Thursday, March 20, 2014

If the Columbian is against the oil terminal = it obviously is a great idea!

Generally speaking, for years now, our community has been best served by doing the exact opposite of the Lazy C's agendas and positions: the oil terminal is no exception.

That the democratian opposes this job creator because someone bluffed about ending the hated and, again, taxpayer subsidized waterfront development that will, again, enrich the very few at the costs of the many is the main reason I support it.

In the stilted minds of the local excuse for a newspaper, only they know what's good for us.  Only they know what we should do, when we should do it and, of course, how it should be done.

And, like me, I freely admit that they are entitled to their opinions, as bizarre and obviously fringe-left as they usually are.

The problem, of course, is that the democratian has a much higher likelihood of, well, just being wrong.

They have a much higher likelihood of taking positions based not on what's best for the community, but on spite, greed, avarice, narcissism, and in the case of conservatives, downright hate.

Fringe-left positioning aside, as a reader, it's singularly impossible to determine when the positions of the waste of wood pulp are based on facts and reality,  or based on the petulant jerk-iness Lefty Lou is known for.

This, I believe, is a matter of that.

The cancer on Clark County offers no reason not to build this oil terminal that doesn't begin and end with their personal preference.  Their natural public inclination is to go with the fringer enviro groups when it serves them to do so (They typically ignored those groups as much as they ignored the people of this county on the CRC Scam: so using environmental groups not to justify anything one way or the other is just another example of their hypocrisy.)

For example, instead of writing:
It is worth keeping in mind that Dan Serres is an advocate for one particular point of view.
Like this excuse for journalism isn't?

They could have written:
We found someone who shares our view that we agree with even if no one else cares.
And then Greg wrote this nonsense:
Still, the words from the conservation director for environmental group Columbia Riverkeeper should resonate with local residents when he talks about the prospect of vast amounts of crude oil moving through the region: "Any of it spilled in the Columbia would be devastating. The risk to the river is just wildly disproportionate to the amount of jobs, benefit, whatever they're talking about. It's huge."
Well, hell.  If any of a large number of things happened to the Columbia, it would be "devastating."

If nuclear waste fell into it.  If a plane crashed into it carrying poisonous chemicals.  If the sources of the river dried up.  If a small nuclear device was detonated.  If, if, if.

The fact is that hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil ALREADY transit the tracks next to the river and have done so for decades.  Who whined about that?

Folks, this isn't about the possibility of "if any of it spilled into the Columbia."  This is about the likely arranged-for-public-consumption bluff of those attempting to develop the waterfront... at some large public expense.


The rag typically tries to frighten people to get what they want: When that fails, they typically engage in personal attacks... like roughly every word they've ever printed about David Madore.

When Jayne lies like this, for example:
Serres' words represent one view, yet they ring more powerfully than the counter-arguments put forth by advocates for the terminal.
Lie number one.

They certainly do not, particularly when considered through the lens of the true reasons for the democratian's opposition to this terminal, which has nothing to do with environmental concerns and everything to do with the impacts of aesthetics on their waterfront dream... our public nightmare.

Anyone who believes this crap needs to sell their cars and/or trucks and walk or bicycle.  They need to get rid of every plastic product they own.  They need to make sure they use NOTHING based on petroleum.
BNSF Railway officials point out that 99.997 percent of all hazardous material moved by rail reaches its destination without incident. But with the volume that is being discussed for Vancouver, those averages translate into more than 4,000 barrels of crude annually winding up on the ground or in the water.
Lie number two.

Words, having meaning and all, the hidden inference is that every ounce of ever barrel missing would wind up in our river.... as if the figures BNSF provided were not NATION WIDE, over tens of thousands of miles of track.

Again, thousands of barrels of oil ALREADY transit the river annually.  Obviously then, this isn't about oil in the proximity of the river... this is about waterfront development.

Obviously, the Lazy C doesn't want to talk about their true motivations for their opposition.  Instead, they want to show they've, once again, failed to learn any lessons from their LAST series of lies, exaggerations, and distortions... the CRC Scam.

And how'd that work out for them?

The entirety of this editorial is to instill fear in the ignorant... which is pretty much what this waste of wood pulp exists to do: presume that we're stupid... that we can't think for ourselves... and to act like Bob Hope's zombies:

Greg goes on to tell us "A majority of Vancouver City Council members said this week that they oppose the terminal."

And that's the biggest hypocrisy of all.

A huge majority of the people of Clark County opposes the loot rail scam.  A huge majority oppose the CRC.  The majority of the county commission opposed that rip off as well.

Yet, this same rag ignored all of the opposition to the CRC, attacking opponents and castigating those who questioned the process, the decisions, the entirety of this rip off.

So, here's the thing: I don't give a damn that a "majority of the city council" oppose the terminal.  In fact, I care as much about their opposition as they cared about ours on the idiocy of the CRC rip off... and that, quite apparently, was none at all.

And the final lie of so many by Jayne:
Yet on every talking point in the back-and-forth debate, the idea of rejecting the oil terminal simply makes more sense for the people of Clark County. The very real dangers outweigh the benefits of bringing vast amounts of crude to the city.
First, as this rag has shown for more than a decade, they could care less what the people of this county want when that doesn't jibe with their agenda.  Correspondingly, what the rag wants doesn't matter to those same people, abused and insulted by this very paper for years now.

Second, "the very real dangers" are over hyped fantasy nonsense because... and again, they failed to mention it: Their concern is ONLY any impact, real or imagined, on waterfront development.

Anything else is the arrogance and narcissism of the residual contempt for the people of this community.

Ignore the naysayers with the hidden agenda.  Build the terminal.  Do whatever it takes to put the safety requirements needed in place.  But get this thing built, develop these high wage, permanent jobs and do it now.

If the democratian's fantasy waterfront development doesn't happen as a result?

So much the better.

No comments: