Constitution, Corporations & Coal

--------------------------------------------------

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. - Benjamin Franklin

No free government can stand without virtue in the people, and a lofty spirit of patriotism. - Andrew Jackson

Virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, it is the source of of private virtue... A government is like everything else: to preserve it we must love it... Everything, therefore, depends on establishing this love in a republic. - Thomas Jefferson

--------------------------------------------------

Here in Bellingham, we are focused on Coal and the proposed export terminal at Cherry Point.

Behind this proposal are Corporations that stand to profit from this venture, despite any concerns expressed from the local community.

But, behind that is the Constitutional interpretation expressed only last year, that Corporations are People, and that Money represents Speech.

At what level should any of these nested -and cascading- ideas be opposed?

The answer is at ALL levels.

Of course, ultimately the most effective level is the latter, the Constitutional level.

It does take more time and effort, even though in the end solving that problem would have the effect of helping to solve a myriad of multiple problems.

But, there is a way to attack all three levels of problems, individually and collectively, which is the subject of this blog.

------------------

Finally, a great book has appeared that offers clear and achievable ideas and effective actions that we can take as citizens to put some things straight again in this country:

Corporations are not People by Jeffrey D Clements

My wife, Joan, obtained this book through Truthout and gave it to me to read, for which I am thankful.

This is by far the best analysis and simple action plan I've yet to read about doing something positive about correcting some basic problems that threaten the very foundations of our republican form of democratic government.

It actually gives me hope!

Of course, the actions suggested will take work, but they hold the promise of having us -the public- in control of very important changes most of us already wish to make in our government.

Below, is a quick summary of the three steps the author suggests, all of which are positive steps in their own right.

Taken together, they would go a long way toward correcting the excesses in lobbying, elections, tax fairness, bail-outs, financial regulation, outsourcing jobs overseas, corporate accountability, campaign finance, wage equity, corruption of public officials, crony capitalism, and the undue influence of transnational corporations on society, the environment and local governments.

To me, as well as many others -including libertarians, 'Tea Party' supporters, Occupy protesters and others- those actions are both necessary and overdue, yet Congress continues to be paralyzed to act in any meaningful way!

If, for other reason, its time for the public to assert its power and get these things to be part of a serious national discussion, with definitive action as the end result.

That public effort alone can give Congress and the Supreme Court the clear direction they so desperately need to get us back on the honest track our Founders intended.

------------------

• First and most important, we need to work for the 28th amendment to the Constitution, a People's Rights Amendment, to reverse Citizens United and corporate constitutional rights.

• As the second step, we must insist, rather than beg, that corporations actually serve the public interest. Corporate law should ensure that corporations do not really take benefits from the public; they must also fulfill duties to the book.

• Third, we need to make election and lobbying laws that punish, rather than reward, corrupt crony capitalism and bribe-based politics.

---------------

Here's the proposed Amendment XXVIII:

Section I. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section II. The words people person or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies, or other corporate established by the laws of any state, the United States or any foreign state. Such corporate entities are subject to any regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section III. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and all such other rights of the people, which lights are inalienable.

----------------

While it may not be immediately obvious how such a short and clear Amendment might be effective, here is my take;

The Citizens United decision early last year by the US Supreme Court essentially culminated a long campaign by corporate interests that determined -by a 5-4 margin- that corporations are people and money is speech.

Those remarkable expressions simply defy reality to me!

In fact, they are so ridiculously Orwellian that its hard for me to believe that our highest court could have made such a decision.

But, they did. And now we're stuck with the results, at least until we can get their attention in no uncertain terms.

---------------

Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions. - Theodore Roosevelt

---------------

Here are some links that are helpful in revealing resources available to aid this cause:

About Citizens United:

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org

http://storyofstuff.org/citizensunited

http://www.murrayhillincforcongress.com

http://www.asbcouncil.org

http://www.businessfordemocracy.com

http://www.amiba.net

The Constitutional Amendment Campaign & the People's Rights Amendment:

http://www.corporationsarenotpeople.com

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org

http://www.businessfordemocracy.com

http://www.movetoamend.org

http://www.pfaw.org

http://www.citizen.org

http://www.democracyisforpeople.org

http://www.commoncause.org

http://www.united4thepeople.org

http://www.prwatch.org

http://www.corpwatch.org

http://www.sourcewatch.org

http://www.wethepeoplecampaign.org

Corporate Charter Reform & Corporate Accountability:

http://www.corporationsarenotpeople.com

http://www.freespeechforpeople.org

http://www.prwatch.org

http://www.corpwatch.org

http://www.sourcewatch.org

http://www.corporatepolicy.org/

http://www.greenchange.org/

http://www.bcorporation.net/

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org

http://www.poclad.org

http://www.celdf.org

http://www.corpethics.org

Corporations for the 21st Century:

http://www.asbcouncil.org

http://www.bcorporations.net

http://www.svn.org

http://www.ceres.org

http://www.newvoiceofbusiness.org

http://www.slowmoney.org

http://www.mainstreetalliance.org

http://www.amiba.net

http://www.newrules.org

http://www.livingeconomies.org

Cleaning the Swamps: Campaign Finance & Lobbying Reform:

http://www.publicampaign.org

http://www.demos.org

http://www.commoncause.org

http://www.citizen.org

http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org

http://website.informer.com/fightwashingtoncorruption.org

http://www.opensecrets.org

http://www.lmv.org

Other Resources:

http://www.acslaw.org

http://www.equaljusticesociety.org

http://www.brennancenter.org

http://www.theusconstitution.org

http://www.transpartisancenter.org

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/

--------------------

Constitution: Living Document or Parchment Guarantee?

