Summary: Michigan Liberal: - Recent Diaries
Michigan Liberal:
The presidents of the three leading research universities have an
article in the Detroit News noting the importance of science and
engineering to the region. They explain that Michigan has long
been known as a regional hub for patents, which was a key factor
in the United States Patent and Trademark Office's decision to
locate the first satelite patent office in downtown Detroit.
Patent activity is a barometer of creativity, and Michigan is
sixth in the nation for patents granted by the government.
The auto industry is, of course, a major contributor to this
activity. Michigan leads the country in patents for powertrain,
safety, material technologies and more. General Motors, Ford,
Chrysler, Lear, Delphi, Dow Corning and others consistently
create new materials, tools and devices.
But our region's innovation reaches far beyond wheels and metal
forming.
Scientists and inventors in Michigan's University Research
Corridor - the University of Michigan, Wayne State University
and Michigan State University - are responsible for making our
state the third-most vibrant university corridor in the
country. Only Silicon Valley and Massachusetts' Route 128
region generate more patent activity.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120207/OPINION01/202070320/1008/opinion01/Commentary-New-patent-office-signals-region-s-role-innovation
Patent applications are confidential for 18 months after filing
but become publicly available thereafter. A search of the USPTO's
databases reveals that despite this recognition of the state as a
regional hub for patents, non-Michigan patent attorneys handle
more than half of UM's 20 most recently published patent
applications. Michigan State scores slightly better with 12 out
of 20 of its most recently published patent applications handled
locally. Michigan attorneys handle only five of Wayne State's 20
most recently published patent applications
With nearly 1100 registered patent practitioners in the state,
our research universities should make a stronger effort to source
the legal work locally.
Date Published: Feb 07, 2012 - 8:34 am
In response to a wave of negative reactions to his $75,000 Super
Bowl ad buy (filmed in California), Pete Hoekstra has tried to
deflect criticism by accusing Democrats of “talk(ing) about race
when they can’t defend their records...” Unfortunately for Pete,
the ad has been panned by figures on all sides of the political
spectrum, from
national Republican consultants and
state GOP leaders to a member of the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, who
called it “blatantly racist.”
Maybe Hoekstra thought shooting a slick Hollywood ad depicting
racist caricatures would generate lots of free publicity and
distract Michigan voters from the fact that he can’t defend his
own record of doublespeak and hypocrisy.
Consider the facts:
--Hoekstra
broke a pledge he made when he first ran for
Congress to retire after six terms, flip-flopping so he could
stay in office for three more terms - before running for
governor.
--This isn’t the first time Pete has brought national
embarrassment to our state - in 2009, he compared a House GOP
dispute with Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the deadly Iranian protests
of 2009, and
was widely mocked by national media.
Date Published: Feb 06, 2012 - 2:18 pm
FL focused attack ad on Mitt Romney. Using examples from Bain
Capital. Responsible for companies going into bankruptcy, thus
causing thousands of job losses.
http://youtu.be/wPUGqdxTXUsDate Published: Jan 31, 2012 - 12:55 pm
Below originally posted as
Detroit, Michigan, and the auto industry in the State of the
Union on Crazy Eddie's Motie News on Wednesday. Before the
State of the Union yesterday, Paul Krugman managed to
scoop one of the themes of the State of the Union address.
[C]an we think of a recent example in the United States where
helping to preserve an industrial cluster was an important policy
consideration? Indeed we can: the auto bailout. A key argument
for the bailout was that if the major US firms were allowed to go
bankrupt, a whole industrial ecology would be lost with them. And
the auto bailout has been a huge success, not least because it
did preserve that ecology. Aren't you glad that Obama didn't
listen to the other party on this issue?
Right on cue, immediately after President Obama listed
his administration's foreign policy achievements, he pointed out
the success of the auto company bailout in his
State of the Union speech.
On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of
collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million
jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for
help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers
to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and
restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world's
number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than
any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants
and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly
160,000 jobs. We bet on American workers. We bet on American
ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.
What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries.
In the same post in which Krugman praised Obama for
bailing out the auto companies in the name of preserving the
industrial ecology supporting auto manufacturing in the U.S., he
posted this graph of the Michigan's unemployment rate.
That's quite a recovery, although it was interrupted by
the short-lived slump that accompanied the rise in oil prices
during the first half of the year. In fact, the following
graph from
Calculated Risk displaying the unemployment rates of all 50
states plus the District of Columbia shows that it was the best
recovery of all 51 reporting.
