Friday, October 28, 2011

Big Coal meets Cherry Point's tiny herring

Bob Simmons' latest offering on Crosscut deserves a read.

Alternatively, Hart Hodges' effort seems to favor forces that discount fish.

John Stark also chimes in reporting claims of transparency.

Here is my response to Stark's article:
jwatts Says:

By the explanations given, this deliberative process does seem somewhat more open than did the Constitutional Convention back in 1787, which is not saying much.
Maybe about the same as current ‘Executive Sessions’?
Transparency does beat translucency, which in turn beats opacity, but so what?

The process to be followed likely has a pre-ordained outcome, in favor of the so-called ‘commerce clause’ in our current Federal Constitution, which, has now been incrementally interpreted to mean that corporations are actually ‘persons’.
So, good luck with getting what you might expect to be a fair & impartial hearing, without resorting to extra-legal tactics on behalf of real people and existing taxpayers.

At least, this process may present the opportunity to identify the heretofore hidden social costs associated with egregious corporate greed masquerading as ‘jobs’. This entire proposal is nothing more than a ‘jobs bill’ for a few that is being forced upon the many by private interests, not the government.

Care to venture how much of these costs will be externalized for the citizenry to pay for?
Hint: Much more than any elected politician would ever dare advocate!