This article caught my eye recently because it touches on a subject near and dear to my heart, as well as most people I know. It concerns our Constitution and a comparison of it to other, more recent Constitutions, written and adopted by nations inspired largely by the example America has made to the world - which is overwhelmingly good.

But, anyone with a conscience does know that our Constitution -excellent as it is- is not perfect; in fact, in some regards, it is clearly deficient and/or lacking in some of the freedoms we think we have. Some do simply choose to believe our Constitution IS perfect and we should not even think about changing a word, letter or a punctuation mark in it; which extremely difficult to do anyway under the rules that have been adopted.

“the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today."

You can speculate on the reasons for this ultra-conservative view as well as I can and maybe better, but why is such a position the one of choice for so many? To me, it seems that some people put so much faith in the lofty principles our Constitution embodies that any attempt to revise, clarify or add to it by Amendment amounts to heresy. Of course, that view amounts to defending individual belief systems, much like religion; which of course is protected under the very Constitution in question! How's that for circular reasoning? Maybe a better word than 'reasoning' is argument.

I suspect our Constitution offers different perceptions to different people, with just enough vagueness to guarantee wiggle room for those who want to debate their favored issue. Maybe that's why our Founders decided to let Thomas Jefferson write the first draft; he knew how to appeal to higher values without being too specific. Never mind that improvements would be needed later; it was necessary to get a document that could pass muster at the time -and our Constitution was the best compromise available to keep our shaky union together against outside forces. Why else would politics be called the art of the possible?

Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.”

But, getting something passed on principle is easier than getting every eventuality covered, as we have learned from the necessity for the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments and interpretations of the Constitution. That process is ongoing, as it should be, but difficult at best because entrenched thinking has come to look upon those vague words and lofty principles as agreeing with a host of secular opinions. People feel threatened by the very idea of changing something upon which rests their faith in the system that they have come to believe benefits their individual interests. Thus, any change is defended against with all the passion that is necessary to preserve their perceived advantage. They have learned to live with the status quo and just don't want to risk changing anything that might create altered circumstances.

...."the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart."

Fortunately, there are others in the world who also admire our Constitution's concepts so much that they use it as an example to develop their own, as many countries have done. In some of these cases, the principles upon which the US of A was founded served as their starting point, but they were not entirely limited by it, because there do exist multiple possible improvements that can become an extension of it and benefit modern society.

The article cited describes research done by two distinguished professors of respected universities, one of them my own - U VA, the school founded by the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote our Constitution. Among the authors conclusions are some really interesting findings after extensive study of some 170 different constitutions; that ours is rather 'terse' by comparison and lacks clear statements of many rights now expected by many citizens.

There are, of course, limits to empirical research based on coding and counting, and there is more to a constitution than its words, as Justice Antonin Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October. “Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights,” he said.

“The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

“Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’'

===================

Related to the susceptibility of our Constitution to be misinterpreted and warped to the advantage of some, is the current national debate over who controls Washington and our economy.

To hear how corrupted our system has become by the over-concentration of wealth and power is troubling to most of us, including an increasing number of conservatives who prefer real facts and rational reasoning over narrow, self-serving ideology and its rampant promulgation of propaganda to an audience that has become alarmingly ignorant and susceptible to often repeated corporate rhetoric in sound bytes.

A new term has been coined to describe that mass of people who often tune into FOX News for their info-mation; Ignorati a contraction of the words ignore and ignorance.

As a modern retro-counterpart to the Illuminati of ancient times - those who dared question Church dogma - these new, 'Ignorati' simply choose to be ignorant by ignoring anything that tries to awaken them from what they prefer to hear; especially factual explanations for things they choose to believe. Now, that is truly dangerous!

A recent PBS interview by Bill Moyers with former Reagan economic advisor Bruce Bartlett is an example of what I see as push-back against the Ignorati agenda.

Bartlett's remarkable conversion from a trusted member of the conservative establishment to an outspoken critic of it's corrupted policies has earned him nothing less than total ex-communication from his former colleagues

Why has he turned against such strongly held opinions?; because he can't stand the hypocrisy of constantly touting lies to bring down our government to benefit a cabal of crazy ideologues!

I would call that the courage of an honest person - even a hero - wouldn't you?

Watch the film clip to learn why Bartlett has come to think as he does, and why he believes it may even be possible for current, self-professed Tea Party members to eventually join the Occupy Wall Street movement!

------------------------

Agenda 21: Common Sense Under Suspicion?

