Baja Democrats - Latest Comments

Re: YIMBY, NIYBY: Yes on Apache Power Plant, No on Rosemount Mine

4RH3 — Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:28:28 -0000

Baja democrat: If you like your coal generating plant, you can keep it, along with all the related jobs and the Wyoming strip mines that supply it. If you like your air conditioner, car, modern appliances and computer, you can keep them too, along with the Arizona copper mines that make all those modern conveniences available to you. Without copper mining, world demand would
soon exhaust stockpiled and recycled copper, resulting in skyrocketing prices
and economic chaos.

Re: YIMBY, NIYBY: Yes on Apache Power Plant, No on Rosemount Mine

BajaDemocrats — Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:18:52 -0000

I must say that using phrases such as "war on coal" raises a red flag for me as it suggests right wing conspiracy theories, but the article does have some very useful information, thanks for the link, Jonathon. From the link in your article I see the Navajo Generating Station has also proposed a much less expensive alternative to meet EPA mandates, which is under consideration by the EPA.

As I indicated by my anecdotal experience living close to the Apache plant the only haze I experience is caused by strong winds picking up dust & sand, not the plant emissions. But I believe 'compromise' is a good word, and the power plants coming up with much less expensive means to reduce emissions is a good thing.

PS - With regards to the alleged Obama administration "war on coal", see this Sept. 2013 NY Time article detailing the administration's $8 billion energy dept. loan program to help the coal industry make cleaner energy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013...
To have safe, reliable, and affordable energy we need a mix of coal, gas, oil, nuclear, and solar & wind sources.

Re: YIMBY, NIYBY: Yes on Apache Power Plant, No on Rosemount Mine

Jonathan_Duhamel — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:40:03 -0000

About the alleged haze: nitrogen oxide emissions from electrical generating stations represent only about 1 percent of the constituents of haze. See my post: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wr...

Re: YIMBY, NIYBY: Yes on Apache Power Plant, No on Rosemount Mine

David_F_Briggs — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:05:19 -0000

Their insatiable demand? What about America's insatiable demand for copper as well as other minerals?

Annual U.S. consumption of copper is about 2 million short tons/year. America has 4.4% of the world's population but consumes 12% of the world's annual copper production.

Why shouldn't we produce more of the minerals we consume?

Re: YIMBY, NIYBY: Yes on Apache Power Plant, No on Rosemount Mine

BajaDemocrats — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 17:45:21 -0000

It's not a myth for copper demand in the U.S. - we recycle nearly double the amount of copper we have to import. There's a lot of closed factories and steel mills in the rust belt that need to be torn down and stripped of their copper.

The big developing countries like China and Brazil is a different story, they have an insatiable demand for more, newly mined copper and many other materials. Do we need to ravage the Santa Rita mountains to satisfy THEIR demand is the question.

Re: YIMBY, NIYBY: Yes on Apache Power Plant, No on Rosemount Mine

David_F_Briggs — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:51:48 -0000

Meeting the demand for copper solely by recycling is a myth. Most of the copper that has been mined throughout history is still currently being used today.

Re: YIMBY, NIYBY: Yes on Apache Power Plant, No on Rosemount Mine

BajaDemocrats — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:34:50 -0000

The know how to dig a really big hole in the ground was not exactly the technology I was talking about. OK, to be fair Rosemont has come up with some technological advances to use much less water than previous mining operations. But the technology to recycle and cleanly and cost effectively process existing materials so we don't have to dig more really big holes is the technology of the future.

Re: YIMBY, NIYBY: Yes on Apache Power Plant, No on Rosemount Mine

David_F_Briggs — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:37:53 -0000

"We are still the technological leader of the world " Are we the technological leader of the world? If so, we certainly won't be for very long if we continue to export the jobs that provide us these expertise.

Re: YIMBY, NIYBY: Yes on Apache Power Plant, No on Rosemount Mine

David_F_Briggs — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:36:08 -0000

"We can build clean, cost effective American facilities for processing recycled copper and/or expanding our smelter capacity for processing mined copper with tax incentives, low cost loans, subsidies and other incentives. And I believe that would be an effective and good use of our financial resources. Keep the recycled cooper and/or mined copper ore right here in America, creating American jobs. We can do it, and we should do it. "

I certainly agree with you on the point that we need to develop environmental clean mine and facilities to expand our domestic capacity to produce more of the products we consume here.

