Anthracite knows, Elvis. I’d take her word on coal to the bank. You’d be wise to try and learn from her before you question her here.
Please. If you go back over the post you’re so proud of, I think you’ll have to agree it was about 90 percent an accusation of Clinton being on the take, and almost zero about the technology and economics of the coal industry. That makes it a political post, and you should not be surprised to see it treated like one. Recommending that I find my own sites repeating the same, familiar allegations, with the proffered evidence being repetitions of the same, does not add credibility. Asserting that your technical expertise makes you a political expert, and spending your keyboard time objecting to anyone questioning it rather than explaining it, cannot pass unnoted.
That was not at all clear to me. It looked like a simple assertion of authoritativeness, against the spirit of “fighting ignorance.” But the question remains: How did you come to the technical/economic conclusion that Clinton must be on the take from Riady? Do you completely discount any possibility that preserving an irreplaceable natural landscape could have factored into it?
Pretty damn competitive, which is why Virginia Power (now Dominion Resources) has test burned Columbian and Indonesian coal at two of their power plants, and I have been personally involved in the economic studies that showed it could be cheaper than using the local Virginia coal. Or why the Spanish coal power plant I was at, oh, just 3 weeks ago could very competitively import coal from China, Korea, South Africa, and Australia; as opposed to using the locally mined coal just 10 miles away from the plant. Of course, from your overall tone, it is apparent that you do not consider me to have any expertise in this area… :rolleyes:
[/quote]
Quite the opposite - I requested some facts, and you have presented a tantalizing few. But only just now.
Understood and appreciated. But your post was about a claim of Clinton being on the take more than it was about coal.
I’ve held back from :rolleyes: , but it’s time now.
[/quote]
To most of us, coal is a fuel source, not a religion, OK?
You’re making the claim re Clinton taking bribes from Riady. Claims require evidence. You’re not providing any. In the absence of it, the assessment of your being on a partisan rant has to remain the default case.
Not the response I’d expect from an engineer - more like the response of someone caught making an assertion not based on fact.
I come out about where Mandelstam does on this whole thing. The one difference is that, living here in New York, I did vote for Nader. However, at the same time I was on this Message Board trying to convince those folks in swing states that there really were important differences between Gore and Bush on issues like the environment. And, I am not above throwing out a few “I told you so’s” to those folks who argued otherwise. (Are you out there, oldscratch?)
On the other hand, I think that blaming things on Nader or those who voted for Nader in swing states is sort of silly for reasons that have been mentioned. We should be focussing on where the blame lies…i.e., on the assholes who want to screw the environment. And, Gore and company brought this on themselves. And, America needed/needs a wakeup call.
Now we should be focussing more, as one person suggested, on actively working to fight Bush on this, rather than wasting our time pointing fingers. While we are squabbling amongst ourselves, the other side is still shooting!
Dubya! Dubya! Dubya!
Gotta love him. He’s in now.
jshore, you are of course correct. And that is why I started this thread. I want those who felt there was no difference between the two candidates to know that they have been duped. I want them to know that there is a difference between studious ignoring and wanton thieving.
We live in a world of compromise, but this is the equivalent of burning one’s own home down in protest–the protesters will suffer the worst.
When did it become acceptable to equivocate accepting a greater evil with possible future political advancement? Because that’s what we face here. We face destruction of non-renewable resources, for profit we as a nation won’t touch except possibly in the most cursory fashion. Individuals will personally profit from the utilization of non-renewable resources that you, as Americans, hold title to, without the smallest benefit to you.
This is what you, Naderites, were fighting against. And instead you threw the gates open to the barbarians. Live it, learn it, know it.
Right. That’s because this whole issue has little to do with the specific techology and economics involved, and mostly to do with the payoff.
OK, it’s put up or shut time number 1. Please show me where I recommended that you “find your own sites repeating the same, familiar allegations”. Feel free to present your own evidence that you have that the deal was not a payoff for the Lippo family, and that the coal resources there would not have been an excellent alternative coal source to meet environmental regulations, and that by closing out this field the Lippo group was not given a free-reign to sell it’s coal unrestricted in the East Rim.
Oh, the “fighting ignorance” tactic - “Why are you so unreasonable, I’m just fighting ignorance!” Well, you blew all credibility you may have had by pulling that one.
OK…spent 10 minutes searching the net, trying to weed out rabidly anti-Clinton sources. Hmm…you know what? On this issue, I was unable to find a single source anywhere that supports Clinton. Why is that? Has the vast, Right-Wing conspiracy struck again? Or is it that this issue was buried so far down no one bothered to defend against it?
I can direct you to a couple Web sources I found:
Deceipt and Deception in Indonesia
(BTW - I personally knew one of the PMs of the Paiton Power project and can verify all of this. But you will insist I verify this as well, including audiotape I suppose…)
The Utah Coal Deal (Re-posts Washington Post Piece)
The Utah Coal Lockup (Partisan source, but many facts that are not in dispute…or ARE they?)