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly.

---------------------------------------==================

Today's Herald -again- carried an article describing how off-base Whatcom County has become in its latest sorry attempts at rigging GMA policy toward those same 'special interests' that have been, for years, usurping responsible government for their own selfish purposes and agendas.

That the County Council has been in the thrall of certain development interests is not news, but the actual extent of that rip-off is only now being revealed, which continues a pattern of willful deception that is destructive to both good government and the overall best interests of its citizens.

But, even with such directly incriminating evidence, some are still in denial that anything wrong has been done! Now, THAT is sadly, truly troubling, because it brings to mind the fact that we are electing people whose minds are either being controlled by ideology, or who are appallingly susceptible to persuasion by certain misguided elements in our County government, or its influential advisors.

Could our County Council's problem with responsible growth management be related to the so-called 'Tea' Party and its sometimes very strange ideas?

This Crosscut article relates similar stupid mind-sets to a strange movement against the so-called UN 'Agenda 21', a recommendation for sustainable development.

If so, that thinking is stranger than strange, and actually counterproductive to what most rational people would consider good sense!

When a people decide upon self governance, that's something of a miracle in itself; but when certain misguided segments of the population then attempt to hijack what most willingly accept as simple common sense in every one's best interest, that's stupid at worse and problematic at best.

Don't you think that such thinking needs to be reasonably justified and held accountable?

It would be very interesting to hear a cogent argument against reasonable growth planning; one that would rationally explain a few things, like why reserving farmland and open space is a bad idea, or why concentrating population, schools and business doesn't make sense, or why providing mass transit options to private transport isn't worthwhile. Aren't those things basic to prudent economic governance?

While I'm certainly open to such explanations and sincerely want to hear them, pardon my doubt since such arguments do seem so ridiculously counter intuitive.

Fortunately, there is room for considerable diversity in our country, including a certain amount of selfish self interest, but how much utter stupidity can we tolerate and still call ourselves an educated country which presumes to leadership in the free world, as well as preservation of our own basic freedoms, so presciently given us by our founders?

Alternately, perhaps those so enamored of their private 'rights' can tell us of other places where such an excess of aberrant thought has been successful over time. I sincerely hope that these folks constitute such a minuscule minority that most citizens would view them as am tempted to do; ignore them as the willful crackpots they are.

More troubling is the possibility that some who subscribe to these thoughts have actually managed to become officials, either elected or appointed, who profess to serve us here in Whatcom County- the fourth corner of sanity!

That of course, would explain some part of the silly GMA dilemma we now find ourselves embroiled in, thanks to the devious, backward and ridiculous policies that our recent and current County Council have saddled us with to our great misfortune!

Is it really possible that some misguided souls really do believe the United Nations is to blame for our problems? If so, perhaps they would agree to illuminating us into their reasoning by means of some convincing proofs.....

---------------------------------------

Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which translates as "which was to be demonstrated". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out — has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.[1] The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof.

Q.E.D. is sometimes jokingly claimed to abbreviate "quite easily done". Q.E.D. can also be used to ridicule the specious reasoning of another person by mockingly attaching it to the end of a poor argument, which was not in fact successfully demonstrated or presented.

-------------------------------------------------------

Since our illustrious Whatcom County Council - in a unique reality of its own - seems to have conjured its own solutions without appreciably understanding the real problem of growth management. Perhaps, this can be partially explained -or confused- from Six Characters In Search Of An Author (by Luigi Pirandello 1921);

There is a body of ideas by now universally denominated 'Pirandellian', and here is the Maestro attempting to compress them into half a dozen lines:

…the deceit of mutual understanding irremediably founded on the empty abstraction of words, the multiple personality of everyone (corresponding to the possibilities of being to be found in each of us), and finally the inherent tragic conflict between life (which is always moving and changing) and form (which fixes it, immutable).

If this sounds a bit crazy, it may be, but no more so than do our Councillors, in real life!

They seem all too willing to substitute their own agenda for that adopted by the people of WHATCOM COUNTY, the State of Washington, and good sense, in general.

Under such circumstances, what are our remedies as citizens, other than lawsuit, recall, or voting them out of office? It has been obvious that they are resistant -even deaf- to reasonable arguments and appeals to their better judgement, at least until now. This situation would be laughable, if it were not so appallingly stupid -and costly to taxpayers!

I call upon our new County Executive to take this matter under serious advisement, and to demand that proper procedures and competent directions be given to those Council members who so obviously need it!

If they are to serve the public, they need to respect the public with proper education, understanding, discourse and decision-making. Otherwise, why are they there?

-------------------------------------------------------

Storm Water: Who Decides What Is Good Sense?

Repeating a phrase from yesterday's blog seems appropriate to this one, too:

The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that you should not now do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.

Today's Crosscut article addresses the latest attempt to delay -again- regulations that are more effective for storm water control. This seems like 'deja vu' all over again to me, so I posted this comment from my own experience:

----------------------

The idea seems ironic to postpone doing something that is good sense just because the 'economy' isn't very good right now. With the historic stand taken by the Building Industry, no new regulations would ever be passed or implemented, particularly if developers are required to pay their 'fair share' of costs borne by all citizens, abide by required rules, or spend time explaining what is planned in return for a permit. That mentality is what got us into the present situation where the very quality of our own habitat is severely threatened!

