George Rebane
Reading the 6dec14 Union this morning, I noticed a spattering of feedback from conservatives and progressives that the editors had assembled. Jobs and economic development have been elusive objectives for years in Nevada County. Now that a ton of new environmental regulations are coming down the pike, it is interesting to see how both sides of our polarized politics are handling that situation. From conservatives we hear the expected wails and gnashing of teeth at the next tranche of self-inflicted pain California has to endure from agencies like CARB expanding its own CEQA.
From progressives we see an ongoing stream of inanities that insist that this time additional regulations will really – honest Injun! - create jobs in the county and encourage economic development – all of the ‘sustainable’ kind of course. These same people see solutions through attempts to help local contractors contort themselves even more to satisfy the new CEQA and other regulations, none of which have been shown to have any credible benefit on our environment and economy. The great escape of California’s corporations attests otherwise.
However, these onerous new mandates do benefit the bureaucrats charged with their enforcement and the remora-like NGOs going along for the ride to snap up juicy scraps in the form of more programs to explain to the surviving businesses how to best bend their knee and bow down to Leviathan when the new regs hit. Meanwhile, the rest of us – the onlookers and the disinterested – don’t seem to understand that the proper role of government in these times is to actively review and roll back the job killers and economic development dampeners issuing from outfits like CARB turning the AB32 screws on Californians.
I have long viewed progressivism as an awful social disease, and its transmitters, like unionized teachers and local running-dog NGOs, are as albatrosses that we have somehow become accustomed to wearing around our collective necks. The disease, like leprosy, is painless as it removes productive functions from our communities.
On the national scene EPA is now gearing up to write and enforce new environmental laws under the guise of enforcing the existing Clean Air Act under its horribly written and much adjudicated Section III. Obama’s directive to this long rogue agency to essentially outlaw coal was taken to task by no less of a personage than Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard. Professor Tribe was Obama’s constitutional law teacher when our president pretended to be a student at that institution. According to the assessment of Tribe, “a titan of the liberal professoriate”, Obama has again overstepped the constitutional bounds of his office, and, had he paid tuition, would be due a full refund from Harvard because they didn’t teach him anything.
As gas prices begin to sink below $2/gal, it should amaze all of us that this progressive icon is now siding with companies like Peabody Energy to excoriate his former student for an “executive overreach” that specifically induces the EPA to violate the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. All of this will make no never mind to Team Obama and the EPA “determined to impose its climate agenda without having passed a single new act of Congress.” Our only hope now lies with the new Republican congress, and even more with the courts (more here).
Finally, did anyone pick up that local police departments and America’s military are again running combat exercises in US cities this winter (RR reported on last year's exercises here). CBS News in LA reports that the military has informed local authorities to expect combat helicopters to fly low over downtown and deploy Marines into a multi-block area nearby to conduct built-up area combat drills. The military assures civilian authorities that these are not anti-terrorist maneuvers in anticipation of a massive terrorist invasion. The LAPD’s lame explanation is that the exercises are intended “to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments.” Well no s#!t Red Ryder!
So the question again is, since these maneuvers are designed to confront and take out significant numbers of opponents, from which population segment do we get such significant numbers other than than American civilians who reside in the area? From reading the CBS coverage of this, apparently for the lamestream that was one question too far (more here).
[10dec14 update] Sen Feinstein’s CIA torture report and Dr Jonathon Gruber all on one day. What to make of them? Gruber’s congressional testimony was a mighty attempt to deny and walk back the amply recorded history of his seminal work on Obamacare and its subsequent interpretations at various conferences and seminars. According to some, the MIT professor did an excellent version of an apologetic Forrest Gump. But not to worry, his place as an accurate and truthful member of Team Obama and apologist for the means and methods of Obamunism is assured. He will return to the Hill for another attempt at ‘Out damn spot! Out, I say!’
About the purpose of DiFi’s $40M/5year torture report I am not sure. The Left is taking it as another chapter of their growing gospel on Terriblis Americae. Without having talked to anyone in the CIA, the main points made in the report are that torture doesn’t work, and that we did not benefit from using ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ aka torture. This does fly in the face of CIA’s published evidence, and begs the question of why torture has been used for millennia to pry secrets from sealed lips. While its practice is not claimed to be 100% reliable, its effectiveness over the ages has been attested by the numerous means potential victims of torture have prepared themselves to die before being subjected to the pain and suffering they knew they could not reliably face (more here and here).
So again, why was that report released, and why at this time?
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment