Tossed over the transom.



Who isn't against offensive violence?

Very interesting, come one-come all? Wonder if they will post the entrance?

Wed 11-4? Do these people not have jobs?

*side note: I am also against unsolicited gun violence.

Well, people are against ALL violence. It's like being against Budweiser drinkers because of liver damage and car accidents.

Some gunnies should attend and encourage the money be given to anger management programs instead of gun control politicians; at least the stated goals of such programs is to reduce violence, and they focus on the violent people instead wasting efforts regulating the rest of us.

Ideally, some other do-gooders would come and hyjack the meeting...

Take a bit of a trip into the non-profit, professional activist world. These ARE these people's jobs, writing proposals, fund raising, giving each other awards, issuing press releases. 30+ of them showed up at the "die-in" last month at the Capitol, not because they had nothing better to do, but because this is what they do for a living: support each others' causes. They assume "professional victim" status, so that real victims need not. And they get grant (usually charitably given) money to do it, so they can pay themselves salaries.

I thought about that but there's a fee to attend.

All from the expense accounts. MCN is a huge umbrella organization of these types, odd that they would get involved with such a narrow group as CSM. Likely CSM is working on local funding, as Joyce money is drying up. (Possibly given to Obama?)

Joyce has lots of money, 935 million dollars as of May 6. Foundations have to give away 6 percent of their assets each year to retain their tax-free status.

They'll be around.

It's a great job, figure how to give away about 58 million each year, and your work is done!

Wow, I knew that they were big, but not that big. With that kind of money, luckily guns are only one of their pet projects.

Joyce does good stuff too, IMHO.

They've funded the legal battle against the proposed BigStone 2 Coal plant, which has recently resulted in a recommendation that Minnesota not force it's citizens to subsidize a special transmission line for a proposed coal power plant that would, among other things, result in Minnesotans and North Dakotans being forced to buy power from South Dakota at a wholesale rate of $60 per Meg for electricity vs $45 per Meg, as well as deal with a bunch of pollution, and major water appropriation, plus pay for dedicated transmission lines.

This is a tough case, because the South Dakota Public Utility Commission is rather a stacked deck.

Regardless of whether one believes CO2 is science or politics, this project is a major ripoff for electricity users.

Yikes, $80! That'll keep the riffraff out I guess.

I consider that doing bad stuff. Big Stone II should be built. Whether you build more wind turbines in that area or a coal plant, you still need the transmission lines. At a time when we're facing rising energy costs, building baseload plants is what we need to do. I'd rather see more nuke plants being built, but coal plants will do just fine.

I don't really think my gov't should have much to say about it either way.

80 dollars, WOW. Thats a day at the range with a few hundred rounds!! Although it would be interesting to attend if i didn't have to work. I wonder if they will post?

Well, I'm in the wind business, in a small but significant way, and we've studied the figures.

Wind does not "need" these lines, we cannot even use +500KV lines, and the lines are proposed to be dedicated, and "unavailable" to Minnesota wind projects.

I am talking "base load", the $45 Meg stuff is wind with gas backup, so it's base power. The coal plant is "estimated" at $60 per Meg, with a carbon tax of $9.00 per ton. (Senator McCain has proposed $80 per ton, so I think the $9 is a bit low, and the true figures are actually worse. Obama, I don't know.)

The wind shoud be distributed, you don't use huge power lines for wind energy, unless you're wholsaling out of state, and in that case, you don't ask the PUC to order your regulated ratepayers to be responsible for the cost.

You're listening to Company propaganda, or talk radio garbage.

The Judges looked at the evidence, and they agree with me.

Now it's up to the politicians on the Minnesota PUC, to see if they'll apply the law to the facts of the case, or make the captive electrictiy customers subsidize the power companies, and the rail roads, and Cheney's Wyoming coal friends, who give them lots more money than they get from their constituants.

Plus, our State and the Dakotas have a vast surplus of power, our ratepayers should not have to subsidize wholesalers. Other areas do have other issues.

"BS #2" is properly named. And without a funder like Joyce, we wouldn't even have the facts. But hey, this is Bushman's America, we don't need facts, just rhetoric.