DOE has a big responsibility and limited authority -or will- to act reasonably and in a timely manner to actually address solving the non-source pollution problem that is so problematic, yet its wings are repeatedly clipped by the slightest resistance to tighter and more effective regulations. Ecology has now developed such a reputation for wimping out and continual delay that, unfortunately, this behavior is no longer a surprise, but a frustration. Can you imagine any caring professional working for an organization like that? It's an unfunny joke, and a gross disservice to the public, which pays for reasonable services to help protect the air, water and soil we all depend upon.

Granted, that DOE can excel at its job if given necessary support from municipalities and the State Legislature, but without that support you can see what happens, repeatedly. The problem is that after-the-fact mitigation is always less effective and more expensive than getting things right from the first; which is why more delay won't help at all, but make the observed problems worse! Of course developers will play the deny, decry, delay game! That simply takes them off the hook and defers liability onto the home owner and municipality -at a higher environmental and social cost.

Several years ago, Bellingham was able to make its Surface & Storm Water Utility more effective by implementing the latest DOE/EPA rules and raising rates to pay for them. That was an understandably painful process, but it now seems to have worked. Guess who led the fight against that change? If you guessed the Building Industry, you'd be right -and that was during an economic boom period of record levels!

In fairness, the Storm Water permitting is often the most difficult to do, and the most expensive and time-intensive. Largely, this difficulty was due to several logical factors, among others; topography and vegetative cover become more important, interfacing with the already-built infrastructure can require ingenuity and expense, treating the storm water for pollutants is necessary, codifying new guidelines takes time and one size doesn't fit every situation. But, what is the excuse for not using the new rules for new development? There, one has a pretty clean slate to actually practice the art of low-impact techniques, thereby avoiding many of the problems outlined above.

In the end, more delay of storm water improvements for the asking doesn't help anyone, except the lobbyists -like the BIA- and that is a short-term, special favor that the rest of us -or our children- must pay for some day, in some way, but well after people forget the linkage to unwanted consequences.

----------------

PS. Today's Gristle further illuminates the problem of 'doing the right thing' at it's most basic level; following the existing law! Is there any hope for Whatcom County? No wonder DOE has problems!

Climate Politics & Microcosmographia Academica

I came across a reference to Microcosmographia Academica (A Study of a Tiny Academic World) a pamphlet written by F. M. Cornford of Cambridge University and published in 1908 during an ALL class today at USF.

It struck me immediately as exceptionally humorous, but also apropos to politics other than those encountered in academia. Imagine discussing such things as "The Thin End of The Wedge" and "The Dangerous Precedent"

The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that you should not now do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.

One comparison came to mind, concerning the so-called 'debate' over climate change and what actions a responsible government might take to anticipate impending potential harmful effects and attempt mitigation. If you have witnessed the same level of denial on that issue that I have, you'd probably be tempted to just give up trying and let whatever happens, happen!

Today, this article on NASA's latest assessment of the causes of climate change appeared in USA Today. Note it directly refutes yesterday's Wall Street Journal article that named 16 'top' scientists who allowed themselves to be listed as dissenters from the view of 98% of 'top' scientists -what, 800 or so- that see clear adverse impacts from humans via greatly increased burning of fossil fuels during just the last 150 years.

It's difficult to understand anyone doubting carefully verified historical world temperature trends & cycles over the past 400,000 years, especially when these lengthy trends between successive ice ages have been so remarkably regular until just 150 years ago! What's up with that thinking? Do we get to believe science only when it suits us?

That surely wasn't the way we went about trying to land on the moon! That was an ambitious goal we used our best scientists to achieve, despite the many inconvenient uncertainties that had to be overcome.

NASA's motto then was NOT 'It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.'

If that sounds like the ultimate in modern 'conservatism', it is - at least for those things these 'conservatives' don't want!

Coal & Climate

Floyd Mckay's Crosscut article posted today describes recent developments in Bellingham and Oregon regarding shipping US coal to China. It seems small Columbia River ports downstream of Portland want terminals to ship the coal, using huge Capesize vessels.

And, the Bellingham Herald published an article by John Stark about yesterday's launch of the Coal-Free Bellingham Initiative. Good support shown - and I am sympathetic - but is it likely to be adopted as an ordinance by the City Council? Sorry to disappoint, but I doubt it. Why? Because the City will be advised that it is illegal and will likely bring losing litigation that citizens will pay for.

Unlike the County, which willfully does stupid things that are unwise and unlawful -read Growth Management decisions- the City usually does bother to seek competent legal opinion on such matters, then follows it. I'd be surprised to see any Ordinance even dutifully considered, much less approved [by at least 5 votes], though another Resolution might be possible.

So, does coal really have a measurable effect on our climate? You bet it does! And certainly in our political climate, where divisions are already evident and solidifying into virtual abysses.

