[Vision2020] More
Jim Meyer
m1e2y3e4 at moscow.com
Tue Jan 31 00:32:57 PST 2006
Note to Phil Nisbet (reply follows):
I considered not sending this to the list but reluctantly decided to
publicly reply. As before, you astound me with your unwillingness to see
more than one side--but it is your thoughts that interest me because I
cannot understand your outlook coming from the rational being that I
think that you could be. That is really the only reason I am
communicating. I am trying to get more points of view. I am listening,
learning, open. But it seems, well, shall we say, that you are clearly
one-sided regardless of facts. It is not just you. I know a lot of
people like you. It bothers me that there are so many people who let
emotions run their lives, even without knowing it.. It seems at times
some people are from another world, with different laws of physics and
humanity. It makes me fear for our country when facts, logic, telling
the truth, and putting 2 +2 together don't really count for a large
percentage of our country. I think maybe the MRI study I mentioned
really explains everything. What do you think? I read recently read an
academic paper on the 70 years of politics in Idaho up until about 1980.
One comment that stands out to me is that the political parties will
change but only as the result of a massive upheaval. Apparently it is
only major upheaval that will get people thinking and maybe even then
you couldn't really define it as thinking, just reacting. I was hoping
we had enough upheaval to get people thinking, but you prove me wrong. I
guess we need a true catastrophe. How sad. How naive of me to think
otherwise. Anyway, thanks for the time you spent on your responses. It
was educational for me and I hope it was some benefit, however small,
for you. I have and had no intent to attack you or annoy you. I
apologize if I have. It is more like science to me--matter of fact--not
personal. I learned what I wanted to learn. I don't think I will be
continuing in this vein any longer, except my reply below.
Jim
===============================================================================
Reply to Phil
I was trying to be nice but still make a point, that is why I used no
names. But since you ask--I will oblige.
You said, "What Ivins said is that the government was responsible for a
lightening strike’s ignition of methane gas that is an inherent part of
any coal seam in the bituminous grade."
On the contrary--she said no such thing. All she did was ask this, "a
few reporters have enough sense to ask the obvious question: What is
this mine's safety record? And when it turns out to be abysmal, a few
more reporters have enough sense to ask: Who's in charge of doing
something after a mine gets 205 safety violations in one year? Where's
the Mine Safety and Health Administration? Who runs it? What's their
background -- are they professionals or mining industry stooges? Who's
the Michael "Heckuvajob" Brown in this outfit? Why are so many jobs at
MSHA just left completely unfilled? How much has MSHA's budget been cut
since 2001 to pay for tax cuts for the rich?"
These are reasonable questions to ask. They are merely questions. Are
you afraid to face the answers? Can you engage in "ruthless
self-reflection" ?
As Mike Curley said, "I know you responded to Keely, but having had a
minute today to look at email, I happened to have read both her post and
yours, and I was puzzled. It seemed to me you saw something I didn't. So
I re-read the Molly Ivins column that was part of Keely's post. It
didn't say that the miners were bad guys, that they didn't love their
jobs, that they weren't dedicated, weren't generous, or weren't well paid."
Why do you make things up? I mean the emotional and unrelated wording--I
assume your facts are correct such as they are. I really don't like to
say this but you remind me of Dale Courtney. Do the ends justify the
means for you also? Are the ends more important than squarely facing all
the facts, including those that don't support your presuppositions?
Dale's integrity is already in the sewer and he knows exactly what he is
doing, but you, why do you do it? Isn't it time for some "ruthless
self-reflection?" Perhaps the article that follows will give you some
reason to question your asssumptions and look further.There is a lot
more out there. You just have to open the other eye--the one that is
looking but not seeing.
Jim
================================================================================
MSHA and the Sago Mine Disaster
*How Many Brownies are there in this Administration?*
*by Scott Lilly
January 6, 2006*
The terrible story from West Virginia that blanketed the nation’s
television screens this week should be a further reminder of the cost of
corrupt and incompetent government. There is virtually no one who will
argue that the Sago Mine was operating at an acceptable level of safety.
/USA Today/
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-04-mine-violations_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA>
this morning reports that the mine
/“had been cited for hundreds of federal safety violations since it
opened in 1999, government records show. Among the infractions were at
least 16 related to failures to prevent or adequately monitor the
buildup of explosive gases in the mine.”/
So why didn’t somebody do something? The answer to that is directly
attributable to the individuals in whose hands the safety of miners and
other workers has been placed by this administration and the prevailing
mind set within the administration on any issue in which business
interests differs from those of workers.