Unemployment has fallen nearly 5% since Fall 2009, when
Michigan had the highest unemployment rate in the Union. Now,
Michigan is below 10% after three years of double-digit
unemployment and is out of the ten worst states at 11th. Both
Krugman and Bill McBride of Calculated Risk are showing that what
happened in Detroit (actually all of Michigan) is indeed worth
emulating. Isn't that a pleasant surprise?
Date Published: Jan 27, 2012 - 12:28 pm
Throughout 2011, a vote against environmental bills in the Michigan
House was the ticket to getting a 100% on
Clean Water Action’s Midterm Scorecard. So a
“no” vote was tantamount to saying “yes” to clean water. At a
Lansing press conference held yesterday, Clean Water Action honored
13 Clean Water Heroes and 10 other House members
who earned an honorable mention for their votes to defend clean
water protections.
It’s too bad that 58 state representatives voted “yes” 100% of
the time; these lawmakers voted “no” to clean
water at every opportunity.
That’s right, a majority of Michigan’s State Representatives
voted to whittle away at our water protections - usually in the
name of job creation. They argue that
weakening protections on Michigan’s lifeblood – its water – will
create jobs. But their votes have done nothing
to create jobs. Zip. Nada.
On the other hand, protecting our Great Lakes and Michigan’s
other water treasures creates jobs for today and for our future.
As the majority in the Michigan House fired away at Michigan’s
environmental protections, a small but devoted contingent of
lawmakers stood their ground in the wake of these attacks.
Michigan politicians know the state’s voters care about our water
so their campaign messages usually include a focus on Great Lakes
protection and other water themes. The distinction between
campaign rhetoric and lawmaker voting records tells the real
story and, unfortunately, most state lawmakers last year turned
their backs on strengthening water protections.
Those absent from yesterday’s press conference were the majority
of lawmakers who received a failing grade. Out of the 67 legislators who scored below 60%, a
startling 58 received 0% scores.
After the scorecard press conference, I received a call from a
lawmaker who scored south of 50%. He made the case for why he
should have received a higher score based on work he’s done in
his district – far from the madness in Lansing. I respect him for
calling me and for making his case. The problem is that we need
lawmakers in Lansing who will stand up to those special interests
seeking to undo our water protections. That’s leadership and
that’s what’s lacking in the Michigan House.
Last January, Clean Water Action issued its Clean Water Action’s Water Protection Agenda,
which provides a roadmap for strengthening Michigan’s water
protections and securing our water future.
Date Published: Jan 25, 2012 - 12:01 pm
Progress Michigan just released some new numbers
here. Apparently Snyder only counts
payroll jobs. He doesn't count all the jobs lost in small and
family businesses and on farms. What a sleeze.
Date Published: Jan 24, 2012 - 8:00 pm
On the SOPA/PIPA Protest Day, I emailed Senator Levin to implore
him to vote no on PIPA. He was kind enough to email me a response
explaining his position on the issue, which I thought I'd share
with all of you. To summarize, his position is the same as
President Obama's, namely that the bill needs changes, but he's
not inherently opposed to its principles. Anyway, here's the full
text of the email:
|
Thank you for contacting me about the
Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and
Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act of 2011
(S.968). I appreciate you sharing your thoughts
with me.
Introduced by Senator Patrick
Leahy (D-VT), the PROTECT IP Act aims to safeguard
intellectual property on the Internet from foreign
websites dedicated to illegal infringing activities.
Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are legal
rights granted by governments to encourage and reward
innovation. These rights ensure that inventors reap
the benefits of their work. Through IPRs,
governments grant a temporary, legal monopoly to
innovators by giving them the right to control the use of
their creations by others. IPRs also allow
inventors to trade or license their work to others in
return for fees and/or royalty payments.
The PROTECT IP Act would
authorize the Attorney General or the owner of an IPR
harmed by an Internet site dedicated to infringement
activities (ISDIA) to take a number of steps to act
against the operator or owner of an ISDIA site.
U.S. industries that rely on the protection of IPRs
contribute significantly to U.S. economic growth,
employment, and international trade. Counterfeiting
and online piracy in other countries may result in
revenue losses in the billions of dollars for American
firms, as well as the loss of American jobs.
Additionally, health and public safety advocates
are troubled by the potential consequences of counterfeit
pharmaceutical drugs and other products.
Concerns have been raised that
the PROTECT IP Act would stifle innovation and openness
on the Internet and would restrict Americans’ free
speech. Opponents of the bill also have claimed
that it would place an unfair and unworkable regulatory
burden on Internet companies and would weaken Internet
security.
