It’s Not Only Black Bags But Cans Too

Dear Editor,

I learned about two weeks ago that my yard waste cans (good ones), that are less than two years old, no longer conform to the rules.  That 32 gallon is the largest they will pick up and hinged lids, (permanently attached) are also no longer acceptable.  Then I read that the Irving Park lady’s leaves were bypassed.

Perhaps it is time to remind our head trashmaster that we pay his and the collection workers’ wages, and that with the tax windfall the city and county experienced this year, perhaps we’d like to get something for our money.  Yes, Nancy and Skip, we noticed how we got ripped.  If there is just one thing the city and county did not need, it was more of our money to give away.

So to all of us who would find life a bit better if we got to keep more of our money, keep voting for Democrats and you’ll continue to have less.  A really sad aspect of the tax rip is that house values are already beginning to normalize from last year.

Rich Carrera


Concerned About Travesty In New Mexico

Dear Editor,

Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Folks, the stuff just got real. In New Mexico a judge has removed an elected county commissioner from office citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Anybody care to guess what political affiliation the Commissioner has?  And what the affiliation of the judge is.

We, as American citizens, need to be concerned if this travesty is allowed to stand. How many members of Congress were there? And what about all those that burned, looted and physically attacked people during violent riots in the past. And yes, based on those past events a whole lot of people should have been arrested and charged with insurrection. They ignored the authority’s instructions to disperse and in some cases destroyed government property and buildings. In fact, a protestor, an unarmed, non-violent, peaceful protestor, was shot and killed by a government agent and nothing was done to the shooter.

And Chris, before you try to claim what happened in D.C. is different from the riots that took place across the country by groups like BLM, I’m giving you a pre-emptive “horse hockey.”  The only difference is I didn’t see buildings being indiscriminately looted and burned.

Was the action in D.C. excessive? I think so. But I can also understand the frustration being expressed. Was it justified? No opinion.

We as conservatives and Republicans should be very concerned about this. If the (National Socialist) Democrat party is allowed to get away with this, who knows how far it will go and how fast it will spread.

What’s next? Based on the background used by the (NS) DP in Herr Biden’s speech, we’ll be hearing, “Your papers! Show me your papers!”

Molon labe.

Alan Marshall


Anti-Climate Change Is Anti-Science

 Dear Editor,

My initial goal in following and posting comments here was to offer counter views to the anti-science crowd.  Now that the pandemic has been greatly reduced as a concern, I wanted to bring up the more important topic of climate change/global warming.

The anti-science crowd likes to say that climate change is a conspiracy of the left to assert their control over economies and our individual freedoms. Etc.  The truth is that science is not political. I try and educate myself as best as I can on the topic but I am not a scientist myself, so I recommend as a useful source of information to kick off your own research.

As you grapple with clarifying truth from misinformation regarding climate change, I ask you to consider two possibilities (text partially sourced from unnamed writer online):

  1. There is a network of hundreds of thousands of scientists funded by hundreds of differing sources (universities, foundations, etc..) all colluding to falsify data, to trick the world.  They together have schemed to create a scientifically plausible, but false assertion that the earth is warming, by pooling their limited induvial resources (as most scientists are not millionaires).


  1. There is a small, fantastically wealthy group of oil and gas billionaires that regularly meet and collude with an agenda to protect their revenue streams and business empires.

To believe Option 1 – their motives are hard to place but could be considered as self-interested to protect their paychecks of a few tens of thousands of dollars in their fear that without this ‘hoax’ there will be no more atmospheric science left to study.  Or you must believe they somehow all agreed to participate in some giant liberal hoax with some agenda of taking over the world for unclear reasons (remember we are talking about scientists…not politicians).  A conspiracy that would involve perhaps millions to all be in cahoots.  AND that they are now dishonestly doing this knowing it will damage their countries’ economies and their community’s wellbeing.

To believe Option 2 – They have motive to protect their huge sums of money.  They have means:  the billions if not trillions to spend on PR machines whose strategies have been chartered as moving from ‘denial’ to ‘doubt’ to ‘it’s happening but what can you do about it’.  (See the recent memo leaked from Exxon on this topic that shows they knew about climate change over 40 years ago).   They have the opportunity; they are a relatively small group who can and do meet regularly (unlike thousands of unaffiliated scientists).  Lastly, they have a history of funding scientists and think tanks to try and manipulate data in their favor.  Or a preferred technique, discredit existing scientific material….the same tactics as used by the tobacco industry (I recommend reading Merchants of Doubt:  How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Which do you think is a more plausible option to believe when it comes to climate change studies?

Chris Rice