The proposed mining bill has been filling the radio airwaves with proponents making a full court press to pass the Republican version, which is extremely friendly to Gogebic Taconite Company. Let me, for the record, clearly state, I am not opposed to responsible mining and I made a very good living off of the mining industry for thirty years However, I am opposed to getting the short end of the stick when negotiating a deal.
There isn’t a mine anywhere in the world that doesn’t have negative environmental impacts, some better and some worse. Given, that the proposed taconite mine will have minimal and controllable environmental impacts, and then its development should go ahead, but only after a thorough investigation. The state cannot nor should not commit to the mine until after all the studies are completed, including the EPA and Corps of Engineers. Short circuiting the process will only turn around to bite us in the back side.
Another element of the proposed bill is that state taxes will be assessed only on company profits and not ore tonnage produced. This provision will give the company a blatant opportunity to either greatly reduce tax payments or eliminate them altogether. Most states have severance taxes on the resources removed and I don’t know why we would want to be any different.
The bill that I reviewed proposed reducing the tax monies share to the local government for impact from 100% to only 60% with 40% going into the state’s general fund. This seems to be a significant change and I would like to know the rationale behind the proposal. It was my understanding that the current administration and legislature was committed to keeping as much money close to home as possible.
I would rather see no deal at all rather than a bad deal. I really think we are being way to generous with Gogebic.
Something else that I am following is the widespread move by Republican controlled state legislatures wanting to change the “winner take all” Electoral College electors to the Congressional District System like Maine and Nebraska. Since the Republicans controlled the majority of state legislatures after the 2010 elections and had the opportunity to redistrict, after the census, to favor Republicans; they see an opportunity to “jury rig” the selection of Electoral College electors to give them greater advantage in Presidential/Vice Presidential elections.
However, the Electoral College System is an antiquated system and it is high time to eliminate it altogether and elect the President/Vice President by direct popular vote. Forty years ago, we were only a US Senate vote away from the ending the system, but conservative southern senators filibustered the amendment into oblivion and President Nixon pulled his support.
The Congressional District System is seen by the Republicans as a means to offset their general failure to gain the support of Latino voters. As minority communities grow and become influential in deciding future elections, the Republicans generally recognize their vulnerability if they can’t stack the deck in their favor.
My final musing concerns the movement to collect DNA for arrested felons and certain misdemeanor arrests. I can understand why some law enforcement officials would want this information, but as far as I’m concerned it is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. What I find a bit strange is that those who so strongly defend the Second Amendment as it’s written, are so unwilling to equally defend the Fourth.
The creation of this extended data base will allow law enforcement to go on “fishing expeditions” without probable cause, which is required for a search warrant. It is to all our benefit if law enforcement has to play by rules, which support the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. This statute, if enacted, will change the fundamental judicial philosophy and allow if arrested for one thing, then the arrestee will be subjected to a data search that has absolutely nothing to do with what they were arrested for. This is a bad piece of legislation and should be resisted at all levels.
In other words, they've had this ability all along and, frankly, a drone isn't the least obvious of methods that could be used for this. Do we have documented cases of this happening since the introduction of the Patriot Act via other methods? Is there something unique in this legal opinion that would tend to lead someone to rationally believe that this is now a realistic possibility - i.e., how does this vary from (known) legal opinions of the past and their subsequent application?
I think that this is an unfounded cheap shot, we do not live in an all in society. And I'm not sure exactly who this comment is referencing. I find it strange that the people that are all for abortion, are the same people that want to take away our guns. And this issue has a clear line in the sand.
Not long after this bill was signed, police started video recording protesters. In response, protesters started video recording the police. When the Occupy movement started in 2011, police began brutalizing peaceful protesters and video recordings taken by offended bystanders and other protesters were circulated around the globe. In escalation/retaliation, the police now arrest/brutalize people with recording equipment. Even a few journalists covering Occupy were arrested. Other than a few black bloc infiltrations, Occupy was a nonviolent movement meant to open the dialogue about wage/wealth disparity in the U.S. Setting up Occupy camps (a la "Hoovervilles" during the Great Depression) was an intriguing idea. Now several Occupy groups raise money to purchase debt and forgive it, others help people stave off foreclosure. These are good people. Why were they treated the way they were? Yes, I'm concerned.