I am concerned about the current
version of the bill. I have been meeting with
people on all sides of the issue and hearing from many
constituents. After scheduling a vote on to the
PROTECT IP Act, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
announced on January 20th that Senate
consideration of the bill would be postponed, citing
legitimate concerns that had been raised about the bill.
I think this was the right course of action given
the large number of issues that have been raised.
Senator Reid encouraged Senator Leahy to work with
the various stakeholders to resolve their concerns with
the PROTECT IP Act. I will review the revised
version carefully when it is available.
Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
|
Date Published: Jan 23, 2012 - 7:12 pm
The Department of Homeland Security is proposing a system of
routine human X-Radiation exposure for those making land
crossings at U.S. Borders.
All X-radiation has the potential for harm. We formerly
had a public health concept that humans were not to be exposed to
X-radiation unless there was a specific health/medical benefit to
the person exposed. The advent of airport X-ray
scanning as the preferred method of conducting searches of
airport passengers seems to have reversed the previous policy.
The same airport X-ray equipment paid for by the
administration's stimulus program.
Now, DHS wants us all to now feel comfortable as we are X-ray'd
in our vehicle driving up to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection
station.
The X-radiation is for scanning vehicles and not people, but they
are contemplating routine X-ray scanning of vehicles while people
are still in their vehicles at border crossings [with the option
of allowing the occupants to exit if they wish].
There is probably some company waiting to sell a lot of equipment
out there that is going to make a hell of lot of money, just like
on the airport X-ray screening equipment.
I've seem to recall hearing that past technological screening
equipment to detect ionizing radiation at US Borders that has
already been installed has not been reliable/dependable.
However, that equipment did not create any radiation
exposure as they were detectors and not scanners. DHS
should get strict scrutiny on this latest effort to substitute
X-ray scanning technology for humans searching vehicles for
contraband.
Announcement details below.
COMMENTS DUE
FEBRUARY 17, 2012.
The notice is in today's Federal Register on the programmatic
environmental assessment to allow such routine X-radiation
exposure. COMMENTS DUE FEBRUARY 17, 2012
=========
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18,
2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2562-2563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing
Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-809]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Notice of Availability of the Draft Programmatic
Environmental
Assessment for the Deployment and Operation of Low Energy
X-Ray
Inspection Systems at U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Operational
Areas
AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of
Homeland
Security.
ACTION: Notice of Availability and Request for Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is advising
the
public that a draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA)
for Low
Energy X-Ray Inspection Systems (LEXRIS) at CBP operational areas
has
been prepared and is available for public review. The draft
PEA
analyzes the potential environmental impacts due to the
deployment and
use of LEXRIS. CBP seeks public comment on the draft PEA. CBP
will
consider comments before issuing a final PEA.
DATES: The draft PEA will be available for public review and
comment
for a period of 30 days beginning on the date this document
is
published in the Federal Register. To ensure consideration,
comments
must be received by February 17, 2012. Comments regarding the
draft PEA
may be submitted as set forth in the ADDRESSES section of
this
document.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft PEA may be obtained by accessing
the
following Internet addresses: http://ecso.swf.usace.army.mil/... or
www.dhs.gov/nepa, or by sending a request to David
Duncan of CBP by telephone (202) 344-1527 by fax (202) 344-1418,
by
email to david.c.duncan@dhs.gov or by writing to: CBP, Attn:
David
Duncan, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1575, Washington, DC
20229.
You may submit comments on the draft PEA by mail or
email. Comments
are to be addressed to CBP, Attention: David Duncan, 1300
Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Suite 1575, Washington, DC 20229, or sent to
david.c.duncan@dhs.gov.
Substantive comments received during the comment
period will be
addressed in, and included as an appendix to, the final PEA. The
final
PEA will be made available to the public through a Notice of
Availability in the Federal Register.
Respondents may request to withhold names or street
addresses,
except for city or town, from public view or from disclosure
under the
Freedom of Information Act. Such request must be stated
prominently at
the beginning of the comment and will be honored to the extent
allowed
by law. A request to withhold personal information does not apply
to
submissions from organizations or businesses, or from
individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of
organizations
or businesses.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antoinette DiVittorio,
Environmental
and Energy Division, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
telephone
(202) 344-3131.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
A draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA)
for the
deployment and operation of Low Energy X-Ray Inspection
Systems
(LEXRIS) at CBP operational areas has been completed by the
U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Office of Information
and
Technology, Laboratories and Scientific Services,
Interdiction
Technology Branch. The draft PEA is available for public
comment.
