Global "climate change:" inconvenient questions

A conundrum for the global warming activists

This post is about global warming, or global climate change if you prefer, but not in the sense that you might expect. I am not qualified to argue the science of global climate, other than to look at my recorded weather history, including snowfall, which is, to put it mildly, a bit antithetical to the alarmist view.

Bear with me, dear reader, while I set the stage for the specific point I wish to raise.

As I look at things, there are some points on which we should all be able to agree, regardless of our inclinations. These set the stage for further discussion.

1) Climate predictions have been all over the landscape virtually forever. In the 70’s, we were being warned of the “coming ice age.”

2) Climate reality in recorded history has varied wildly, and the severest of those variations occurred before humans and their various enterprises were a meaningful presence on the earth.

3) We have a great deal of difficulty “modeling” weather patterns for next week, next month, or next year, let alone decades from now.

4) Climate “science” is inherently influenced by politics, perhaps more than any other field of knowledge in this day and age. Why? Because it’s a wildly effective weapon in the epic battles in the fields of energy, the environment, capitalism, and numerous other ideological debates.
Further, the vast majority of “scientists” involved in related “research” work in the public sector; they are funded by government either directly or indirectly. Like most professionals, these researchers want to prosper in their chosen pursuits, and prospering means gaining more government money, which requires playing to those who control that money, which demands reinforcing the ideology and political ambitions of those in power.

5) The climate argument separates very clearly on one level: looking at the historic data up to the most recent point that it exists, and looking forward with predictions that vary to the degree in which they take history into account. (Think of the disclaimer you usually get with information on any investment vehicle: “past performance is no indicator of future performance.”)

As we ponder this “discussion,” it seems clear that the last point is the most relevant to the latest commentary, opinions, and warnings. Most recently, the public debate wanders significantly over the landscape.

In the last few weeks, I've heard that global temperatures have cooled in the last 10 years and that they have been flat since 2000. Then I read in a Paul (Pass the Koolaid) Krugman column, printed in the Times Record, that the predictions for global temperature change are twice as horrible as previously thought.

Krugman writes:

“The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility.”

“Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees.”

Krugman further opines that “the vote on the Waxman-Markley cap and tax bill is an abomination: I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.”

That’s Krugman; always calm and collected. There’s nothing wrong with him that a quick blast from a fire extinguisher aimed at his noggin couldn’t fix.

So how can such diametrically opposed views exist in an era of supposed "scientific consensus?"

In a moment or two it dawned on me. The recent evidence of flat or even declining temperatures involve actual observations, while Krugman's case depends on predictions that build on dire historical reports For those who are true believers in global warming, the most recent data undermines their arguments, and so predictions of catastrophe need to escalate accordingly to compensate for wilting prior evidence.

Real facts vs. prognostications; it’s that simple. The former bows not easily to any agenda, while the latter is easily swayed by political fashion and the dollars that flow from it. So as Krugman’s arguments founded on history crumble, he has no choice but to escalate warnings for the future, which by definition cannot be challenged factually.

But that's not my point. Instead, I want to pose a more basic question, and I offer a metaphor to illustrate it. A lifelong engineer like myself is genetically driven to ponder certain questions about the various scientific and technology issues of our age. We simply can't avoid wanting to understand things on our own terms.

I suppose this is the adult version of "taking things apart to see what makes them tick." I begin with the tale of a fellow engineer with whom I worked for most of my career. His father passed away at a fairly early age because of heart problems and emphysema. My friend was aware that his father had high cholesterol, and concerned about his own fate, he decided to have his own blood work done.

Sure enough, he had very high cholesterol; in the upper 300's as I recall. Concerned, my friend took this situation on with a fervor. He worked his way up to running 10 miles or so every day, lost weight (obviously), and went on an extreme cholesterol avoidance diet. And he began to have success at lowering his numbers.