A year ago last November, President Bush’s appointed head of the Mine
Safety and Health Administration, David Lauriski, resigned his position
citing family reasons. His resignation came shortly after a Labor
Department Inspector General report
<http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2005/25-05-001-06-001b.pdf>
confirmed a CBS “60 Minutes”
<http://www.jackspadaro.com/news_articles/2004/04_04_04/60min04_04_04.pdf>
report that under his direction the agency had improperly awarded
no-bid, single-source contracts. Two of those companies had ties to
Lauriski and one of his assistants.
But Lauriski is best remembered at MSHA for his attempt to push through
a change in regulations governing coal dust levels that he proposed and
lobbied on behalf of as a senior executive with Energy West Mining
Company of Utah. Since the change uniquely benefited only his former
employer, it was opposed by not only the Mine Workers but also mine
operators other than Energy West. Lauriski was able to side with the
other mine operators on a host of other regulatory changes detrimental
to worker safety. According to the /New York Times
<http://www.theocracywatch.org/environment_coal_times_aug9_04.htm>/,
MSHA under his direction
/“rescinded more than a half-dozen proposals intended to make coal
miners' jobs safer, including steps to limit miners' exposure to toxic
chemicals. One rule pushed by the agency would make it easier for
companies to use diesel generators underground, which miners say could
increase the risk of fire.”/
It took a full ten months for the White House to even nominate a
replacement for Lauriski and the Senate has yet to act on his
confirmation leaving the agency without a permanent director now for 14
months.
The administration’s efforts with respect to mine safety cannot be
explained solely on the basis of relaxed regulation. The enforcement of
the remaining regulations has also been under attack. As Carol Raulston,
a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, told the /Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette <http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06005/632959.stm>/
yesterday, /“What we have seen that is different with the Bush
administration is that they put a little more emphasis on working with
mining companies….”/
One way of working with the mining companies is to cut fines. Peg
Seminario of the AFL-CIO estimates that the average fine per violation
levied against Anker Group Incorporated, the company that operated Sago
Mine, was about $247—little more than a minor expense of doing business.
A second means of cutting back on enforcement is cutting back on
inspectors. Last February, President Bush asked the Congress to
appropriate $280 million for MSHA, cutting the number of full time
positions in the agency by 146. That proposal was approved by Congress
just before Christmas on narrow votes in both Houses. Subsequently
Congress approved a 1 percent across the board cut to all agencies,
cutting the MSHA’s budget by an additional $2.8 million and leaving it
about $10 million below the FY 2005 funding level after adjusting for
inflation. As a result of Congress’s action, the cut in mine inspections
will be even deeper than the level proposed by the White House.
What is even more disturbing is that this is not a problem that simply
affects mining. At the time that David Lauriski was going out the door,
a new Bush appointee to be acting director of the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, an agency responsible for the workplace
safety of most Americans who don’t work in mines was coming in. Jonathan
L. Snare brings credentials to OSHA that should give pause to any
working family watching television coverage of the Sago Mine disaster.
Before arriving at the Labor Department, Snare was a lawyer and lobbyist
in the Texas-based firm of Jackson and Walker, LLP, a firm claiming
<http://www.jw.com/site/jsp/practiceinfo.jsp?id=30> to specialize in,
among other things, “appropriate discipline of employees” and “union
avoidance campaigns.” Among his clients
<http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/15/ephedra.investigatio/>
was Metabolife International, the leading provider of the weight loss
supplement Ephedra, which was eventually banned after the Food and Drug
Administration received numerous reports of deaths linked to its
ingestion. A criminal investigation of the company was launched
following an FDA request to the Justice Department to determine if the
company had made false statements regarding the supplement. Since then
Metabolife and one of its cofounders has pleaded guilty to numerous
counts of tax evasion. Twelve million Americans had been using the
supplement before the FDA action.
While Snare’s lobbying activity involved him in some health and safety
issues—although rarely on the side of consumers or workers—he seems to
have spent much of his time on politics. He served as Election
Operations Vice-President of the Republican National Lawyers Committee,
General Counsel to the Texas Senate Redistricting Committee and General
Counsel to the Republican Party of Texas.
There seems to be no end to the number of Michael Brown “act-a-likes”
that can be found in the Bush administration. The corruption that is at
the base of the remarkable fundraising machine assembled by this White
Hose and their allies in Congress drives an ever increasing wedge
between the interests of ordinary Americans, such as the miners who died
this week in West Virginia, and the special interests that currently
fuel the good life in Washington.
Also, Read: Protecting the American People: A Progressive Alternative to
the Bush Administration
<http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1360675>, by
John Podesta and Reece Rushing
/Scott Lilly is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress./
------------------------------
>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:51:29 -0800
>From: "Phil Nisbet" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] What I learned (aka thinking v.
> self-deceipt)
>To: m1e2y3e4 at moscow.com
>Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Message-ID: <BAY108-F3360D776BAC62A4A4D69D1EA090 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>I need to reply to something that is obviously directed at me. It interests
>me that Jim does not seem aware that I have been working in the minerals
>industry, including a not inconsiderable few years spent underground.
>
>Jim tells us;
>
>“Are you a thinking person? You know, the kind of person that is
>introspective enough to test his/her own thoughts and prejudices when
>confronted with a differing truth. Can you really THINK? “
>
>So Phil replies;
>
>Reading your response below I would have to question your ability to think
>and not to act in a highly partisan fashion that makes little or no sense
>when looking at facts objectively. As per your Emory study, your reward
>center must be lit up like a Christmass Tree when you ead a Molly Ivins
>article.
>
>Jim writes..
>
>”What I learned recently is that two die-hard Republicans on V2020 believe
>Molly Ivins is an idiot--as is anyone who would even consider her thoughts
>is an idiot, as evidenced by both their initial comments--"Are you kidding?"
>and then by their avoidance of addressing the questions Molly asks, and one
>of them even going so far as to put words in her mouth she didn't say and
>then discounting them.”
>
>And I reply;
>
>Molly is a partisan who does not care for inconvenient truths. And I do
>have a name Jim, you can use it. And you would have nothing to write the
>rest of the post with had I not address the issue of Molly not dealing with
>the facts. Now care to tell us all what words were placed in Molly Ivins
>mouth?
>
>Jim then presents things he thinks are facts;
>
>”Well, here here are the facts about mine safety as I can discern them.”
>
>I reply;
>
>Yes Jim, you have very little knowledge of mines or mine safety, which makes
>your discernment of the subject pretty weak and based upon research that is
>not very detailed.
>
>Jim Fact #1
>
>”--Under the Bush Administration, since 2001, fines have been routinely
>dismissed or diminished--one example is $450,000 being reduced to $3000.”
>
>And the real fact
>
>Mine safety violation fines were reduced under Clinton as well Companies
>have often pitched such fines to their Senators, the most powerful of whom
>is Sen. Byrd of West Virginia. Total fines and violations have not
>decreased between the two administration What has changed is that under
>Clinton, the US Bureau of Mines was destroyed and the $100,000,000 a year in
>funding for mine safety research was taken with it. The USBM was the agency
>which came up with new mine safety devices and also with new mine safety
>regulations, MSHA was and is solely the enforcement group. So since 1996,
>there have been no new ideas in Mine Safety. St Molly of Fort Worth was the
>person who lead the charge to do in the US Bureau of Mines, something you
>seem to have conveniently forgotten.
>
>Jim Fact 2
>
>”--Under the Bush Administration, the requirement to have two shafts, one
>for the miners ventilation and one for the coal conveyor has been
>unenforced.”
>
>The real facts
>
>First, please provide any evidence for your statement there. The
>requirement for a separate man way is standard. Care to provide any proof
>that MSHA did not enforce that requirement? If you are referencing the most
>recent mine fire, the conveyor was in a separate drift and there were
>numerous other manways. Frankly I doubt you would know a shaft from an adit
>from a decline from a drift or a crosscut or be able to tell stopes from
>longwall cuts. Further, ventilation is not something that shafts provide,
>shafts are the means of enterence and exit from a mine working and
>ventilation is provided most often by ducting in the various adits and
>shafts of a mine.
>
>Jim Facts 3, 4, 5 ect
>
>”--That it is considerably cheaper to pay for a dead miner than pay for all
>miner's safety. It costs $20 each for a personal pager sized device that can
>locate a miner in the mine. It is made in Australia, by the way. It costs
>about $800 for a text messaging device that can allow those outside the mine
>to communicate with trapped miners. These items were not in use at the Sago
>mine. The company owning the Sago Mine paid for the equivalent of pine box
>funeral and made Cobra insurance payments for, I believe 1 & 1/2 years for
>the family members of killed miners. The family members also receive
>$150,000 or $300,000 in life insurance payments. That is it. If you do the
>math, you can see that it is less costly to pay for killed miners than it is
>to pay for their safety.”
