ShareThis Page

Cheap sporks (and other indignities)

| Sunday, April 29, 2012, 1:19 a.m.

No doubt ColdSpark Media will be touting its list of "wins" in last Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary election. Whether they were "wins" for the Republican Party is another matter.

ColdSpark helped guide to GOP nominations Tom Smith (with a 40-year record of voting for Democrats) for U.S. Senate, Tim Murphy (with a 10-year-record of shacking up with organized labor as he engages in pay-to-play-to-shaft with business) for the U.S. House, and D. Raja (who, in another election, was snookered into believing that the results of "push-polling" make for good public policy) for the state Senate.

Brilliant! No. ColdSpark's "riches" are but a cheap spork into the gut of the GOP. ...

As of June 30 , the Pennsylvania Legislature was sitting on a cash reserve of nearly $184 million. That's according to an audit expected to be approved this week, reports The Associated Press.

The commonwealth's highwaymen defend what's really a slush fund as necessary to keep the Legislature running in a budget standoff with the governor. It's a "separation of powers" thing, one Republican lawmaker insists. Actually, the dosh hoard is designed to thwart the checks and balances of the separation of powers doctrine.

The real kicker here -- there are no rules governing this hardly small stash of cash and our "altruistic" public servants can meet in secret to decide to whom they can pay tribute.

And the folks in Harrisburg protest when anyone dares to use the word "corrupt"? ...

The same White House that used its taxpayer-funded press office to release a transcript of a purely political Michelle Obama speech (and had the arrogance to plainly state the political nature of the speech on the transcript) now is being shown to regularly campaign on the public dime.

An analysis by The Daily Caller concludes "President Obama, his immediate aides and his Cabinet secretaries have used taxpayer dollars to woo young voters at more than 130 universities and schools between March 2011 and March 2012."

It's taxpayer-funded indoctrination, pure and simple. ...

It's pretty stunning to think that the American Lung Association still gets so much publicity for its totally bogus air pollution reports.

By now, you should know the group's "scientific method" quite well -- stick an air pollution monitor in some smokestack, then defame, smear and slander the air quality of an entire region based on its nonsense. That's what the ALA's been doing to the eight-county Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area for years.

If the Lung Association truly is concerned about air quality and health, it will stop engaging in junk science. But don't hold your breath. ...

The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is out with a marvelous 50th-anniversary debunking of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," which long has been the manifesto for environmentalists.

Not only do scholars Roger Meiners and Andrew Morriss reiterate their well-researched argument that the Allegheny County native's "celebrated scholarship was, at best, sloppy, and, at worst, an intentional deceit" (think DDT), it also contributed "to the justification for more restrictions on innovation."

Sloppy, deceitful and innovation-killing. In the real scientific world, such "research" is retracted. In Pittsburgh, a bridge is named for the fraud's perpetrator.

Colin McNickle is the Trib's director of editorial pages. Ring him at 412-320-7836. Email him at:

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.