The Fallacy of Vote Blue No Matter Who

This idea that we should all conform to what the powers that be in the DNC want makes a mockery of democracy. The DNC is VERY MUCH out of touch at present. As Beau explains, “Bernie is the compromise. He’s EBT/” [If you want to understand Bernie supporters, watch Beau as he gets it.] Thinking we will all vote blue no matter who is a delusion that is sure to lose this next presidential election, kinda a lot like the DNC did the last one… because of hubris.

I’m learning about hubris myself these days and I’m finding that I am a slow learner. As it is often difficult to misread the inputs… and as they are clearly showing they have not… I don’t have much faith that the DNC will figure this hubris thing out in time.

But I’m remaining hopeful that PEOPLE are figuring out what is happening in time. I’m hopeful as people see Big Money continuing to try to buy our government so it can promote its own interests (plundering the planet until it’s uninhabitable) while paying working people as little as possible (but still hoping they will spend it all on the latest gadgets to “make life better”), feeding them poisoned and processed food (while preventing folks from providing their own healthy food for themselves), and then assuring plenty of pills to fix the ails… until the populace succumbs to the hopelessness of the circle of life. The powers that be don’t care about PEOPLE so much as they care about making money for those in charge. They don’t care that many struggle to make ends meet, even those working multiple jobs. They don’t care that many have no access to healthy food or good paying jobs, let alone health care, which most civilized countries realize should be a basic human right. Big Money relies on the infighting among the scrappers, even providing constant fodder for further division, so no one will look for the real source of the problems… those gaming the system for their own good.

And now they want us to buy the line, “Vote Blue No Matter Who!” It’s clear they are really speaking to Bernie folks with this coalition-driving line. And the mere fact that they are pushing it shows how fragile their hold on the system truly is. None of the “chosen” candidates – neither DNC nor MSM show Bernie as an preferred candidate – has an ability to coalesce the masses for a victory like Bernie does. Or generate the broad and diverse appeal that he brings which encourages high voter turnout – the one thing we KNOW has shown progressive ideals to win.

And as the DNC continues to work to nominate “anyone but Bernie”, they will lose voter trust and enthusiasm assuring 45 will get another 4 years. The Dems BLAMED Bernie folks for the loss last time, and they continue to avoid acknowledging their own part in disenfranchising Bernie with superdelegates in 2016, while we see all Bernie’s ideas as mainstream in this election cycle. Hmmm…. They can’t admit their own copious corruption. And it’s clear that the DNC is TOO FAR RIGHT to distinguish themselves from Republicans, thus losing the voter enthusiasm when they elect their status quo candidate friends.

If you’re not a wealthy elite in America these days, it’s pretty shitty. The suffering is widespread. And, for those of us watching closely, we are seeing the end of the world as we know it coming at us faster than anyone predicted. I foresee 2020 as a year when the starving times bring clarity of vision. PEOPLE NEED CHANGE – BIG CHANGE. And the working class – a population HUGELY DISENFRANCHISED by the DNC – is voting to be heard. They are voting for Bernie.

But Bernie Sanders is simply not the same as these other candidates, making it impossible to pledge to “vote blue no matter who.” He is speaking truth to power of the evils of the world like no other candidate is willing or able because he does not take special interest money.

This is the huge distinction: Bernie’s campaign is funded by working people like myself (primarily teachers). Other candidates are funded by powerful corporate interests. Bernie is putting himself in a position to govern on our behalf, which is why millions of volunteers were willing to knock on 500,000 doors in Iowa (close to half of all Iowan households) and make over 10 million calls in the month of January. That type of people power is not only astonishing and the ticket to beating Trump, but it’s also the first step in fundamentally changing this country and world for the better. If you take Sanders out of the equation in November, you eliminate this enthusiasm. …

We’re in an age where incremental progress isn’t good enough. Under President Obama, we did next to nothing to combat the climate crisis, which needed meaningful action before he even took the helm. There’s no time for incremental progress on this or other issues. Our climate is heating up today. People are not getting the health care they require to survive, or not go bankrupt, at this very moment. Wages are stagnant. Money is increasingly funneled to the top of the economy, causing pollution in the information supply and corruption in the political process. Endless wars in the Middle East continue. The working class is abandoned.

… Bernie Sanders embodies a shift from this rotten reality. 

Aside from the painfully uninspiring vision peddled by these moderate conservative Democrats, the Democratic National Committee is currently re-writing rules to stop a Sanders nomination. What incentive do Sanders supporters, a gigantic voting bloc, have to stick around and vote for some corporate hack who doesn’t in any way align with their beliefs? That’s particularly when there was already foul play in the DNC primary a mere four years ago? 

