Friday, July 12, 2013



According to the Arizona Department of Transportation ("ADOT"), a roundabout is a one-way circular intersection without traffic signal equipment in which traffic flows around a center island. 

The modern roundabout functions with yield control at the entry points, and gives priority to vehicles within the roundabout.

Roundabouts keep traffic moving through an intersection, so the potential for crashes in the center are diminished. Drivers move at a slower speed, usually 25 mph. 

According to ADOT, modern roundabouts reduce accidents by 40% to 60%, reduce injury accidents by 80% and fatal accidents by as much as 90%. In addition, eliminating a traffic signal saves the city money on installations, maintenance, and electricity.

I live near the first two roundabouts placed in service in Phoenix. They started with a disadvantage because you have a four-lane street going into a one-lane circle at a major highway intersection, with a one-lane bridge crossing the highway.

The right answer would have been to make the bridge and the circles two lanes, and I am sure that was not done due to cost.

There are social networking pages related to these circles, if you want to read what the residents think.

The success of a roundabout is based on two assumptions that AZDOT has made.

(1) That traffic keeps moving. It doesn't. At the roundabouts near my home that involve the highway exits and the frontage roads, there is always some idiot in the roundabout (they have the right of way at this point) who will STOP because he sees a car on the main street. Of course, the car on the street also stops and they look at each other for a few moments while traffic backs up.

(2) That drivers move at a slower speed. They don't. even though these roundabouts are posted at 25 mph, drivers in Arizona, while not very bright, have lead feet, so after stopping unnecessarily, they'll take off a fifty, only to slam on their brakes ten feet later for the next idiot who can't navigate the circle.

I have an idea-let's take all the people who cannot navigate a traffic circle and put their heads under a running lawn mower!

Tuesday, July 9, 2013


Stephen T. McCarthy has written about the use of the Hegelian Dialectic in American politics as a means of moving the bar ever farther left while making it seem to most Americans that a compromise is simply being made.

I can think of no better example for this than the assault on Christian values by the gay lesbian bi-sexual transgender (GLBT) lobby.

But before I go there, can we all agree that this is too broad a group?

John Stewart makes the following point about whether or not one “chooses” to be gay, and I am willing to agree with him here.

But even if I were to go further and say that a homosexual marriage is valid in the view of the Bible (I won’t say that), how does either a bi-sexual relationship (would need three people) or a transgender (talk about you classic argument for “don’t-ask-don’t-tell”) fall into the same ballpark?

And how can you say either lifestyle is not a choice?

In my mind, bisexuality is clearly hedonistic behavior, and I don’t know what to think about a transgender relationship once the snipping and sewing has been done.

So for purposes of this post, I am only recognizing gays and lesbians as party to the debate.

And while I agree with Mr. Stewart that they probably did not wake up one morning and say, “instead of Corn Flakes, I think I’ll be gay,” I am not sure that means that a rewrite of the Bible is in order.

Yet that is happening as you read this.

Tolerance is simply a code word for the Hegelian Dialectic.

Look at how the pendulum has swung in twenty years.

Bill Clinton’s “big” solution for gays in the military (becoming policy on December 21, 1993) was ‘don’t ask don’t tell,” (DADT) which basically meant that gays were meant to remain in the closet and the military was not permitted to discriminate on personnel they suspected of being homosexual.

Under Obama, DADT was repealed, and the military’s ban on openly homosexual was struck down by a Federal court.

In twenty years we went from persecution, to keep it to yourself, to let your freak flag fly.

Similarly, in the private sector, the gay lobby has made all sorts of inroads (no pun intended).

Major corporations (like the one I just left) have special task forces on GLBT marketing (or in my former employer’s case, the health care needs of GLBT, which, seems to me, are the same health care needs as everyone else, except for counseling and an operation for the T's).

In short, it's all about being politically correct.

According to Emporer Obama's edict, if you make a gay slur, that’s a hate crime.

How long before we start calling it the "G" word? It's coming! America IS that freaking stupid!

In churches, we’ve gone from gays being persecuted and vilified (not very Christian behavior), to being prayed for (better), to some Christian churches performing same sex marriages, in spite of a pretty clear track record in the Bible of the acceptability of gay and lesbian behavior (can you say turned into pillars of salt?).

Some Lutheran churches allow gay priests, and recently, a gay bishop.

You could see it coming.
When “Brokeback Mountain” made it’s Oscar splash, all I heard people say was “why shouldn’t they be allowed to be together?”

And I am certainly not advocating witch hunts on gays and lesbians.

But I do not understand how one reconciles an active gay lifestyle and being Christian.

While I support the idea of DADT, when asked my opinion, I believe marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman.
I believe there would be huge fiscal implications of a change in the definition of marriage (we can’t afford the entitlements we have without causing more), not to mention that it violates the fundamental Christian values this country was founded on.

Does that mean I want to cast out homosexuals?
Of course not.
Does it mean I hate homosexuals (or bisexuals or transgenders)?
Do not be ridiculous.
I thought DADT provided a decent middle ground, and I feel that the Christian faith needs to stick to their non-judgemental guns on this issue.  

God will judge the behavior, or not.

Christians should pray for gays and lesbians, not persecute them, but remain true to the book that is the foundation of their faith.
Whether or not Obama gets his way, any church following the bible should refuse to recognize a GLBT marriage.
But it is already more acceptable to be openly GLBT than it is to be openly Christian.

I believe that many churches are sacrificing their principles to be trendy again. 

Because of that, I think the battle has already been lost by the organized Christian faith.

My father thought the Catholic church made a mistake when they stopped saying mass in Latin.

He may have been right on that seems to have been a slippery slope.

You'll notice I refrained from making a Vaseline joke there. I am not totally without couth.

Saturday, July 6, 2013


In Russia, social lines are tightly drawn between a conservative majority that regards homosexuality as a disease and a small, but active LGBT community that wants to live in the open and enjoy the same minority rights and protections that LGBT people in the West do (thanks to the Emporer Obama).



A new law, signed into force by President Vladimir Putin on Monday, will shift the balance in that picture – by effectively placing the state squarely on the side of those anti-gay nationalist demonstrators.

It's the latest in a raft of legislation that appears to be aimed at changing the character of Russia's state system from the secular, pluralistic democracy outlined in Russia's 1993 Constitution to something supporters refer to as a "majoritarian" democracy, in which the stress is laid upon defending the traditional identity and sensibilities of a majority that feels itself under threat from what it sees as attacks by "aggressive minorities."

Now whether or not you’re standing behind (pun intended) the Russian LGBT lobby or not, I think we can all agree that sentencing pro-gay demonstrators to prison might not be the way to go.

After all, nothing curbs gay tendencies like a bunch of guys in a prison setting, right?

Wednesday, July 3, 2013


President Obama pressed ahead last week with his climate change agenda, calling for new regulations on coal-fired power plants and setting a new condition for the approval of the controversial Keystone pipeline.

"We need to act," Obama said, in an address at Georgetown University.

Obama claimed climate change is having "profound impacts" on the planet and must be addressed. He called for the U.S. to lead the world in a "coordinated assault" on the issue.

Of course, our fearless alien leader cannot provide any details on what those “profound impacts” are….even Al Gore came up with a video! 

But, America, still enamored with the Man From Kenya, kisses his butt and eats his doo-doo up, so Barry O unveiled his controversial platform plank and said he was ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to create the first-ever carbon emissions limits for existing power plants.

An adviser's comment ahead of the speech caused additional turbulence for the administration, as critics seized on it to claim the administration was unfairly targeting the coal industry. Ahead of the speech, White House climate adviser Daniel P. Schrag reportedly told The New York Times that a "war on coal" is needed.

"The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they're having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what's needed," he said. 

Obama took a confrontational tone during part of the speech. Toward the end, he said: "We don't have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society."

He listed a string of proposals. Among them, he said he is directing his administration to allow enough renewables on public lands to power 6 million homes by 2020, effectively doubling the capacity from solar, wind and geothermal projects on federal property.

Apparently, the billions he’s already wasted on such projects is now forgotten.

Obama also called for $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to spur investment in technologies that can keep carbon dioxide produced by power plants from being released into the atmosphere.

In taking action on his own, Obama is also signaling he will no longer wait for lawmakers to act on climate change, and instead will seek ways to work around them. As Emporer, Obama obviously feels that the separation of powers and checks and balances imposed by that silly little Constitutiton are an annoyance, and so once again will usurp authority as he sees fit.

And Americans, too busy wondering who will win Dancing With The Stars, will let him.


So let's review! 

(1) Obama ridicules people who challenge his green agenda, even though there is just as much evidence refuting global warming as supporting it.

(2) Obama has declared a "war" on fossil fuels.

(3) Knowing he cannot get the approval of Congress and the Senate, Obama is going to "get around' them through misuse of executive orders.

(4) Obama's American citizenship is still in dispute.

(5) Obama is a horse's rear end who somehow fooled most of the people some of the time not once, but twice.

Monday, July 1, 2013


This one has had me shaking my head since I was a yewt...

With the exception of very small children who probably could not read the label anyway, doesn't everyone already know this one?

Let's see....this machine is making a lot of noise and that sharp thing that CUTS THE GRASS INTO SHREDS is spinning really fast.

Maybe I'll keep my hands out of there...seems like it might be prudent..

In fact, don't we really want anyone who just can't assume that it's a bad idea to put your hand into the running lawn mower out of the gene pool?