>
>Line of sight devices do not work underground. You can equip every single
>miner with a pager and it will do absolutely nothing for locating them if
>they are not within your line of sight. Transmission of signals
>communication through hundreds to thousands of feet of solid rock using a
>tiny device is simply not going to happen. The US Bureau of Mines was
>working on devices that could do that kind of job, but the scrapping of the
>complete Agency did tend to do in the potential to get devices designed and
>tested.
>
>As for the Australian device that you reference, it is brand new. The PED
>and Tracker system requires more than simply putting a pager on each miner.
>Frankly it’s a good idea, but it was not even approved for use in the US
>until about a month prior to the Sago Mine disaster and it is not mandated
>by MSHA or required by the UMW. The Australians are just now installing all
>the equipment as are the New Zealanders and the company involved in the
>systems design is now looking at selling it into Japan. Of course the
>Aussies were just following through with the ideas and the preliminary work
>that the US Bureau of Mines had going back in 1993-6 and all of the Sago
>Miners would have had a US made device had the R & D on it not been wiped
>out by the Clinton Administration, but who the heck is counting. You can
>send a nice thank you letter to Molly Ivins for being such a big supporter
>of doing in the USBM’s on that one.
>
>As for the pay outs from the International Coal Group, you are totally all
>wet. First, they have a policy for $5,000 in funeral expenses, which is
>considerably more than a pine box. Next, in addition to the $300,000 in
>life insurance, each family is getting over $300,000 from the company for
>education of their minor children and support for their widows. The company
>is also paying the families the lost miner’s wages for a two years
>readjustment period and is honoring the pension clauses that the men had in
>their contracts, so that the widows will get a retirement income. You do
>the math, because it’s considerably more than the sum you suggest.
>
>ICG lost 12 men with a lot of experience, had a mine hit by lightening that
>blew up, lost infrastructure and a lot of production capacity. They also
>sprang a lot of money for the mine rescue operation. All told, they are out
>tens of millions of dollars. Now please try to convince me that they were
>not interested in seeing the mine operated such that it would not blow up
>and that they would not lose money by the ream. Having your mine blown to
>kingdom come is something any company wants to avoid, yet you are suggesting
>that somehow they would allow it to be liable to explode at the drop of a
>hat. Ideological blinders and your reward sensor hitting overload have to
>be at play on that one.
>
>Jim strange facts;
>
>”--Although mine deaths have gone down over 30 years, it needs to be taken
>into account that the numbers of underground miners has gone done
>dramatically also, probably by more than 1/2.”
>
>And this is a bad thing? If there had been a dramatic increase in Mine
>related fatalities since the Bush Administration came into office you might
>have something to talk about, but the fatality rate has been steady state
>for close to a decade. It might have fallen further had the US Bureau of
>Mines not been wiped off the map.
>
>Jim yet stranger factoid;
>
>“--That since 2001, federal mine safety regulators emphasized getting along
>with the company--not miner safety.”
>
>Are you totally unaware that this policy was put in place under Clinton? As
>a matter of fact, the numbers of mine health and safety violations and
>citations has not decreased, so they are still inspecting as much as under
>Clinton/Gore, they are simply resolving the issues, working for compliance
>rather than working to increase the fines. Is the objective in your eyes to
>have miners get a safer work place? Or is it to collect money? Because
>collecting lots of fines does not make for a safer work place, but demanding
>compliance does.
>
>And then Jim has this strange “fact”;
>
>”--That like Katrina, some questionable people, closely related to industry,
>were in positions affecting mine safety, one of those being an OSHA head.”
>
>Name one person appointed by Bush who actually has anything to do with MINE
>safety that you think is questionable. You see OSHA has nothing to do with
>underground mine safety and not one regulator at MSHA fits your supposed
>bill of indictment. It’s extremely disingenuous to suggest that an
>unrelated agency head with no authority for underground mine safety might be
>conflicted in the Sago Mine disaster.
>
>
>Then Jim Notes;
>
>”In other words, Molly Ivins asked perfectly reasonable questions and these
>were entirely dismissed by some of you on V2020. I guess your reward center
>must be just glowing.”