Sam Shain: Why Bernie supporters aren’t ‘blue no matter who’ (my emphasis)
Seriously, just read the whole piece.

Indeed. As Democracy Now! reported (following the latest debate) and about which Hamline University professor of political science David Schultz wrote recently on how the process works (or doesn’t, depending on who you are):

The Democratic Party’s superdelegates were a reaction to the 1970 McGovern-Fraser reforms that sought to open the party to the people. Criticism after the 1968 Democratic Convention that party elites had too much control over the presidential nomination process–the proverbial smoke-filled backroom–led to a recommendation to create more political primaries. The goal was to let rank and file have more say on the party nominee. Yet by 1980 party elites felt there was too much democracy within the Democratic Party; they, not the base, still knew best who the nominee should be and what the party should stand for.

In 1980 the Democratic Party’s Hunt Commission recommended that 30% of all the Democratic National Convention delegates be reserved for members of Congress and state party chairs and vice chairs. These are the superdelegates. That 30% figure was originally implemented at 14% but by 2008 the percentage rose to nearly 20%. Their purpose was ostensibly to provide leadership, but in practice it was to maintain orthodoxy, serving as a check on primary voters who might make the wrong choice.

David Schultz, CounterPunch 2-19-20

And it would not surprise me if this SLEW of Democratic candidates was just an effort to dilute the potential for a majority win by any candidate thus assuring the power of the elitist superdelegates. And it sounds like there is some thought being given to change the rules to assure superdelegates get to vote first! Another fatal flaw in the DNC plan…

In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested. …

Fowler said that “there’s a great anticipation that after this convention, there will be an effort to adopt the old rules … There are a lot of people who are interested in that.”

Following the publication of this report, Perez responded on Twitter: “Absolutely not. We put in the work to ensure power was returned to the grassroots, we will be following the rules set forth by the DNC. We will not bend on this, we will not change our rules.” (my emphasis)

David Siders, Politico 1-31-2020

And then…

D.N.C. Rules Change for Nevada Debate Could Open Door for Bloomberg

The D.N.C. announced Friday that in order to participate in the debate, set for Feb. 19 in Las Vegas, a candidate must win at least a single delegate in either the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary or meet polling requirements.

It has eliminated the requirement that candidates must have received donations from hundreds of thousands of individuals. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, is running a self-funded campaign and is not soliciting donations.

 Reid J. Epstein and Matt Stevens, NY Times 1-31-20

So much for trusting the DNC’s word… As if… Ted Rall claims: “Some Democrats say that they are “blue no matter who.” Trump, they say, is such an existential threat that they will vote for anyone who winds up as the Democratic nominee for president. But is it really wise to extend such a blank check to a party that has disappointed us so many times before?”

Note the “Yes. Yes. Yes.” in the lower left panel. Is Bernie the one she will not support?

We are left in a vicious catch-22 where Dems think they own their voting block and can use the “Bernie isn’t a Democrat” argument to make their case for not supporting him. Meanwhile, that same “voting block” has realized the Dems are no longer supporting PEOPLE and instead support big money interests and a continuation of the suffering. The People WILL ELECT BERNIE to the Democratic ticket, if allowed. But DNC continues to work a new angle instead of simply showing support for the People’s Choice… Bernie.

Mike Bloomberg has offered blue America a Faustian bargain: Forfeit all credibility on the issues of money in politics and democratic reform, and he will spend whatever it takes to make the bad man in the White House go away. The market for what Bloomberg is selling is large and growing, thanks in no small part to the $300 million he’s already spent advertising it. Many rank-and-file Democrats — like so many disillusioned voters in democracies the world over — like the idea of hiring a no-nonsense, post-political businessman to fix their broken government (just, you know, a less ostentatiously racist one than America’s current CEO). Meanwhile, many Democratic elites see Bloomberg as a (slightly unsavory) savior who can single-handedly stop the party from nominating a supposedly unelectable socialist, provide its vulnerable first-term suburban House members with an ideal standard-bearer, and liberate the party from all resource constraints and fundraising headaches as it rides a rising tide of billionaire bucks back into power.

But Democrats would be fools to accept Bloomberg’s indecent proposal. …

As a political matter, allowing a Wall Street tycoon to win the Democratic nomination by leveraging his personal fortune to outbid all of his rivals (and many state and local Democratic Party organizations) for top-shelf campaign staff, and inundate the airwaves with an unprecedentedly exorbitant blitzkrieg of paid messaging, would deprive Democrats of what has long been their chief electoral asset: the perception that their party is less beholden to the rich than the GOP.

Eric Levitz, The Price of a Bloomberg Nomination… 2-19-2020

It’s just a thought… Do you feel protected?