Encouraged, he continued on with his plan. As time went on, his numbers continued to drop, and eventually, they dropped so low as to be unhealthy, so his Doctor advised him to get the numbers back up. So he reversed many of his eating habits to kick the numbers higher, and it worked. Except he overshot the target, sending his numbers too high, and he had to go back on the low cholesterol diet.

I don't remember how many times he oscillated around the "ideal" number. But I want you to think of his circumstances as a metaphor that can shed some insight on "global climate control." An undeniably miraculous and elegant a "system" as the human body may be, it pales in comparison to the global "climate system."

We know that various treatments and life style changes take considerable time to have an effect and show themselves in the physical condition of our body. And we know further that is nearly impossible to reach the exact ideal point, and then hold everything right there. There are too many delayed effects, too many unknown influences, and too many items to monitor and control on a daily basis.

So inevitably, the human experience is one of oscillating or see-sawing around a desirable norm, with some highs, and then some lows, and then the cycle easily repeats. It would be nice if we had a cholesterol dial on our foreheads that constantly displayed our up to the minute HDL and LDL levels, along with a dial for setting our target levels in response.

Think of the thermostat you have to control the heating of your home. It shows the actual temperature, and you set the desired temperature you want. Wouldn't it be fun to have an automatic cholesterol control system like that?

Here's a little engineering secret for you. The thermostat in your home doesn't keep your home at a truly fixed temperature. It has an upper limit and a lower limit that it uses to control your heating or cooling cycle. When the temperature reaches the upper limit (if you are heating), the system turns off until the temperature drops to the lower limit, at which time the heat kicks back on to drive temperature back to the upper figure.

Your interior temperature is actually cycling back and forth over a span of something like 3 degrees, and there is some adjustment range. It has to work over a range like this, or the system would drive you nuts by turning on and off every few minutes. Your water heater works the same way. There are time constants and operating ranges involved.

So why does this matter? Before I explain that, let's put aside any doubts about global warming, and what the human role is in any such concerns. They are not germane to my point.

Of far greater concern are what I consider the “inconvenient questions” that arise when considering what to do about climate, as uncertain as the theories and prognostications are. It’s one thing to sit around the dinner table, or in your favorite coffee roasting house, and discuss the subject. It’s quite another to set national and global economic policy, with unintended consequences a given, based on raging and emotional debate.

So here’s some questions I have. I hope you readers can provide answers to help me decide where I stand on the subject. They express things in the most basic of terms.

• Who will we trust to be the temperature "Doctor" for the world, the one given the authority to say what the “global temperature” is and what it should be?

• Who will be the authority to declare that global temperature needs to be lowered, or for that matter, raised?

• Who will be the authority that determines when the steps taken to affect such change need to be scaled back because of change beyond what was called for?

• How many degrees of temperature undershoot or overshoot will we tolerate, and how will we address this very real issue?

• How will we determine what the “lag” is between proposed remedies and their effects? Who will say “enough is enough” or “reverse course,” and on what basis?

Or, to put it in simple terms, who will own and control the thermostat for the world? And can we trust him or her to keep us all comfortable? Not too warm, but not too chilly either.

You know, "just right," like porridge.

Fore Street, Bintliffs, and Dr. Mikes

The "favorites" I posted earlier are week in, week out old reliables.

There are others worthy of note, and the ones I am about to mention are those we consider "special occasion" choices.

For dinner, Fore Street in Portland (on Fore Street...go figure!) is a wonderful place; I believe it made top five restaurants in the country in the most recent year. I prefer it in the colder seasons; it has a warm and welcoming ambiance where you watch food cooking on open fires, see the preparation, and otherwise know you are getting the best of everything. Sam Hayward, the owner, is a legend nationally, and particularly to foodies in Maine.

The bar is my favorite for atmosphere; there is no better place to sip a classic martini, enjoy an appetizer, and build your expectations for the dinner to come. Quiet and reserved as your humble correspondent may be, he always leans toward the talkative side while sitting here and watching the action.

