Keystone XL pipeline: TransCanada sends final offers to 100-plus Nebraska landowners

© Associated Press



A stake in the ground wrapped with tape that marks the route of the Keystone XL pipeline in Tilden, Nebraska, on March 17, 2014

Lincoln - As the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate pledged quick approval of the Keystone XL pipeline early next year, final offers were landing Tuesday in dozens of Nebraska mailboxes.

TransCanada Corp. said it mailed new offers of right-of-way payments this week to more than 100 Nebraska landowners who have refused to sign an easement contract.

The letters also say the company will pursue eminent domain against landowners who don't agree to terms by Jan. 16. The company says Nebraska law requires condemnation proceedings to start within two years of the state's approval of the pipeline route, which occurred Jan. 22, 2013.

"This really is an effort to reach voluntary agreements rather than going through the eminent domain process," said Andrew Craig of Omaha, Keystone's land manager. "We always prefer to go through negotiations."

The director of a leading pipeline opposition group said there are 115 landowner holdouts, and she expects them to refuse the latest offer. Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska also argued that the company lacks a legal basis to use eminent domain since the state's pipeline routing law has been declared unconstitutional and is under review by the Nebraska Supreme Court.

"This is not about money," Kleeb said. "This is about their family legacies, their land and protecting their water."

The state's highest court could rule on the pipeline case as early as Friday.

While landowners were opening envelopes Tuesday, Sen. Mitch McConnell was promising to put a Keystone XL bill at the top of the agenda when the Senate convenes in January. Passage of legislation approving the pipeline is likely in a Republican-controlled Senate, which could set up an early veto confrontation with President Barack Obama.

Congressional Republicans have been pushing for approval of the pipeline for years. Obama has resisted because of environmental concerns.

"We're optimistic we can pass it and put it on the president's desk," McConnell said

The $8 billion pipeline would carry up to 830,000 barrels of heavy crude oil daily from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast.

Environmentalists say the issue is a significant test of Obama's commitment to addressing climate change. Republicans and other supporters say the project would create jobs and promote energy security, reducing reliance on oil from the Middle East.

The Republican-led House has repeatedly passed legislation approving the pipeline. But the bills have died in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Last month, a bill fell one vote short of advancing in the Senate.

It could be a lively debate next year. McConnell promised to allow unlimited amendments, meaning that senators could try to force votes on all kinds of unrelated issues.

Such debates have become rare in the Senate in recent years. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., often uses parliamentary procedures to prevent amendments on most bills.

Meanwhile, TransCanada says it has reached land-use agreements with 84 percent of the more than 500 landowners along the 275-mile proposed route in Nebraska. Craig, the company's land manager, said he is hopeful the latest mailing will push the total above 90 percent.

The latest offers do not include the signing bonuses that were offered in past mailings, Craig said.

If the State Supreme Court sides with the landowners who successfully sued to strike down the pipeline routing law, the company will file a new application with the Nebraska Public Service Commission. The first route was authorized by the governor, which a lower court judge ruled was an unconstitutional delegation of power.

The Public Service Commission review could possibly require adjustments to the existing route. But TransCanada will argue that the route has been thoroughly vetted by state and federal environmental regulators.

By acting soon on eminent domain filings, the company will be poised to proceed if the Supreme Court rules in its favor, Craig said.

Kleeb, the pipeline opponent, said that if the project does go before the PSC, she and others will argue that the route must be moved because it still crosses sandy soils and a portion of the Ogallala Aquifer in northeast Nebraska.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Strange hairless creature washes up dead on California beach

A mysterious creature with sharp claws and pointy teeth was discovered on a beach in Santa Barbara on Tuesday after the most recent storm hitting the area.

The apparent monster is brownish in color and was discovered near a drain washout, reports KEYT.com. The unidentified beast has left residents baffled and no one has been able to identify the species of animal found on the shore nor do they know where it came from.

Santa Barbara saw brutal storms over the past few days that left behind damage in the area.

A similar looking creature was found in San Diego back in June of 2012. The picture was taken by Josh Menard, a 19-year-old snowboarder from Lake Tahoe.

