I've been blessedly far away from computers for a week, pedaling through up and down the Cascade Mts on the 20th edition of Cycle Oregon. A good meditative, if butt-chafing, break from the standard fretting. Tomorrow I go for a week to an east coast conference with "Reuniting America," which is riding point on the movement to build more common ground among political adversaries. Put another way, the task is to help us to heal the intentionally manufactured wounds in the body politic and rediscover our common dreams, values, priorities, which are so much vaster than immediately meet the political pundit's eye.
The relevance to Really Taking America Back is apparent enough not to need commentary, wouldn't you say?
If you think this "transpartisan" hub-bub is so much happy talk without enough real heft to be worth your attention, check out this fine, not-too-long article by Mark Satin, one of the really brilliant folks working on this. The protagonists of his article are Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michael Bloomberg.
I am not making this up.
Something is really happening here. How much traction will it get? We can find out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think many of the so called post-partisan policy points proposed in the article are reasonable, but I have some problems with others, particularly those dealing with healthcare and taxes. I am of the opinion that any tax that isn't progressive is regressive and hence, unfair to the poor and lower income classes.
This is not my vision of how to TAB. Sure, it is a nice notion. And in a better, different world, it would be something to start working on. But I think this idea of reconciliation and trans-partisanship is a bit premature. Like the Dixie Chicks, I'm not read to make nice.
A certain tension between philosophical and political tension is a good thing. I brings balance and prevents veering off over the edge of either end of the ideological spectrum. As a liberal libertarian, I find much to be admired in classic, paleo, pre-Reagan conservatism. If only the leaders on the other side of the aisle were as principled and reasoned as Barry Goldwater. But today, Republicans have taken us too far toward the right side of the spectrum. We've got a long way to go to bring it back to a safe and sensible place before we start giving ground and thinking of politicians like Bloomberg and Arnold as being the ones to define and hold the center ground. (Many politicians like to be or appear to be in the center. Especially as the general election approaches, this is where they all move. I don't trust the ones that move around like that. I want my lawmakers to know where they stand from the outset, and remain there because they are principled.)
Let's not be naive, but recognize with open eyes what we, as progressives, are up against -- a ruthless, craven, manipulative, well oiled, well funded political movement that openly rejects reason, reasonableness, science, logic in favor of the mindless ideologies of tribalism, nationalism, self righteous moralism, blind faith, dogma, fear mongering... the list goes on. All working within and backed up by, and working on behalf of a system of corporatocracy with the mainstream media acting as its PR arm. There is no effective policy for the common good. The only agenda is profit, attaining power and holding onto power by any and all means - and at any and all costs. I don't even think that the vast majority of them, not even their leaders, are consciously aware that they are working on behalf of this agenda. They have not and never will take the red pill that allows them to step outside the Matrix in order to see it.
I happen to think the modern Republican party, the party of Nixon, Bush, Giuliani, et al, is a party of intolerance, hypocrisy, selfishness, racism, torture, and war. They have proven they are willing to shred the constitution to advance their agenda. That makes them un-American. But their strength is that they have the courage (or willing blindness) of their convictions. So do we also have the courage of our convictions? (By"we" I don't mean the Democratic party since that institution has proven over and over that it no longer has convictions.) Are we willing to stand firm and not compromise for the sake of bipartisanship, otherwise known as going along to get along? Should we find middle ground with the radical fringe? Should we, for instance, agree to allow the teaching of "intelligent design" along side Darwinism in our classrooms? I trust that at least that would be beyond the pale of "post-partisanship".
No, I strongly feel that before we start holding hands and signing Kumbaya, there is serious work yet to be done discrediting this corrupt, vile brand of Republicanism. Like some particularly nasty virus, it will never be erradicated, but I think that it can be stamped down to a chronic, but managable level. When that happens, and America's center starts to come back somewhere to the left of Arnold and Bloomberg, then we can talk.
May I offer links to two essays. One defines the radical nature of the opposition and the other argues for taking a firm stand and a hard line against it.
Winner Take All by Digby and a post by driftglass that I would entitle The Chicago Way: The sober, serious conversation.