If nothing else, the coal terminal debate will serve to flush out those with opinions that are mostly ideologically -or selfishly- motivated and who see the prospect of a few local jobs and huge corporate profits as clearly outweighing any environmental or social harm that all citizens would have to accept - without their approval.

And, it will highlight the ridiculous ideas that corporations are people and money is free speech! Get serious, please, and use some common sense on these matters; I'm talking to you, Supreme Court, and all those that pay for such influence.

Capitalism is a system that does provide some real benefits, but like any other concept or system, there needs to be limits. Without those limits some very harmful and brutal things can happen for which the common citizen has no recourse.

For example, why should the people of Bellingham -and other communities along the RR route- be unilaterally saddled in dealing with the costs of mitigating the myriad safety issues, health issues and property value issues that will come with greatly increased railroad traffic through our town and waterfront?

And, why do we have to accept the idea that huge foreign registry ships will be allowed free access to our coastal waters and marine habitats for the sole reason of hauling a natural resource of our country to another to enable continued erosion of US manufacturing jobs, inevitable fouling of our waters and coastlines, increased pollution of the world's atmosphere, and enrichment of others at our expense?

I'm sorry, but I really find it hard to see what we get out of this proposal except much heartburn, additional expense and difficult new problems to solve. But, perhaps, our local Chamber of Commerce can illuminate us with its words of wisdom? Wait, that's already been attempted and it sounds like an echo reverberation from the proponents!

If this proposal was a matter of national interest or security, I might alter my opinion, but it is not. Or, maybe if there were significant clean, value-added, living wage jobs for area residents and a much more reasonable logistics plan that minimized harmful impacts, provided reliable taxes to local jurisdictions, and was managed by good corporate citizens, then the rewards would likely outweigh the penalties involved.

But, we haven't seen a proposal like that, have we?

I hate to keep bringing this up, but I will anyway; how do you think we got a safer pipeline and changes to pipeline safety rules, regulations and oversight, in response to the Olympic Pipe Line disaster?

We demanded it, that's how!

Of course, we had tangible leverage then, but only as a result of a terrible accident that could have been prevented. And, of course the pipeline crossed City right-of-way. But, most of all, because citizens united in the cause and our elected representatives heard them and actually did something about the underlying problem.

We can do the same thing, again, hopefully without experiencing a catastrophe first.

I hope we will at least try - real hard!

Getting back to climate; increased pollution of the world's atmosphere counts as our problem, too, no matter where it happens. What gets burned in China today will get blown our way tomorrow, and the next day, and the next. That is true whether one chooses to believe in climate change or not. That CO2, NOx, SO2, CH4 and particulate matter result from the combustion of fossil fuel has been known a long time; what has been more recently discovered is that these so-called Green House Gases [GHG] stay up there a long time and influence climate disruptions. Like that word better?

Since the Industrial Revolution, when the burning of fossil fuels began increasing dramatically, GHG's have been accumulating to the point that historic levels - 400,000 years - have become far surpassed, and the cause for international concern.

Of course, there are still 2% of recognized scientists who still doubt this proven fact, so its not exactly unanimous, is it? Actually, some doubt is undoubtedly attributed to the extension of this newer trend to educated guesses - speculation to some - that since humans have caused this increase in GHG's, they can also cause a decrease; that a decrease should be seriously attempted for us to avoid really bad climate change -er, disruption- in the fairly near future.

[Because, we all know Al Gore is up at the North Pole with his flame thrower!]

The point is, burning more coal -or fossil fuels- anywhere in the world contributes to the GHG problem, meaning unusual warming of our atmosphere and whatever that produces as a result.

It makes no sense for us to ban coal-fired power plants in the State of Washington, and instead ship it to China for its voracious consumption! And, in the process, deplete our own reserves, and cause the earth and water based disruptions described above.

So, if you don't think coal and climate are connected, think again!

Maybe, if we can warm our political climate enough, we can reduce warming our atmospheric climate, and save ourselves some real heartburn as a side product.

--------------------

Climate: Homework For Dedicated Doubters

------------------------------------------------

Well, the Patriots & Giants both barely won, setting up the Super Bowl contestants two weeks from now. I'm actually glad this unusually long season will be ending soon

Maybe then I'll initiate a New Year's Resolution to give up watching football?

There really are better things to do, like reading, eating healthier, and lightly exercising more regularly.

------------------------------------------------

This article captured my attention because it makes sense without having to accept any belief except economic good sense and practicality.

But, careful, because this is more than a sound byte, and it's got a few more links, too.

While the particular approach advocated can't possibly solve our entire complex problem -or the entrenched resistance to it- it would be an undeniably a good start that could be implemented relatively cheaply.

And, very likely, it would yield fairly quick results that would convince many of the existing doubters that broader and more expensive controversial remedies might also work!

Then, this one, by Michael Gerson, of all people! Why, he's actually calling a spade, a spade!

------------------------------------------------

How we know why people do what they do, and even how one knows what one does oneself. -from Michael Frayn's Copenhagen

Coal: Specific Actions Bellingham Must Take

Previous Blogs have documented several possible actions that the City of Bellingham should take.