Quite the opposite - I requested some facts, and you have presented a tantalizing few. But only just now.**
[/QUOTE]
I love the use of your slanted qualifiers “tantalizingly few” and “But only just now.” Only just now? We’ve only been debating this for a few hours here, in case you were unaware. Sad. I also am not going to give you a lesson in coal transport economics. Especially since you already claimed to have a “background in this stuff”, which was a completely unsubstantiated claim, to use your own logic in analyzing my post. And this claim appears suspect, seeing as how you seem to know very little about coal at all. Now you will claim I am “hiding” or “running away from the issue” of whether it is competitively economical to transport coal across the World. You will then imply I am a liar, because I do not then supply you with maps of transport routes, dock timetables, proprietary reports of payments, and so forth.
Off topic, but you knew that and tried to score some cheap points.
Accusing someone of being nothing but partisan in a field of research they have devoted themselves to for 8 years mandates that you supply counter-proof. That is, supply your proof that my assertions are false, and that my points on coal quality and coal transport are false. It’s put up or shut up time number 2 for you, I’m afraid.
Please limit ad hominem attacks while I’m gone, OK? It’s really pathetic.
And oh yes. I will wait until you supply some proof that I am wrong on the whole coal transport issue, coal quality issue, value of the region economically and strategically, and of course that old Lippo payoff bugaboo before I reply to you again.
Elvis, Elvis, Elvis. Y’know I almost feel sorry for you. Anthracite has earned a reputation here of always being right. And she’s been grumpy lately…
I don’t know if you are joking or not.
I am very often wrong. I expect to be proven wrong on many points, in many issues. Because I am nothing special. But let me explain why on this issue I feel I am not wrong. It comes from personal experience on the exact topic matter.
The Paiton Power project is one I have consulted for. One of the things I had to do was to study the coal supply economics, politics, transportation, and coal quality issues on the boilers. In the course of doing this, as a relatively new person still, the whole Escalante Monument thing came up. And we were floored - especially since it caused us to have to re-work an awful lot of projections for future coal supply sources and economics. And as a result, we all followed very closely why this had happened.
OK. So now, I post a summary of what I found, that is supported by several sources, including the ones I link to above. No, this story did not get reported by the Leherer News Hour, or ABC World News Tonight. Or even really by the Wall Street Journal, except for a couple small articles. This story was mostly ignored, except for odd people like me (you know, the pathological liars who make assertions that have no basis), and people that had a specific bone to pick with Clinton. Thus, one will find a large number of partisan links if they search on this issue. But behind all of that, there are the common threads of the truth.
And of course all I do all damn day long is study coal sources, supplies, costs, quality issues, etc. So naturally I know something about this. And yes, a large amount of what I know is proprietary information, esp. w.r.t. rail and barge tariffs. You can find delivered costs easily with commercial databases and info from the EIA, but breaking out the exact rail or barge tariff is a bit more touchy legally. There is a lot I can talk about, and a lot I can’t. But nothing that should keep me from disclosing details in this instance.
My issue is people who in their first post accuse me of making a “another evidence-free Clinton-hating rant”, yet supply no evidence whatsoever themselves to counter my points. Who, when I post examples of people who do in fact find it more economical to import coal from all the way around the World, rather than use it from sources right next to their plant, say I have “presented a tantalizing few (facts). But only just now” I can add, for example, that the coal that the Spanish plant used specifically is shipped from Gladstone, Queensland; Richard’s Bay, South Africa; and from Rizhao, China by Masefield Ventures; but I cannot “prove” that this is done. I can say that the Chesterfield plant for Dominion Energy burned Columbian coal that was cheaper than the Virgina coal, due to excessive rail tariffs. And had to install a car wash for their employees, since the coal was so dusty and had so many fines that the Union complained about the cars in the parking lot being covered with black coal dust. Those are some more “tantalizing few facts” that I provide “just now”. Now I will be accused of withholding or hiding this information, or else making it up. Since it appears that I cannot win, I will not play the game. He should click on a few of those links, search himself to see if he can find a variety of viewpoints, and make his own decisions.
Real life does not work that way. If you are going to call someone a liar, at least have a reason for it. Or keep your goddamned mouth shut.
Note my sig - I will not be responding to this in any event unless the dial-in access Goddess is kind to me. So feel free to use my post like the proverbial plastic sex doll while I am gone.
