"People Who Hate Wal-Mart Hate Success"

Great rant from Greg Gutfield, and so true:

As any Manhattan masseuse will tell you, I love a happy ending. And that's exactly what I've found in this story about angry locals who tried to keep a Wal-Mart out of their town.

In this case, after years of tangling with selfish, poorly informed citizens, Wal-Mart finally took its toys and left, leaving the idiots of Plainfield Township, Pennsylvania, to fend for themselves.

Now, that's not the happy ending. This is: What took Wal-Mart's place was a metal-shredding plant. A massive, recycling noise machine, louder than a freight train and prone to accidental explosions. The citizens now have a monster in their midst -- so, make way for more petitions.

And I love every minute of it!

As you know, Wal-Mart has been an object of spite, usually from fools too cowardly to admit that their bile has less to do with the store than with their own insignificance. People who hate Wal-Mart really hate the success that's eluded them. As for the attacks on Wal-Mart from elitist media hacks — that's bigotry, for they assume you must be genetic trash to shop there.

Fact is, Wal-Mart is just a symbol of America — a successful phenomenon that brings you what you need cheaply. But to its opposition, it's the daddy that never hugged them -- poor things.

So, Plainfield got what was coming. I hope every night they go to bed hearing the mangling of metal, thinking, "If only a Wal-Mart was nearby, we could buy earplugs."

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Moscow likely to see stormwater regulations; EPA plans to list city under Stormwater Phase II program"

What goes around, comes around. I actually hate to see any city subjected to these silly and expensive regulations, but Queen Nancy called down the thunder....

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

The Environmental Protection Agency has again stated its intention to make Moscow face intensive stormwater regulations, but this time the City Council is unlikely to fight it.

The council's Public Works/Finance Committee agreed Monday night that Moscow should accept being listed under the EPA's Stormwater Phase II program instead of trying to appeal the decision. Public Works Director Les MacDonald has estimated it will cost the city about $300,000 a year for the first five years of the program to meet its requirements.

Moscow will be required to develop a comprehensive stormwater management program and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit if it is listed as a regulated small municipal separate storm system under Phase II.

The regulations are designed to manage the quality and quantity of runoff from development and to control stormwater discharge, as well as reduce downstream pollution and contamination.

Moscow was first alerted to the EPA's plans in June 2007. The City Council decided at the time to send the EPA a letter asking for control of its own stormwater system.

The EPA spent the last year reviewing Moscow's situation. MacDonald said EPA officials spoke to him in June and said the new data they'd found confirmed their decision that Moscow should be listed. For example, tests showed that fecal coliform contamination in parts of Paradise Creek is too high.

"City staff has been working on trying to track down where some of that's coming on so we can try to stop it where we can," MacDonald said.

MacDonald said Moscow already has some programs in place that will be required by the Phase II listing, although some of those will need to be beefed up. The city does not actively process stormwater right now, but will have to. The program also requires public education programs, detection and elimination of illicit discharge, and construction run-off control.

He said Moscow will have some flexibility within the program if it chooses not to fight it. The city likely will be able to set milestones for itself and gradually meet the requirements of the program over five years.

MacDonald conducted an analysis of the program's potential effects on the city last year. Based on the analysis, MacDonald estimated the city will need to add four-and-a-half staff members to cover the needs of the program, as well as buy an additional street sweeper and inspection equipment. He estimated the cost would be $300,000 a year on average.

City Supervisor Gary Riedner said Moscow likely will consider a stormwater utility fee to help cover the cost of the program, and MacDonald agreed.

The city of Pullman also is dealing with stormwater regulations from a Washington State Department of Ecology permit issued in early 2007. The estimated cost for the city to meet requirements in the permit's first five years is $4.4 million and the Pullman City Council is contemplating a stormwater utility fee to help recover the costs. Landowners' fees would be based on the amount of impervious surface on their property, and the city is hoping to generate about $800,000 per year.

MacDonald said he's not sure why there is such a big difference between Pullman and Moscow's cost estimates, and said his estimate was "very rough."

"It will likely change," MacDonald said. "It could go up. I doubt it would go down much."

Moscow Public Works/Finance Committee member Wayne Krauss initially expressed interest in fighting the listing.

"I think it's really unfortunate that the federal government, in this case the EPA, stands there with this big hammer over our heads threatening us with a bunch of fines if we don't bow under," he said.

He asked about the city's potential to fight the listing. City Attorney Randy Fife said Moscow has not historically been successful in fighting federal regulations and that the government takes the view that cities eventually comply, one way or another.

"Kind of what you're saying is we're screwed," Krauss said.

Krauss and committee members Dan Carscallen and John Weber eventually decided to recommend to the City Council as a whole not to fight the regulation. Weber said it would be better for Moscow to accept the program than put itself "in the middle of the radar screen" of the EPA.

I Think That I Shall Never See A Petition Lovely As A Tree

With regards to the planned "deforestation" in front of Avery Hall on the WSU campus, I could really care less. WSU is not the center of our universe and there is a lot more that goes on in this community than the undergraduate penchant for revolutionary drama encouraged by their mentors in the ivy-covered halls of academe.

On the one hand, those are trees that were planted by the university, not some old-growth cedar grove, and the university can do with them as they please. On the other hand, there is a certain delicious hoist and petard element to this whole situation. As long as the professors professional activists are busy biting the hand that feeds them and are not agitating and meddling in the city of Pullman's business, I'm happy.

But the online petition started to save the trees has provided for some rather amusing comments:

46. Don't Destroy Our Campus!!!!
I love the big old trees on campus. The forest-y look is what attracted me to WSU in the first place. The trees make campus beautiful and wonderful to walk around. HOW DARE YOU DESTROY A TREE!!! Trees are irriplaceable. They make our air cleaner and our environment gorgeous. This is disgusting! I cannot believe I am associated with a university that would do such a horrible, phallic act!!!
7/17/2008 9:09:47 AM

"irriplaceable?" Yikes. A mind is also a terrible thing to waste. With spelling errors like that, it seems the English Department's biggest problem is not trees being cut down. "Phallic act?" Must be a Women's Studies major.

527. When There's Nothing Left To Sustain, Why Talk About Sustainability?
A military officer boasts of destroying a village in order to save it; a bomb is labeled a "peacemaker;" and institutional racism is labeled "diversity." So we shouldn't be surprised to see the cutting down of trees labeled "beautification." But it doesn't change the truth. Save the trees and cut down the lies.
John Streamas, Comparative Ethnic Studies
7/14/2008 3:56:01 PM

Ah, yes. War, racism, cutting down trees...It's all the same to ExStreamas. What a maroon.

579. Save the Avery Grove Trees and the Murrow Yard Trees too
This is ridiculous. Cutting down a tree here and there that is diseased or otherwise problematic is one thing, but this sort of clear cutting is absurd and, I would add, anti-environmental.
Christopher Lupke, Associate Professor, Foreign Languages and Cultures
7/13/2008 9:40:16 PM

I'm suprised Lu Laoshi didn't implicate the "Forbes Gang" for the "clear cutting."

585. Cougar pride?
Where is the pride in our heritage when we propose to cut down so many trees that in addition to their important shading function and great beauty are a rich part of WSU's history? And where is the imagination of our planners that they cannot find a way to keep the trees while making useful improvements?
T.V. Reed, Professor of English, Avery Hall
7/13/2008 3:24:07 PM

And where is the UFCW and their big-shot Seattle lawyers?