This one gets more specific.

In addition to re-stating the City's concerns regarding the EIS, the City Council and Mayor need to request information for the public record on the following concerns, prior to completion of the EIS Scope of Work:

Regarding RR Crossings within City of Bellingham Limits:

1. Entrance to/from Marine Park public access & surrounding businesses

2. Entrance to/from Alaska Ferry Terminal & adjacent businesses

3. Entrance to/from public access, Boulevard Park & business adjacent

4. South Bay Multi-use Trail crossing to/from North end of Boulevard Park.

5. Wharf Street crossing to/from nearby businesses along Cornwall St, including old GP Waterfront Redevelopment site

6. Access to/from Central Ave crossing, nearby businesses & old GP Waterfront Redevelopment site

7. F Street crossing to/from waterfront business, including berthing area, access to Waterfront Redevelopment Site, entrance to Bellwether Hotel complex

8. Access to/from waterfront from Squalicum Parkway truck route & surrounding businesses, Yacht Basin, Port of Bellingham

------

A. Need assessment of costs & responsibility for mitigating these sites for pedestrian, cycling and vehicle safety, affected all waterfront area business impacts, impacts to Waterfront Redevelopment efforts, public access to its waterfront, Port of Bellingham offices & operations, including tenants, Yacht Basin, wharf usage, water taxi, cruise, fishing, COB firefighting capability, Coast Guard operations and public access to the entire impacted waterfront area.

B. Determine source(s) of funding for all the impacts created by a significant increase to freight train traffic, including possible adverse impacts to AMTRAK & other passenger service.

C. Show cause as to why the proposed Coal Terminal at Cherry Point and related additional freight train traffic is more appropriate than other alternatives. Clearly state the amount & timing of all funding that will be made available from the proponents to mitigate any harms identified.

Specifically estimate the anticipated revenues that will accrue to each impacted local governments over time that justify approval of this proposal. What financial commitment is anticipated from citizens to pay for necessary mitigations?

There may be additional specific questions that also need to be officially asked on the public record.

I am hopeful that concerned citizens will suggest their ideas in writing to the City Council and Mayor.

-----------------------

Coal: HamsterTalk Blogs from March 27 thru December 31, 2011

Here are 27 previous Blogs with a 'Coal' label written from March 27, 2011 through December 30, 2011 on HamsterTalk

1. Those Thrilling Days of Yesteryear... Sunday, March 27, 2011

2. Coal Terminal: Mayor's Listening Session Wednesday, June 1, 2011

3. Good Mornin' America, How Are Ya? Wednesday, June 8, 2011

4. Climatology: Natural Science or Political Science? Saturday, July 9, 2011

5. Making Tracks To Where? Friday, July 15, 2011

6. Coal Terminal: A Pit & Pendulum Exercise? Thursday, July 21, 2011

7. Coal Terminal: Trains & Infrastructure Saturday, July 30, 2011

8. Coal Terminal: Bulk Carriers & Kayaks Sunday, July 31, 2011

9. Coal Terminal: Update on Developments Monday, August 1, 2011

10. Coal Terminal: Another Update Tuesday, August 2, 2011

11. Coal Terminal: Playing Defense Wednesday, August 3, 2011

12. Coal Terminal:Whatcom Watch Remembers Cherry Point Agreement Thursday, August 4, 2011

13. Coal: A Global Perspective Thursday, September 1, 2011

14. Coal: Floyd McKay's Latest Crosscut Article Wednesday, September 28, 2011

15. Coal: Green versus Gold? Wednesday, October 19, 2011

16. Coal: The Role of Politics Wednesday, October 19, 2011

17. Coal: National Geographic Article Friday, October 21, 2011

18. Coal: NPR Weighs In With Two Articles Thursday, October 27, 2011

19. Big Coal meets Cherry Point's tiny herring Friday, October 28, 2011

20. Coal: Where Does Bellingham Really Stand? Sunday, October 30, 2011

21. Coal: Location, Location, Location - For Whom? Monday, October 31, 2011

22. Coal: What Does Lake Whatcom, Waterfront Redevelopement & The Olympic Pipe Line Have to Do With It? Thursday, November 3, 2011

23. Coal: Possible Good News? Thursday, November 10, 2011

24. Energy: Update On Coal, Oil & Other Fossil Fuel Projects Wednesday, November 16, 2011

25. Impacts: Coal Versus Oil Sands Thursday, November 17, 2011

26. Trains: 'Here's Mud In Your Eye'Thursday, December 15, 2011

27. Coal: Why Can't We Citizens Have A Strong Voice? Friday, December 30, 2011

I Don't Give A Fig For This Newton

"My way of joking is to tell the truth. It's the funniest joke in the world." - George Bernard Shaw

What is glibly advertised, gooey, prefers being wrapped - and baked - in dough, and could be confused with a toxic lizard?

Answer: A fig sandwich? No, wait, a Newt Gingrich!