Looks as though Clinton is doing his little “lame duck” best not to go out limping to badly at least on this issue. NPR reports this morning that he has declared a few more “National Monuments” under the (now don’t get upset it’s NPR and my radio sucks) Something or other Presidental Antiquities Act. Seems that back in 1909 or something like that the prez was given the power to declare national monuments to various sites in our country for their scientific and/or anthropological value. Well even though this act was probably intended to be used for small pieces of land. Bill has used it now 13 times to preserves some rather vast tracts of land. There is talk that he will make 5 more declarations before he leaves office, one of them proposed is in Alaska which will surely piss off the Repubs. Maybe even triggering an act of Congress to repeal the act.
Teddy Roosevelt used the act quite a few times in his day. According to NPR this act has been used by every president since it’s inception, except three. Can you guess who they might be…Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr.
I couldn’t find anything on the Yahoo News or in my local paper about it. I’m sure there are some reports out there on this today. Anybody heard?
Needs2know
Anthracite, when you’re ready to recognize that a technical/economic analysis of coal industry operations on the one hand, and tossing allegations of bribery on the other, are 2 entirely different subjects with a large leap in between, instead of willfully mixing them for some reason, then you can be considered ready to engage in a serious discussion on either topic. You might even be able to address the significance of the environmental consequences of strip mining with us, not to mention whether or not a burden of proof lies with the accuser.
Until then, enjoy your trip.
The recriminations appear to be occurring in the heart of the Nader camp. This was interesting: “Ex-Naderites Say His Career Is Through”.
So I guess you won’t be putting up then. The ball was in your court, and you refused to play.
I love how well you seem to speak for others here - “may be considered ready…”, “might be able to address the significance of the environmental consequences of strip mining with us (whoever “us” is)”. So now you accuse me of not even being worthy to discuss mining with the likes of you? Grow up, please. I suggest you review all my other coal threads and tell the audience how I am lying and being partisan in all of them too. The ball is in your court again…
And yes - you accused me of being partisan, and making unsubstantiated allegations. You also apparantly do not believe what I had to say on the economics of coal transport. Or the issues of coal quality w.r.t. the region in question. You’ve been pretty silent on those two issues. So you either 1) still think I am lying about them, or 2) know I am not, know I am right, and wish those issues would go away.
You don’t believe it’s economical to send coal by ship from Indonesia to other continents. What proof do you require? Will you finally answer this question? I’m giving you every opportunity here, you cannot accuse me of running from this.
You don’t believe the coal in that region was that valuable, or necessary, or good, apparantly. And that the coal from the Wyoming region would have been better, and would have made this unnecessary. What proof do you require? Will you finally answer this?
Read any of the links I posted yet? They are kind of alarming, aren’t they? Which ones do you believe or not believe, which facts presented in them do you believe or not believe? Tell me, and we will discuss those particulars. Instead, you keep engaging in high-school debate tactics.
Just break it down, item by item, one at a time. This is the last opportunity. Else, I will ignore you, and you will run around making snide little comments like “then you can be considered ready to engage in a serious discussion on either topic” and keep sniping at me.
BTW - I spent some time last night reading an awful lot of your postings on this Board. By God, you certainly do not want to get into a “who’s more partisan” pissing match with me, because I assure you it will not go well for your points.
And, FTR, so we have full disclosure - I am partisan on most (but not all, please do not deliberately mis-quote me or quote me out of context, thank you) issues involving Clinton. I hate Clinton deeply, and his whole pathologically lying organization. And his supporters who use his same tactics - lie, lie, shrilly lie, regardless of what the clear facts are. But on this issue, I don’t have to hate him to know that something really bad happened with this whole deal. I don’t have to be partisan, and I am not being partisan. Regardless of how many times you say it or how shrilly.
I also hated Bush senior too. I thought his administration did the same sorts of payoffs under the guise of the DoE Clean Coal projects, which were pork-barrel projects for utilities and coal producers. Hell, I worked on many of them, I know pork barrel when I’m the one eating out of it!
Tell me what proof you would accept - again, I ask you this. And I ask you again - please present your credentials as to why you think you know more about the coal technical issues than myself. You cried out for a separation of the issues in your response, posted above. I agree - separate them out then - line item by line item. I’ll wait and check tomorrow.
Anthracite: I’m not joking. You may have opinions that I don’t share, but I’ve never known you to be wrong about a factual matter.
Elvis: Bribe, campaign contribution, influence peddling, constituent serving, pork barrel, political favor…all different names for the same idea, just with different spin. I don’t think Anthracite is alleging something illegal, but political payoffs of this sort are done every day. Of course it is nothing so crass as suitcases full of money to change votes. But here is an instance of clinton’s actions just happening to greatly benefit one of his major contributors. No one can see inside Bill’s mind, but all Anthracite is saying is that she thinks the deal stinks. If you prefer to call it a political favor rather than bribery that’s fine, the difference is arguable.
Oh boy. Almost missed this one, but I’m back and can now comment.