Here's the problem: their reservation book is filled up way in advance. Don't expect to call looking for a table tomorrow night, Friday night, or next week. You may slip in by pure luck, but they are in demand, and it shows when making reservations. It reminds me of the best places in Nawlins, where they book tables a year or more in advance.

We've had some luck with just showing up and having our name put on the list; they keep a number of openings for the "walk in" folks. It just depends on how long you're willing to wait and how much of a chance you're willing to take. In our view, the gamble always pays off. The ingredients, the service, the preparation, and the flavors are simply the best.

Now for breakfast. If you're looking for "diner style," give Dr. Mikes Madness Cafe in downtown Lisbon Falls a try. The owner spent a fortune renovating the place to a kind of 60's & Elvis style, and did a great job at it. They have their own in house bakery, and the offerings are irresistable. Wait until you see the tables and chairs....they'll bring back memories of your parents (or grandparents) kitchen.

This is a sizable operation, far beyond what you would expect to find a few doors from the Kennebec Fruit Company, where Moxie is the trademark. They do everything well; the short trip from Brunswick will be worth your while. Try the tapioca pudding; when's the last time you've seen that?

If you want a truly special breakfast, put Bintliff's Ocean Grill in Edgecomb on your agenda. Foodies will probably recognize the name of the owner - Roger Bintliff. The place is on your right just after you cross the bridge from downtown Wiscasset heading north.

Bintliff is a genuine patriot who has been extremely generous to our veterans, an entrepreneurial genius, and a chef of world class stature when it comes to breakfast. This is not a "diner." They don't serve breakfast starting at 6am. They call it "brunch."

You will pay a couple of bucks more per breakfast than you might elsewhere, but it will be more than worth it. You'll sit at tables overlooking the Sheepscot River, walk on terrazo floors, and enjoy fine silver and dinnerware. The menu options are beyond belief, particularly if you like omelets, as I do. The choice of ingredients, the quantities, and the overall excellence will leave you dazzled. The inventiveness of their offerings, like "creme brulee french toast," will leave you breathless. Anything with corned beef in it has shredded fresh cooked meat, not canned hash.

This is gourmet breakfasting, and at a great location. Crappy weather detracts; the right weather and the right time of year adds to the pleasure. Regardless, you will get more than your money's worth. I'm not crazy about the Starbuck's coffee they serve, but I've found a small splash of hot water makes it perfectly acceptable for me. I prefer black coffee, not a milk shake with multiple sugars and several creams, so the slight dilution is my preferred solution.

Let me know when you give any of these a try.

"Drug Free Zones"

The Brunswick Town Council, at the request of the Police Department, is pondering adding to the list of "Drug Free Zones" in town.

Wonderful; who would argue with reducing the dangers of illegal drug activity, and especially as it threatens our children and general order in public places.

Let's be clear on a few things, though. Calling a zone "Drug Free" because government declares it so is an unfortunate abuse of plain language in the public discourse. It's about as impossible to make a zone drug free as it is to make a stretch of highway "speeding free." All you can do is increase the penalties associated with such behavior, and hope that the would be perpetrators choose not to engage in it. In truth, "Drug Free" zones will be "Elevated Penalty Zones."

Then there's the other side of the coin: what should we call those zones not labeled "Drug Free?" Are they "Drug Rich Zones?" Or "Drug Availability Zones?" Or "Preferred Drug Zones?"

Despite what many think, land mines used by the military are not always deployed to blow up people or things, but rather to "shape the battlefield" by influencing the movement and restricting the location of the opposition.

Will it turn out that Drug Free Zones have the unintended consequence of concentrating drug use and dealing in particular areas?

Which then leads to this obvious question: why isn't the entire town of Brunswick being declared a "Drug Free Zone," so that the elevated penalties apply no matter where the offense is committed?

Not doing so is akin to the distortions of "Hate Crime" legislation, which begs the issue of whether there is such a thing as a "Love Crime."

