from 865 leaves 521 miles assigned to the electric operation only.  The sticker suggests the maximum range of the electric battery before recharge is 35 miles, so dividing 521 miles by 35 miles means one has to recharge the battery ~ 14 times per tank of gas to achieve 93 mpg.  Each charge takes 4 hours so for example that trip from here to LA (~870 miles) at around 60 mph will take about 14 hours of drive time and 56 hours of battery charge time if you wish to achieve the published fuel efficiency.  
But taking it one step farther, if the gas range is 344 miles and one electric charge adds an additional 35 miles, the total range on one electric/gas refill is 379 miles yielding an actual mileage efficiency based on one each gas stop and electrical charge of 40.75 mpg, far less than the published 93 mpg shown on the proposed EPA approved sticker. 
   

The Volt may be fuel efficient, but not all that fuel efficient and it isn’t particularly time efficient!  I guess if one plans to achieve maximum fuel efficiency, one simply has to plan on sticking around home like in the good old days, say around 800 AD, when people seldom ventured down the road more than 30 miles to the neighboring village.  Hanging out at the village square; very progressive!  It congers of images of Vikings sacking the French villages and villagers fleeing the hordes of attackers in their fuel efficient, horse power wagons.
Edmunds weighs in (here) with accolades and skepticism:

“… you can’t measure the Volt’s fuel economy in any standard fashion. It all depends on how you drive. Suppose you have a 20-mile round-trip commute, and you plug in your Volt every night when you get home (a full charge requires as few as 3 hours). Congratulations! Your fuel economy is infinity, because you’ll never run the battery pack down all the way. But if you have a 100-mile commute, you’ll be driving at least 60 miles a day under gasoline power, so you’ll have to refuel on a regular basis. And in an Edmunds fuel economy test of a Volt with its battery depleted, the car returned only 31.4 mpg in mixed driving. That’s far below the typical fuel economy provided by regular hybrid vehicles.

 In other words: your mileage may vary. If you drive a far as Fred Flintstone you’ll be fine. If you go for the long haul you might as well stick with your sedan or ?  The Chevy Volt apparently lends a new meaning to the term being “plugged in”.  It seems to me, however, that for the estimated $40,000+ price tag on the Volt, one might want to spend a little less time fettered by an electrical socket.  Is GM’s assertion that a Volt owner isn’t tethered accurate?  No. 
Pete the Banker

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Dr. Tim Ball on Latest AGW Claim: It’s Cold Because It’s Warm!

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/12/bundle_up_its_global_warming.html

The earth continues to get warmer, yet it’s feeling a lot colder outside. Over the past few weeks, subzero temperatures in Poland claimed 66 lives; snow arrived in Seattle well before the winter solstice, and fell heavily enough in Minneapolis to make the roof of the Metrodome collapse; and last week blizzards closed Europe’s busiest airports in London and Frankfurt for days, stranding holiday travelers. The snow and record cold have invaded the Eastern United States, with more bad weather predicted.

As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased.

The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere, just as a bigger rock in a stream increases the size of the waves of water flowing by.

The increased wave energy in the air spreads both horizontally, around the Northern Hemisphere, and vertically, up into the stratosphere and down toward the earth’s surface. In response, the jet stream, instead of flowing predominantly west to east as usual, meanders more north and south. In winter, this change in flow sends warm air north from the subtropical oceans into Alaska and Greenland, but it also pushes cold air south from the Arctic on the east side of the Rockies. Meanwhile, across Eurasia, cold air from Siberia spills south into East Asia and even southwestward into Europe.

It’s all a snow job by nature. The reality is, we’re freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it. 

 When scrambling to explain all the cold weather people only expose their ignorance of climate science. They also, fortunately, produce statements that, even those who don’t understand the science, see as illogical. Notice Dorling says “climate change” as he tries to suggest the current cold is just an anomaly in an overall warming trend. Others point to storms and flooding as further evidence of changes due to warming.

Andrew Revkin former New York Times reporter who quit after it was disclosed he was sharing information and basically being used by the people at the Climatic research unit from which the e-mails were leaked, is trying to rehabilitate himself and the NY TImes. He sent a group of us a copy of Cohen’s paper. Here was my response:

None of what Cohen presents is new. If he knew anything about climatology and the history of climate research he would know that existence of the Circumpolar Vortex and its pattern of Rossby waves has been in the literature since the Jet Stream was discovered in WWII and then the identification of the Waves by Carl Rossby in 1946. The concept of the Waves were linked with the concepts of Air Masses and their movement in determining patterns of weather in the Middle and High latitudes. Marcel Leroux claimed to have rediscovered these and named cold Polar outbreaks, formerly called continental Arctic (cA) or maritime Arctic (mA) air masses, as Mobile Polar Highs. What is not explained is the sinuosity in the Vortex and changing patterns over time that create differing weather patterns that drive these outbreaks of cold air south. There’s evidence that they are related to changes in the Sun that result in changes in the Solar Wind and its varying impact on the earth”s atmosphere. The science of all the current thinking is so wrong that they forget that it is the cold air that is in charge and dictates the patterns of middle latitude weather. 


What has happened in the interim was the formation of the IPCC and the diversion of virtually all climate research to proving the false theory that human CO2 was causing first warming, then climate change and now climate disruptions. Almost 40 years of potentially meaningful, rather than politically motivated research, has been lost. The New York Times was and is a major promoter of the false science and actively belittled those who dared to question. It was journalism at its absolute worst. Now the credibility of climate science is so discredited by that funding to catch up and explain will simply not be available. There are many people who have a lot of explaining to do. Of course, they will never be held accountable for the greatest deception, amplified by the mainstream media, and damage they have done.

To which Revkin replied:
Another assinine comment. The snow in Siberia is a result not a cause. 
What is going on here is they are scrambling to recover from the exposure of the climate fraud that they not only studiously avoided but actively promoted and attacked those who dared to question. They are also claiming the cooling is due to warming. It is the theatre of the absurd, although there is  value in that it has become so illogical that even those who don’t understand the science are convinced it’s a scam. 
I will be happy to come on and talk about it. I am available tomorrow.
Meanwhile it is briefly explained in this article;
Tim B