From the Post-Partisan Politics article, this little nugget caught my eye:
[And] in his National Press Club speech, Schwarzenegger said, “[Politics] starts with something very basic -- establishing relationships. I read where the President asked a Senator about his son who is in Iraq. The Senator’s dismissive reply was not in the spirit of the question. How did that reply advance the public good?
Arnold is referring to when the White House invited newly elected Senate and House members to a “private reception” after the election, and George W. Bush really charmed Jim Webb. Here is the exchange as reported by the Washington Post.
“How’s your boy?” Bush asked, referring to Webb’s son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
“I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,” Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
“That’s not what I asked you,” Bush said. “How’s your boy?”
“That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President,” Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.
You tell me who is being dismissive... and snappish, and disrespectful.
Even the affable and moderate Arnold can't help from repeating the lies.
FW: FERC issues Notice of Jordan Cove LNG application
From: Dea McConnell (wishhorse@msn.com)
Sent: Wed 9/19/07 8:58 AM
To: comments@whitehouse.gov; dphillips77@tymewyse.com; exchange@jeffnet.org; golden@jeffnet.org; governor@state.or.us; Kruse.Sen@state.or.us (kruse.sen@state.or.us); marcmcconnel@frontiernet.net; member@citizen.org; Morgan.Rep@state.or.us (morgan.rep@state.or.us); Ranger (rbayer@orednet.org); rep.davehunt@state.or.us; sen.jeffkruse@state.or.us; Tom Vinson (tom.vinson@mail.house.gov); vice_president@whitehouse.gov
This is an ongoing dialogue with Tom Vincent, Legislative director for Peter Defazio, Congressman district 4. The issue at hand is the proposed LNG terminal in Coos Bay oregon and my concerns are primarily centered on public participation and the various federal, state, city and county rules and requirements for public participation in a project like this. My grievance is that these rules and requirements are being ignored in favor of this facility's approval. This is my response to Tom's e-mail regarding Peters stance on this issue, please follow thread for a more thorough understanding and please contact me for questions and comments.
Thank you
Dea Anna McConnell
From: wishhorse@msn.com
To: tom.vinson@mail.house.gov; kruse.sen@state.or.us; marcmcconnel@frontiernet.net; morgan.rep@state.or.us; rep.davehunt@state.or.us; sen.jeffkruse@state.or.us; exchange@jeffnet.org; dphillips77@tymewyse.com
Subject: RE: FERC issues Notice of Jordan Cove LNG application
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:41:29 -0700
Ok....
thanks for your input.
I would think Peter would want to help or feel obliged to help. He is the first contact on the stakeholder list provided by FERC.
My take on this again, beyond the damaging exchange with some of the applicants representatives, it that no satisfactory and reasonable PPP has been implemented by the applicant, the various agencies as cooperating agencies, and FERC. This is a legislative matter, not a comment or question.
Let me give you an example. Marc and I attended the Coos County planning hearing on the slip and berth for the Gateway project that the LNG relies on for their project to be built. Some citizens in attendance made verbal and or written testimony to their fears regarding safety and the apparent lack of involvement of the Coast Guard. So I called the Coos Bay Coast Guard to get first hand information. I spoke with Chuck, I believe the chief of that unit, or leading officer or what ever the appropriate word would be? He told me, we are not involved in the security, we are only a search and rescue unit. To which I asked him who is responsible for the security. He then said that well they were, but that they were adopting a wait and see position before worrying about the security. I commented that this seemed odd. But he really could not help me and did not know who could in regards to the actual security of an LNG processing facility. But he gave me the number for headquarters to see if they could help me. So I have called and am now awaiting a return call from the luitenent who can possibly help me.
Since the Coast Guard is our homeland security force as I now understand it as stated in the FERC information packet, (prior to this I did not know the Coast guard was the fifth unit of the military!) they are charged by FERC with the security. But in regards to the public being informed so they can submit comments, a real breakdown is occurring. It is an obvious unfair burden that citizens like me as a consequence of not knowing what else to do is expected to spend hours of research and phone calling to find out who might help me to glean information like who in the Coast Guard can answer questions and concerns that prevent me or anyone from commenting to FERC on.
