fb pixel

Log In

Reset Password

U scream, I scream, we all scream ...

Expel enough hot air under a kernel of truth and, in a jiffy, it will inconveniently combust — leaving the rest of us to sit back, watch and eat some ice cream.

(Now, I realize many of you were expecting me to say “popcorn” there; but these inhospitable skies have given me a scratchy throat and ice cream sounds more appealing right now.)

Consider, for instance, the hot air needed to propel the president’s recent decisions to challenge California’s gas-emissions regulations and cap fuel-efficiency standards for new vehicles.

Administration officials contend that greater fuel efficiency would drive up the cost of such cars — forcing people to drive older models that didn’t have the latest safety features.

On top of that, greater fuel efficiency would require car companies to make such vehicles lighter — so that all those advanced safety features wouldn’t help in the event of crashes.

Finally (and here’s the clincher), cars that got better mileage would entice people to drive more — putting them on the road with poor people who can’t afford the new cars with all those safety features that won’t work because of how light the cars would have to be inevitably increasing fatal accidents.

Ergo and it’s here you can just see them lighting victory cigars fuel efficiency would lead to death.

This entire gas-propelled Mobius strip of logic makes President Reagan’s claim that trees were a greater threat to clean air than automobiles as easy to follow as a straight line.

According to the Environment Protection Agency, air pollution had decreased 73 percent since 1970, when the EPA was established under a Republican president that was singing a different tune about pollution.

Ten million cars provide

carbon monoxiiiiide.

If they’d all ride a horse,

There’d be no smog of course

(But there’d be something worse!)

In your eyyyes

No, that wasn’t Richard Nixon, it was Allan Sherman still, those were carefree days — when there were only 10 million vehicles in California. That number jumped in 2017 to 35,391,347 all carrying a single person (who is on a cellphone).

Meanwhile, as the skies are filled with smoke spewing from massive wildfires and electric cars, the ice caps continue to melt, record temperatures have led to droughts and other areas of the country face flooding, the administration has gone to great lengths to make things cleaner — by scrubbing references to climate change from governmental websites and asking the Supreme Court to wipe out a lawsuit by young environmental activists from Oregon.

You’d think the science-doubters among us — particularly those who live in Red States — would want to change their stance when it comes to apocalyptic visions of environmental renovations.

After all, if tsunamis to the west of them and sea levels to the east do wipe out all those coastal Blue States, scores of Democrats will be moving inward so quickly that Republicans won’t have time to build enough walls to keep out the liberals.

Of course that’s just my kernel of truth and, as such, it carries as much weight as any other theory — you know, like climate change or 2 + 2 = 4.

But let’s leave Washington, D.C., behind and head west. Last October’s mass-murder of 58 people at an outdoor Las Vegas country music concert has led to a lawsuit involving the survivors and the MGM Resort where the concert was held.

Yep MGM is shooting the survivors.

The company isn’t going so far as to say that if the survivors didn’t go to the concert, they wouldn’t have been in the crosshairs of a deranged shooter. No, that would be like saying drivers of fuel-efficient cars are putting their lives on the line.

What MGM is arguing is that — under a law passed in the wake of 9/11 — its security firm had a legal safety net to make the resort immune from lawsuits resulting from an act of terrorism.

Therefore, because of the preventive measures of its security contractor, MGM was shielded from the actions of the gunman.

Well, it’s good to know that at least someone was.

If by now you feel the need for an ice cream headache to replace the one bestowed upon you by smoke and hot air, by all means go to the store, show the cashier your ID (which the super-ego claims we must do to get groceries) and buy some.

But beware there’s a new danger out there mayonnaise ice cream.

Uh-huh. It was only a matter of time — given that ketchup, mustard, pickle and bacon ice creams are available — but there just seems to be something stomach-churning about the nauseous notion of mayonnaise being a desirable option.

Is there any doubt the ice cream companies are protected from lawsuits filed by the survivors of any violence that might break out after consuming their product?

Ergo, if they didn’t buy it, they wouldn’t have eaten it.

Mail Tribune senior designer Robert Galvin, who once went to a Mobius strip club where the dancers put on more clothes, can be reached at rgalvin@rosebudmedia.com.

{ }