Where do we go from here?

I’m hopeful that Bernie and THE PEOPLE can take back our government and return it to the work of caring for the ALL the People and not simply working to push all the benefits to the already too rich, as our government has been doing for some time now. So far, they powers that be have avoided revolution… but how soon before they step over that line?

AOC and the women who have gotten into the system in recent years have made big strides with messaging and young people – especially young women, BIPOC, and others have stepped up in protest and action to make a difference. We’re seeing a global uprising to address the biggest problem of our time – our climate catastrophe. People are getting restless and, with over 500 days since the IPCC 1.5, the lack of action and response is growing that desperation. Daily.

I know it may be foolish to have hopes for a takeover of the Democratic party to return at least ONE party to the people but I have some faith that Bernie might do it this time. I kinda feel like we might as well all just forget about a long-term human existence if he is not successful.

Bernie seems to be the only one connecting with all sectors of the disenfranchised: Poor, Young, Black, Indigenous, Women, Veterans. And when Trump cuts food support in April, I believe we could see a real revolution begin. Starving one’s children has a way of bringing a parent to a place of nothing to lose.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

― John F. Kennedy on the Alliance for Progress, 13 March 1962

Back then Kennedy spoke about our denial of care to our neighbors. Sadly, we’re now talking about denial of care to our own citizens. And now, we will watch and see how the DNC makes their next moves.

It’s not looking like they will relinquish power from their elite controllers to their public base. I’m just hopeful the masses Bernie has inspired will convince them of the power the people have, which, in the end, is always more powerful than mere money, when we can get them to the polls.

And I’d argue that it’s time to FINALLY LISTEN to the voices of the Disenfranchised. If this is the candidate that Blacks, Latinos, Indigenous, children, women, poor, and the working class support. I’m with them. I’d ask, “Why aren’t you?”

And I’d also ask…

How many primaries does Bernie have to win to show YOU he’s electable?

It’s the Media, Stupid

Tags

Bernie, Media Bias, MSNBC

Well, it seems we’re seeing the revelation of the media bias in the Democratic race. Because America’s two-party system are wings of the same bird – and one who doesn’t want anyone else in the nest – we’re seeing the struggle of an Independent candidate trying to work within the system we have to give THE PEOPLE a voice.

The irrationality of the charges pundits are now making is appalling and should disturb us all, if only for how long it’s been ongoing. And the evidence just keeps mounting.

Thanks, Shawn Olson!!

I watched last time as the DNC and Mainstream Media (MSM) fucked up royally, totally excluding the “change” candidate from coverage (as America was still in “we want change” mode… mostly ’cause you rich motherfuckers have really made a mess of things) and nominating their choice with superdelegates. Then Hillary fucked up, in all her hubris, by running a “Let Them Eat Cake” campaign where you couldn’t get a yard sign at caucus time to save your life. And then they wondered why no one showed up to vote! Well, they’ve been fucking up for decades. The Democratic party has lost its soul since the days of FDR. That’s for sure… siding with the Wall Street side of the party and abandoning the Working Class side. THIS is why Vote Blue No Matter Who is a bunch of fucking bullshit. But many are eating the cake…

You don’t think you’re eating the cake? Watch this video and tell me if you’ve changed your mind.

Imagine the world that would have been…

I’m really hopeful that we’ll start listening to the CHILDREN who are saying that enough is enough. It’s time to stop with the fossil fuels and move to a green economy. The fossil free industry has raked in almost $2 trillion since 1990 in profits while driving us to the brink of extinction with their destruction of our natural environment, all while denying that it was fucking happening!!! And now their boom is coming to a bust, and guess who will be cleaning up the mess? Our kids. So they’d like us to 1) stop making the problem bigger, and then 2) start cleaning that shit up, right fucking now! You know, while us oldsters who created the mess are still around to help! And, you may not have noticed, but we’re seeing uprising around the world as movements of people stand up to the tyranny of the corporations and governments working against the best interests of the people. In Canada, we’ve seen their national rail shut down by groups protesting that the RCMP stop their invasion of sovereign Wet’suwet’en territory for construction of a natural gas pipeline. And we’re seeing the facade of Canada’s “reconciliation” attempt fall away as The Narwhal reveals that leaked documents show the government was colluding with extractive industries.

“The B.C. government and corporate lobbyists representing major resource industries sought the “surrender” of First Nations land rights immediately following the Delgamuukw decision, a precedent-setting legal ruling that established Aboriginal title to unceded land, according to Freedom of Information (FOI) documents obtained by The Narwhal. The records, from B.C.’s Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, provide a glimpse for the first time of a corporate lobbying effort urging government to push First Nations to surrender their newly recognized title rights through modern treaties to achieve “certainty” for commercial interests.”

