bonsaikc.com

ILX “Gateway Drug” for Acura

bonsaikc — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:18:32 +0000

At least that’s almost what J.D. Powers points out in its preview of the small luxury sedan.

Acura says the new 2013 ILX, which is based on the Honda Civic, targets Generation X and Y buyers while serving as the new gateway to the Acura brand. The ILX is a 4-door, 5-passenger sedan available with a choice between three different powertrains, including Acura’s first hybrid system.

Having sold Hondas for years and being intimately familiar with the Honda Civic history and current products, I’m excited about the new opening for younger customers who want Acura luxury and performance at a price point that’s not out of reach for recent college graduates and young couples.

The photos show us a great style and aggressive look that’s sure to please. These cars will be arriving by the end of May 2012….so it’s not too soon to start shopping. For more information, check out the page at Acura.com!

Text Acura to 86201 to receive a text when the ILX arrives!

Are Gasoline Prices Really Too High?

bonsaikc — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:53:43 +0000

OMG, it cost me almost $40 to fill up my tiny Honda Fit the other day. I was appalled. I couldn’t believe it cost so much. Why I remember back in the 70′s when my brother threatened to build a still when gas got up over $1.00 per gallon. Remember the AMC Gremlin commercial where the cute girl asked for a dollar’s worth? The attendant wanted to know if she needed “all that.” She snatched the dollar back and said, “Just give me a gallon!” We used to laugh and make jokes that he would retort, “Honey, that IS a gallon!”

HOW HIGH ARE GAS PRICES?

The good news is that my Fit can get up to 40 mpg if I take it easy. The bad news is, it cost me $40 to fill up! Gas prices are at near historic highs, crushing the economic engine of America and the livelihood of Americans. Or are they?

Jim Geraghty of National Review Online thinks so:

While the peak in the summer of 2008 was $4.27, the March 12 average of $3.83 surpasses everything else before it – from the beginning of the chart in 1920 (when only a small fraction of Americans owned cars!) and through the Great Depression and through the 1973 oil crisis and through the late 1970s and 1980s, the Persian Gulf War, and after 9/11. Note that every other spike in prices tends to coincide with economic hard times.

In other words, adjusted for inflation, today’s gas prices – in March! — are worse than during every preceding gas price spike, except the peak of summer in 2008. So what will the peak price be this summer?

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/293313/adjusted-inflation-gas-prices-look-even-worse

Let’s take a closer look at the chart he uses to make his claims, though. Let’s look away from merely the price at the pump and find out the true cost of gasoline.

WHAT ABOUT INFLATION?

www.inflationdata.com

While we can say with some certainty that yes, prices have been lower in every sense of the word, and yes, they are “historically high” now, what does that really mean? Adjusted to 2012 dollars, gasoline prices are lower than they were in 1920, when autos and gasoline were both scarce luxuries. They look to have been their lowest in history in the early 70′s (adjusted for inflation) and then moved back up to a historic level during the first year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

WHAT ELSE AFFECTS THE TRUE COST OF GASOLINE?

So again we see that gas prices are historically high right now, even adjusted for inflation. Are there any other factors that might affect the “real” price of gasoline? Of course! If we also consider the purchasing power we have as Americans, and despite the recent economic downturn, the portion of our income that we spend for gasoline has plummeted since the 1950s. Our wages have outstripped prices and so adjusted for purchasing power as well as inflation, the numbers begin to look more benign.

In 2006, admittedly prior to the housing balloon’s burst and the ensuing crashes, the Cato Institute pointed out this very thing. Admittedly I am no expert in these issues and I’d love to get a look at the same chart up to 2012, but their point is that the actual hit on the pocketbook is lower today than the price at the pump would indicate.

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren orig. published Investor's Business Daily

One other factor that, like it or not, Rush, has lowered the hit that a tank of gas puts on our wallet, is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements and threats that have raised our fuel economy higher and higher over the last 30 years. Since 1975, fuel economies for both cars and trucks have doubled, halving the need to fill up. Unfortunately, it looks like it’s not enough. Pewenvironment.org has a great pdf on the history of fuel economy. Their chart is telling: all the progress was made early on.

