Legalectric

First, the Supremes — which upholds the EPA’s regulations governing air pollution emitted in one state and causing harm in another (ND v. MN anyone??).

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation 12-1182

And a little closer to home — Wisconsin’s voter ID law was tossed out, one line says pretty much all there is to say about voter fraud — FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, IT DOESN’T EXIST:

…there is less than one questionable vote cast each major election per 330,000 eligible voters. The rate of potential voter-impersonation fraud is thus exceedingly tiny.

DOH!  Here’s the case:

Voter ID – Judge Adelman’s Order:  Frank, et al., v. Scott Walker; and League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin, et al. v JUDGE DAVID G. DEININGER, et al.

Last post on this, Paul Krugman says it all.  Really…. well… probably…

In yesterday’s New York Times, Paul Krugman says very clearly what I’ve been trying to wrap my head around.  Cliven Bundy is a moocher, no doubt, I’ve called him a “welfare queen” too, but the hatred Bundy spews is… is… well, read what Krugman has to say, he puts it all together.

The anti-government mindset is indeed a problem.  Just Friday, I ran into it when a friend repeated the mantra, “You know what’s wrong, it’s the government, the government is too powerful,” when we were attending a hearing focused on utility power (“why do you think they call them power companies”), where it was a utility trying to take someone’s land.  HUH?  How is that an example of problem with “government?”  The landowner in the middle of the fray clearly stated her take, “It’s the utilities, the corporations have too much power.”  Yup, my take too.  How does it become an issue of “too much government?”  This highlights the failure of our individuals and schools to foster critical thinking compounded by the acceptance of the non-stop media regurgitation of false and twisted information.  But hey, that’s just another display of corporate power.

The only thing I’d change?  Where Krugman says it’s a perversion regarding “freedom of the wealthy,” I think it’s more freedom of ANYONE, and so I’d make this edit:

For at the heart of the standoff was a perversion of the concept of freedom, which for too much of the right has come to mean the freedom of the wealthy to do whatever they want, without regard to the consequences for others.

Here are Krugman’s thoughts:

High Plains Moochers

It is, in a way, too bad that Cliven Bundy — the rancher who became a right-wing hero after refusing to pay fees for grazing his animals on federal land, and bringing in armed men to support his defiance — has turned out to be a crude racist. Why? Because his ranting has given conservatives an easy out, a way to dissociate themselves from his actions without facing up to the terrible wrong turn their movement has taken.

For at the heart of the standoff was a perversion of the concept of freedom, which for too much of the right has come to mean the freedom of the wealthy to do whatever they want, without regard to the consequences for others.

Start with the narrow issue of land use. For historical reasons, the federal government owns a lot of land in the West; some of that land is open to ranching, mining and so on. Like any landowner, the Bureau of Land Management charges fees for the use of its property. The only difference from private ownership is that by all accounts the government charges too little — that is, it doesn’t collect as much money as it could, and in many cases doesn’t even charge enough to cover the costs that these private activities impose. In effect, the government is using its ownership of land to subsidize ranchers and mining companies at taxpayers’ expense.

It’s true that some of the people profiting from implicit taxpayer subsidies manage, all the same, to convince themselves and others that they are rugged individualists. But they’re actually welfare queens of the purple sage.

And this in turn means that treating Mr. Bundy as some kind of libertarian hero is, not to put too fine a point on it, crazy. Suppose he had been grazing his cattle on land belonging to one of his neighbors, and had refused to pay for the privilege. That would clearly have been theft — and brandishing guns when someone tried to stop the theft would have turned it into armed robbery. The fact that in this case the public owns the land shouldn’t make any difference.

So what were people like Sean Hannity of Fox News, who went all in on Mr. Bundy’s behalf, thinking? Partly, no doubt, it was the general demonization of government — if someone looks as if he is defying Washington, he’s a hero, never mind the details. Partly, one suspects, it was also about race — not Mr. Bundy’s blatant racism, but the general notion that government takes money from hard-working Americans and gives it to Those People. White people who wear cowboy hats while profiting from government subsidies just don’t fit the stereotype.

Most of all, however — or at least that’s how it seems to me — the Bundy fiasco was a byproduct of the dumbing down that seems ever more central to the way America’s right operates.

Read the rest of this entry »

Citizens Acting for Rail Safety (CARS) held a meeting last night in La Crosse, WI, to discuss the proposal to build a second rail line in the middle of La Crosse.  It was packed, over 300 people, standing room only.  The comments of those attending shows the level of concern over   The rail company, BNSF, claims a second line is necessary due to increased traffic.  We’ve seen the increase, I’ve experienced it here in Red Wing, watching the trains rumble through the heart of town.  Well, folks, it’s time for us to rumble!

Residents express concerns over new rail line

Rail expansion prompts worries about dangerous cargo, unsafe rail cars

STrib article about the unsafe rail cars:

Failure rates raising new fears over use of aging oil tankers

And more on the La Crosse proposal:

Local group tries to stop train

New tracks could cause change to local golf course

Gov. Tim Pawlenty was the “Green Chameleon,” but Gov. Mark Dayton doesn’t even pretend to be green.  Today, he showed his true colors, delivering a harsh undercutting “rebuff” of a statement just prior to petitions being delivered to his office, petitions with 6,000 signatures, obtained with a lot of effort from a lot of citizens, requesting he enact a moratorium to stop new frac sand mines in Southeast Minnesota.  To deliver this message in the way that he did says a lot for his regard for his constituents and their concerns.  How hard would it have been to meet with those delivering the Petitions, to graciously accept them, and at least consider the request, take it under advisement?

