Big Dogs House

Only The Morons In Government Could Come Up With This

Jan 1, 2012 Political

***HAPPY NEW YEAR***

One of the reasons I pay attention to government is because it does something even more bizarre and stupid each day. The newest stupid move comes from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC is warning employers about requiring a high school diploma in order for a person to be considered for a job. According to the EEOC this might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Give me a freaking break. I mean, seriously? Since when is not graduating from a school a disability? I am sure there are a few folks who have disabilites that prevented them from graduating but the mere fact that a person did not graduate is NOT a disability. In fact, it shows the person is likely not motivated and should be scrutinized more closely before considering him for a job.

Not having a high school diploma is not a disability and only a mentally disabled person would think such a stupid thing. Since it is not a disability employers have every right to require a high school diploma or anything else.

Imagine this another way. Suppose a law firm required you to graduate from law school in order to be hired. Would the EEOC apply the same logic and claim that requiring a law degree (a diploma from a law school) violates the ADA?

The only disabilities I see are the ones burdening the mentally challenged morons in government who come up with such stupid things.

I do imagine this could be another Obama regime ploy to get even more people dependent on government. Think about it this way. A person without a high school diploma applies for a job that requires one and is rejected. He files a suit because it violates the ADA and he wins a lawsuit. Then it turns out he is otherwise not qualified and he does not get the job. He applies for disability under Social Security and bam, he is a ward of government forever more.

After that we will have more high school drop outs because they want them some of that gubmint money for their disability.

I say if you drop out they should put you in the service and ship you off to a war someplace.

Bet they might get a diploma then.

What in the name of all that is holy has become of this country. Maybe it is just me but if you are going to want a job that requires a diploma of any sort then it would behoove you to get that diploma.

Disability my donkey…

I will note that the EEOC claims the requirement might run afoul if a person has a learning disability that prevents them from graduating high school. OK, so if they can’t learn how are they going to learn the job? This is from the government model ID10T worker…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: ada, disability, eeoc, high school diploma, morons, retards, stupidity

Oh To Work For Obama

Feb 24, 2010 Political

Barack Obama and his government own General Motors (or as GM now means, Government Motors). It must be nice to work for Obama:

After resigning as president and CEO of General Motors in December, Fritz Henderson might have gone into hiding or decided to sit out the harsh Michigan winter on a Florida beach.

Instead, here he is popping up again, this time as a consultant to GM on international operations at the very fancy fee of $59,090 a month for 20 hours of work a month. That works out to almost $3,000 an hour for a CEO who was ousted after just eight months on the job. Money.CNN

3000 dollars an hour is good work if you can get it. And where can I get a job where I get that kind of money and only have to work for 20 hours a month.

Yep, the government took over GM. Does anyone actually think it will make money? Not when it does stuff like this.

But the government is doing a good job bashing Toyota in order to help out GM. Talk about a conflict of interest…

Tags: gm, high salary, Obama, stupidity, toyota

The Constitutional Abuse

Oct 25, 2009 Political

Well, I have looked very carefully at Article one, Section eight, better known as the Interstate Commerce clause, although the enumerated powers delineated therein are more extensive, and specific than the simplistic “title” might suggest. Indeed, there’s quite a bit there, installing and regulating post offices, militias, establishing a uniform set of regulations between states (where this article derives its name) so that states are competitive with one another- a lot in a little space in our Constitution.

But Nancy Pelosi can’t answer a simple question from a reporter on the Constitutionality of Healthcare, specifically the mandate to buy it.

When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

directorblue.blogspot.com

Uh, yeah- the liberal’s bolthole when it comes to legislation they want to shove down our throats- to be fair, both parties have used this when it suited them, but to be fair, there’s not much difference these days between the parties themselves- witness Lindsey Graham or John McCain- neither one truly represents more than the squishy middle, where ideals are watered down to virtually nothing, and the status quo is protected, meaning their jobs.

But back to the clueless Pelosi- I have long held that the botox needle went too deep on her, and hit the brainstem, because she couldn’t even begin to enunciate the reasoning behind the mandate. It was up to the aide to try and explain just how the mandate could even be legal. As usual in politics, he was, and is wrong- but at least he tried.

Nan just had the deer in the headlights look- in other words, looked as she normally appears.

Pelosi avoided answering the question, probably because she doesn’t have an answer.  Her spokesman said that it was “not a serious question,” but if so, one would presume that Pelosi or her office could provide an easily-corroborated answer.  After all, the Constitution is where Congress derives all of its authority.  It’s not exactly a lengthy document.  How difficult is it to cite the clause that enables Congress to impose a mandate on its citizens to spend money on anything but a tax?

