Against Goliath

Global Warming Doesn’t Mean Climate Change!

Posted on March 25, 2015 by Kent

To say that global warming causes a specific weather event is like saying someone robbed a bank because of poverty. Moreover we don’t know if the person who robbed the bank was poor. If global warming is climate change then raising prices is inventory change, and gaining weight is health change.

So far as I know there are two real, large, verifiable and widely accepted scientific studies that show undeniable and factual evidence of global warming. One of those studies shows very strong statistical evidence of human interference as a cause of warming a specific area of the USA. There is no need to cite those studies here since the science is widely accepted. So much is the science accepted that millions of people ridicule anyone who even appears to question that science.

To be clear, I am not questioning the science, I am questioning the widely held beliefs of lay people. These people do not know or care about the science. They just know global warming is affecting their lives and their weather today, even though the science is not clear. Further the ridicule and disdain these lay people show to those of us who think for ourselves is ironic. Those who ridicule are the stupid ones, and their ridicule is harmful to humanity.

Obviously throughout global history this earth has experienced climate change. There is a well-accepted theory of a mini-ice age that was over about 1800 AD, but is coming back soon due to increased sun spot activity. I don’t think scientists are blaming human activity for sun spots. But there is evidence of human interference with global temperature. There is only inference and innuendo that such interference has caused, is causing or will cause climate change.

Mini ice age in the news.

Yes the polar ice is melting, yes the Pacific Ocean is warmer, yes temperature averages around the globe in most areas have gone up, especially night time temperatures. But where is the causal relationship between the temperature change and a weather event? Many scientists predict weather events will be more severe and more frequent. But data on such storms, at least very accurate data, are from satellites and those have only been a reliable source of data since about 1979. That doesn’t say anything about our storms 50 years ago or more.

I am not denying global warming or climate change. But to ridicule people for questioning data that does not exist is a common pass time among the uneducated majority. The correct scientific answer “we don’t know” is an answer that will get you ridiculed if you say it in public. “Of course we know”, they say. “Of course this snow fall is due to global warming”. “Anyone who questions the evidence is denying global warming”, they say. Not so, there is no such evidence. There is good evidence for global warming, but not for climate change.

A Cyclone in the Pacific is not due to global warming. Well. Maybe, but probably not. Most years there are cyclones in the Pacific regardless of global temperature. So, to say that such a weather event is due to global warming is a stretch. But saying what I just said in many circles is enough to bring ridicule upon you. And those who say “yes well of course the cyclone is due to global warming” are the same people who will say that a bank robber chose to rob a bank because of poverty.

He or she might have been poor, might have been influenced by poverty, but then again maybe not. “We don’t know” is the best answer we have. But “we don’t know” is not a satisfying answer, so we just make up an answer that might be true. “It must have been poverty.” And the cyclone must be global warming. And those of us who want to understand the situation better are worthy of ridicule.

Posted in Book, Economics, Incompetence, News | Leave a comment

Bisexual Intolerance – A New Viewpoint

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Kent

A person who is bisexual is not necessarily a good or bad person. A person who questions what is a bisexual is not a good or bad person. Bringing up the subject of what is a bisexual is uncomfortable, and I will be blamed for talking about uncomfortable subjects. Long ago it was not considered politic or dignified to talk about sex. Now it is front page news and no one seems to state in open terms why it is important.

The new governor of Oregon, Kate Brown is “openly bisexual”. Open minded people believe such a declaration means she must be a good person and her sex life is none of our business. In the olden days people did not talk about such things and no one openly declared what kind of sex they prefer. Mostly we are grateful she has not provided details of precisely what she means when she declares her sexual preferences in public.

No matter how liberal, conservative, open minded or reasonable we see ourselves we all, in the past and in the present, arrive at a point of shock, shame or silence when we fully examine the implications of publicly declaring details of our sex lives out loud. There are some details we don’t want to hear. What does a bisexual do, exactly?

You are about to be challenged and possibly angered by what I have written. Our prejudices are partisan and only reason may sway an opinion. My personal prejudices are not the issue, nor are the terms I choose to express the striking nature of public sex discussions. With open debate about marriage and family there are many new questions, which are strikingly similar to the old questions. All of us who examine our minds and hearts eventually examine sexual preferences and prejudices, definitions and preconceptions and we all know that someone’s sexual preference should not influence our judgement as to whether or not they are good people.

It may be human nature to make a decision on a topic like tolerance or acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual people, and not examine the topic in detail. We avoid talking about details of sex. Perhaps we are very tolerant of all kinds of sexual expression. But we have ideas of what kind of sex we tolerate and what kinds we find distastefully deviant. I do not suggest that there is any relation between, say, homosexuality and rape but we universally condemn rape as we almost universally condemned homosexuality some 50 years ago.

Perhaps we have generalized our racism to cover sexism. Perhaps we know in our minds that people cannot control their race and race is not an indicator of character or intelligence, therefore sex isn’t important either. Do we want to study intelligence and character of homosexuals and bisexuals the way we study racial differences?

Again, in the olden days people publicly named a gay person and called to mind our own worst prejudices, most often with a negative connotation on what we ourselves consider deviant. Often we deal with those prejudices internally and express our support for people who are different from us by virtue of certain catch words: gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual… And with those catch-words we often gloss over what each of those words means. We may think we know what rape means, and we use hyphenated pseudo definitions like date-rape and statutory-rape. But when someone says they are bisexual, what does that mean, exactly?

With media saturation and the faces of gays openly in our lives and in the media we may have thought more than earlier generations about our prejudices. Certainly the vast majority of us have separated gay from universally maligned deviant sexual behavior like pederasty, rape, bestiality, polygamy, prostitution and open marriage. Sexual tourism to countries where prostitution is legal, a long list of options on the internet for porn and/or “hook-ups” and other sexual meetings without regard to legality or gender or specific acts are easily available for all to see. We may be further revising our ideas of deviant sex. We may believe anything short of rape and pederasty should be permitted in the privacy of one’s home. Or perhaps we more conservatively believe that prostitution and adultery also should be condemned.

From time to time one reads headlines about a sex act by a prominent individual, Adam Kuhn, Vance McAllister, Ken Mehlman, Ryan Loskam and Robert Decheine just in recent memory. Perhaps we have thought deeply about our own views and prejudices and know how we stand on each issue, that, for example prostitution is not so bad, and bestiality is okay but not pederasty. The aim of this article is to help you examine what you do and don’t accept when you support LBG rights.

In previous discussions with several people I have pushed the idea that when someone “comes out” as a bisexual that means that person has sex with both sexes. I have met with lots of resistance to such a shocking proposal. Do we really accept a politician and lawyer who has sex with both sexes? Maybe it is not so shocking, that perhaps a bisexual is attracted to both sexes but doesn’t have sex. Perhaps we are willing to accept a bisexual who is attracted to both sexes but does not act on that attraction.

Or perhaps we really think it is okay whatever someone does with other people sexually even outside the bounds of marriage. Perhaps we have arrived at a point in society where marriage is a secular and not sacred institution and those politicians who transgress the bounds of marriage may do so without fear of voter reprisals. We can rationalize or ignore but there is no longer the option of days of yore to condemn without further examination. We may condemn but at your personal peril. You will be called to task on your condemnation. What precisely is the line you will not allow others to cross?

Today we have bisexual politicians, or at least one, in one of the highest political offices of the land. This bisexual might be married heterosexually and then we might say it is okay to be bisexual but if you are married then you shouldn’t have sex outside of the marriage. Someone who truly accepts bisexuality would accept threesomes and open marriages and orgies. Perhaps those of us who support bisexual rights can also support polygamy.

This all began with the contention that homosexuality is natural. I think we can all agree that attraction to the opposite sex is innate, like an instinct. I think there is enough evidence to support a contention that in many cases people are born with a strong predilection toward homosexuality. But who wants to put forth the proposition openly that homosexual attractions are similar to a bisexual attraction, an attraction to young boys, or a sexual attraction to animals?