By declaring that it is legal to kill terror suspects (with drones or any other means), the suspect can officially be denied their right to defend themselves against the charge of being a terrorist.
There is no connection between the right to choice and the second amendment. I know plenty of people who support choice and support the second amendment.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/04/pers-a08.html
Hillary hater Dick Morris: Fox 'marriage' had to end - politico.com/story/2013/02/… #wipolitics #wiunion
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
On the other hand, if there is a terrorist act in progress and there exists the possibility of it involving a US citizen working into conjunction with those involved, I don't want people crossing "t"s and dotting "i"s while casualties mount or the threat of it coming to fruition in its most horrific form continues on unabated.
I believe it was this order that led to the DOJ interpretation. My concern would be some ranch owner in perhaps Wako, Texas who owns a stockpile of firearms and ammunition. No trial, no warrant, just a drone and a single shot to solve whatever problem - all under the protection of a terrorist threat.
#brenisamoderate
On the other hand, if it's some nutjob in Waco who thinks he's God's 2nd son and who's intent on taking a bunch of innocent kids with him as he ascends to his rightful position at the right hand of the Almighty at some final showdown, if we can strategically knock him off without recreating a WWII Panzer invasion in the process, I'd consider that an upgrade. That being said, it's not too hard to imagine the enormous lefty outrage had this legal opinion not come from Obama & Co, but rather some Republican administration. Other than Lyle, I haven't seen one expression of concern whatsoever about this from those on the left.
Though I do wonder how he would feel if Obama was making this push?
But it opens the door. Police now have small toy sized drones, and I can't see any reason why they will not be equipped with firepower in the near future.
The blog is about "musings", therefore the post, while stupid, may be on topic. We'll let Bren be the judge, as I am not a expert on musing. I think it's kinda like talking to yourself, but i'm not real sure. Did I say that last part out loud? Damn, I did it again! Fox could always hire Olbermann, he should be available as soon as he is done cleaning Gore's bathroom.
Yeah, right. Cops hunting Cops and shooting up everybody else.... "Two (unarmed) women who were shot by Los Angeles police in Torrance early Thursday during a massive manhunt for an ex-LAPD officer were delivering newspapers, sources said." LOOK at that truck! http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/ex-cop-manhunt-newspaper-delivery-women-shot.html "The former LAPD officer suspected in shootings targeting law enforcement and their families is believed to have warned in an online manifesto that he had a deep understanding of the tactics being used to stop him, was heavily armed and planned far-reaching violence. " http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/ex-lapd-cop-said-he-was-heavily-armed-and-planned-far-reaching-violence.html "An official with the Riverside Police Department said early Thursday that two of the city's police officers were stopped at a red light when they were "ambushed" by a shooter who is now the subject of an area-wide manhunt." http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/riverside-police-ambushed-by-shooter-official-says.html You can live in Fantasyland, the rest of us deal with reality.
"A 71-year-old woman delivering newspapers with her daughter remained in intensive care Thursday night after she was shot twice in the back by Los Angeles police detectives during a massive manhunt for a fugitive ex-LAPD officer, according to the womens' attorney... The officers riddled the women's blue pickup with bullets in the 19500 block of Redbeam Avenue. Carranza was also hit, according to attorney Glen T. Jonas, and received stitches to a finger. "The problem with the situation is it looked like the police had the goal of administering street justice and in so doing, didn't take the time to notice that these two older, small Latina women don't look like a large black man," Jonas said. Dorner is black, 6 feet tall and weighs 270 pounds. Jonas said the women's vehicle was also "the wrong color and the wrong model" compared to Dorner's." Sorry about the inconvenience, Ma'am.... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/