I sure hope everyone is talking about our Governor.  WOW!

6,000 signatures… how many does it take for a recall election?!?!?!?!

Here’s his statement:

“During the 2013 Legislative Session, Governor Dayton strongly supported a moratorium on frac sand mining in southeastern Minnesota. Unfortunately, that proposal was not supported by the Minnesota Legislature. Legal Counsel has advised that, absent legislative enactment of the moratorium, the Governor lacks the authority to unilaterally impose his own moratorium.
 
“However, local jurisdictions, such as counties, cities, and townships, have authority under existing Minnesota Statutes to declare moratoriums on frac sand mining and processing within their jurisdictions. Citizens living in those areas should urge those local officials to enact the measures they favor.
 
“Last year’s law did greatly strengthen state agencies’ authority to impose stringent requirements on any frac sand mining in that region. The Environmental Quality Board, DNR, and MPCA are all actively engaged in establishing and enforcing those restrictions.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As for the “Critical Areas Act” as the basis for a moratorium, well, I’m not so sure about that…  There are a few steps that have to happen before it goes to the Governor.   Minn. Stat. 116G.06.

Here’s where you can tell him directly what you think of his treatment of concerned Minnesotans:

Contact Form

Telephone: 651-201-3400
Toll Free: 800-657-3717

mark.dayton@state.mn.us

The report on MPR:

Dayton says no to frac sand moratorium

The report in the STrib:

This week we have three days of DEIS meetings, that’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the uninitiated.  The schedule:

Fairmont

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.

Knights of Columbus Hall

920 East 10th Street

Fairmont, MN 56031

 

Jackson

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.

National Guard Armory

108 County Road 51

Jackson, MN 56143

 

Blue Earth

Thursday, April 24, 2014

1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.

Hamilton Hall

209 South Main Street

Blue Earth, MN 56013

This project is important because, well, look at the red line in the map above that represents this project.  It connects on the west to the Split Rock-Lakefield Jct. line from a decade ago, and then goes east, and drops down into Iowa, to become part of a web headed toward Chicago.  The red and green on that map constitute MISO designated MVP3, and to the east, the orange and blue are MVP 4, and further to the east, 1/2 of which is Badger Coulee, is MVP 5.  Important to note that there are 17 MVP projects, and all 17 must be built to offer the benefits touted, the modeling included all 17.  Not only that, but cost apportionment also included costs to states beyond just the percentage of the one project under review, i.e., there are claims of benefits of MVP 3, but those benefits require MVP 4 and MVP 5, and in fact, ALL the 17 MVP projects.  Costs to Minnesota ratepayers are “just” a portion of MVP 3, but there are also costs to Minnesota of MVP 4, MVP 5, and I think ALL of the 17 MVP projects.  So the benefits that are reliant on all the 17 projects being built must be balanced against the costs attributable to Minnesota for all 17 projects!  See, that wasn’t so hard, was it!

Here’s the DEIS from the Commerce ITC MN/IA DEIS page, it’s easier to cut and paste, though it’s a good idea to download because you never know when links will be changed or disappear:

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Text

• Abstract
• Table of Contents
• Summary
• Section 1 – Introduction
• Section 2 – Regulatory Framework
• Section 3 – Overview of Project and Alternative Routes and Sites
  • Part 1 (4.6 MB)
  • Part 2  (7.9 MB)
• Section 4 – Alternatives to the Proposed Project
• Section 5 – Affected Environment, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures
• Section 6 – Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Specific Regions / Segments
  • Part 1 – Lakefield to Huntley Segment
    • Part 2 – Resource Maps (9.2 MB)
    • Part 3 – Resource Maps (7.3 MB)
    • Part 4 – Resource Maps (8.3 MB)
  • Part 5 – Huntley to Iowa Border Segment
    • Part 6 – Resource Maps (6.2 MB)
• Section 7 – Relative Merits of Routing Options
• Section 8 – References

Appendices

• Appendix A – Scoping Decision (5.7 MB)
• Appendix B – Generic Route Permit Template and Example Route Permit
• Appendix C – Transmission Line Structures
• Appendix D – Photo Simulations
  • Part 1 – Facilities at Huntley Substation (9.8 MB)
  • Part 2 – Facilities at Huntley Substation (8.9 MB)
  • Part 3 – Facilities at Huntley Substation (9.9 MB)
  • Part 4 – Lake Crossings at Fox Lake and Lake Charlotte (8.8 MB)
• Appendix E – Example Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan
• Appendix F – Noise Supplement
• Appendix G – Property Values Supplement
• Appendix H – EMF Supplement
• Appendix I – Archaeological and Historic Resources Data
• Appendix J – Route Analysis Data Tables
• Appendix K – Rare Resources and Rare Species
• Appendix L – Map Book
  • Overview Map
  • Part 1, Map Sheets LH1 to LH19 (7.3 MB)
  • Part 2, Map Sheets LH20 to LH44 (8.6 MB)
  • Part 3, Map Sheets LH45 to LH57; HI1 to HI12 (7.7 MB)