Such shocking questions need to be addressed eventually. Or perhaps such questions are not at all shocking once we have accepted the LBG premise that such couplings are only natural. Evidence of the use of adolescent boys for sexual pleasure exist in every society in which a historical record exists, as does disgust for such practices. Bestiality is outlawed everywhere in the world if only under animal abuse laws, but no one believes the practice has been wiped out. Kinsey reports 8% of men and nearly 4% of women have had such a cross species encounter. Kinsey reports 40% or more of people who live on farms have had such sex, but those numbers are disputed.

Posted in Book, Incompetence, News, Stupid Laws | 6 Comments

Does Islam Think?

Posted on January 13, 2015 by Kent

Institutional Islam does not want to take sides for or against the Islamic Terrorists and the Islamic Extremists. Islam teaches that the world will one day be all Muslim and Islam does not want to hinder the process, even though the process is bloody.

You will not see Institutional Islam, and by that I mean the Imams and Mullahs and the leaders of the larger more influential Mosques of the Muslim world would say Islam believes in the rights of non-Muslims, that there can be no forced or false conversion to Islam, that everyone of whatever religion has basic human rights and cannot be forced to follow Islam or Islamic law… In other words, if Islam taught peaceful co-existence the war on terror would be over.

Institutional Islam must know this simple fact. Islam is the problem and only tolerance and peace is the solution. The simple platitudes are not enough. Every child in Islamic school is taught the error of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and the Baha’i Faith. There is no doubt in any Muslim’s mind that non-Muslims are wrong about religion.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No one believes this is hazardous.

Posted on October 8, 2014 by Kent

More than 20 years after the last “hazardous” chemical was removed from Luciano’s dry cleaners in Torrington, CT, ten years after the last time the two dozen or so borings and wells and the scores of soil and water samples showed any problem the property has been declared a Significant Environmental Hazard by the Connecticut DEEP.

In 1993 water samples taken at the Wall Street gas station some 75 meters downstream from this property found 27 parts per billion (ppb) of tetracloroethylene (also called PCE or Perc) . In 2005 soil samples from 14 borings on the Luciano site the tetracloroethylene was at 40 ppb (or .000000004%) at the highest concentration. Levels below 25 ppb need not be reported. No other tests have shown any liquid hazards.

The 2006 recommendation of the Licensed Environmental Professionals firm HRP Associates Inc is below:

“At a minimum, one additional monitoring well is needed for the southern portion of the site near the former dry cleaning operation to provide an adequate monitoring network. Please note that this well will likely be installed in bedrock, based on the shallow refusals encountered in this area during the Phase II investigation.”

In August and September of 2010 I contracted with HRP Associates and paid them $6300 to drill wells to fulfill this recommendation. They drilled several holes but according to their estimation the one well needed could not be drilled. Now they want to charge over $17,000 to drill this well.

The most important issue of inquiry is whether or not this well must be drilled at all, and if it does need to be drilled, does it need to be drilled as HRP insists, inside my basement? No reasonable person who has looked into this situation believes there is an environmental hazard.

I also have many examples of irresponsible quotes for work from HRP Associates. Originally they required the entire parking area be remediated for a single sample of lead which now may be removed by two men and a shovel. Original quotes were in excess of $45,000 for this work alone.

While preparing to remediate the lead with shovels HRP Associates provided to me a form letter to send to all adjacent property owners to notify them of the remediation work and ask them if they had well water on their property. There is a well about 250 meters uphill from this property and therefore all work must stop and I was required by law (according to HRP Assoc.) to notify the DEEP that I am a “Significant Environmental Hazard”. The DEEP says I may now be required to do more or different work on this property depending upon how this will tests.

This seems Kafkaesque. 2005 levels of a chemical that hasn’t been on this property in over 20 years makes this property a hazard today to well water uphill even though water samples downstream tested clean over 20 years ago. No one seriously believes there is a hazard here, but the LEP charges $17,000 to prove there is no problem.