And Rosemont Copper is doing just that. They are investing $1.2 billion to develop a state-of-the-art mining operation that will employ Arizonans to produce an American made product, which will help reduce our dependency on foreign made products.

Re: YIMBY, NIYBY: Yes on Apache Power Plant, No on Rosemount Mine

David_F_Briggs — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:21:52 -0000

That was exactly my point. This is not unique to Rosemont Copper. All copper mined, whether it is mined, smelted and refined in the U.S. or elsewhere is sold on the world market. Whether you like it or not, we live in a world market and there is nothing you can do to change that reality.

It certainly is not a reason to deny Rosemont Copper an opportunity to develop their 21st century mining operation, if they are able to get all of the permits they require to to so.

Re: YIMBY, NIYBY: Yes on Apache Power Plant, No on Rosemount Mine

BajaDemocrats — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:40:45 -0000

??? You called my statement a "myth", and then re-affirmed exactly what I said - that refined that copper is sold on the world market to the highest bidder. And we agree completely that we don't assist American competitiveness by shutting down domestic industries. I advocated for the complete opposite, for creating an American domestic industry for cleanly and cost effectively processing recycled copper.

Re: YIMBY, NIYBY: Yes on Apache Power Plant, No on Rosemount Mine

David_F_Briggs — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:25:31 -0000

"Once that copper ore is exported for processing it is lost to us – it will be sold to the highest bidder from around the world."

This is a myth. Regardless of where the copper is produced, smelted or refined, it is sold on the world market to the highest bidder. In fact, much of our refined copper we import is derived from Chile, Canada, Peru and Mexico.

Furthermore, you don't increase employment opportunities and investment in America's economy by importing goods from abroad that would be produced here, if it from were not for our nation's inability to find cost effective ways to be more competitive while complying with our environmental regulations. And you certainly can't do that by shutting down the domestic industries that have the technical expertise to accomplish this task. Without the technical expertise the chance of solving these problems is nil. All you end up doing is exporting dollars overseas that could be used to invest in our economy.

With respect to Rosemont, they are employing state of the art technology to develop this operation, which will minimize its impacts on the surrounding community. The application of this technology here at Rosemont will help us to find better and more competitive ways of doing things in the future. Without the jobs offered by companies like Rosemont, we will be unable to develop the technology we require to remain competitive on the world market.

Re: Reflections on my time in Apartheid South Africa, 1984 – a tribute to Mandela

Carolyn_Classen — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:09:53 -0000

Fascinating memories David, thanks for sharing. While in college my mom and I traveled with a British tour company throughout Europe and the tour guests were British, Americans, Australians, & South Africans. I noticed with dismay that the British So. Africans were verbally rude to the Afrikaners on board the tour bus, and I had no understanding why that was so, as they all looked like white people to me, coming from Hawaii. Thankfully they were civil to my Asian American mom and me (probably because we were Americans), but it was the time of Apartheid there. Later when I learned more about their institutional racism, I was horrified that they treated non whites so badly in their country.

Re: Reflections on my time in Apartheid South Africa, 1984 – a tribute to Mandela

BajaDemocrats — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 15:17:04 -0000

Yes, apartheid was a real culture shock. Growing up in a small Ohio town, I saw the demonstrations and marches of the civil rights movement in the 60s, but they were just images on my parents' black & white TV, something I was far away from. In apartheid South Africa, it hit you right in the face, something that couldn't be ignored. Glad we shared a similar experience.

Re: Reflections on my time in Apartheid South Africa, 1984 – a tribute to Mandela

Jonathan_Duhamel — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 14:31:59 -0000

I spent a year in South Africa during the 1970s. I had experiences similar to yours. My trip from Durban to Capetown was in a company Land Rover and the only incidents were with rhinos crossing the road at dusk. I can attest, as you say, that the black Africans, and mixed race “colored” were mostly friendly as were most of the white Africans. Apartheid was quite a culture shock wasn’t it.

Re: Iran: Give Peace a Chance

Ehud Gavron — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 23:21:33 -0000

I'm glad that uninformed people under the guise of "explaining things" don't have the power to make this horrible agreement happen. Your tale is well spun, but of course ignores Iran's genocidal threats toward both Israel and the United States.

Sure, "the people" may not be "the government" but neither are we. The government IS the country and that's who SIGNS TREATIES, developes NUCLEAR WEAPONS, bombs THE CRAP out of their enemies, TAKES OUR PEOPLE HOSTAGE FOR OVER A YEAR, and has no love of peace.

So does Iran want peace? NO. They just want people who tell half a story like yourself to think so, so they can finish that damned nuclear weapon in peace.

Re: Iran: Give Peace a Chance

King Shapour — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 19:41:29 -0000

Great article. I'm reading news and political articles about Iran for years. I can tell u that over 90 percent of articles abt Iran is not true or its biased but articles like this is truly amazing and its writen on facts. Nice one

Re: Iran: Give Peace a Chance

jammerk65 — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:50:34 -0000

you mean stall for more time so you can build a nucular bomb !!!

Re: Why do Republican politicians hate democracy so much?

Robert Whittle — Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:30:34 -0000

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.”
― Fisher Ames

Re: Why do Republican politicians hate democracy so much?

Robert Whittle — Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:12:36 -0000

You should actually earn a little bit about history before you decide to write articles about our nations history. Our nation was not founded as one man one vote. This nation was founded as a federal republic. (not a democratic republic)

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1, of the Constitution of these United States reads, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”

It was not until 1913 that senators became directly elected.

The president was meant to be elected by electors chosen by the states, not by popular vote.

Re: Why do Republican politicians hate democracy so much?

rr02 — Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:16:39 -0000

I have no disagreement with you about what is the law and how our Constitution was and continues to be crafted. However the words you use such as "hate democracy, extort & tyranny" are purely judgmental which take away from the gist of your posting. Lawmakers don't become lawbreakers {extort} simply for doing what the Constitution allows them to do, write, vote and enact laws. A law such as the ACA may pass and even be upheld by the Supreme Court but that doesn't mean it cannot be repealed and any effort to do so should not be labeled "tyranny" because it is not. The Supreme Court once upheld a "separate but equal" ruling that stood for many decades so we cannot rely entirely on the fallibility of the humans who sit in the highest judicial seats of our nation.
And imagine where this nation would be if the 18th Amendment had not been scrutinized the way people don't want the ACA to be.
The better discussion still needs to be about the economy. The GOP may have initially flubbed getting to this point but now is time for the president to capitalize on this "crisis" and give consideration to acting more like the politician he claims to be.

Re: Why do Republican politicians hate democracy so much?

BajaDemocrats — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:17:34 -0000

The title is half "grabber". Republican politicians mostly don't "hate" Democracy, they just do everything they can to rig it in their favor, and find a way around elections that didn't go their way. We had a pretty big election less than a year ago and the choice was pretty clear: the guy who signed "Obamacare" into law and strongly supports it vs. the guy who promised to repeal it. Obama won, Romney lost. The Democrats increased their majority in the Senate, and added seats to their minority in the House. So, the voters decided to send folks to Washington who would not repeal the law. Just days after the election Speaker Boehner said the ACA was "clearly the law of the land".

Now the Republicans are trying to go around the decision of the voters by shutting down government and threaten default to get what they don't have the votes to achieve on their own. That's why I said the "hate democracy" in the title. Funding of government and increasing the debt limit is an opportunity for the minority to have a stronger voice on our spending levels - it is NOT and opportunity to try to extort and demand their way.

Our Founding Fathers carefully crafted our form of government so that the voices and opinions of the minority would still be heard and influence policy. Fair enough, I support that. But abusing the system to subject the majority to the demands of the minority by shutting down government and threatening default is NOT democracy, it is tyranny.

Re: Why do Republican politicians hate democracy so much?

rr02 — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:19:39 -0000

Thank you, now if you can adequately explain {or inadequately explain} HOW you happen to know this because I personally cannot imagine one person let alone an entire group actually hating this country.

Re: Why do Republican politicians hate democracy so much?

rushthis — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 04:53:15 -0000

Nope, they really hate America.

Re: Why do Republican politicians hate democracy so much?

StriderDogBlues — Tue, 08 Oct 2013 02:53:34 -0000

Instead of your hysteria, can you tell me why you believe this is a terrible bill and what your idea of the consequences are?