The purpose of deploying and operating LEXRIS is to
non-intrusively
scan vehicles for the presence of contraband, including weapons
of mass
destruction, explosives, and illicit drugs. Use of LEXRIS at U.S.
ports
of entry, for example, directly supports CBP's mission of
securing the
U.S. borders and homeland from terrorists and other threats
while
simultaneously facilitating legitimate trade and travel by
assisting
CBP personnel in preventing contraband, including illegal drugs
and
terrorist weapons, from entering the United States.
Two different LEXRIS models are available. One
system is mobile,
mounted on a truck or van type platform and will be used at
CBP
operational areas. The system can be driven along side a parked
vehicle
and will scan the vehicle as it drives by. The driver and
passenger(s)
will exit the vehicle to be scanned and be escorted outside
the
controlled area before the vehicle is scanned. The other system
is a
stationary, portal configuration that will be installed along
an
existing traffic lane. Vehicles will be scanned as they are
driven
through the portal. Occupants of the vehicle will have the option
of
remaining in the vehicle while the driver drives it through the
portal
or exiting the vehicle and having CBP personnel drive it through
the
portal. Examples of CBP operational areas include, but are not
limited
to, ports of entry, CBP checkpoints, and locations of events
designated
as national special security events.
LEXRIS is needed to fill a unique capability to
detect objects that
are not effectively visualized by other non-intrusive
inspection
technologies currently used by CBP. LEXRIS gives a clear image
of
objects in the vehicle, including objects that may be hidden
in
fenders, tires, trunks, gas tanks, and under hoods. LEXRIS
provides CBP
personnel with information about what may be encountered during
a
manual search and, in some cases, will
[[Page 2563]]
eliminate the need for CBP personnel to manually enter vehicles
to
search for contraband. As a result, LEXRIS will increase the
safety of
CBP personnel.
The draft PEA addresses the potential impacts from
the installation
and operation of LEXRIS at various CBP operational areas
throughout the
United States for the purpose of conducting non-intrusive
inspections.
Evaluations were conducted on various resources present at
operational
areas, including: climate, soils, water quality, air quality,
vegetation, wildlife, noise, infrastructure, aesthetics, and
radiological health and safety.
Next Steps
This process is being conducted pursuant to the
National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
the
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the
NEPA
(40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and Department of Homeland Security
Directive
023-01, Environmental Planning Program, (April 19, 2006).
Substantive comments concerning environmental
impacts received from
the public and agencies during the comment period will be
evaluated to
determine whether further environmental impact review is needed
in
order to complete the Final PEA. The Final PEA will be made
available
to the public through a Notice of Availability in the Federal
Register.
Should CBP determine, after review of the comments,
that the
implementation of the proposed action would not have a
significant
impact on the environment, it will prepare a Finding of No
Significant
Impact (FONSI), and a Notice of Availability of the FONSI for
publication in the Federal Register.
Should CBP determine that significant environmental
impacts exist
due to the action, CBP will prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) to
prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for publication in the
Federal
Register.
Dated: January 12, 2012.
Karl H. Calvo,
Executive Director, Facilities Management and Engineering, Office
of
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-809 Filed 1-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
Date Published: Jan 18, 2012 - 5:31 pm
This blog was cross-posted at PM BuzzFeed.
Tomorrow Gov. Snyder will deliver his second State of the State
speech, and we’ll hear a lot about what a great job he thinks his
administration is doing. Before we get ahead of ourselves though,
let’s look at a quick recap of 2011:
- At last year’s State of the State, Gov. Snyder famously said,
“Job one is jobs.”
- But instead of working together to actually create good jobs
that pay a fair wage, the Legislature decided to attack our
students, seniors and working families.
- The new $343 million tax on pensions will mean less money for
seniors living on a fixed income to pay for gas, groceries and
prescription drugs.
- In fact, the average retiree will pay an extra $870 in new
taxes this year.
- That ultimately means less money in the pockets of small
business owners to hire more workers - which in turn will hurt
our local economies even more.
- After a year on the job, this administration has failed to
offer a bold, aggressive plan to make Michigan a worldwide leader
in clean energy sources like wind and solar - which have the
potential to create thousands of good-paying jobs right here in
Michigan.
- Perhaps the biggest power grab of the past year was the new
Emergency Manager law, which gives unelected political appointees
unchecked power to run our communities, take away collective
bargaining rights, sell off parks, schools and other public
assets, cancel contracts, and oust local elected officials. Let’s
not forget that many of these so-called “financial emergencies”
were created by the Legislature’s drastic cuts to public schools
and local community services.