The Narwhal, 2-7-20

Our CHILDREN who are asking for leadership that recognizes everyone equally. And we’ve seen in the last week that three candidates have acted so egregiously that they’ve all but lost the BIPOC vote: Bloomberg, Mayor Pete, and now Minnesota’s own Amy Klobuchar. Awww… and just as she was getting some momentum! Darn.

The CHILDREN are changing their own habits and we should follow. Even the fashion addiction of the wealthy is killing our planet. Oh, yeah, the excessive consumers… we’re everywhere. This reminds me of my son Tom’s reluctance to get a driver’s license and propensity for bike riding or walking if that is a possibility. Has he been living with an understanding of the climate crisis that I have underestimated? He always was smarter than me…

And the CHILDREN understand that the very wealthy are at the very least, not cool to work with, and certainly NOT to proudly emulate. Our CHILDREN understand the problem with big money in politics. {Darn, another hit for Amy.} They understand that the it’s time for a major change in management.

Yes, these CHILDREN who are saying they won’t have children themselves… FUCK, they can’t even see a point in finishing high school! They are frightened.

XR Vermont FB Post

So, as one who didn’t do enough to stop this thing sooner, I’m standing with the CHILDREN.

And the CHILDREN have endorsed Bernie Sanders.

Valentines for PUC Commissioner Schuerger!!

Tags

Enbridge, Line 3, MN PUC, Schuerger

This past week, Minnesota Environmental Justice advocates got some good news. Yeah, we lost with the PUC, but we saw the tide turn with the actions of one PUC Commissioner with not only a smart brain and big heart, but also some HUGE balls. (And boy, was Enbridge upset! Hope they’re envisioning the hard work of packing up and taking their Line 3 project back to Canada… where, you might have noticed, there is growing opposition to fossil fuel corporations. And the Wet’suwet’en People are grateful for those supporting their Sovereignty.)

So I decided to send a little Valentine to Matt Schuerger from our Minnesota Waters.

You can send one too! Need some help figuring out how? Click Here. Please help make my dream come true – let’s flood the docket with Valentines for Commissioner Schuerger.

I can imagine little groups everywhere making valentines for Matt. Maybe your youth group could have a learning session on Line 3 to share information about the dangers a Tar Sands pipeline brings to our wetlands. Do your friends know there are 227 water crossings for this pipeline proposed route? Could you take an hour to make some valentines as you learn about the myths* of “Safety of New Pipelines” and BitCrude technology, which allows completely safe transport of solid bitumen (tar sands in sold form are not flammable or explosive AND are safe for marine life if the containers go overboard!). No more concerns about train derailment!! The worst that happens is you have to pick up a bunch of hockey pucks and put them back in the rail car! [Then next month your group can write letters to our Governor asking for new green energy jobs instead of dirty old fossil fuel energy jobs for Northern Minnesota.]

---

* Myths of Pipeline Safety:

• New Pipelines are safer than Old Pipelines. Not necessarily. Spill Data show that new pipelines are just as susceptible for spills as the old. [Perhaps it is related to the corrosive asphalt from Alberta being pushed through them…] As has been clearly demonstrated by failures on newer pipelines Dakota Access and Keystone 1 – the spills can be big on New Pipelines too… like 210,000 gallons big. Keystone would suffer a second large failure of 383,000 gallons just two short years later.
• Old Line 3 is a Safety Risk!! Well, ever since the Consent Decree was put into place, we’ve seen a massive drop in spills on Line 3. In fact, in the last 12 years, there have only been 66 gallons spilled, less than 2 barrels!! And that is likely due to the requirement that Enbridge 1) run at reduced pressure and 2) inspect via 3D microscopic images every inch of pipe every year. This pipeline is the devil we know.
• It is clear that a new Line 3, once it passed its pressure testing, could run UNINSPECTED for 5 full years – FIVE! – before Enbridge would be required to inspect it. It would be the devil we don’t know. [The bottom line is that, as Paul Blackburn reported in his testimony, the PUC cannot make decisions on pipeline safety… as supported by many 8^th Circuit decisions.]

---

Enbridge has lied to us for long enough about their safety and jobs. PUC Commissioner Schuerger has done his homework to come to the following findings on their proposed project, which led him to vote in opposition. Note: The time stamps correspond to the video of the 2/3/20 full PUC meeting with the parties. I encourage you to check out some of the powerful testimony, especially the favorites I share below.