First. There is the presumptuos argument that the only possible reason anyone could vote for Nader is becasue they’re a dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist tree hugger. Couldn’t be any other reason :rolleyes: So, if we get that argument out of the way, your whole thread becomes moot. But, for the sake of argument let’s keep it. We’ll say that the only reason I voted for Nader is because I thought that Gore and Bush were identical on environmental issues. It had nothing to do with his corporate policies, his policies on AA, on gay marriage, on foreign policy.
so
**
Do tell why would he negotiate with Gore? Gore knew the score. If he had spent the early part of the election reaching out to Nader supporters maybe he could have won. Instead he spent the year reaching out to the right wing and ignoring the left. Then, when it became apparent he was in trouble he deperately grapsed for any straws to get them to vote for him. They saw through it. As for “free-market environmentalists” Gore is the one who said “The invisible hand has a green thumb”, supported NAFTA, supported a global free trade measure on lumber with no conservation measures, helped repeal the ban on tuna that is dolphin-unsafe, and helped try and get the government out of food safety inspection (so much better to let private industry do it :rolleyes: )
**
I don’t. I seriously doubt that Gale Norton would be able to get environmental groups to bend over and accept clear anti-environmetal measures passed through the Bush administration as Babbit was able to do under Clinton.Babbit has had a clear role in fighting for and winning the extinxtion of the Northern Spotted Owl. Under Bush and Reagan this owl was relatively safe.
I’d rather have an anti-environmentalist who’s honest like Bush, rather than an anti environmentalist like Gore who has somehow hoodwinked otherwise rational people into believing that he is in any way good for the environment, while at the same time lying, scheming, and plotting to do whatever he can to line his own pockets and the pockets of his cronies, and amass even more power.
OK. Thank you Lemur866, for actually shining some light on why Elv and I are not having a meeting of the minds. I have re-read my posts, including the one posted in the coal thread by Dogzilla, and see what is obviously stuck in Elv’s craw.
My comment in this thread of “seedy and potentially criminal acts…” was excessively slanted. I thought I had qualified it by noting that this same sort of thing had happened under previous Republican Administrations as well, including Bush senior. I am trying to make the same point as you w.r.t. the politics Lemur866 - I just did a piss-poor job of explaining it.
I wish to withdraw my overly snide and unhelpful comment of “seedy and potentially criminal acts…” and replace it with “something that says I realize this sort of political payoff is business as usual, and it stinks no matter what Administration does it”.
Well it is the Green Party, after all. I guess the goofy socialist agenda is more than just window dressing to some people, huh? 
Yeah, that’s always a great campaign strategy to abandon the middle and go for the crucial Berkeley vote. FWIW, Gore has been roundly criticized by a lot of Dems for running a campaign that was simultaneously too left on entitlement program giveaways and too right on social issues like gun control.
As the environment is about to discover, Gale Norton could give a rat’s ass what environmental groups think, and she will now have the power to ignore them. Hmm, wonder how long that ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone is going to last?
So that book he wrote back when he had no presidential future in 1990, that’s all part of a devilish plot to burn down the spotted owls and strip mine the oceans.
Here’s the bottom line. All politics is slimy. Some politics is slimier. Bush on the environment is bad. Gore on the environment is better, but how much so is debatable. Nader on the environment? Doesn’t matter, 'cause he was a vanity candidate who never had a chance to do anything more than ensure that the slimier guy won.
I was about to say “slimiest,” but then I remembered Buchanan.
One thing I can say for the SDMB: nowhere else have I ever heard coal discussed with such passion! Its a good thing you guys are checked for weapons at the door!
You are checked for weapons at the door, right?
Check their weapons at the door!?! elucidator, you pinko socialist…One second you’ll be wanting them to “check” their weapons and the next second you’ll be totally banning them from having hunting rifles and penknifes. We know your type! They have a Constitution right to bring all the firepower they want onto the SDMB!
Whoops, sorry, wrong thread! 
**
Not to mention that Nader is more than just the green party canidate. There are people who wouldn’t call themselves Greens who voted for Nader.
**
No. But having mass environmental opposition to your plans does have an effect. That’s why Bush sr and Reagan got stalled on so much and Clinton was able to accomplish so much. There has been NO major environmental opposition to any of Gore’s schemes.
**
What makes you think he thought he had no presidental future. He was probably planning on running again in 92’ or figured he could get a good cabinent post out of it. Also at the same time he was qwriting it he was ignoring environmental problems in TN, something that helped him earn only a 66% record from the League of conservation voters. He had also, already, at this point worked at gutting the EPA, a task countless republicans have thanked him for since then. So yes, while it wasn’t a devilish plot, it does show his idea of environmentalism. Spout pseudo-intellectual Gaia and amazingly bad pop-psych nonsense while at the same time, in practical terms carrying out an anti-environmental agenda. Any disputes?
Proof for assertation?