Perhaps just as troubling as Gov. Snyder’s year of broken
promises in 2011 is his inability to hold himself to the same
standards he sets for others. According to the Detroit Free Press, only six of his 21
dashboard measurements include information from his term as
Governor. Meanwhile, Gov. Snyder has forced local governments to
produce identical dashboards on a strict deadline with updated
information, regardless of whether they already had effective
metrics in place.
Is this what Gov. Snyder meant when he spoke of “shared
sacrifice” and “holding everyone accountable” on the campaign
trail?
Gov. Snyder has forgotten that what’s good for the goose is
good for the gander. Join us in our live-chat of Gov. Snyder’s State of the
State address and help us hold Gov. Snyder to the same standards
of transparency and accountability that he sets for everyone
else. Together, we can make sure Michigan has the
right priorities in 2012.
You can watch Gov. Snyder’s State of the State live-stream, enjoy
a choice selection of tweets and Facebook posts from around the
state while participating with the hashtag #MISOTS, and comment
and engage with other Michiganders looking to make a difference -
all in one place!
Although he would never describe himself as a politician, Gov.
Snyder has apparently been too busy politicking with his big
business buddies, placating the far-right ideologues in the state
Legislature, and kowtowing to the Mackinac Center to spend any
time holding himself accountable to the goals he laid out at his
last State of the State.
When it comes to protecting Michigan’s working families, it’s
clear Lansing politicians - especially Gov. Snyder - have the
wrong priorities, and our state is headed in the wrong
direction.
We didn’t let him off the hook in 2011 and aren't going to let
him off the hook in 2012. Join us tonight and give your response to Gov.
Snyder’s State of the State.
Date Published: Jan 17, 2012 - 2:38 pm
Salutations, I am rc cruspero Recently moved from East
Coast, originally from Des Moines and to this day miss my home
town.
I have an awesome free time,I prefer all hot weather , specially
the summer and the heat.
Business has been a part of my life for the last few years and
most recently primarily on the World Wide Web.
I seem to be drawn to technology and love all the high tech
gadgets out there.
Things as they are, more and more people are seeking help from
people who have walked the walk and can teach others how to
benefit from what they went through. I am here to help those that
need help and will ask for help from other people when i need it.
I am a manager in the field of Science project management.
I love to ask questions
when possible I volunteer for for valid causes that help
children.
Its great to be a part of this Website and look forward to
meeting you online here.
Date Published: Jan 16, 2012 - 9:58 pm
As the next Congressional fight over payroll tax extensions and
unemployment benefits and pipelines gets set up in the next few
weeks for either its final chapter or to be kicked down the road a
bit farther, one or the other, you're going to hear a lot from our
Republican friends about how much they value work and workers; most
especially, they'll tell you, they value American jobs for American
workers. After all, they'll say, creating American jobs is the most
important thing of all. But if we were to look back over just the
last few months, some would tell us, we could quickly find examples
of how Republicans promote ideas that don't seem to value work or
workers at all, much less American jobs. Well as it turns out,
"some" seem to be right; to illustrate one of those examples we'll
look back a month or two or three to a time some Republicans might
wish was long, long, ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
A successful comedian usually becomes more megalomaniacal as the
success barometer rises. Initial success might be achieved from
stand-up but then the comedian envisions a sitcom, then Broadway,
albums, extended tours, Europe, and then his or her own
production company. These things are all fine. Don't do
dinner theater. Don't open stuff, like shopping centers or
bowling alleys. Don't do fairs, especially if you follow the pig
contest. --From the book "How To Be A Stand-Up Comic",
by Richard
Belzer
So...the House Republicans went and
promoted and passed out their payroll tax cut
plan, and within that plan was a demand that the
Junkie XL Pipeline - sorry, that should be
Keystone XL Pipeline - get special "expedited" approvals,
despite the objections of those who are worried about their water
supply, and we have to do this,
right now,
those same House Republicans tell us, in order to put more or less
6500 folks to work getting the thing built. And as we mentioned
above, this is because the House Republicans care about American
jobs and American workers. So...it may strike you as a bit odd that
the exact same House Republicans sent to the Senate in September
the "Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act" (
HR 2587), which has only one purpose: it
tells the National Labor Relations Board (the "NLRB") that if
workers at a company decide to form a union, or the company even
thinks a union might be coming, and the company, in
retaliation, decides to move work from that plant - or, for that
matter, decides to move the entire plant - then neither the NLRB
nor the United States Courts shall have the authority to do
anything about it. All of this
stems from an effort by Boeing to move work from
Washington State to South Carolina in retaliation for union
activity by the Puget Sound workforce; the NLRB
has ruled that Boeing cannot move the work, and the
Company and its friends in Congress have joined forces with other
anti-Union Members of Congress to move this legislation. Need a
third-party expert opinion to help make sense of the NLRB's
involvement and remedies? Consider
this comment from University of Pennsylvania Law
Professor Ellen Dannin, via Dennis Kucinich:
The NLRB has decades of experience with cases of this sort, and
the National Labor Relations Act is clear that employer actions
like Boeing's violate the law. If this were a murder case, it
would be a case in which the police found a person saying : "I
did it," while standing over a fresh corpse with smoking gun in
hand.