On the Second Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement (2R FEIS) for Enbridge’s Proposed Line 3:

• 1:46:37 Louise Miltich (DOC EERA) admits the 2R FEIS DID NOT EVEN DEFINE the Lake Superior watershed!!! Now, how the heck are ya’ supposed to comment on the “adequacy” of the revision to address the “impacts to the Lake Superior watershed” if there is no definition of what exactly constitutes the “watershed”?
• 1:54:10 Schuerger asks about the Superior/Duluth Harbor being noted as an “industrialized” site… indicating that it is less important?  1:54:40 Miltich argues her case. 1:55:18 Schuerger argues sociological and economic impacts also being important. Miltich later admits the Harbor could be an important site.
• 1:56:30 Referencing recently available bitumen and dilbit studies, Matt asks about their inclusion in the evaluation.  1:57:18 Miltich admits no additional studies or bodies of work were included and 1:57:55 that a literature review was not done to assure inclusion of recent analysis. 
• 1:58:15 The Commissioner discussed the possible 193 MT CO2 and $287B social carbon cost associated with Line 3, eventually asking where in the 2R FEIS we can see an understanding that we have now on the impacts of Climate Change incorporated in the EIS?  2:00:32 Miltich admits that they used all the original modeling approaches.

After Tuma makes a motion to approve EIS Adequacy, Sieben asks for discussion (of which there is none) and Matt gives his “deliberation” (as the Chair referred to it several times during the meeting). 2:28:52 “I disagree.” He notes impacts of Lake Superior watershed being critically important.  

• The Record and Law do not support a conclusion that the single site selected adequately represents the Lake Superior watershed or that the 2R FEIS adequately assess the consequences of a spill into the Lake Superior watershed.
• The 2R FEIS fails to accurately characterize the current scientific understanding of climate change.  PUC is required under MEPA to follow the guidance in its first paragraph:

“…to create and maintain conditions under which human beings and nature can exist in productive harmony…”

• “This FEIS in this revision does not yet do that in my viewpoint.” And he noted his opposition. [Several in the audience voted Aye! alongside Matt which was so good to hear. [2:38:47]

On the Certificate of Need for a New Line 3: [3:53:09 – 4:25:50, 4:29:40 – 4:42:48, Commissioner Means interrupts to throw Enbridge a bone…]

• Schuerger confirmed with both Mike Aherns, representing the Shippers, and Eric Swanson, representing Enbridge, that they do not believe the demand situation has changed.
• Schuerger confirmed with Enbridge that the applicant’s forecast of demand for the proposed facility means demand for crude oil, energy products from crude oil for MN and the 5-state area.  He also confirmed with Enbridge and the Shippers that they believed there was no new pertinent information of concern to add to the record. 
• Then he reads through a list of changes in MN including the Transportation Department commitment to an 80-100% reduction in GHG emissions and the Clean Cars Initiative, confirming with Swanson that Enbridge doesn’t believe any of these things show any less need for the project.  Then Commissioner Schuerger walked through the many climate change insights since the last approval including the IPCC 1.5 Report and Walz’ Climate Change subcabinet. Again, Swanson indicated… No further record development needed.
• Then the Commissioner read to Mr. Swanson about the past week’s trade news reporting: ‘Enbridge … publicly acknowledged the transition may happen more quickly than expected… which could strand existing or future assets.’
• Finally, on the integrity concern that the current Line 3 must be replaced to prevent a spill.  Commissioner Schuerger confirmed with Mr. Swanson that Enbridge understands their responsibility to prevent discharge from their pipelines “whether or not the Commission approves a new Line 3”. 

In “deliberation” 5:23:23, Commissioner Schuerger makes clear on this “immensely important and intensely consequential” decision:

• It is entirely about the law and the evidence.
• 5:24:57 The record shows MN refiners to be getting the oil they need. [He indicated this is a fatal flaw… just before Katie interrupted him before he was finished.]
• The science on climate change is entirely clear– we must take action to reduce climate change.  There is evidence toward electrification and toward a new system which would eliminate apportionment (relied on heavily in the last decision).  All indicate a contested case hearing with a focus on the demand forecast. 
• 5:27:27 We are facing a seachange in the world, around the country, and especially in this state to act and change the way we use energy.  “When we have this significant scientific political understanding, which we have, we are not only accelerating this transition but it means that it no longer makes sense to invest and build new infrastructure such as this new project.”

“I do not support the motion before us and I’d ask that we vote this motion down and that we refer to this to contested case with a focus on gathering additional information on the changed circumstances around the change in the applicant’s business and contract structures, potential impact of electrification of transportation or other sectors, and the impact of climate change on demand.” 

Commissioner Schuerger’s closing on the Certificate of Need for Line 3, 2/3/20 5:28:56

On the Route Permit for a New Line 3: [6:33:52 – 6:37:07]

• As there were no questions, I’d like to include an approximation of Schuerger’s statement [discussion/deliberation, whatever Katie wants to call it] as it is so good!!