>
>I can only reply;
>
>No Jim, in other words your knee jerk support for the kinds of falsehoods
>that Molly spreads has your little pleasure centers humming and lighting up
>the boards.
>
>And then Jim gives us advice;
>
>”By the way, the CSPAN website has the Senate Appropriations Mine Safety
>subcommittee hearings on it. Do what I did, listen to that and then do a
>little research on your own. And then think (without the usual emotion).”
>
>Good advice, you really should start to do research and not rely on
>propaganda so much. Try starting with basic references like what a mine is
>and work your way up to reading what MSHA had to actually say about why the
>accident occurred. You might just find out a little something that does not
>fit into your ideology driven agenda. In the mean time try not to think you
>can teach your grandma how to suck eggs.
>
>Phil Nisbet
>
>
>
>
>
>>From: Jim Meyer <m1e2y3e4 at moscow.com>
>>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: [Vision2020] What I learned (aka thinking v. self-deceipt)
>>Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:27:44 -0800
>>
>>Are you a thinking person? You know, the kind of person that is
>>introspective enough to test his/her own thoughts and prejudices when
>>confronted with a differing truth. Can you really THINK?
>>
>>"Emory University psychologist Drew Weston has found that our brains have a
>>convenient way of processing facts that challenge our political
>>convictions. Using MRI scanners, Weston found that when committed
>>Republicans and Democrats were confronted with negative information about
>>politicians they supported, the parts of the brain responsible for
>>reasoning essentially shut down--and "emotion circuits" lit up. As the
>>subjects dealt with their inner conflict by discounting the new
>>information, the brains "reward centers" lit up--a response similar to what
>>addicts experience when they get a fix. Biases can be overcome, Weston
>>tells The New York Times, but only if people are willing to engage in
>>"ruthless self-reflection"--a quality , he notes, that's "rarely talked
>>about in politics." Nor is it likely to be. It's so much more rewarding to
>>close our minds" The Week, Feb 3rd 2006.
>>
>>What I learned recently is that two die-hard Republicans on V2020 believe
>>Molly Ivins is an idiot--as is anyone who would even consider her thoughts
>>is an idiot, as evidenced by both their initial comments--"Are you
>>kidding?" and then by their avoidance of addressing the questions Molly
>>asks, and one of them even going so far as to put words in her mouth she
>>didn't say and then discounting them.
>>
>>Well, here here are the facts about mine safety as I can discern them.
>>--Under the Bush Administration, since 2001, fines have been routinely
>>dismissed or diminished--one example is $450,000 being reduced to $3000.
>>
>>--Under the Bush Administration, the requirement to have two shafts, one
>>for the miners ventilation and one for the coal conveyor has been
>>unenforced.
>>
>>--That it is considerably cheaper to pay for a dead miner than pay for all
>>miner's safety. It costs $20 each for a personal pager sized device that
>>can locate a miner in the mine. It is made in Australia, by the way. It
>>costs about $800 for a text messaging device that can allow those outside
>>the mine to communicate with trapped miners. These items were not in use at
>>the Sago mine. The company owning the Sago Mine paid for the equivalent of
>>pine box funeral and made Cobra insurance payments for, I believe 1 & 1/2
>>years for the family members of killed miners. The family members also
>>receive $150,000 or $300,000 in life insurance payments. That is it. If you
>>do the math, you can see that it is less costly to pay for killed miners
>>than it is to pay for their safety.
>>
>>--Although mine deaths have gone down over 30 years, it needs to be taken
>>into account that the numbers of underground miners has gone done
>>dramatically also, probably by more than 1/2.
>>
>>--That since 2001, federal mine safety regulators emphasized getting along
>>with the company--not miner safety.
>>
>>--That like Katrina, some questionable people, closely related to industry,
>>were in positions affecting mine safety, one of those being an OSHA head..
>>
>>In other words, Molly Ivins asked perfectly reasonable questions and these
>>were entirely dismissed by some of you on V2020. I guess your reward center
>>must be just glowing.
>>
>>By the way, the CSPAN website has the Senate Appropriations Mine Safety
>>subcommittee hearings on it. Do what I did, listen to that and then do a
>>little research on your own. And then think (without the usual emotion).
>>
>>Jim Meyer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 20, Issue 380
>*******************************************
>
>.
>
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list