The current traveling circus trying to disguise itself as the Republican Presidential Primary exhibits a number of truly freaky and sometimes scary characters, with 'Newt' being the latest flash-in-the-pan gladiator to be thrown into the big cat arena.

Good luck with that, Newt!

Think he'll survive?

Of course he will; but maybe not the way he'd prefer.

That would be just fine with me, too.

It is curious as hell that this Newt fellow is such a narcissist to even imagine he could win the support of American voters, unless most of them really do insist upon calling our Federal Guvmint a TV reality show.

Why, the prospect of Newt actually becoming '45' is more frightening than a loaded '45 that's being pointed at me!

So, let's get serious and settle down, let Romney -or whoever- run and lose; then get back to something like we have today, OK?

How does Newt do it, anyway?

He looks and acts like an over-grown Spanky (from Our Gang) and has enough baggage to make any airline profitable.

For 30 years he's hung around Washington, DC like a court jester, intent on collecting as much fame and fortune as that strange city will allow.

He could probably get a job with the Capitol Steps as a comedy act, if he were legitimately funny.

Maybe a character like a Government-Issue (GI) Grinch? (Count the letters in his name)

Or, better yet, the Big Fig! (check out the U-Tube)

I don't really dislike Newt, its what he's done to degrade my concept of an elected official that troubles me.

But, freedom -and free enterprise- being what it is, what Newt's does is certainly allowed, even though it may negatively impact what most of the world may think of us.

----------------

True to form, I have collected the URLs of a few articles written with NEWT as subject,

This one, from the NYTimes captures the essence of what many think about this fellow. It also includes the '8 Things Newt Likes'. Check it out.

Others, from Politico, The Nation (serial hypocrite?), BusinessWeek (is he really a G Washington crossing the Delaware?) and CBS News (shades of John Boehner!) also shed light on this character from different angles.

Then. of course the mandatory Wikipedia piece on Newts.

And, the salient witches chant from MacBeth to close the loop:

2nd Witch: (not a witch?)
"Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,--
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."

That's it from me on this sorry subject.

Out.

----------------------

Coal: Why Can't We Citizens Have A Strong Voice?

This article appeared in today’s paper and was forwarded to me:

Dec, 30, 2011

Activists plan initiative to outlaw coal trains in Bellingham

JOHN STARK / THE BELLINGHAM HERALD

---

BELLINGHAM - Ever since the plans for SSA Marine's coal shipping terminal at Cherry Point became public, city officials have been saying that they would have no direct control over the coal trains that would pass through the city if Gateway Pacific Terminal is built.

A new citizens' group plans to change all that, but they seem to face overwhelming legal odds.

Rick Dubrow, owner of A1 Builders, is one of the key organizers of a new political action committee called No Coal! On Jan. 26, Dubrow said the group will make public its draft of a proposed new city ordinance that would prohibit any transport of coal through Bellingham by rail or any other means.

In conventional legal terms, that doesn't seem to make much sense. The federal government regulates the interstate rail system, and BNSF Railway Co. has a legal right of way through the city. BNSF spokeswoman Suann Lundsberg said federal law requires the railroad to ship coal and other legal cargoes that shippers want to move via rail.

But Dubrow and Stoney Bird, a former corporate attorney working with the Bellingham group, say they are setting out to establish some new legal groundwork that would put the rights of communities and ecosystems on equal or greater footing with the rights of railroads and other corporations.

They are taking their cue from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which was involved in a successful 2010 effort to get the Pittsburgh, Pa., City Council to ban fracking for natural gas within the city limits.

On its website, that group's activists argue that existing environmental regulations do little more than slow the pace of ongoing environmental destruction. They envision a legal system that would recognize something they call the Rights of Nature.

In Pittsburgh, the council adopted a proposed anti-fracking ordinance without a citizen vote. Dubrow said he and his group would be open to that approach in Bellingham, as long as the council would be willing to pass their proposed ordinance as is.

"We don't want to give them (council members) the freedom to edit it,' Dubrow said. "We hesitate to allow editing because of the complexity of the legal aspects of the ordinance."

The group is also prepared to launch a petition drive to get the measure on the ballot if it comes to that, Dubrow said.

If such a petition drive were successful, BNSF or SSA Marine could challenge the initiative in court before a public vote is held. In the recent anti-traffic-camera initiative case in Bellingham, American Traffic Solutions went to court to get the initiative off the ballot. The courts eventually allowed the initiative to stay on the ballot, but judges ruled that it was not legally enforceable. Camera opponents are appealing.

In 2000, citizens collected enough signatures to get a referendum challenging a cut in Georgia-Pacific Corp.'s industrial water rates onto the ballot. But then-Mayor Mark Asmundson and the City Council refused to act on the matter, on grounds that prior court cases had clearly established that water rates were not subject to a public vote. Backers of the referendum expressed outrage but did not take the city to court, and no vote was held.

In 2001, a pro-business group tried to use a city referendum to challenge hefty new city storm water fees, but Whatcom County Superior Court Judge Steve Mura accepted city attorneys' argument that city utility rates were not subject to public vote. Mura's ruling kept the matter off the ballot.

