Random Thoughts (New)

A couple of comments on the first night democrat virtual convention.

It takes some huge cajones for the DNC to trot out Governor Cuomo and have him speak about how the government (i.e. President Trump) failed regarding Covid-19. While I agree there is blame to be shared, having the dude who put Covid positive folks back into nursing homes lecture us about failure of policy is the height of hypocrisy.

Anyone else find it interesting that Michelle Obama talked about the so-called cages used by the border Patrol but didn't bother mentioning those cages were a result of policies furthered by her husband.

Probably not going watch what happens from here on out. There is only so much BS a person can stand in week, and I had about a month's worth.

I really like this post over at Doug Ross’s site.

He basically takes the word “Totalitarianism” and breaks it down piece by piece to show you how Obama and his administration are functioning. I wonder if people knew this was the “change” that was referred to during his campaign if he would have won the election.

I have had this queasy feeling for quite some time about how Obama does things. Doug really does a good job of putting it together for you.

Costco Offers Interviews to Sate Workers

Earlier this week Washington State actually held some elections that had importance. One of the more controversial measures on the ballot was Initiative 1183, which if approved, would remove the state from the liquor business.

The Initiative was backed with some serious money ($22+ million) from Costco which hopes to begin sales of hard alcohol next May.

One of the unintended consequences of this initiative was the elimination of more than 900 state employee jobs which were used to staff and run the state-run liquor stores and distribution services.

Costco has offered to step up (sort of) and offer state employees who lose their jobs the chance to interview for positions within Costco.

Costco Wholesale said it will offer any displaced state liquor store worker the opportunity to apply for a job at the chain, and, “We will make sure that they get an interview,” chief legal officer Joel Benoliel said Thursday.

“There is obviously no guarantee of a job, but anyone who would like to work at Costco will have the advantage of being interviewed. We will be working on a procedure to make happen between now and June when the transition will happen,” he said.

Benoliel also noted that workers who want to keep their affiliation with their union, which also represents grocery-store workers, might be better off seeking work elsewhere; Costco in nonunion. (Source: Seattle Times)

Growing the EPA

Well, at least there might be some job creation by the Obama Administration.

In order to enforce the new draconian greenhouse gas laws (in which carbon, a gas that occurs natural in our atmosphere) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) might need to create more 230,000 new positions.  By-the-by, the EPA will also require an additional $31 billion in funding to enforce these new regulations.

Several left-wing media centers got their back up and tried to refute the EPA was going to hire 230,000 new workers. They failed. Nowhere in their articles do they touch on the point that while the EPA may not hold a massive “hiring day”, ignoring the point that the hiring will most likely occur over several years as the regulations take hold and enforcement becomes more prevalent.

Due to the complexity of enforcing what just might turn out to be the unenforceable, the EPA has asked the courts if the new regulations could be phased in using the “tailoring rule” According to an article at the “Daily Caller”, the tailoring rules cannot be applied to the Clean Air Act, under which the EPA has been granted permission to regulate this naturally occurring gas.

And even if the EPA manages to convince a court to make an exception, it seems committed to regulating everyone – at the full $21 billion cost – at some point down the road. “[T]he Tailoring Rule,” EPA writes in its brief, “is calculated to move toward eventual full compliance with the statutory threshold.” EPA adds that it intends to get there “as quickly as possible.” At present, the EPA is under a deadline to get it done by 2016. (Source: Daily Caller)

According to the brief filed by the EPA:

After considerable study and receipt of public comments, EPA determined that by phasing in the statutory thresholds, it could almost immediately achieve most of the emission benefits that would result from strict adherence to the literal 100/250 tpy threshold while avoiding the permit gridlock that unquestionably would result from the immediate application of that threshold. This phase-in process would also allow EPA time to develop streamlining measures that could eventually ease administration at the statutory thresholds. Thus, EPA promulgated the Tailoring Rule to phase in the applicability of these programs to GHG sources, starting with the largest GHG emitters. (Source EPA Brief) (Emphasis PACNW Righty)

See how in the brief they hedge their bets just a little with the phrase ‘that could eventually’? When was the last time anyone in the federal government, outside the military, had ever been able to streamline something? It is all about turf and who has the biggest. Streamlining means fewer people and smaller turf. You don’t think the 10 pound heads that are currently running the EPA aren’t thinking about increasing their turf? I have no doubt that the Obama’s cronies at the EPA are thinking “we now have 17,000 employees, imagine the control we could have if we had 247,000 employees.” Outside of the military that would make them the largest government agency. An employee base that large would make them nearly uncontrollable. Think for a minute: you are enjoying your Saturday evening cookout and suddenly out of your rose bushes pops the EPA Carbon Regulation Enforcement and Engagement Patrol (CREEP). That has to send a thrill up the leg of some current EPA administrators.

SoCal City Too Big for its Britches

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I have put the 1st Amendment to our Constitution as an opening for a very good reason. There is a small southern California community south of Los Angeles that thinks the US Constitution and subsequent rulings by the US Supreme Court doesn’t apply to them.

In the city of San Juan Capistrano, a couple has been fined $300 for holding a Bible study in their home, and are threatened with higher fines if they continue to host these gatherings. The city municipal code states that “religious, fraternal or non-profit” cannot gather in a residential neighborhood without a use permit. But there is a problem with this code. According to the Constitution, “…of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Yes, I am aware that the Constitution is a federal document regulating operations at the federal level, but there is precedence. The SCOTUS has ruled that the 14th Amendment applies to each state, including local governments. This city ordinance is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Regulation Post Update

Last week I posted about a trucking firm that could not fire an employee who has alcoholism, even though said driver could be and has been a hazard on the road. Patterico pontificates, through an in-depth analysis, the impact and fallout of the application of this regulation through the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Government Regulations - A Couple of Examples

Too much government interference is just plain stupid. In this case, a trucking company cannot fire a driver who has alcohol problems. Maybe the company could assign him to be a yard hostler, with a corresponding decrease in pay. At the very least get this guy off the road.

In the once great state of California a bill is making its way through the democrat-controlled legislature that would require workers compersation, overtime, and meal and rest breaks be provided to in-home caregivers. This includes the Friday night babysitter.  Will the stupidity in Claifornia ever stop?

If you are tired of government stupidity, maybe you shouldn't read the links to these stories at Sister Toldjah.