We have before us a preferred route and 4 alternatives that we are required to consider (APR, RA-03AM, RA-06, the In-Trench Replacement RA-07, & RA-08). “When we look at the evidence before us and the criteria, the impacts we are required to consider are overwhelmingly minimized by the In-Trench replacement option RA-07. Overwhelmingly minimized.  RA-07 & RA-08 have not been removed from our consideration.  We’re required to consider them all. I believe, that when we apply the law, we have to designate the In-Trench replacement option and, under the law, we are required to recognize the sovereignty of tribal governments, ALL tribal governments. We’re required to consider all the routes and apply the criteria AND we’re required to recognize the sovereignty of tribal governments – ALL OF THEM!  I believe we can accomplish what’s required of us by applying our criteria and designating In-trench replacement RA-07 and, in that same act, requiring Enbridge to obtain explicit written consent from all Tribal governments along the designated RA-07 route prior to Enbridge receiving the Route Permit. I heard, I’ve read the testimony, I’ve read the record, I heard the opening arguments today.  I do not believe under the law it is this Commission’s problem that they may not get that consent.”

Summary of Commissioner Schuerger’s comments on Route Permit, 2.3.20 6:34:34

I have watched hours of testimony. I have watched over and over some pieces of testimony. And I am much encouraged by some of that testimony on February 3rd. Here are a few of my favorites:

Gaagigeyashiik (Dawn Goodwin) gives EIS Adequacy testimony 2.3.20 1:00:00

• Starting at 32:10 you can see two of my faves – Paul Blackburn and Scott Strand. Together they explain why the EIS was inadequate based on the location site (no WI sites were selected, even though these locations would have a potential for harm). Little Otter Creek picked as the farthest east and first site in MN. Not sufficient. Scott also talks about response times noting that history of Enbridge should have been used, including a reflection of their 17 hour response time, much longer than the 13 minutes used by the modeling. This failed to capture the fact that most spills are not caught by the pipeline company but citizens happening upon the spill. Scott recommended a 2-hour response time with a range of possible alternatives, specifically referencing the Michigan model. He also mentioned the requirement to include the latest information as part of the ongoing responsibility of the EIS process, which the DOC EERA decided deliberately to not include, a likely legal error.
• 56:20 Gaagigeyaashiik Dawn Goodwin spoke eloquently about the Indigenous historical, cultural, and spiritual connection to the land. She also spoke to the lack of study on tar sands which negates the idea that we have an adequate understanding of the impacts of tar sands on our living organisms per the National Academy of Science. Thanks to Frank Bibeau for giving her some time after he walked through the legal aspects of the Treaties along the Line 3 proposed route.
• 1:03:48 Brent Murcia, A Youth Climate Intervenor, who explained that they’ve watched as their government has done nothing again and again and again.  These youth have participated in this process.  All have finished HS now and at 18-26 years old, they should have bright futures ahead.  But Brent walked through how little time remains to respond to our climate crisis along with the many shortcomings they have identified in the 2R FEIS. He also stressed the No Action Alternative has been in place for 3 years and we have not seen “1900 trucks per day” of oil driving the MN or several hundred oil train cars per day. The actuality looks a lot more like the YCI estimates than those of Enbridge, which indicates an inadequacy. Finally, when Enbridge plans for run the line for 5- years, why is the FEIS not including 50 years of effects but only 30?
• 3:09:25 Paul Blackburn argues that the safety of the current Line 3 is NOT the decision of the PUC, not within their jurisdiction and they have no expertise. How much safe is this new pipeline – by what metrics? This is the most important thing per Enbridge. Data of the oil spills from this pipeline are NOT YET IN THE RECORD. Corrosion and age related spills are your concern but there are many other things that factor into spills. In fact, with the current Line 3 requiring 3-D microscopic images of this line EVERY YEAR. A new Line 3 would not be covered by the consent decree so it would only be inspected once every 5 years. Records from Canada shows shipment as a solid safely and there are two technologies to ship by rail. Rail safety is yesterday’s argument.
• 5:55 Just following another round of testimony from Scott Strand and a short message from Brent Murcia, “… we will see you all soon.” [In court!!], Winona LaDuke and Dawn Goodwin again address the commission. Winona bringing a Midewiwin scroll, a map of the migration story of the Ojibwe People. They both recognized the value of all the life in our land, most of whom have not been asked here to testify. Threading a needle to meet regulatory framework is not an adequate assessment of the issue.

“We’re a Living Culture! You’re putting that at risk.  What don’t you get about the 1855 Treaty?”