This is not an unusual occurrence, it is usual. FERC does have and expected PPP that is a "requirement" of the siting process. But Lonnie Lister (Paul Friedman's' supervisor )with FERC cannot tell me what the benchmarks or criteria is for this requirement, but that since the energy act of 2005 it is an "evolving" process. How can laws be evolving and what is going on here????? I have heard a variety of contradictory statements regarding the entire process, including representatives saying that they cannot help because they lost jurisdiction which is not the complete truth as I now understand it. Even if it is being used to dismiss participation from a congressional, senatorial, or representative position. You believe that your claim of DeFazio's' ignorance of the project and it's implications are an excuse to ingnore the process, but instead this seems damning of him and his sworn duties. Your claim that there is plenty of time is not true at all in regards to the meaningful period for Defazio to participate with the citizens, and this is rapidly becoming a deadline, Oct. 4, 2007!
If Peter is unwilling to do much more than he has, he must live with that decision, and you as an adviser must too. Not I.
Thanks again,
Dea Anna MCconnell
Subject: RE: FERC issues Notice of Jordan Cove LNG application
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:25:26 -0400
From: Tom.Vinson@mail.house.gov
To: wishhorse@msn.com
Peter may be willing to send a letter to FERC along the lines of what Wyden did (I haven't had a chance to discuss with him yet), but Members of Congress do not become official interveners in federal agency proceedings. Members share their views in more informal ways, such as through letters to the agencies or meetings with agency officials.
Tom Vinson
Legislative Director
U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
2134 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Ph: 202-225-6416
Fx: 202-225-0032
http://defazio.house.gov
From: Dea McConnell [mailto:wishhorse@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 10:01 AM
To: Vinson, Tom; marcmcconnell@frontiernet.net; dphillips77@tymewyse.com; exchange@jeffnet.org; Kruse.Sen@state.or.us; Morgan.Rep@state.or.us
Subject: RE: FERC issues Notice of Jordan Cove LNG application
Thank you Tom,
I would like to formally request that Representative Defazio become an intervener for his constituents of the fourth district of congress for the state of Oregon, whom he expressed total agreement with on the fact that the LNG is not a good thing for Oregon when he said "I do not want this LNG for Oregon either" When asked if he opposed the project at the town hall meeting at Roseburg OR in August, 2007.
Please note the following paragraph (paragraph 7, below) that tells him how he may do this for us.
I understand after talking to his contact in Coos Bay that there is much support for the Gateway project connected to the dredging proposal, connected to the Maersk project connected to the Ship wrecking proposal, connected to the Railway improvement project, connected to the sidelined secret project named TK connected to the secret project dubbed project 'April', that the success of the LNG project hinges on or vice-versa.
What Defazio must understand is that the appropriate steps to produce the transparent, public friendly pre-filing period as indicated by the laws laid out in the 2005 national energy act of Congress have been very corrupted in the interest of big energy companies. This will not be in the interest of securing the Coos Bay economic vitality through an LNG terminal who's product will force competition with gas resources that are foreign and tied up with guaranteed future gas cartels and price fixing through control of supply. Gas supplies that are at this moment not real, and gas supplies that if, not when, they do become real, will be a kind of gas that is not compatible with our current supplies, create a potential terrorist target in the middle of the Cascadia region of Oregon, create negative environmental impacts that can only be guessed at, and many other high price costs that can not outweigh any benefit, real or percieved.
At a time when Defazio is quoted as saying "For too long, our nation's energy policies have been stuck in the 1950's. We need to commit to a sustainable, clean energy future in the same way President Kennedy committed to landing on the moon....We just need to break hold that big energy companies have on federal policies." See press release from January 18, 2007. Or contact Danielle Langone (202)-225-6416. At a time when other governors, senators and congressmen are stridently opposing a development that is not in our countries best interest, How can Defazio ignore this legislative development any further?