Above all, let's ask that our public servants use the English language in the way it is intended, and minimize the misconceptions that flow from their deliberations and decisions.

Brunswick: International Point of Entry?

Over the weekend, a question came to mind regarding the potential for Oxford Aviation to operate a "Jet Division" at the soon to be former Brunswick Naval Air Station.

Oxford tout F. Lee Bailey has predicted "global leadership" for Brunswick after Oxford sets up shop. And he claims that Oxford is already in discussions with Airbus Industries, a European aircraft manufacturer helped along by government subsidies.

Both of these assertions imply that we should expect planes arriving from overseas, and departing for overseas. Does this mean we can add a customs operation to the infrastructure required for airport operation?

Just wondering.

The Sizzle AND the Steak

There's an old saw in marketing and advertising that you "sell the sizzle, not the steak," and it's true enough in that world.

But in the real world of steak eating, both are important, and the steak itself is the key. The Poppycock's have been enjoying a steak on average once a week for almost our entire married life. We've been through various phases of preference and purchasing strategies.

There are three aspects to having a great steak at home: what you buy, how you prep it, and how you cook it. I will address all three.

First, buying. In a prior life, when neighborhood butchers still existed, the owner would custom age top sirloin for us, which for years was our preferred primal cut. I'd buy the cut up section from him and freeze the individual portions. I can still remember that shop very well, with the father/owner and three of his sons or so working behind the counter.

Over the years, we've gravitated towards the "rib-eye" as our preferred cut. It's just a slice of the roast normally sold as "prime rib," or more correctly, a standing rib roast. I don't remember when or why we made the switch. It may well have been because of one of those virtually extinct species in life, the neighborhood market. They're akin to Frosty's Donuts, a true original, whose future is certainly limited.

While Paul Tetreault was operating his neighborhood market on Union Street, we regularly stopped by his shop on the way home from Saturday breakfast out to buy that nights steak out of his meat case. A practiced eye would often spot a rib-eye or two with near prime grade marbling, and old P. C. became quite expert at "cherry picking" from those on display, or if none met the standard, asking Paul to look in his frig for a new one to cut into. How we miss that great little market and how it helped you hold onto a taste of what life once was like, and the personal touch it involved.

I was born in a house three doors away from the corner store my Grandfather operated. I remember the candy case, with rock candy, those little dots on white paper that you bought by the inch, and other treats of a bygone era. If you wanted a chicken, they went out in the backyard to grab one, and after the deed was done, it got dunked in very hot water to make it easier to pluck. Now that's fresh. My grandparents lived upstairs. In the same neighborhood, working men would head to the local tavern with their little pots, and get them filled with draft beer. They'd walk back home and sit on the porch and drink it (from glasses.)

But I digress.

We still have a few local butchers. Bissons, in Topsham, unfortunately, is not on the way to or from anything, so we don't visit as often as we should. Bow Street Market in Freeport is, and their butcher counter is a first rate operation, with a great selection on steaks, including Wolfe's Neck Farm beef, if you feel like splurging. In my experience, that choice is superb, but I rarely feel the cost is justified, especially when you see well marbled steaks in the case at a far lower price. Hannafords, while not a "neighborhood market," occasionally has steak sales or "managers special" markdowns that can be very good.

After all these years, I have settled on one very reliable source for our steak, and that is BJ's on Warren Avenue in Portland. They package the ribeyes in threes, and the price per pound is generally less than you can buy it anywhere else, and more important, the way they cut it and the quality are better than anywhere else I've found. This particular BJ's cuts them nice and thick; a package of three typically weighs between three pounds and close to four pounds, meaning that each steak is large and thick. One steak is more than enough for the two of us, especially if you carve it after cooking, rather than serving a "chunk" on each plate. Somehow, slicing makes it go further.

The thickness is important if you like a steak well charred on the outside, but medium rare on the inside (or medium, I suppose) on the inside. This BJ's cuts them thick enough to work well at this, but I know from experience that not all BJ's cut them as thick. I typically look through all their packages on display, focusing on marbling and the amount of outer fat. I pick the ones that look best. If we are out and they have only one that meets the test, that's all I buy. On the other hand, if they have two or three packages that are well marbled, heading towards the prime area, I will buy they all, and individually wrap and freeze them at home. I have come to understand that in today's meat packing and distribution world, "choice" really means choice or better.

For preparation, the first thing you need to do is let the steak come to room temperature. If it is frozen, you can thaw it quickly by setting it in a heavy frying pan or other mass of metal. You'll be amazed at how such a trick will thaw such things.

I usually trim the thawed ribeye of major white fat or suet, which this cut naturally includes. Leave some on for flavor, but cut away the stuff that is 1/4" thick or more. Then pour a bit of extra virgin olive oil on both sides and let it sit for a bit.

Seasoning is next. We've been through all the approaches. Season it before cooking, during cooking, after cooking, etc. After years of experience, I've settled on the latter. Seasoning it with salt before cooking draws too much moisture out of the steak. During cooking is a challenge because of the heat and the smoke; most of the seasoning doesn't hit the meat.

Here's what I do. When the steak is cooked long enough, I bring it in on a warmed plate and season it generously with kosher salt and fresh ground black pepper. I don't think anything else is needed on a good steak. If you cooked it right, the juices on the surface of the steak will immediately be infused with the salt and the pepper, and the result will be a superbly flavored steak eating experience. Let it sit for 3-5 minutes before serving/slicing.

This point is really important: if you follow my suggestions, you will be removing the steak from the cooking surface before it is done to your liking. The cooking will finish while it is sitting on the warm plate with the kosher salt and black pepper elevating the flavor.

So what do you cook it on? I don't think anything beats grilling. Purists prefer charcoal grills, and I have no doubt that they are truly the epitome of such cooking. But they are a lot of work, not particularly predictable, and a real pain in the butt during bad weather, or even worse, winter. So I'll take the gas grill because it is just the opposite.

I think we've owned about six or so of these critters, of varying cost and quality. A few years back, we bought a Weber gas grill, at considerable expense. It has been worth it; it is simply the best, hottest, and most consistent we have every owned. I don't regret buying it one bit.

It makes cooking steak as we like it very easy and very consistent. I heat it up on high; not much more than 5-7 minutes is required to get it at maximum temperature. I take the room temperature, thick cut and unseasoned ribeye on the grill, and hear the immediate sizzle, always a good sign. Close the lid, cook two minutes. Turn over, close the grill, cook another two minutes. Then, if it is average thickness, cook another 30-60 seconds on each side, depending on thickness and outside temperature.

Remove from the grill, bring inside, and immediately season generously with kosher salt and fresh ground black pepper. Let rest for five minutes or so while you eat your salad, and then serve and enjoy.

Follow these instructions carefully, and you will have a major steak success. And you will have steak juices on your plate that will prove a real challenge to your manners. Is it ok to slurp steak juices from a dinner plate or not? Perhaps Ms. Manners will chime in on the rules. As for me, I'll leave it up to you; I know what we do here.

Or maybe not. As it turns out, just after typing most of this post, I threw a gorgeous ribeye on my Weber gas grill, following all the directions outlined above. After letting it rest, I wen to cut it in half for serving, and immediately knew it was rare, not medium-rare. So I relit the grill, which was still quite hot, and cooked it for another minute on each side. Perfect.

Enjoy one way or another. And if you have any questions, you know where to find me.

Whither goest "Brunswick International Airport?"

In "All Quiet in Lake Basebegone" I touched briefly upon the question of operating the airfield on BNAS once the Navy is gone. If it is to be operated at all.

There are 3 questions that immediately come to mind on this subject:

1. Who will take on that responsibility?
2. What will be the costs involved?
3. Will those who use the airfield be prepared to pay that cost on a per use basis?