Craig Cole, an SSA Marine spokesman, had little to say about the No Coal! ordinance plan. In an email, he indicated that railroad operations are beyond the scope of city authority.

"Such matters are governed by federal and state constitutions and laws," Cole said.

Reach JOHN STARK at john.stark@bellinghamherald.com or call 715-2274.

----------------------------------

Personally, I'm glad this is happening, legalities notwithstanding.

Our community needs to step up and make itself heard on this controversial issue; indeed if we don't, who will?

My perspective is that of someone who has confronted matters like this one from the side of a concerned citizen, as well as an elected official whose term of office encompassed the cases cited -namely the water rate referendum and the storm water complaints.

In both instances, I heard the arguments pro & con, then decided what decision ought to have been made.

The water and storm water rates were clearly necessary to make the respective utilities sustainable, and also clearly the City Council's responsibility to decide. But, we did listen to citizen complaints and also appreciated the dialogue that was generated, because that was important to understand before a final decision was made.

The water rate 'issue' wasn't just about the GP process water rates, either; it was about two things -setting a less complicated formula for determining the GP rate [which was actually higher than the old one, not less] and responding to pressure from a public initiative to increase treated water rates in order to help protect Lake Whatcom, our drinking water RESERVOIR.

Neither the referendum or the initiative passed, but the latter raised public awareness enough for the Council to decide later to raise water rates by $5 per month [versus the $12 per month advocated by the initiative].

The storm water rate increase was necessary by State & Federal mandate, once the City decided to adopt new rules to cover not only flood and erosion damage, but treat pollution as well. Additionally, had the new storm water rates NOT been adopted, the impacts to the existing street funds was substantial, since the costs of storm water management were being simply deducted from those limited funds.

-------------------

As far as Federal or State jurisdiction over local matters is concerned, the City of Bellingham, by taking the strong stand it did, was able to influence significant changes to safety regulations for Pipe Lines, both intra-state and inter-state, despite the claims of the Olympic Pipe Line Company, whose liquid petroleum products pipeline ruptured in its Right Of Way [through City property], and spilled toxic fuel into Whatcom Creek that resulted in the terrible explosion that killed three young people and caused much damage to property, the environment and social confidence.

So, don't tell me citizen outrage doesn't work!

It does work, but it shouldn't take a major catastrophe to prove it.

That is what much of the concern over coal trains & terminal is about; preventing terrible things from happening BEFORE THEY DO.

That is called simply the Precaution Principle, and it was early expressed by none other than our Founder, Ben Franklin, who put it this way; 'a stitch in time saves nine'.

------------------

I believe a strong expression of concerns -the more explicit the better- must be voiced by citizens so it can be heard and acted upon by our local elected leaders, namely the Mayor and City Council.

The earlier this happens, the better.

And the oftener it happens is also better.

The last thing we want to do as citizens with legitimate concerns is to keep quiet about them, leaving such 'external' decisions to a vague 'other' that prefers the comfort of status quo!

So, yes, I will support any well-conceived initiative that comes forth on this 'inconvenient' subject, and I will encourage our new Council and Mayor to do nothing less, notwithstanding any 'legal; arguments to the contrary.

If folks want to sue us or the City, let them sue!

This nasty subject needs to be dragged out into the arena for resolution in the sunshine, not in some dark place remote from us and our families.

And, if the judges should rule against it [us], we will then need to redouble our efforts to change these present 'legalities'.

If I am more than willing to suffer some 'inconvenience' over this matter; how about you?

So, answering the question in the title; 'we can if we will'!

-----------------------

This article on a related matter seems to chill the atmosphere regarding whether Federal or State rights & regulations prevail.

And, I'm sure that was the intent in seeking the judgement in question; to put 'corporate citizens' in charge of what can be done in the State of California.

California has huge and diverse problems, many of its own making, but fortunately it has also taken strong and progressive leadership in protecting its air, water and earth from continued poor stewardship from those who create these harms in the name of 'business'.

Thank goodness for California's lead in changing fuel economy and quality standards that have succeeded in changing the way corporations, institutions and people conduct their business! Without it's lead, do you think the Federal government would have done much on its own?

Air pollution got so bad in the LA Basin that it was affecting everyone's business -including their health- so much that something had to be done!

Now, years later, LA air is better; but it took strong action years ago to effect that change.

-------------------------

One last thought before this ends; if corporations have rights, do these include doing whatever they want, as much as they want, whenever they want and wherever they want?

What limits apply?

Do these claimed 'rights' extend beyond their own rights-of-way and property to the property, space and environment of those other citizens - people?

How about public property; like transportation systems and networks, waterways, airways and the like?

Where exactly do corporate rights end?

Aren't corporations supposed to provide public good? If so, how much? How much harm?

I'm only asking because something doesn't feel right about the arguments I'm hearing from the Coal proponents.

No, not right at all!

If I'm wondering, maybe others are experiencing the feeling, too.

And, maybe -just maybe- others will be willing to extend their wonderment into something more tangible; like action?

Citizens inherently do have strong voices; they just have to use them!

-----------------------------------