Well, as it turns out, pretty darned difficult.  The interstate commerce clause doesn’t apply because Congress doesn’t allow for interstate commerce in health insurance.  The “general welfare” clause has never applied to individual mandates, which is why neither Leahy or Pelosi will invoke it publicly.  If they trot that out in front of the Supreme Court, they’ll essentially be arguing that the federal government has the authority to impose any kind of mandates at any time on anyone in the country, which makes the limitations of power in the Constitution meaningless — and by extension, makes the Supreme Court meaningless as well.

themoderatevoice.com

Yes indeed- there is not, nor can there be, a mandate that legally compels me to buy insurance- by their argument,  they could compel me , or anyone else, to do pretty much whatever the government chooses for you or me to do, and that is a dictatorship, plain and simple.

If I do not buy insurance, I am not breaking the “Interstate Commerce” clause, because I am not engaging in commerce, interstate or otherwise. If I self pay my doctor, I am not falling afoul of the clause either- both the doctor and I are in the same state. My purchase or not of insurance doesn’t “promote the general welfare” of anyone- period.

Much of the reasoning that is centered around this healthscare bill is torturous, convoluted and wrong. The politicians who want this bill to pass are destroying the Constitution.

Obama had it right in one respect when he said in a speech, that the Constitution is indeed a “negative” document, in that it tells you what you cannot do with respect to the states, and what the states cannot do with respect to the people.

The Constitution is a “People’s” document, one that was drafted to protect the people, not the politicians.

Perhaps Nan the flounder face should read the Constitution.

At least try, Nan.

Tags: botox of the brain, constitution, nancy pelosi, stupidity

Stupidest Idea- Ever

Oct 20, 2009 Political

Well, the Fifth Circuit Court has opened the door for victims of Hurricane Katrina to sue possible emitters of “greenhouse” gases for their plight- never mind that many of them have moved elsewhere and gotten on with their lives.
Also, do not mind the fact that “Global Warming”, ostensibly the grounds for suit, is still hotly contested as real or not. If you ask Al Gore, who stands to make oodles of money from all his green projects,  AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a danger to us all.

If you ask others, not so much- especially when many of the people who previously had touted AGW now have had to reverse themselves and admit that the earth has actually cooled in the last ten years.

That aside, these lawyers (yes- there will be  lawyers) are going to go after any and all deep pockets industries they can think of in a bid to get lots of money- not necessarily for their clients, but certainly for themselves. Gotta look out for number one, right? They are doing this even when it is hard to prove, A)- that these specific industries have in fact specifically contributed to AGW, and B)- that this alleged AGW aggravation spawned Hurricane Katrina, or Rita, or any other storm. After this year, with no hurricanes making landfall, and no damage from these storms, have they a case? I don’t think so.

For years, leading plaintiffs’ lawyers have promised a legal assault on industrial America for contributing to global warming.

So far, the trial bar has had limited success. The hurdles to such suits are pretty obvious: How do you apportion fault and link particular plaintiffs’ injuries to the pollution emitted by a particular group of defendants?

Today, though, plaintiffs’ lawyers may be a gloating a bit, after a favorable ruling Friday from the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, which is regarded as one of the more conservative circuit courts in the country.  Here’s a link to the ruling.

The suit was brought by landowners in Mississippi, who claim that oil and coal companies emitted greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming that, in turn, caused a rise in sea levels, adding to Hurricane Katrina’s ferocity. 

blogs.wsj.com

There was no rise in sea levels- that is plain bull- what happened was simple storm surge. Sure storm surge sucks, but that is life plain and simple.

In the 1880s, there was a town on Matagorda Bay in Texas called Indianola. It was a nice town, poised to become a hub of major commerce, having both a port, and a railroad that ran through the town. 

A Hurricane came through, a pretty strong one by all accounts (they had no way to measure the strength of hurricanes back then), and hit Indianola head on, literally wiping it off of the face of the earth, leaving only the railroad tracks. People who survived, did so by climbing trees to escape the storm surge, which went inland as far as twenty miles. 

When the survivors climbed down, assessed the situation and began to clean up and bury the dead, they vowed to rebuild. After all, they reasoned, that was a freak storm, and would never happen again.

So they rebuilt, better than before, and in less than a year, had their town up and running again (all without any federal assistance). 

That next year, another major Hurricane came and wiped them out again, this time destroying even the railroad tracks. Now, there is no port- there are no railroad tracks. Indianola is just a sleepy little bait camp stopover now, and that will be all it ever is again.

But you see, this is before Global Warming, before even the industrial age had much of any effect- before oil and gas, there was just coal, and that was not even in great use here.

So what is the broader significance of the ruling? We checked in with Jackson for his take.

At a minimum, he says, the ruling will invite more climate-change litigation in the future.

“With this decision,” he says, “you are now pretty well assured of seeing others file these kinds of claims.”

Last month, he notes, the Second Circuit held that states and municipalities had standing to sue to impose on caps on certain companies’ greenhouse gas emissions.  Here’s an overview from Skadden of that ruling.

In contrast with the Second Circuit, the Fifth Circuit case may be particularly inviting to tort lawyers, since the New Orleans court opened the door to “a case by private litigants, a class action, seeking an enormous amount of damages,” Jackson says.