Until someone steps up and provides an alternative explanation, I presume the answer to Question 1 is that the taxpayers will. And given that MRRA is not a permanent creation, and the state is in extremis fiscally, I presume that the Town of Brunswick will eventually be strapped with operating the airfield.

As to Question 2, operating the airfield will be a major expense on top of a very large expense for the town to provide normal Public Works and Public Safety coverage for the former base property, along with a long list of other costs. All those streets, all those buildings, all those grassy and landscaped areas will need to be kept maintained and secure. Millions of dollars per year are clearly involved. And with very little possibility for offsetting revenue.

Now for Question 3. I have no idea how much operating the airfield will cost, but let's assume it runs $1 million a year for the sake of discussion, or about $20,000 per week, not including any capital expenditures that may be required from time to time. If someone has a better figure, they can let us know what it is.

Oxford Aviation has signed a "letter of intent," contents held private by the king of confidentiality, to set up business on the base. At the moment, they are the only known enterprise that will require airfield services, so it is fair to suggest that until someone else appears to share the costs, Oxford should bear them completely.

They want to service "larger" aircraft at their "Brunswick Jet Division." If they were to, say, bring in one jetliner per week, the airfield cost would be $20,000. If they were to bring in two aircraft per week, the amortized cost per plane would be $10,000.

One has to wonder whether Oxford is prepared to add those amounts to their bids, plussed up by the usual loaders. And whether they think they can be competitive while having to pay for airfield operations.

Anyone who suggests that Oxford shouldn't have to pay those costs is saying that the taxpayers have an obligation to pay them, and that would be "corporate welfare" of a permanent nature.

I'm just a small town guy with an insatiable thirst for knowledge that leads me to ask questions that seem pretty obvious. I'd sure as heck like to find a small town guy or gal, preferably in Brunswick, that has an insatiable desire to provide answers.

Let us know if you run across one, and don't let him or her get away!

British Comedy Meets Open Government

This is a "two-fer" for this reporter.

There's been a lot going on nationally in the area of Government transparency. Here in Maine, MHPC went public with "Maine Open Government." And before you know it, Brunswick's "checkbook" should be added to the site, joining the list of other towns going public with their financial data.

Now for the "two-fer" part. I don't know how many of you have watched BBC offerings. Some have played on cable/satellite channels. Most widely known are "Keeping Up Appearances" and "As Time Goes By."

Others are only available at Bart & Gregs. We discovered "Monarch of the Glen" and "House of Cards" there. Both were superb, the former running for 8 "seasons" and the latter a superb political intrigue series within the context of the British Parliament.

British TV of this quality has characters and writing that transcend just about anything found on American TV, which tends toward the juvenile, formulaic, predictable, and sensational. In particular, the Brits have many absolutely marvelous classical actors and actresses, some of whom have appeared in blockbuster movies like Lord of the Rings. I really do suggest checking out the British TV section at Bart and Gregs, and given the weather outlook, you may well have plenty of time for viewing such series.

OK...enough intro. I came across this quote while reading on transparency on the Mackinac Center web site. It perfectly parlays the Brit's witty and piercing humor with the notion of open government:

Back in the 1980s this notion was the subject of an episode ("Open Government") of the British television sitcom "Yes Minister." The following exchange among three bureaucrats illustrates just how difficult this whole business can be.

A: "What's wrong with open government? I mean, shouldn't the public know more about what's going on?"

B: (with a look of disgust): "Are you serious?"

A: "Well, ah, yes, sir. I mean, it is the minister's policy after all."

B: "But it's a contradiction in terms. You can be open, or you can have government."

A: "But, but, surely the citizens of a democracy have a right to know."

C: "No. They have a right to be ignorant. Knowledge only means complicity and guilt. Ignorance has a certain (pause) dignity. You don't just give people what they want if it's not good for them! Do you give brandy to an alcoholic?"

B: "If people don't know what you're doing, then they don't know what you're doing wrong."

A: "I'm sorry, but I am the PM's private secretary and if that's what he wants, then . . ."

C: "You'll definitely not be serving your minister by helping him make a fool of himself. Look at the ministers we've had. Every one of them would have been a laughingstock in three months had it not been for the most rigid and impenetrable secrecy about what they were doing!"

Reading the whole document, "Three Cheers for Transparency," will be well worth your while, as it has some interesting narrative on the contemporary issue of reading, or more correctly, not reading bills before passing them.

Perfect rainy afternoon reading. Unless you have some BBC DVD's to cheer you up. At this very moment, the Poppycocks are experiencing a very proper thunderstorm.

All Quiet in Lake Basebegone

It’s been a quiet two weeks here in Lake Basebegone since the Town Council held a workshop on Base redevelopment on June 22nd, nearly two weeks ago.

On that night, Commissioner John Richardson spoke about protocols. And Steve Levesque, Executive Director of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority (MRRA), discussed plans to issue a Request for Quotations (RFQ) soliciting proposals for “fixed base operations.” This is to find someone who would operate the airport infrastructure of the base, so that aircraft could actually land, take-off, and get whatever services they require.

Things have been noticeably quiet since the night of the workshop. Your humble correspondent had a commentary published in the Times Record on the Friday before the meeting (see Part III). While my commentary that ran a month earlier than that, which only touched briefly on Oxford Aviation, resulted in a timely response from Jim Horowitz, President of the firm, the more recent column, which addressed Oxford at some length, has elicited no such response.

Perhaps Horowitz has suddenly converted to Richardson’s “confidentiality is king” policy, convenient escape that it provides, even though a thoroughly contrary, decidedly public image has been his style so far. (See Part III, photoshopping, and of course, F. Lee Bailey.)

At the workshop, two essential realities were revealed, though they may not have been recognized as such. Richardson made it clear that MRRA is a temporary creation, and that it will exist for “5, maybe 10 years.” And the MRRA search for a “fixed base operator,” via an RFQ, makes it clear that airport operations require a funding source to pay such an operator. Taken together, the two facts raise the question of who will pay for operating the base after the MRRA is dis-established. And how much will be spent to allow the first Oxford client to land and take off from the base?

So far, such questions are essentially dismissed by Richardson and MRRA as the unhelpful criticism of those opposed to redevelopment efforts. One of the principles of politics in this day and age is that if the question is too hard to answer, demonize the one who asked it.

Town Councilors, some of whom were reported to be concerned about the Oxford situation, have been noticeably quiet on the subject, with no public comment.

On another front, a request to MRRA for details on the RFQ and the funds to engage a winning competitor has gone unanswered. It must be because “confidentiality is king.”

I’ve kept some things confidential since I discovered them during my research. Perhaps the time has come to challenge the “king,” and dethrone him with the higher purpose of public interest.

"Quarryography;" or how the beautiful live on your taxes

I don't think anyone would quibble with the right of "artists" to pursue their self-expression, as long as they respect the rights of others as they do so.

I do, however, have major heartburn when I see such artists doing what they do with TAXPAYER MONEY. In other words, eschewing productive work as a means to earn their own way because there are enough politicians willing to cater to such "free spirits" by dispensing OPM (other people's money) so they can seek a higher level of consciousness.

Especially when budgets are as bloated as they have gotten in recent years. There is no legitimate constitutional basis for government engaging in such folly. Anymore than there is such a basis for sending me an "endowment grant" for publishing this blog, or sending me chits for martini's at a local adult beverage emporium.

This comes courtesy of MHPC, which tagged it thus:

"Quarryography in Stonington Maine"
This project received a grant of $5,000.00 from the Maine Arts Commission and additional funding from the National Endowment for the Arts. This is one of many projects funded with your tax dollars!

Kool-Aid Shot: Rep. Seth Berry and Taxes

Every now and then you're served a Kool-Aid Shooter, whether you want it or not, and it often comes from the media and their syndicated columnists, or someone in the political business. Last night such a shot arrived courtesy of Representative Seth Berry in the Times Record.

As you might expect, Berry was congratulating himself and the permanent ruling class for the "major tax reform package" they passed.

Berry wants you to believe that they really, really want to cut the revenue coming to the State and shrink the size of State Government. He forgets to address what the fallout for your local property taxes is, although it must have been just an oversight.

Berry has a bit of a consistency problem in his letter. In the opening paragraph, he says this:

The changes we enacted in our tax policy will reduce overall taxes for many of our older citizens, particularly those on fixed incomes at the lower end of the income scale.

Further in he says this:

Maine citizens at every income level will pay less in taxes next year, and Maine’s elderly and working poor are no exception.

Evidently he can't decide whether many or all of us will pay less "overall" taxes.

As a final show of Augusta's desire to do anything it takes to grant widespread prosperity in Maine, we get this assertion:

Tax reform is a step towards the greater prosperity for which Maine has struggled for centuries. When that tide rises, we want every boat to rise with it.

Readers who believe that Berry and his associates are more interested in greater prosperity than they are in bigger government have a serious problem in recognizing reality. And the only struggle I'm aware of on their part is the struggle to squeeze more revenue from us without us realizing it.

"A little bit of this...."

Broccoli/Cauliflower Salad...get ready for a pleasant surprise!

We visited my older brother and family in Cleveland last year. They have 9 children, and 40 grandchildren. A whole lot of food has passed through their kitchen over the years.

One night at dinner they served this salad, which is a "summery" sort of recipe, whatever summer is. It was not on the top of my list as I looked at all the other offerings on the table, but I joined the crowd and took some.

What a surprise! This salad is phenomenal; it's hard to stop eating it. And as a real bonus, it may be a way to finally get friends and family to eat broccoli and cauliflower! Oh, the magic of pork fat, I suppose.

My brother said the recipe ran in the Cleveland Plains Dealer, and it set a record for most requested recipe ever.

You must give it a try, and after you do, please come on back and comment on your experience.

Broccoli/Cauliflower Salad

1 Bunch of broccoli, the flowerets cut into small pieces
1 Head cauliflower, cut into small flowerets

(A lot depends on the size of the heads and bunches of the above - use your discretion)

8 Slices of crumbled bacon
1/2 Cup raisins
1/4 Cup chopped onion

Mix and chill. Add the following dressing just before serving:

1 Cup Hellman's Mayonnaise (in every Maine home, of course)
1/2 Cup sugar
2 T vinegar

(Note: if you're a fan of crunchy texture, try adding some sunflower seeds, roasted pecan chunks, or anything else that sounds good.)

Great Governing Principles from the MCPP

A couple years back I picked up a pamphlet published by the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. They're a think tank along the lines of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, focused first and foremost on limited government.

I loved what I found in the pamphlet. Ten simple and profound Governing Principles, stated briefly below. The pamphlet expands on each one, stating specifically what adherence to such principles would mean.

If you go here, you can download the full version of the pamphlet in pdf form, and I urge you to do so. It will be a quick and robust read, and offer you great wisdom on what our leaders should be doing as they govern.

Compare what you read here to the "founding principles" that MECEP came out with in this post. Night and day would describe the difference.

Governing Principles

1. Government exists to protect rights, not to create them.

2. The legitimate power of government begins and ends with the people, while its authority comes from the Creator.

3. Just because a problem exists doesn't mean government should try to solve it.

4. Long-term and cumulative consequences should be considered more carefully than short-term benefits.

5. Government has nothing to give anyone except what it first takes from someone else.

6. Individuals are ultimately responsible for governing themselves and for the consequences of their decisions.

7. Free enterprise, not government, is the engine of personal economic prosperity.

8. The free market should not be distorted by government-designed dictates or advantages.

9. Government has a responsibility to protect the foundational institution of society: the marriage based, two-parent family.

10. Parents, not government, are responsible for the education and upbringing of their children.