Decades of experience, did she say? Yes she did - and
she was right. In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that the NLRB had
the power to order remedies that include making companies "bring
work back", the relevant case being
Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. Labor Board,
379 U.S. 203. The
250 law professors who wrote a letter explaining
why HR 2587 is such a bad idea point out that it's not just about
Boeing: companies will no longer have any reason to even bargain
with unionized workers (or those who wish they were) before closing
plants and moving work overseas, as they have to do now under the
law; again, that's because no one will have the power of
enforcement in these cases anymore. As you might imagine, that's
going to accelerate the departure of jobs overseas, and it won't
take very long to get to 6500, which makes all that Republican
fussin' and fightin' and sanctimoneoussin' about Keystone look a
bit hollow, eh? Let's jump to the side track, as it were, and take
a moment to talk about why the question of which Party controls
Congress matters: HR 2587 was introduced into the House, and if the
Democrats controlled the Chamber it would have died in Committee,
and that would have been that...but they don't, and it didn't, so
the bill made it to the House floor, where it
passed with no Democratic "aye" votes and six
Republicans voting "nay". Then it went to the Senate. Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Sometimes Frustrating) has a bit more
power than a Speaker of the House to kill any bill before his
Chamber, if he's so inclined; in this case the bill
sits on the Senate Legislative Calendar, and unless
he says otherwise, that's where it'll stay. Of course if Mitch
McConnell (R-Hates Obama With The Fire Of A Thousand Suns) were
Majority Leader, he would have that bill on the Senate Floor in a
heartbeat - and it would pass with a Republican majority, unless
Democrats were willing to stand firm and filibuster the thing or
the President was willing to use the veto pen, neither of which
seems particularly certain. A companion bill,
S 1523, was introduced by Lindsey Graham; it was
referred to Committee, possibly to never be seen again - which is
also thanks to Harry Reid, with an assist from Tom Harkin, who is
the relevant Chair. At this point I was going to move on to the
"what have we learned today" part of the deal, but before I do, I
want to take a moment to show you just what kind of legislation our
GOP friends will bring to the table, given the chance:
S 1720, the "Put All Your Crazy Eggs In One
Basket Act" (not the real bill title, but close enough), was
introduced by John McCain just before Halloween (it's now on the
Legislative Calendar, not doing much), and it's a classic. This one
single bill calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment vote, a semi-flat
income tax, repeals "ObamaCare", repeals Dodd-Frank (Wall Street
reform), says you basically can't sue for medical malpractice
anymore, says that if Congress fails to approve any Federal Agency
regulation in 90 days, it's invalid, and then says no Agency can
pass any regulation, of any kind, until unemployment hits
7.7%...and there's a lot more besides, including, I kid you not,
forbidding the EPA from regulating the discharge of pesticides into
water. So now let's get to "what have we learned?" How about this:
We are going to hear a lot over the next 60 days about how the GOP
loves you, the American worker, but at the exact same time they are
looking to...well...put all the crazy eggs in one basket, if they
can get away with it, and at the same time they're looking to make
it easier and easier to send more jobs to more countries than ever
before, even to the point of trying to tell courts and regulators
that they can no longer enforce laws Republicans can't get
repealed. As our GOP friends stand before you, these next couple
months, professing their undying love, remind them of this
conversation today, and HR 2587, and S 1720, McCain's "Crazy Egg
Basket" bill, and then ask them if they think the GOP
really cares about American jobs, or if they're just
getting hustled by slightly-slicker versions of used-car dealership
credit managers? Then you lean in close, look 'em in the eye, smile
just a bit, and you say to 'em: "And hey, while you're here...what
do I gotta do to get you into a slightly used
1993 Buick
Roadmaster Estate Wagon...
today?" Then you can both
have a little laugh - while you take their money and run.
Date Published: Jan 02, 2012 - 8:13 am
Cross-posted to Enviro-Mich, DailyKos and Michigan Liberal
Governor Rick Snyder and Michigan Republicans have
carried out a damaging and subtle stealth attack on Michigan's
system of environmental
permitting in the form of SB 275, which was signed on December
8.