Distant cousins: This picture was taken by Josh Menard, a 19-year-old snowboarder from Lake Tahoe visiting San Diego in 2012 resembles that of the creature found on Tuesday

According to Josh, the animal is about 2ft long and 'had the body shape of a pig - kind of a fat stomach, middle area. And the canines were just ridiculously large.'

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

US: Ground beef prices climb to another record

The average price of a pound of ground beef climbed to another record high -- $4.201 per pound -- in the United States in November, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

In August 2014, the average price for a pound of all types of ground beef topped $4 for the first time, hitting $4.013, according to the BLS. In September, the average price jumped to $4.096 per pound, and in October, the average price climbed to $4.154 per pound. In November, the average price hit the highest price ever recorded -- $4.201 per pound.

A year ago, in November 2013, the average price for a pound of ground beef was $3.477 per pound. Since then, the average price has increased 20.8 percent in one year.

Five years ago, in November 2009, the average price of a pound of ground beef was $2.062, according to the BLS. The price has since climbed by $2.139 per pound, or 103.7 percent.

The overall Consumer Price Index measures the relative change in the prices of a basket of goods and services relative to a basis of 100. Subordinate indexes measure the relative change in price for individual goods or services or categories of goods and services.

The price index for seasonally adjusted, uncooked ground beef hit an all-time high of 296.616 in November, up 1.4 percent from October when it was 292.588. In 1947, the earliest year in this index, it was 26.5.

"The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) declined 0.3 percent in November on a seasonally adjusted basis," states BLS. "Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 1.3 percent before seasonal adjustment."

"The food index rose 0.2 percent in November after increasing 0.1 percent in October," states BLS. "The index for meats, poultry, fish and eggs increased 0.6 percent in November after declining in October. The index for beef and veal rose 0.8 percent, its tenth consecutive increase."

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Former police officer arrested 3 times in one day, twice for DUI

John Biehn

A former Bridgeport police officer, accused in the past of drunkenly shooting up a city housing complex, was arrested three times in about 11 hours stretching into early Tuesday, following a Monday court appearance on a drunken-driving charge.

The first incident occurred just before 1:30 p.m., Vernon police said, when they pulled over 39-year-old John Biehn, of Southington, in the parking lot of McDonald's on Talcottville Road after receiving a call that a blue Hyundai Sonata was being driven erratically and on the wrong side of Route 83.

Biehn told officers he was coming from state Superior Court in Rockville, and he failed a standardized sobriety test, police said. Vernon police charged him with operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs and failure to drive in the proper lane.

Biehn's court appearance concerned similar charges stemming from a July 26 incident, according to the state judicial website. He entered an initial plea of not guilty and is scheduled for his next court date on those charges in January.

He was released from Vernon Police Headquarters on $2,500 bond posted by his wife, Bridgeport Police Det. Kimberly Biehn.

Then, at 8:20 p.m. Monday, John Biehn was arrested again on a drunken-driving charge by Wallingford Police. He was released once more on $2,500 bond posted by his wife, according to Wallingford Police Lt. Mark Mikulski.

A few hours later, after midnight, Wallingford police arrested John Biehn again. Police responded this time to a Wal-Mart, where he was being held by store security and accused of stealing various items. He was charged with larceny and released on $5,000 bond.

In 2006, John Biehn was acquitted of most of the charges stemming from a 2004 incident in which, while he was still on the Bridgeport police force, he allegedly went on a drunken rampage at the Marina Village housing complex, firing his gun at random and breaking apartment windows.

He was convicted of first-degree reckless endangerment and sentenced to one year of incarceration, which was later suspended. He was also sentenced to three years' probation and later resigned from the Bridgeport Police Department.

Biehn is scheduled to face the Vernon DUI charges in court on Dec. 22.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Strange contrails appear over Russian town

Multiple eyewitnesses, including one who was quick with her camera, spotted strange squiggly contrails just before dawn one morning this week over Biysk in southern Russia. Many of the witnesses believed the contrails were from UFOs. Were they?