HRP also insists that I pay $6,500 for them to “identify all properties within 500 feet of … property boundary 2) search well drilling records at the health department, CT DEEP, and Dept. of Consumer Protection to identify wells, 3) contact the water company to see which properties they serve, and 4) a drive-by survey.” I am not able to do such work myself since I am not licensed, and I cannot hire another licensed person to do the work since they would need to re-perform all the background work and not rely on the work of another Licensed Environmental Professional.

EXCERPTS [direct quotes from the Reports except brackets mine]:

[From December 9, 2005 Phase I Report (62 Pages)]

Conclusions: The DEP indicated in the memo that the identified chlorinated VOC [volatile organic compounds] groundwater contamination is presumably from Luciano’s Cleaners, the subject site. PCE levels up to 27 parts per billion (ppb) and TCE levels up to 6.5 ppb [levels under 25 ppb are not considered dangerous] were detected on the East Wall Gulf Station property. A DEP Memo dated January 10, 1994 suggests that chlorinated VOC contamination detected on this property is presumably from Luciano’s Cleaners, the subject site.

Water samples taken by Harwinton Drilling on 1/29/93 only showed very levels [sic] of hydrocarbons in monitoring well #1 (See attachment #12}. The DEP’s LUST Section surveyed and sampled these wells on 10/25/93. Groundwater flow was determined to be basically parallel to the Branch River. The upgradient well (#1696} showed low levels of PCE, TCE (presumably Luciano’s Cleaners} and MTBE…

Recommendations:

Prior to any future transfer of the property, HRP would recommend review of the “Transfer Act” by appropriate environmental legal counsel as it applies to the subject site, to determine the necessary filings pursuant to the Connecticut Transfer Act…

Given the recognized environmental conditions identified for the site (Conclusion #6), HRP Associates recommends that a subsurface investigation be completed at the subject property. Such an investigation should include the installation of test borings and groundwater monitoring wells in the areas of concern, with follow-up analysis of selected soil and groundwater samples from these areas. The purpose of the proposed investigations is to determine whether or not a petroleum or chemical release has occurred at the site due to historical activities and operations. Pending the results of these investigations, if evidence of contamination is identified in the subsurface, then HRP would make recommendations for additional site characterization and/or remediation, as necessary…

From January 24, 2006 Phase II Report (75 pages)

Conclusions: Five sub-slab borings and nine exterior test borings were installed on site to investigate the potential release areas. A total of sixty-three (63) soil samples were collected and field screened. As a result of this evaluation, thirteen (13) soil samples were selected for laboratory submission for analysis of selected parameters…

A mass lead concentration exceeding the residential direct exposure criteria was detected in one shallow soil sample collected from test boring TB-7 at a depth of 0.2′-2′ below grade. The elevated lead in this sample is interpreted to be related to the urban fill soils containing a trace of coal/ash that were encountered in this boring from below the asphalt to a total depth of 3 feet below grade. No other CT RSR exceedances were exceeded in any of the analyzed soil samples…

Low levels of CT ETPH and PAHs were detected in selected soil samples, well below CT RSR criteria. Low levels of tetrachloroethylene (a.k.a., “perc”), were detected in shallow soil samples collected from borings HS-01, HS-05, and TB-2…

Three (3) ground water monitoring wells were installed in the overburden aquifer on the subject site. Ground water samples were collected from the three wells and were analyzed for volatile organic compounds. Low levels of various chlorinated volatile organic compounds were detected in these ground water samples. These compounds included tetrachloroethylene (a.k.a., “perc”), cis- 1,2- dichloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. All VOC levels are below applicable CT RSR criteria. [This passage is misleading since only tetrachloroethylene was detected at reportable levels]…

Based on January 11, 2006 survey event and regional topography, ground water in the shallow overburden aquifer beneath the site is interpreted to flow generally to the northwest and west toward the East Branch of the Naugatuck River…

Recommendations: Based upon the results of the subsurface investigations as described in this report, HRP has the following recommendations for additional investigations at the subject site:

Given that the complete vertical and horizontal distribution of site soils with mass lead contamination exceeding applicable CT RSR criteria has not been fully delineated, HRP recommends additional subsurface investigations at the site. The soil investigations would mainly focus on evaluating the degree and extent of contaminated soil in the area of test boring TB-7. At the conclusion of the degree and extent investigations, HRP will make recommendations for appropriately addressing/handling the contaminated soil. Such recommendations would take into account the proposed future use of the site and the various means of compliance outlined in the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations, as possible…

One possible remediation scenario would be the excavation and appropriate off-site disposal at an approved facility of shallow contaminated soils exceeding applicable CT RSR direct exposure criteria (DEC) standards. Following site remediation, at least two years of post-remediation monitoring would also be required to achieve compliance. Note that other remediation alternatives may exist for the site, the feasibility of which would be examined at the conclusion of the recommended degree and extent investigations…

Additional ground water monitoring should be completed at the site to confirm the results of the initial event. Also, further evaluation of site ground water needs to be completed based on the detection of tetrachloroethylene and other chlorinated VOCs [what other VOCs?] in the three site monitoring wells. At a minimum, one additional monitoring well is needed for the southern portion of the site near the former dry cleaning operation to provide an adequate monitoring network. Please note that this well will likely be installed in bedrock, based on the shallow refusals encountered in this area during the Phase II investigation. The recommended ground water monitoring should include collection of ground water samples from the three existing site wells and at least one additional well, and laboratory analyses of volatile organic compounds and lead…

Here end the excerpts.

Brief history of my involvement with this property:

In November of 2006 I became interested in the property and made an offer contingent that “property to be delivered clear and in accordance with the Connecticut Transfer Accordance Act”. I was rebuffed and offered to instead lease the property from Gene. I leased the property beginning in August of 2007.

In February of 2010 Gene Luciano passed, and after negotiation with the Estate I bought the property using equity from other property. The private party that loaned me the money insisted I form Compx2 LLC to limit my liability. No commercial company I could find would consider loaning money for this property. The purchase was completed with cash in January 2012 as no one will hold a mortgage on this property.

Gene Luciano claims to have paid HRP $20,000 for Phase I and Phase II investigations. To date I have paid them as follows.

Check 08/30/2010 Check 41013 -3,000.00

Check 09/08/2010 Check 41027 -3,100.00

Check 09/21/2010 Check 41049 -200.00

Check 02/01/2012 Check 41765 -3,000.00

Check 02/01/2012 Check 41766 -100.00

Check 12/03/2013 Check 42412 -8,000.00

————————————

Kent Johnson

Compatible Computers

233 East Main Street

Torrington, CT 06790

(860) 626-8486

Posted in Book, Economics, Incompetence, News, Stupid Laws | Leave a comment

Over $51 Million for Licensed Environmental Professionals

Posted on October 2, 2014 by Kent

There are very good reasons to VOTE AGAINST THE SEWER PROJECT coming up in Torrington. In fact, there are no compelling reasons that Torrington needs such an expensive project. Replacing pipes, adding a tank, and upgrading the electrical from the last project 30 years ago would not cost over $51 million. If, perhaps, you believe this project will help the environment, please investigate further. This project seems designed to enrich consultants and Licensed Environmental Professionals and this project will not help the environment.

We all have stories of our systems gone amuck. We love America and notice so many things about our society that just don’t work, too many laws, and laws that don’t do what they are intended to do. The environmental laws Torrington cites as one of the reasons for the sewer upgrade are a good example.. Very rarely can we do anything about our broken systems, but in this case we can send a clear message everywhere: Too much money and no environmental benefit.

Simply put, reducing nitrogen and phosphorus levels (ammonia) from the Torrington area watershed into the Naugatuck River according to the goals expressed by the Federal EPA have no environmental benefit. The point of reducing ammonia from already low levels in our sewage is that it may help fish populations in Long Island Sound but there is no data to support such an assertion. Nitrogen and phosphorus are organic nutrients, fertilizer, and the reduced levels we release into the river after paying so much money are equivalent to what might come from a dead tree.