SB 275 is at:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/...
Even while Michigan's environmental and conservation community
was doing a victory dance over the Gov. Snyder veto of HB
4326, none of these organizations have addressed this
worse threat to environmental protection and conservation
from SB 275.
Michigan's environmental and conservation community has been
completely
blind-sided because no one as of yet has sufficiently
articulated or understood just how bad the damage is from
SB 275. SB 275 is like a figurative 'IED'
planted in Michigan's environmental permitting functions
by the Michigan Legislature.
What kind of damage? Both the DEQ/DNR administrative
permit issuance
process is damaged and having that process damaged will
inevitably
lead to damaged individual products of that process --
the individual permits
issued to permit applicants. Because of SB 275,
Michigan environmental regulators....
--- will not be able to ensure that all pollution,
impairment
and destruction of natural resource is identified and
determined during permit reviews;
--- will not be able to ensure that all permits issued actually
comply with environmental resource permitting rules and
that the public's trust in
Michigan natural resources is protected.
What is the nature of this damage? Gov Rick Snyder and
Michigan Republicans
have generated nothing less than an attack on environmental
democracy and
public decisionmaking.
When permits are subject to public notice and comment, and
permit applicants submit information addressing issues
raised by the public after a determination of
administrative completeness is made, such applicant
information cannot be the basis of permit denial under SB 275.
If such information is placed outside of the record
for purposes of permit issuance, it is difficult to see
how the public could then appeal any issued permit on the
basis that such information was erroneous,
inadequate or insufficient.
SB 275 is also an attack on the ability of Michigan
environmental regulators to ensure
that permit issuance decisions reflect decisions controlled and
directed by a professional process in which scientific
integrity is paramount.
SB 275 creates a permit system where applicants' permit
application submittal are effectively divided into two
portions -- part 1 is the portion that was submitted
prior to a DEQ/DNR determination of administratively
complete application and part 2 is the material submitted
thereafter. SB 275 creates an enforceable right of the
applicant to exclude part 2 information from the permit
issuance decision. This means that all part 2
information submitted as a result of detailed technical
review by DEQ/DNR may be excluded from being the basis of
a permit issuance decision. The practical effect here is
that the only thing in the permit application process
that DNR/DEQ will be able to enforce is essentially a
checklist for administrative completeness.
Information submitted by the applicant in response to
detailed, technical review by DEQ/DNR staff cannot be
part of the final permit issuance decision. If the
results of the regulator's detailed technical review
cannot make a difference through the permit process, that
is nothing less than an attack on the scientific integrity of
the entire process.
Under SB 275, the mere passage of 30 days time after a
permit application is submitted becomes an intrinsic
default DEQ determination that the permit application is
'administratively complete' with no recourse at all for
DEQ/DNR in the event of error, grossly deficient
applications, etc. Under SB 275 a determination of
'administrative completeness' trumps everything else as
far as permit applicant submittals is concerned.
Questions, questions, questions.......on and about SB
275.....replies and opinions most welcome
Permit program scope of SB 275......
As near as I can tell the legislators probably thought they
were addressing all of the permits issued by MDEQ and
MDNR under the authority of the Natural Resources &
Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). However, at
this writing, I have some question on whether SB 275
applies to all DEQ/DNR environmental/resource permits, or just
to a specific list of environmental permits found at MCL
324.1301(d) as the definition of permit in the particular
part of NREPA:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/...
This is not a list of all permits issued by MDEQ and MDNR, but
many major important permits are listed, such as for
floodplains, iron ore processing water use, solid waste
disposal areas, oil and gas wells, permit, incinerator
ash monofills, wetlands, inland
lakes and streams, dam construction, Great Lakes bottomland,
fish import license, deep well disposal, sand dune mining
and critical dune area permits, endangered species.
[SB 275 did not modify the pre-existing text
of MCL 324.1301(d)....I'm curious
if anyone on the list knows what the criteria originally was
when NREPA passed for what permit programs were put in
324.1301(d) and why other permits were excluded from that
particular list.]
However, MCL 324.1301(d) does not list permits for new/modified
air pollution, Title V CAA operating permits, surface
water discharge, groundwater discharge, hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal facilities.
I'd sure like to hear from some of the lawyers out there on
opinions of whether SB 275 actually affects all
NREPA-issued permits or just the environmental permits
listed in MCL 324.1301(d).
ALEC Involvement??
I'd like to know whether this legislation was originated by the
Koch-brothers-funded American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC), or not. The main sponsor of
SB 275 was Rep. Top Casperson (R-Escanaba) who has been
identified as a member of this organization.
http://uawcap.youritproz.com/...
Conflicting interpretations??
Behold these provisions of SB 275:
"(3) Subject to subsection (4), after an application for a
permit is considered to be administratively complete
under this section, the department shall not request from
the applicant any new or additional information that is
not specified in the list required under section
1303(2)(a) unless the request includes a detailed
explanation of why the information is needed. The
applicant is not required to provide the requested
information as a condition for approval of the permit."
"(4) After an application for a permit is considered to be
administratively complete under this section, the
department may request the applicant to clarify, amplify,
or correct the information required for the application.
The applicant shall provide the requested information."
Can someone please tell me where the bright line is between, on
one hand, "...any new or additional information.." in
subsection 3 and information to ".....clarify, amplify,
or correct the information required for the
application...." in subsection 4. There isn't enough
here to tell whether the cited application elements of
subsection 3 are part of or exclusive of the information
elements of subsection 4. Is it just me or
are the provisions of subsection 3 and subsection 4
ambiguous and unclear as to how this language would
actually play out?
Subsection 3 seems to prohibit MDEQ/MDNR from enforcing a
requirement to submit such information by preventing the
regulators from using the failure to submit as part of
permit denial action. For the submitted
clarifications, amplifications and corrections submitted
by the Applicant, subsection 4 seems to say the applicant
has a duty to provide these. However, does the
phrase 'subject to section 4' in subsection 3 make
subsection 4 to be a modification or an exception to subsection
3. Notwithstanding the presence of ambiguity, SB
275 seems to confer the benefit of any doubts to permit
applicants and not to MDEQ/MDNR resource permit-issuing
stewards.
Date Published: Dec 18, 2011 - 8:18 pm
An Occupy Lansing protester was attacked during a mic check
protesting Detroit Public School's Emergency Manager Roy Roberts
this past Saturday, 12/10, at Michigan State's graduation.
Check out the video here: http://youtu.be/WxhVB1YYeBE
Notice that the protester did not react in violence, even though
she says she was surprised and actually "terrified" at
first. The woman pounced on her shoulder with such force
from behind that the protester believed she was in imminent
danger initially. The protester also sustained minor
injuries including a sore shoulder and a scratch. When the
protester took a photo of her assailant, the attacker picked up
her very young child and hid her face behind the girl. The
photo will not be released in this post, because both of the
attacker's very young minor children are in the shot as she hides
behind her daughter.
The protesters all left the graduation when they were asked to
and in no way engaged in disorderly conduct due to their
compliance with the request to leave after exercising their right
to free speech. The assaulted protester requested police
review the video the group took of the assault; however, MSU
Police refused to watch it and instead relied on eye witness
testimony, which indicated the woman snatched a piece of paper
from the protester. Despite the fact that snatching
something from someone's person constitutes textbook assault, the
cops still refused to file a complaint even after the
well-informed protester pointed out the obvious law violation.
Two lawyers reviewed the video independently, and both came to
the same conclusion based on the footage and the minor injuries
the protester sustained - that the protester was assaulted and
battered by the woman. When the protester returned the next day
to the MSU Police Department refusing to back down and with the
indication that multiple lawyers and potentially the ACLU would
be involved, the same officer who refused to take the initial
complaint was much friendlier and much more willing to file the
police report. Ironically, the officer asserted MSU has a
desire to promote dissent on campus.
It was indicated to the protester that the prosecutor would take
this matter seriously and would not discriminate against the
victim based on the fact that she was engaging in her right to
practice civil disobedience within the law. The officer
also finally admitted that "no one had a right" to snatch
anything from the protester's hand; although he stopped short of
calling it assault. Further, he stated the police would be
sticking by their initial report, despite the fact that he still
did not watch the video after being offered a second time in the
police station while documenting information for the police
report. The protester intends to send video and
photographic evidence to him with witness statements in a follow
up to the report, and has indicated she will accept nothing short
of prosecution of her attacker.
Occupy Lansing has a zero tolerance policy against violence, and
the group also expects the prosecutor to exercise such discretion
in prosecuting this cowardly mother's crime. We should all
remember that the police have an extreme, unchecked level of
discretion, and even if a cop is supportive of the cause (he
stated later he didn't necessarily disagree with our statements),
it still doesn't mean your right to practice free speech will not
be infringed upon. We must continue to be vigilant in our
nonviolent efforts to fight this sort of systematic oppression.
Date Published: Dec 12, 2011 - 2:33 am