According to reports, Elisha Ponomaryov saw other people looking skyward and pointing at the contrails. She didn't know what they were but had the presence of mind to take a photo. Unfortunately, she was too late to capture what caused the contrails. However, other witnesses claimed to have seen three or four yellow spheres flying haphazardly and leaving the trails behind them. One was Zemfira Bocharova, who gave this description:

I saw them at 6.25am and there were four, one of them was particularly bright and two others were flying parallel with that - and then the forth one was at a different angle and further away from the other three.

As usual, there was no comment from space or government officials or the military on the strange contrails. There was some speculation that they could have been from a rocket, possibly carrying a secret payload, launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, but that's 1,500 miles from Biysk and there was no report of any launches on that day. Meteors and weather were also suggested, but there were no meteor reports and no weather incidents that could have caused the trails.

Contrails formed by planes in a holding pattern

Circular contrails are not unusual, especially near airports where planes often fly in holding patterns. They can also be seen over military bases but the patterns are generally more regular, not the random scribbles seen over Biysk.

So what caused the strange Biysk contrails? The city is a center for solid-fuel rocket production. Were the yellow spheres UFOs checking out the competition?

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Witness photographs incredible transparent geodesic shaped UFO over Austria

Link to actual photo

Witness: "I'm a resident of Vienna in Austria and when I was on the balcony, I saw this huge transparent vehicle floating above the clouds for about two minutes." "I grabbed my phone (Samsung Galaxy S5) and after I took a photograph of it, the vehicle was gone." "I've never seen anything like it, it was strange."

Mufon case 61696.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Attorney General Downplays Ties To MPAA... Just As NY Times Reveals MPAA Actually Wrote The Letter He Sent Google

Last week, we wrote about how some of the leaked emails from the Sony hack revealed that the MPAA was funding and coordinating various Attorneys General attacks on Google, even over topics that have nothing to do with copyright infringement. In response, Mississippi AG Jim Hood told the Huffington Post that he barely knows anyone at the MPAA, and has no idea who their lawyers are -- and that the MPAA has "no major influence" on what he's working on:

Hood said the MPAA "has no major influence on my decision-making," although he noted that content creators occasionally provide reports and advice to him. "They're just reporting wrongdoing. There's nothing unusual about that," he said. Hood said he has never asked MPAA a legal question, isn't sure which lawyers they employ, and doesn't think he's ever met the organization's general counsel.

Okay. Now keep that above paragraph in mind as you read the latest report from the NY Times, in which reporters Nick Wingfield and Eric Lipton (who just a few months ago had written that big article on

questionable lobbying of Attorneys General

)

dig deeper into the Sony emails

concerning the MPAA and AGs Jim Hood and Jon Bruning from Nebraska. The Times also uses some public records requests to show that the infamous letter that Hood sent to Google

was almost entirely written by the MPAA's lawyers

. You can see the whole thing at the link, but this thumbnail shows a pretty long letter with the only parts actually written by Hood's office being the intro at the top in green and a few minor word choices. All the rest came from the MPAA's lawyers at Jenner and Block.

So... Hood claims that he doesn't even know the MPAA's lawyers, that it has no influence on what he does and that the MPAA is "just reporting wrongdoing" -- but then he takes a ~4,000 word letter that those same MPAA lawyers (that he claims he doesn't know) wrote, tosses on an intro and a few minor grammatical corrections, and sends it to Google? The letter itself is a piece of pure propaganda as well, completely misrepresenting a few things, taking others out of context, and making some bizarre legal arguments. Hood, of course, is no stranger to

controversy and claims of cronyism

, but this is taking things to another level.

The NY Times further uncovers that the "go-between" for the MPAA and Hood is a lobbyist the MPAA hired to run an MPAA front group. That lobbyist? Hood's predecessor and close friend:

The movie industry, through a nonprofit group it funded called Digital Citizens Alliance, picked the perfect lobbyist to squeeze Mr. Hood: Mike Moore. Mr. Moore was Mr. Hood’s predecessor as Mississippi attorney general and helped start Mr. Hood’s political career. He remains a close friend of the attorney general and travels with him frequently; he has even played a role in helping Mr. Hood get elected as the president of the National Association of Attorneys General, emails obtained by The Times show.

That front group, the "Digital Citizens Alliance," is one we discussed earlier this year, when it released a report about "evil" cyberlockers based on a misreading of

two debunked studies

. Certain cyberlockers have demanded a retraction of the report because of its ridiculous and shoddy methodology. In other words, the Alliance is not exactly the most trustworthy of operations -- and it's hired Jim Hood's best buddy and political mentor. But Hood wants us to believe that this group has no influence on him?

Even other Attorneys General find the situation questionable:

Peggy Lautenschlager, who served as attorney general in Wisconsin, said that the role that the movie industry had played in pushing Mr. Hood, through Mr. Moore and others, was inappropriate. “A private interest is influencing some attorneys general’s offices,” she said.

Meanwhile, others are trying to understand why Jim Hood is so close with the MPAA at all, since Mississippi doesn't even have much of a connection

to the film business

:

That makes his behavior all the more unusual since Mississippi has almost no economic interest in the movie industry. Indeed, the state lacks a major film school, doesn’t house production for a single scripted TV show, and has served as the main shooting location for only 5 widely released movies over the past decade. The MPAA itself says that the state has a total of 242 film-and-television-production related jobs; one of the smallest per-capita totals in the nation. All-in-all Mississippi has more people who make their living arranging flowers (460, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ databases) than in film and TV production. Maybe Jim Hood really likes hanging out with movie moguls?

Hood's stated reasoning makes even less sense:

"Google's not a government, they may think they are, but they don't owe anyone a First Amendment right," Hood told The Huffington Post. "If you're an illegal site, you ought to clean up your act, instead of Google making money off it."



[....]



Hood recalled a meeting in Boston, where a high school girl demonstrated to attorneys general how easy it was for her to find a violent version of "Django Unchained" on the Internet. "Some of the AGs were amazed at that real-time example of what Google is assisting," Hood said.



Hood has "tried to get Google to delist several sites," relating to pharmaceuticals. He said he views movies and music piracy as "insignificant" to state prosecutors, compared with more serious types of crime. But Hood said he would support a nonprofit organization coming up with a list of piracy sites that Google would remove from search results. He argued that current copyright law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, isn't adequate, because a website can get millions of takedown notices, but still do business as usual.

It appears Hood is quite confused about, well, nearly everything. No, Google doesn't "owe anyone" a First Amendment right, but the government does. And here it appears that Hood -- a government representative -- is flat out supporting a censorship list of websites that must be blocked. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between a search engine and actually hosting or uploading infringing content. He also doesn't seem to recognize the history of blacklists and the fact that they

always

over-censor. Nor does he seem to understand how Google functions. All of these things would be rather easy to find out -- but just as easy to ignore if the MPAA is the one giving you all your talking points and legal documents.

Meanwhile, the original letters revealed that the MPAA was looking for other Attorneys General it could convince to get in on the game, and the NY Times notes that a clear target is Nebraska's Jon Bruning:

The movie association and its member companies, the messages show, have assigned a team of lawyers to prepare draft subpoenas and legal briefs for the attorneys general. And the groups have delivered campaign contributions — with several movie studios sending checks — to Jon Bruning, the Republican attorney general of Nebraska, who was helping push their cause, and who made an unsuccessful bid for governor this year.

Meanwhile, the reaction to all of this has been fascinating. I've seen multiple lawyers connected to Hollywood have kneejerk reactions that paying for an investigation, coordinating all of the efforts including writing up the letters and subpoenas, is just normal, everyday "aggressive competition." Yet, these are the same people who go out there and claim that you sharing a copy of a movie you liked with someone else is morally bankrupt and evil. Some people, it seems, have a different moral compass. Frankly, private companies financing government investigations of other private companies seems a hell of a lot more morally questionable than someone sharing a copy of a film they like.

Read More