History of Fuel Economy: Pewenvironment.org

Nevertheless, the fact is that the average vehicle gets twice the mpg its counterpart did in 1975 and this has a very positive effect on the portion of our incomes we pay for gasoline.

WHAT TO DO?

But that may be all beside the point. Is there anything that the President can or should do about oil prices? The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is always mentioned in this context at one time or another, but why would we release oil from it? It’s there for one purpose: to protect our economy in the case of a major interruption in the availability of petroleum, based on the oil embargo from OPEC in the late 70s. Supplies are still available. Releasing oil that was put in the reserves more cheaply is a mistake. The impact is temporary. Leave it there.

What power does the President actually have to affect oil prices? For that matter, what power do “speculators” actually have on oil prices? None, apparently. The cost of gasoline is generally about $1.00 more per gallon than the cost of the oil it is manufactured from. Steven Stoft lays this out very graphicly on zfacts.com showing the relationship between the cost of oil worldwide and the cost of gasoline.

The answer seems to be that there is nothing that the President or any group of people can do to lower the price of gasoline. When world oil prices come down, so will gasoline. And quit worrying, it’s not worth the panic.

Chris Johnston

Voter Fraud is Bad, Isn’t It?

bonsaikc — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:45:37 +0000

I suppose it is, except when it isn’t, or when it doesn’t happen. Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White (R) was recently convicted of six felonies, including three counts of voter fraud. But he wasn’t lying about who he is. He was lying about what district he lived in.

Nevertheless, Kansas’ own Secretary of State Kris Kobach seems to spend an inordinate amount of time “helping” other states keep people from voting who don’t seem to be voting anyway! He helped Arizona draft their disastrous anti-illegal immigrant law that has cost the state millions on millions of dollars in legal bills, ThinkProgress.org has shown that the Alabama law actually cost hundreds of thousands of jobs plus related costs.

The facts are not on Kobach’s side, however. Numerous studies and reports have shown the economic harm from HB 56, Alabama’s anti-immigrant law. Farmers are losing their crops or not planting as much because they don’t have workers, and even the state’s own governor has said that the state’s dropping unemployment rate cannot be pegged on the immigration law.

In the fall, preliminary research from the Center for Business and Economic Research showed that, conservatively, HB 56 could cost the state $40 million. Now that the researcher behind that original estimate has had more time to study the law’s full impact, however, he concludes that this initial estimate is far too low. According to a new study, Alabama’s law will cost the state up to 140,000 direct and indirect jobs. And state GDP losses could total $2.3 to $10.8 billion and reduce local sales taxes by $20.0 to $93.1 million.

But the real exciting stuff from Mr. Paranoid is making sure we stop all those 12 million illegals from voting, right? Because we know they are all raising their profile just to cheat the system, right? Wrong. According to the Wichita Eagle, Kansas Secretary of State’ office (SOS Chris Biggs,) reports one case of voter fraud was prosecuted in the five years prior to 2009. That’s right, only one case.

But to hear Kobach tell it in the Lawrence Journal-World, “Voter fraud is a well-documented reality in Kansas.” It’s odd, then, that the Brennan Center for Justice has collated voter fraud by state in Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin showed incredibly low rates of voter fraud. And none of them would have been prevented with Voter I.D. laws.

So where is the voter fraud, you ask? Could it be that it’s being perpetrated on the voters by those in office?

Reading into the Constitution

bonsaikc — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:55:34 +0000

One of my favorite slogans from the right is the hue and cry about “activist judges” who “create rights out of whole cloth.” One of the favorites is the “right to privacy,” which is not in the Constitution in that form, but has been deduced from the 3^rd, 4^th, and 14^th Amendments in cases before the Supreme Court.

In this case, the pundit in question will pontificate about it not being found in the document in that form so it must not be true. This is also an argument against the “separation of church and state” among the religious right, as well as other rights they don’t like.

“If only Newt Gingrich weren’t a bit too moderate, and a bit too sleazy,” the argument goes, “he’d be the perfect presidential candidate. He’s like a professor, he’s so highly educated and intelligent and could best Barack Obama in a debate with no worries.”

And yet this “scholar” at the Thanksgiving Family Forum had the following to say about the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution:

I am intrigued with something which Robby George at Princeton has come up with, which is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, in which it says that Congress shall define personhood. That’s very clearly in the 14th Amendment. And part of what I would like to explore is whether or not you could get the Congress to pass a law which simply says: Personhood begins at conception. And therefore—and you could, in the same law, block the court and just say, ‘This will not be subject to review,’ which we have precedent for. You would therefore not have to have a constitutional amendment, because the Congress would have exercised its authority under the 14th Amendment to define life, and to therefore undo all of Roe vs. Wade, for the entire country, in one legislative action.

Now, any reading of the 14^th Amendment that says Congress will define personhood is coming from a thick mantle of ideology. Here’s the text in question:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I can’t imagine the mental gyrations needed to get this to say Congress can define personhood. It’s defining citizenship, and that’s just a bit different. Just a little bit.

But Newt wants to go much, much further. He has posited that the President should be able to arrest judges who would not comply with congressional subpoenas, and that certain federal jurisdictions should be done away with because he doesn’t like the way they find in certain cases.

The Republican Party has gone from being a mainstream ideology with a modern worldview to being a dangerous force for repression and theocracy in this country. And if we don’t stop them, gods help us.

Why I left the Republican Party

bonsaikc — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:09:57 +0000

I voted Republican in every Presidential election until 2004. George W. Bush ruined my association with the party, with his profligate spending and faith-based initiatives. His foolish attack on Iraq, pulling all assets out of Afghanistan showed me his ineptitude and the falseness of neoconservatism. “No Child Left Behind” has done more damage to the American public school systems than any misguided administration or union rules.

In 2004 and 2008, I voted Libertarian. I was clinging to certain economic ideas espoused by Ayn Rand and paid lip service to by Republicans, but I could not vote for Al Gore nor John McCain or Barack Obama in 2008.

My values have been undergoing a significant change since I left seminary in 1986. My understanding of the nature of reality has had a large effect on that. Understanding that this life is all we have, I have decided to be the best person I could possibly be in this life. So in 2012 I will support Barack Obama.

I can no longer support a party that:

Refuses equal civil rights to marry for any pair of consenting adults. The Republican hopefuls are falling over themselves to try to out-bigot the others. Michele Bachmann’s husband runs a clinic where “reparative” therapy is practiced to make gay people “straight.” Rick Santorum speaks as if to schoolchildren about the definition of marriage as if marriage were a solid object like a chair or a mountain…and yet he ignores most of the very Bible he thinks he relies on for that definition. And the rest of the pack isn’t far behind. These so-called “small-government” advocates want small government except where it tells me how to live my life.
Refuses to understand the very nature of science. Most of them don’t even “believe” in the established scientific fact of evolution, and want creationism taught in public schools as if there were some scientific controversy over the whole thing.
Refuses to acknowledge a woman’s right to control her body. Again, Santorum leads the way by even insisting on the asinine Catholic position that birth control is immoral, above and beyond the idea of abortion. The odd thing is that when his wife was so sick and ended up with a miscarriage, she said if it had come to it, she’d have chosen her own life over that of her fetus for the sake of her other children. That’s a choice. She should have that choice as should every other woman.
Insists on rewriting our history to show us as some kind of “Judeo-Christian” theocratic republic. David Barton has had far too much influence in this society and has misquoted and lied about our founders to the point that American Exceptionalism is no longer the idea that we lead the way in freedom for the world, but that God put us here for a reason. Dominionism is a very real threat to the Separation of Church and State, which Frothy Mix, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and others refuse to believe is embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

So I can live with a party that I disagree with on some aspects of foreign and domestic policy. I can NOT live with a party that wants to fundamentally change the nature of our secular representative republic. This country was founded by a group of men of varied philosophies and religious leanings. There were some clergy involved, but some of the most well-known names were deist at best, rejecting most of the Bible in favor of the ideals of the Enlightenment. The watch word is LIBERTY. And these Republicans are trying to take it away, a little bit at a time.

Recess Appointments: Lawlessness and Dictatorship?

bonsaikc — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:56:19 +0000

Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin said recently that President Barack Obama has caused a “constitutional crisis” by appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board as well as a director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in recess appointments.