Still, Jackson notes, the Katrina case is at an early stage, and the Fifth Circuit’s ruling “does not mean there is enough causation evidence to survive a motion to dismiss.”

blogs.wsj.com

Lawyers sure do stick together, don’t they- and they can smell money, even when they have to make up “facts” to suit their case. The people of New Orleans deserve to be able to look ahead and get on with their lives, not stuck in a rut, waiting to see if some lawyer can get them a payday. Stuck in a courtroom, they will never be able to look ahead. The only people who will get rich off of this ridiculous set of claims will be the lawyers, as the case will be bounced from court to court faster than Serena Williams can volley a tennis ball.

This really is The Stupidest Idea- Ever.

Tags: AGW, al gore, lawyers, lies, stupidity

In Energy, Natural Gas Should be Key

Sep 7, 2009 Political

The Waxman- Markey Bill, now going in for consideration by the Senate, when they finally decide they want to actually do some work, will be heavy on “renewables” and “carbon credits”- which is a bunch of Bull—- in the end. All carbon credits do is provide more money to the government, and we have all seen how badly they handle money- they should not be allowed any more. They need to learn how to handle what they do have. I would take away their car allowances, and make them walk or take a cab. A little humility might go a long way towards fiscal responsibility, but that’s another post.

This one concerns the energies we already use, and how we can better use them. Natural gas is, (no pun intended), a natural, simply because the infrastructure retrofit required would be less than other technologies, as a LNG tank could be moved onto property easier than adapting other technologies to a service station, and Natural Gas is fairly friendly on emissions, especially for a fossil fuel. 

HOUSTON — The natural gas industry has enjoyed something of a winning streak in recent years. It found gigantic new reserves, low prices are encouraging utilities to substitute gas for coal, and cities are switching to buses fueled by natural gas.

But its luck has run out in Washington, where the industry is having trouble making its case to Congress as it writes an energy bill to tackle global warming.

nytimes.com

That’s right- if it’s a fossil fuel, you can bet that the enviro- nuts will be against it, and condemn it out of hand, rather than see how clean we could make them, especially since we are stuck with them until Congress sees the light on Nuclear power for electrical consumption.

The use of the fossil fuels coal and natural gas are competing for shares of power generation, and thus are in an adversarial position with regards to the other, when they should be acting together- they are both, after all, facing the same threat of extinction or at least severe restrictions. Coal has more to fear than natural gas, but they are in essence, tarred with the same brush.

The difference of opinion is about more than what is best for the environment, of course. Industry profits are riding on the outcome of the discussion — a rich mix of politics, environment, science and business.

A climate-change bill that passed the House in June, intended to cap greenhouse gas emissions, delivered benefits to renewable fuels like wind and solar and strengthened building codes to conserve energy.

~snip~

“The Senate is more open to natural gas as a transition fuel than the House was,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, “but the senators from the coal states who are crucial votes are going to want first consideration for coal.”

The gas industry’s leaders say they will descend on Capitol Hill in coming weeks to press their case about the advantage of gas, including that it emits about half the greenhouse gases as coal.

The industry has formed a new lobbying group, and it is planning a national campaign that includes television advertising. Executives want fewer allowances for coal. They also want legislation that gives incentives for companies to convert truck fleets from diesel to natural gas.

“Never in my life have I been confronted with something so obviously easy and good to do and have such Congressional apathy,” said Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy and a leading voice in the industry. He added that he was still hopeful the Senate can improve the House bill.

nytimes.com

Now, to be fair, Mr. McClendon has a dog in this hunt- he is a proponent of Natural Gas, and he wants to make money- that’s a given, but he will throw the coal industry under the bus, when he should be working with the coal industry, and the nuclear industry- instead, it has become a divide and conquer deal with the liberals against the energy sector and its subsets.

But the coal industry will also be active. Vic Svec, a senior vice president at Peabody Energy, a large coal company, said coal was still a better fuel because its price is more stable than gas.

“Coal with carbon capture and storage is the low cost, low carbon solution and has fantastic implications for the nation’s energy security,” he said.

But it is not only coal-industry lobbyists and their Congressional supporters who favor the concept of carbon sequestration. David Hawkins, a climate change expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said simply replacing coal with natural gas for power generation was “not a viable strategy” because that would merely delay climate change by a few decades.

nytimes.com

When a more relaxed view is taken regarding the energy sector, where the existing technologies are encouraged to improve their energy production, with special emphasis on the end product of waste, all while perfecting the new technologies of wind and solar, there will be an increased productivity in these technologies. Strangling the existing modes of energy production is counter- productive to forming new ones- it just slows the whole process, and if we truly want to use new and more efficient energy sources, we need to transition carefully and patiently.

This House Energy Bill, Waxman-Markey, should be scrapped and a new, more workable one formed- just remember one thing-

It’s better to get it right, than to get it right now.

Tags: coal, energy, natural gas, solar, stupidity, Waxman- Markey, wind