At his and so Oregons , own risk and only contrary to his oath of office.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely
Dea Anna McConnell
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10).
Subject: FW: FERC issues Notice of Jordan Cove LNG application
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:47:56 -0400
From: Tom.Vinson@mail.house.gov
To: wishhorse@msn.com
Dea --
FYI...below is info on how to get involved with the Jordan Cove proceedings at FERC.
Tom Vinson
Legislative Director
U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
2134 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Ph: 202-225-6416
Fx: 202-225-0032
http://defazio.house.gov
From: Mark Hershfield [mailto:Mark.Hershfield@ferc.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:44 PM
To: Dave_Berick@wyden.senate.gov; joshua_sheinkman@wyden.senate.gov; valerie_west@gsmith.senate.gov; Branton, Brian; Dohrmann, Andrew; Joel_Merkel@cantwell.senate.gov; Amit_Ronen@cantwell.senate.gov; carrie_desmond@murray.senate.gov; Nagelbush, Tracy; Vinson, Tom
Subject: FERC issues Notice of Jordan Cove LNG application
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP Docket Nos. CP07-441-000 CP07-442-000 CP07-443-000
Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. Docket No. CP07-444-000
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND
SECTION 3 AUTHORIZATION
(September 13, 2007)
Take notice that on September 4, 2007, Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP, 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108, filed in Docket Nos. CP07-441-000, CP07-442-000, and CP07-443-000, an application under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) regulations for, respectively, a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction and operation of the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (Pacific Connector); a blanket certificate to perform certain routine activities and operations; and a blanket certificate to provide open access firm transportation services. The proposed pipeline is approximately 230-miles long and 36 inches in diameter which will transport up to 1 Billion cubic feet (Bcf) per day of regasified liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P.’s Jordan Cove LNG Import Terminal (Jordan Cove LNG) in Coos County, Oregon to interconnects with Northwest Pipeline Company in Douglas County, Oregon, Avista Corporation in Jackson County, Oregon and with Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation and Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company at the terminus of the system in Klamath County, Oregon.
Also take notice that on September 4, 2007, Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P., 125 Central Avenue, Suite 380, Coos Bay, Oregon 97402, filed with the Commission, in Docket No. CP07-444-000, an application under section 3 of the NGA and Part 153 of the Commission’s regulations for authorization to site, construct, and operate a liquefied natural gas import terminal and associated storage facilities in Coos County, Oregon, for the purpose of importing LNG into the United States.
The Pacific Connector and Jordan Cove LNG projects are more fully described as set forth in the applications that are on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The instant filings may be also viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the "eLibrary" link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659
Any questions regarding the applications should be directed to: Beth L. Webb, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, 1825 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 420-2200 for Jordan Cove LNG; and Teresa Silcox Torrey/Lynn Dahlberg, Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LLC, P.O. Box 58900, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158-0900, (801) 584-7051.
On May 1, 2006, the Commission staff granted Jordan Cove LNG’s and Pacific Connector’s requests to utilize the Pre-Filing process and assigned Docket No. PF06-25-000 to staff activities involving the Jordan Cove LNG project and Docket No. PF06-26-000 to Pacific Connector project. Now, as of the filing of the September 4, 2007 applications, the Pre-Filing Process for these projects has ended. From this time forward, these proceedings will be conducted in Docket Nos. CP07-441-000, CP07-442-000, CP07-443 -000, and CP07-444-000 as noted in the caption of this Notice.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission’s rules, 18 C.F.R. §157.9, and to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §4321-4347, the Commission staff will issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review within 90 days of the date of this Notice. The Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff’s issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the proposal. The Notice will also alert other agencies of the requirement to complete necessary reviews and authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff’s FEIS.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the "e-Filing" link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
Comment Date: October 4, 2007
Kimberly D. Bose
Secretary
For addition information please contact:
Carol Connors or John Peschke
House Liaison Senate Liaison
Federal Energy Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Regulatory Commission
(202) 502-8004 (202) 502-8004
carol.connors@Ferc.gov john.peschke@Ferc.gov
Post a Comment