Gaagigeyashiik Testimony, 2/3/20 Watch it here .- it’s powerful stuff! Thanks, Seekjoy!

One of the BEST moments of the day was when Akilah Sanders-Reed explained to Chair Katie Sieben – as Ms. Sieben tried to deny the Youth Climate Intervenors their rights, that YCI would take the 5 minutes ceded to them by the Northern Water Alliance. [So, fuck you, Katie Sieben! Oh, sorry, did I say that out loud?? I did in my living room as I watched it happen!]

Not happy?

“You have 5 minutes to present your opening statement. We’re not going to allow for more compression of time at this time because we don’t have the Northern Water Alliance folks here.”

PUC Chair Kaite Seiben tries to silence the Youth Climate Intervenors – pretty much in line with how they’ve treated the YCI over and over again – Oh! kinda like the government has always treated our kids – as best seen and not heard. They didn’t pull this shit with any of the male lawyers using this tactic. Watch from 3:26:04

We’ll be taking our 10 minutes.

“We’ve communicated with them explicitly and I would be happy to show you the communications where they asked us to absorb their time so that we could cover issues that are of interest to both of us. So we’ll be taking the ten minutes as was stated in the notice from the Commission that parties could combine arguments for the sake of fluidity.”

Akilah Sanders-Reed explains to Chair Sieben how this process works. Once again, youth speaking to truth and power in these days where adults have seemingly lost that ability.

So we lost, but we’re seeing the tide turn. We’re losing better each time. And now we have a Commissioner on our side.

My FAVORITE PUC Commissioner Matt Schuerger/
And, who knew? He’s a Purdue grad!!! Boiler Up, Bitches!!

If you can’t get enough, here’s another great blog on this issue.

Science and Compassion say “Deny”

I finally attended a Twin Cities Line 3 PUC Meeting in-person. It was both wonderful and truly heartbreaking.

I saw people in line on both sides of the issue and waved to them. Big wave to Cheryl Grover, a Line 3 supporting neighbor, and a hug for Murilo who is one of the sweetest people you will ever meet.

I heard dozens of youth who begged the PUC to consider their futures. I heard several Enbridge employees and contractors speak to their needs for employment. And in the end, there were 116 comments in opposition to Line 3 and only 37 in favor.

The comments in favor of Line 3 were voices of fear for self – we won’t have the income we need, we won’t have oil for our cars, we will have to sacrifice. These are voices of those ignorant to the possibilities of the future as they are being held hostage by the fairy tales of the fossil fuel corps.

I can’t say it’s not understandable. Living here in the north woods, we do seem to live a bit in the past. Life often runs at a slower (more human) pace, we make due with what we have (cause town is 22 miles away), and many agreements are still made with a handshake. As such, trust is a currency. Many here don’t have email, get their news from their neighbors and co-workers, and stay local much of the time creating a dearth of exposure to news and ideas outside their bubble.

City folks can see more of the recent progress to efficiency and renewables. Likely because, as it normally goes, the urban areas develop first (economies of scale, eh?) – higher people density means less investment/person for projects. Then, and sometimes only after having to bitch about it or petition for redress, the advancements go statewide. We know the drill. I argue that now is the time to implement renewable energy development in rural Minnesota instead of approving a fossil fuel project that will soon be obsolete.

The comments opposing Line 3 were also full of fear, but not only for self. The fear in the opposition is for the planet, the impacted communities of color, and the children so afraid for their futures many of them have decided against having their own children.

These voices were based in the science of climate change, science that demands we keep most of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground if we hope to maintain a planet under 2° C. They spoke to the economics which predict this new tar sands pipeline would be obsolete before it could even be completed – but not before its construction might ruin much of our natural infrastructure, infrastructure that cleans our air and water for free every day. Some even spoke of faith, praying for this pipeline to be denied and asking the room to join them in this prayer. And they spoke of compassion for our young people and our global communities, especially the poor, who are already suffering from the devastating effects of climate change.

Perhaps the most heartwrenching testimony for many of us in this fight was when Jaci Christenson stood to end her testimony saying, as she got down onto her knees to beg the Commissioners, “I have done everything as a citizen, I am going to get down on my hands and knees, and I am going to beg of you (clasping her hands) to think of the next generation.” (Though video footage was CUT by on the PUC docket [as can be seen here at 57:53], you can see it from CITIZEN coverage – Thanks, Ellen Hadley!!) Chair Sieben can be heard quietly saying, “Next person please.”

Touching for me was the testimony of all of the many warriors I know. Even seeing their names appear on the screen showing the line-up was a huge thrill. All of us attended that day not knowing if we would get a chance to speak. Mine was one of the final names drawn from the box.

I have long been in this fight, watching the hearings from my home in the North Woods, as I will do today when the hearing recommences. To see this process in person was important. To experience it first hand revealed the very limited space for citizen seating (which included a view of a large empty swath of space between the Commissioners and testifying citizens), the bathroom hall passes (making you feel like you were 9 years old again), and the extensive presence of law enforcement, including at least one canine. It did not feel welcoming. I’m not sure giving someone 2 minutes to speak on such a complex scientific, cultural, social issue as Line 3 can be called welcoming as it seems only to laugh at the idea of freedom of expression.

Nevertheless, the entire day was magical for me from the 5:00 a.m. arrival at the Senate Building to leaving after the debrief almost 12 hours later. There are so many to thank for the magical loveliness of my day that I will never list them all but below I will attempt to highlight some of the best aspects of my PUC experience.

---

The testimony began with two testimonies that highlighted the crux of the issue.

Representative Frank Hornstein spoke first, noting the dearth of information on water quality impacts, the lack of guarantees by Enbridge on spill response, and the dire climate situation ~ which has become much clearer since June, 2018 when the PUC originally decided the EIS Adequate and approved the Certificate of Need and Route Permit. All point to the EIS being inadequate to inform Minnesotans of the dangers of a new Line 3 carrying tar sands through our wetlands and lakes regions.

The next to testify was a single mom, Carrie Robles, who credited Enbridge with allowing her to provide for her family, including buying a house. You could hear her pride and gratitude as she spoke. And in northern Minnesota this seems to be the things for which we are desperate – JOBS! Especially good paying jobs. Enbridge is dangling a carrot. They simply forget to mention the stick that’s attached on the other end of the string. The one that murders your grandchildren.

But this is a false narrative that we need PIPELINE jobs. We need jobs, for sure. But why settle for dirty jobs from last century instead of working together to bring jobs that will energize our future? And Enbridge is NOT saving our environment. If they are, they are only saving it from a failure on their current Line 3. So that is just Enbridge saving us from Enbridge! How about they just take out the old Line 3 and go back to Canada? That would clean up a big part of their mess.

Willis Mattison testified about a Procedural Error recently submitted to PUC Staff – he’d filed it 2 years ago but it was delayed from reaching the Commission until just this week. [Nothing fishy there, right?] The violation was that Enbridge was allowed to apply for, receive permits, and begin project related construction, something that is strictly prohibited by the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. Because this construction work, outside the approval process, prejudices the entire project, making it look like a done deal, it discourages citizens from taking any any action to deter a project with which they object. This could be a game changer. He also offered the assistance of a pool of scientists who can assist the Commissioners with discerning any of the environmental shortcomings reported on this latest revision of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Murilo Zacarelli, a friend of mine, testified to his research interviewing people in northern Minnesota, including on tribal lands. He explained that he had to get permission to visit the tribes to do his research. If they had said “no”, that would have meant that he could not go there to do his research because these are sovereign nations. When they say “NO” to a pipeline, they need to be respected. Murilo also noted many in northern Minnesota are not happy with the pipeline project.

I was given the opportunity to speak by Patricia Kilmet who, fighting a bad cold, offered to cede her spot. I shared about the land where I live in the Chippewa Plains and the Pines Moraine and Outwash Plains, as directed by my Ojibwe sister, Dawn Goodwin. I spoke to our biodiversity and noted that part of being here is to acknowledge for those relatives that cannot, the dangers to their ecosystems. Also, I noted the historical evidence that Enbridge does not tell the PUC the whole truth and that the public is here today to tell them some of the things they need to know to make the correct decision on this pipeline. Running out of time, I rushed to include the fact that Enbridge has not has a spill on the pipeline for a decade now, thanking the people in the room who I turned to indicate to the Commissioners were the highly skilled workers using things like new weld technology to keep this Line 3 safe. I asked them to let the current Line 3 be monitored and maintained as we transition from the fossil fuel economy and to deny the new Line 3 we cannot afford.

When my name was drawn, the man who was given my opportunity to speak, Ken Pearson (yep, Andy’s dad), was outstanding. He spoke to the shortcomings of the FEIS and the opposition to the project (in the millions as it would affect us all) that dwarfs the public support (largely from the vested interests). He also spoke to the economics of the issue – one of the most environmentally destructive projects on planet Earth.

“This project would put large sums in the pockets of very, very few people while, again, harming millions. It’s no wonder there’s opposition, given this lopsided equation.”

Ken Pearson, January 31, 2020 comments to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

I was so grateful to hear so many beautiful testimonies and about a dozen sketchy ones. I have some glimmer of hope that the PUC will come to the right decision this time around. And we’ll know shortly whether they do have the common sense, courage, and compassion to deny Line 3.