“We have a constitutional crisis,” Levin said. “It is in fact a constitutional crisis.”…”The President of the United States is trashing the Constitution now day in and day out,” Levin said.

Levin even called remarks the President made about the appointment of Cordray a “forthright statement of a dictator.”

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh calls this “the lawless Obama regime,” responding to the President’s remarks about doing for the country what the Congress refuses to do.

Now, I’ve heard of recess appointments, and I just began to wonder how big a deal they were, so I did a little digging. Did you know that the first recess appointments were made by George Washington?

U.S. Constitution Article 2

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

So Constitutionally, the President nominates and appoints with the “advice and consent of the Senate.” And yet, the Recess Appointment is a Constitutional provision. What is it about some people that they can’t seem to understand the common usage of the language? How is it that these people call themselves “Originalists” and yet refuse to take the Constitution at its word?

Then I thought that perhaps this president has seriously abused the power. Maybe he has gone beyond the pale? A quick search showed that not to be true. Here’s a link to a very short and easily understood document from the Senate itself: http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=’0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A

I love this quote:

President William J. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 to full-time positions. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions. As of December 8, 2011, President Barack Obama had made 28 recess appointments, all to full-time positions.

So the noise seems to be noise for its own sake. There is no difference between Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal. President Obama has simply been following political precedent created from the wording of the Constitution.

There’s only so much you can let slip by.

bonsaikc — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 23:37:04 +0000

Newt Gingrich has made a new “Contract on America” and this is part of it:

He’s going to establish a commission to advise him on dismantling the separation of church and state. Yes, Virginia, there is a Dominionist! Here’s the crux:

Establishing a presidential commission to examine and document threats or impediments to religious freedom in the United States and to propose steps for reaffirming and protecting the foundational principle of freedom of thought,conscience, and religious belief upon which our republic is built and thrives.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? I would certainly favor supporting our freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief. That would mean I wouldn’t have to have government supporting certain theological points of view and ideologies, yes? Nay, silly rabbit, tricks are for Newt! Here’s what he means by all that. The highlighted portion is my emphasis:

So Newt believes that by keeping government and religion separate, we have moved our country beyond what the founders established. And he intends to fix that.

It was only a matter of paragraphs before it devolved into an assault on women’s rights and same sex marriage. It’s a shame none of the people who claim a “god’s eye view” of the definition of marriage ever say “one man and one woman for life.” That’s too inconvenient for the thrice-married serial adulterer and marrier.

The entire document is filled with half truths and outright misrepresentations of the writings of the founders. If you can stomach it, here’s the link for the entire tract:

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/76090650

Update 11/28/11

Gingrich says he will pack the courts with activist judges of his own:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/gingrich-intends-pack-courts-judges-regent-and-liberty-university-federalist-society

The Heart of Kansas City

bonsaikc — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:56:17 +0000

This photo was taken in seven shots with my iPhone 4, handheld. ArcSoft Panorama Maker 4 analyzed and stitched together my photos.

Help me be the face of about.me!

bonsaikc — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 18:44:50 +0000

Please visit my about.me profile and vote for me! The winnner becomes the face of about.me with their profile on a billboard in Times Square, NY!

http://about.me/bonsaikc

Bonsai Apprenticeship “without the pain.” Aichi-en

bonsaikc — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:59:57 +0000

I don’t normally do this, but I want to quote Peter Tea completely. This is very important to all who want to experience bonsai in a new and exciting way.

Just wanted to pass this information on to the readers. I talked to Mr. Tanaka about how many people in the US would love to become an apprentice, but are limited in time and not able to commit to a five year apprenticeship. After about a month of discussion, we decided to put together a short apprenticeship program for those that want to experience the Bonsai life first hand. I knew I had to help in making this happen because when I asked Mr. Tanaka why he was charging so little for the program, he said, “I just want to continue to spread Bonsai to the rest of the world.” I was sold! The nice thing about this program is that Mr. Tanaka speak some English and the work schedule is as flexible as you’d like. I will also be there to get participants settled in and aid in their Bonsai studies.

If you’d like more information about the program please visit the following link. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at Peter@PeterTeaBonsai.com

BonsaiAichien.com

Follow Peter’s blog at http://peterteabonsai.wordpress.com/