We all know Torrington spends $1,670,000 to clean up a 42 space parking lot but that is only half the story. We need to know who gets that money. I bet a large portion of our money goes to testing and consultation and a smaller portion goes to labor and materials. It seems to me the more we pay for administration the harder it is to find out where the money goes. We know that the sewer project earmarks $17 million or more for administration.

To buy a property in Torrington designated by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, DEEP, as an “establishment” needing clean up will cost about $100,000 to prove that it DOES NOT need to be cleaned, and much more if it does need cleanup. The money goes to testing, consultation, administration and forms preparation to Licensed Environmental Professional firms called LEPs, not the government. In many cases there is no appeals process and very little government oversight. If cleanup is necessary then all those who deal with the ”hazardous waste” must be specially trained even though no one touches anything with their hands, and the levels of contaminant are extremely low. Disposing of “hazardous waste” can be nearly impossible.

Again, we all know the system is broken but this time we can do something. Vote against an expensive, superfluous and silly sewer project. Maybe we need a new tank and to update the electrical but our population has hardly grown since the last sewer project in 1968. I have talked to all of the elected officials in Torrington and no one has offered any substantive response. Please tell me where I am wrong, investigate for your self, or just vote against this expensive and unnecessary sewer project.

Posted in Economics, Incompetence, News, Stupid Laws | Leave a comment

The Connecticut DEEP

Posted on August 7, 2014 by Kent

Want to earn $6500?

I have to pay that much to do what sounds to me like a very simple job. You can earn $6500 for checking a map, writing four letters, and certifying that there are no wells used for drinking water in a a 500 foot radius of my property in downtown Torrington. I am not allowed to do it. I have to hire a Licensed Environmental Professional to do it. Nice work if you can get it.

My LEP firm told me what they will do for this money is to complete a survey. But here are their words for what they will do:

“The survey typically consists of 1) identifying all properties within 500 feet of your property boundary 2) searching well drilling records at the health department, CT DEEP, and Dept. of Consumer Protection to identify wells, 3) contacting the water company to see which properties they serve, and 4) a drive-by survey. We typically don’t contact the property owners unless there is ambiguity as to whether there is a well on their property.”

Why do I need to find out if there is another well? It is not clear how my position changes if there is another, or if not. I don’t even know why I have to find out. So I wanted to appeal. I want to do the survey myself, or find some other LEP firm to do it cheaper. But because of the program I am in this is not going to be easy.

What you are about to read is deliberately designed by our government to be complicated and difficult to understand. I ought to shock but not surprise you. Our government is stupid. In this case it is the law that I must do whatever this LEP firm suggests and pay them whatever they ask, or get another firm.

If anyone in Connecticut buys or sells any building that was ever used as a mechanic shop, gas station or dry cleaner (me) that building is designated automatically by law as and “establishment” for the DEEP to regulate.

On August 6, 2014, according to media reports Senator Chris Murphy came to Torrington to inspect a property that the City of Torrington bought for on dollar and got $650,000 from the Federal Government to clean up. It wasn’t enough money, but no one is asking the right questions. Why isn’t it enough money? There is no oversight of the Licensed Environmental Professionals or LET firms that do the “cleanup”. Often there is nothing to clean or “remediate” but rather the $650,000 is used for testing and forms preparation. They are licensed to collect pretty much whatever they can get to certify the property is clean prescribing whatever work they want and no one can or will provide any oversight once they get the job.

I will finish this later.

Posted in Book, Economics, Incompetence, News, Stupid Laws | Tagged DEEP | Leave a comment

Global Warming Doesn’t Mean Climate Change!

Bisexual Intolerance – A New Viewpoint

Does Islam Think?

No one believes this is hazardous.

Over $51 Million for Licensed Environmental Professionals

The Connecticut DEEP

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

“Inexplicably, [plaintiff’s counsel] was not struck by lightning during the course of his denial”

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives