May 18, 2014
Texans for Puget Sound coal trains?

A Northeast Texas farmer worries about the safety of the Keystone XL pipeline crossing her property. I agree that the pipeline should be built and maintained to not leak or cause other damage.

But why is she in the Seattle Times? Is she selling the use of trains? Pipelines are much, much safer than trains of oil cars. Manhattan Institute  If she is opposed to pipelines delivering oil in various forms, she should come to Puget Sound and convince us that we want more 80-car oil trains blocking crossings in Seattle and Edmonds and throughout the state.

And, of course, coal trains. Is she coming?

Seattle Times

Posted by Ron Hebron at May 18, 2014 08:24 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Fun fact: Conservatives will always moan and complain about the use of eminent domain as vast government overreach and abuse of power that benefits the private sector at the expense of civil liberties and constitutional rights.

Unless, of course, it involves an oil pipeline.

But why is she in the Seattle Times?

She is not in the Seattle Times. She's in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and the Seattle Times merely reprinted the story.

Posted by: demo kid on May 18, 2014 09:19 AM
2. .
But Crawford and her family protested -- asking the company to shift its route to avoid their property, as other carriers had -- because of concerns about how a pipeline could affect the land, the water supply and Caddo Indian burial grounds.
Offers for the use of their land ranged from $7,000 to $21,000, but discussions ended in 2011 and the family was told that part of the property was condemned. A $10,395 check compensating the family was left at the Lamar County Courthouse and has yet to be claimed.
After losing her lawsuit against TransCanada in both the lower and appeals courts, Crawford appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. On March 21, it declined to hear the case.

This is a truly sad story.
Big government "condemned" her property.

Why didn't the Republican dominated government of Texas ensure that the issue of where the pipeline would go would be decided by the Free Market!! rather than standing idly by while Big Government" took her property?
Where are the Republican advocates of a Free Market!! and against "Big Government" when we need them?

And Ron, I applaud your support, for the purpose of public safety, WA legislation to regulate "80-car oil trains blocking crossings in Seattle and Edmonds and throughout the state".
Maybe with your support such legislation can progress further than it has in the past.
Last session the Republicans in the WA Senate did not bring any oil legislation to the floor for a vote for some reason.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 18, 2014 11:52 AM
3. And, of course, coal trains.

Since everyone knows coal is carried better by pipeline!

Posted by: demo kid on May 18, 2014 01:12 PM
4. "Pipelines are much, much safer than trains of oil cars."

And not transporting oil thousands of miles overland is safer still, but if we don't drill and refine every last drop of crude oil everywhere ever, Jesus will have rode that dinosaur in vain. Just ask your average Texas Republican; he'll tell ya!

Posted by: tensor on May 18, 2014 06:14 PM
5. Jesus will have rode that dinosaur in vain.

It just isn't possible for you to participate in a discussion without insulting the faith of 87% of the country you purport to love, is it? Why don't you have the balls to insult Allah or Mohamed?

Posted by: Rags, Mom who believes liberalism is the dishonest ideology of the simple-minded. on May 18, 2014 07:13 PM
6. And, of course, coal trains.
Since everyone knows coal is carried better by pipeline!

Posted by demo kid at May 18, 2014 01:12 PM

Trying to conflate coal and oil here ? Ron did it himself. Contrarians: Oil is more safely transported by pipeline than by rail as a reliable study points. out.

It is a no-brainer that the Keystone Pipeline be built, but it is transparent and apparent that the White House and Democrat party is more interested in Tom Steyer's money and catering to his wishes of not building it, than the welfare of the people and job creation. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ergo the Federal Government leviathan.

Posted by: KDS on May 18, 2014 09:26 PM
7. @6: Trying to conflate coal and oil here ? Ron did it himself.
Humor. It is a difficult concept. Ron is trying to mash together certain things that don't make any sense to consider together. Train cars full of coal are not related to pipelines in Texas.

It is a no-brainer that the Keystone Pipeline be built
Hardly -- the Keystone Pipeline has nothing to do with national energy security or even boosting production. It has everything to do with bringing oil to regional and international markets where TransCanada can get more profit. That's it. Extending the pipeline over sensitive aquifers seems like a risky proposition just so that some folks can make more profit.

but it is transparent and apparent that the White House and Democrat party is more interested in Tom Steyer's money and catering to his wishes of not building it...
Are you arguing that TransCanada is providing NO money to political campaigns to get elected officials to approve the pipeline?

...than the welfare of the people and job creation.
Fifty to one hundred permanent jobs, with 2,000 temporary jobs for a year or two? Those impacts are really too low to be part of any serious nationwide push for a massive undertaking like this.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ergo the Federal Government leviathan.
But, naturally, the money funneling to the private sector from a project like this NEVER corrupts anything, ever.

Posted by: demo kid on May 18, 2014 10:43 PM
8. Since I have neither time nor inclination to explain my jokes to you, Rags, here's a link to the crypto-Bolshevik haters of America, at their subversive underground newspaper, "Forbes," explaining it for you: The Terrifying Texas G.O.P. Platform.

Enjoy!

Posted by: tensor on May 19, 2014 07:06 AM
9. I notice the comment section is 100% left-wing loons this time.

Posted by: SmoledMan on May 19, 2014 12:37 PM
10. "Are you arguing that TransCanada is providing NO money to political campaigns to get elected officials to approve the pipeline?"

A non-sequitor. Are you arguing that TransCanada is providing more money to the Democrat party than Tom Steyer ? Citation please. HA ! , Steyer's deep pockets control the Democrats in the Senate and their dumb a$$ leader.

"...than the welfare of the people and job creation.
Fifty to one hundred permanent jobs, with 2,000 temporary jobs for a year or two? Those impacts are really too low to be part of any serious nationwide push for a massive undertaking like this."

Talking points of the White House, with a proven negative intellect on economic matters. They fault capitalism for the nation's economic ills, in spite of history that contradicts them at every turn. Once again, citation please.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ergo the Federal Government leviathan.
But, naturally, the money funneling to the private sector from a project like this NEVER corrupts anything, ever."

Moot point. A centralized Federal Government will their political will is ALWAYS able to override the affects of the private sector. The executive and legislative branches are able to trump the affects of the private sector, as demonstrated here. Case closed.

Posted by: KDS on May 19, 2014 10:04 PM
11. @10. A non-sequitor. Are you arguing that TransCanada is providing more money to the Democrat party than Tom Steyer ? Citation please. HA ! , Steyer's deep pockets control the Democrats in the Senate and their dumb a$$ leader.
A citation is not needed -- I'm asking you if you would actually believe that money does NOT factor into the decisions by supporters of the pipeline. Apparently, you believe that one private donor can outspend a company with a financial interest in the project.

Talking points of the White House, with a proven negative intellect on economic matters. They fault capitalism for the nation's economic ills, in spite of history that contradicts them at every turn. Once again, citation please.
Nope, not from the White House -- the State Department. And again, you're taking the lead from a company that has a vested interest in lying to make lots of money? You're not thinking critically.

Moot point. A centralized Federal Government will their political will is ALWAYS able to override the affects of the private sector. The executive and legislative branches are able to trump the affects of the private sector, as demonstrated here. Case closed.
There is a public interest in ensuring that spills do not impact critical environmental resources. Likewise, as noted in the article linked at the beginning, state governments have been using the power of eminent domain to HELP with the project by taking land away from its owners.

Simply blathering on about a "centralized government" makes no sense in this case. This is an international and interstate project with significant impacts. Assuming that the federal government should NOT oversee the project is foolish.

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2014 11:18 PM
12. Simply blathering on about a "centralized government" makes no sense in this case. This is an international and interstate project with significant impacts. Assuming that the federal government should NOT oversee the project is foolish.

Posted by demo kid at May 19, 2014 11:18 PM

By that comment you choose to be willfully ignorant and dancing around the topic. I was speaking specifically of this Administration. They are clearly anti-business. No further explanation needed. I stand by my previous comment.

"Steyer's deep pockets control the Democrats in the Senate and their dumb a$$ leader.
A citation is not needed -- I'm asking you if you would actually believe that money does NOT factor into the decisions by supporters of the pipeline. Apparently, you believe that one private donor can outspend a company with a financial interest in the project."

NO, I wasn't arguing that Trans-Canada is not lobbying for the pipeline - that should have been apparent about this or any other political issue. Why are you afraid to respond to the core matter of this issue ? You are stuck on proponents with an interest and I am asking for a comparison and wagering that Mr. Steyer has outspent these proponents. We see that you are anti-pipeline and closed-minded about the benefits, but why be intellectually dishonest about it ?

Posted by: KDS on May 20, 2014 07:23 AM
13. @12: By that comment you choose to be willfully ignorant and dancing around the topic. I was speaking specifically of this Administration. They are clearly anti-business. No further explanation needed. I stand by my previous comment.
Then you're simply foolish. This is an international and interstate project, and the federal government has clear jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with centralization of power, since the power to review the project has already been granted to the federal government.

You are stuck on proponents with an interest and I am asking for a comparison and wagering that Mr. Steyer has outspent these proponents. We see that you are anti-pipeline and closed-minded about the benefits, but why be intellectually dishonest about it ?
I'm saying that you are ignoring a larger picture of influence that extends to both parties, on both sides. Stating that "the White House and Democrat party is more interested in Tom Steyer's money" and NOT stating that the Republicans are simply interested in donations and kickbacks from oil companies and investors is either willfully dishonest or hopefully naive. I have no illusions that buying votes is somehow better when I agree with the results.

I'm also hardly closed-minded about the benefits, I'm just realistic about them and more critical about the costs. Still, what fascinates me to no end is that conservatives are not up in arms about the abuse of eminent domain here. Apparently, the Fifth Amendment is not worth a fight if big conservative donors tell you to ignore it, and taking someone's land is fine as long as there's an oil pipeline involved.

Posted by: demo kid on May 20, 2014 10:13 PM
14. 'I'm saying that you are ignoring a larger picture of influence that extends to both parties, on both sides. Stating that "the White House and Democrat party is more interested in Tom Steyer's money"

The big picture is that Tom Steyer has outspent the opposition with his donations that incentive for the Senate to not authorize the Pipeline. Your's is stating the obvious (see @12). How about providing a citation of how much money has been spent by both sides ? (I'll be surprised if you do)

"and NOT stating that the Republicans are simply interested in donations and kickbacks from oil companies and investors is either willfully dishonest or hopefully naive."

In your own mind - read: NO, I wasn't arguing that Trans-Canada is not lobbying for the pipeline - that should have been apparent about this or any other political issue. Your reading comprehension is lacking.

Posted by: KDS on May 21, 2014 05:40 PM
15. @14: You are saying that politics are being influenced by money, as am I. Are you also arguing that somehow the proponents of Keystone XL are NOT being bought?

If you agree, then this debate is pretty much over, since we have exactly the same position on this. If you don't... well... you're painfully naive.

Posted by: demo kid on May 21, 2014 06:43 PM