I’ve written before about the Families of Flight 93 and their tireless efforts to build a memorial on the site where their loved ones died trying to stop a horrendous attack. Yesterday the group broke ground on the new national park in Shanksville, PA, and I had the honor of attending. A beautiful day, a ceremony I thought was very appropriate and respectful.

The only negative was a man in the VIP section (which means he’d been invited) complaining to another man about new jobs in the federal government. He said that the last thing we needed was more government telling us what to do. I was sorely tempted to ask him why he bothered to attend this government event if he felt that way, but I didn’t want to mar the day.

If you haven’t been to the temporary memorial, I urge you to go. Listen to the ambassador tell you what happened and put yourself in the shoes of the people who acted that day—it will humble you.

On this election day, the NYTimes has an article about people in Iowa becoming less enchanted with this president. Yesterday the enviralists were quoted in the Coal Tattoo complaining about the lack of momentum on dealing with mountaintop removal—ironically, the very same people who have spent a lot of energy and money fighting both of the president’s choices for OSMRE director.

Both of these examples make me ask the same question: What do they want? What did they expect? These are not rhetorical questions. I’d sincerely like to know. The only answer I can come up with is “miracles.”

Everyone (well, almost everyone) acknowledges that things were a real mess on January 20, 2009—in the words of Niecy Nash, “foolishness and mayhem!” And (to continue the Clean House analogy) we elected Barack Obama as our “go-to guy.” However, it’s going to take more than a yard sale and some good closet organization to fix our problems.

Change takes TIME, folks. Laws have been made (and broken!). An awful lot that has been ignored or avoided or mishandled has to be fixed.

If you want to effect change, you can start today by voting. And then after you’re finished voting, how about volunteering to do something with a positive impact instead of a negative one? Instead of just tearing down and discrediting any progress that has been made (that comment is directed to MSM as well), try to make a little progress of your own. Don’t just sit at your keyboard waiting for miracles to happen.

I’ve been reading about the Heene family and that poor little kid. I’m making a guess that the father needs more than a little counseling to understand why all this fame stuff is not always a good thing. As I write this the sheriff is discussing felony charges . . . I thought we’d hear restitution for expenses, but I guess charges aren’t that much of a surprise.

But for some reason the speech from the movie “Meet John Doe” came to me. (Gary Cooper plays a down-and-out guy recruited by reporter Barbara Stanwyck to be “John Doe,” or Everyman. He reluctantly becomes famous when all he wanted was something to eat and a chance to play professional baseball.)

So I found the movie on YouTube and listened to the speech (if you click on the link, ignore the part about “Dead Zone”–it was the only clip I saw that had what I needed). And I realized that this speech has more to do with our society at large at the moment than it does with Richard Henne’s misguided attempts at fame.

Listening to people sit back and criticize the present administration without offering solutions or help or even just patience is really disheartening. We need to be building up, not tearing down. The president came into a mess eight years in the making. He’s not going to fix everything in—what is this?—nine months. He’s not perfect, but we elected him less than a year ago and we should be doing what we can to help instead of taking out the anger and frustration of the past 12 years on him.

So go meet that neighbor of yours. Offer some help to someone who needs it. (If you’re reading my blog, you already have far more than many, so go ahead and share.) Do something positive. I’ve always believed that if you put positive out there, positive will come back to you. But the same goes for negative.  Work at tearing things down and that’s what you’ll get. Positive works so much better.

Turns out I could be wrong. And all those enviralists who spent last evening with their pinot and microbrews toasting their perceived success may have engaged in premature inebriation. It’s my understanding that this hold (by Senator X, who requested anonomity—what’s that about?) may indeed have nothing to do with Joe Pizarchik’s nomination and may be nothing more than political gamesmanship. Stay tuned!

I read this in Gawker today (it was written about a different topic, but it fits):
“In conclusion, blogs are killing newspapers by being irresponsible and not caring about ‘the truth.’”

Yeah, the truth. That’s a good one. A hold has been put on Joe Pizarchik’s nomination. This means that someone is believing the lies written about Joe that have saturated the Internet (so half of them were powered by Coal!).

Tell me when a real reporter is going to do a real story on Joe Pizarchik—a story that reports more than just the lies found with Google.

I said I wasn’t going to write anything more about Joe Pizarchik, but I thought I wouldn’t have to. He was voted out of committee last week but the full Senate vote has not yet happened. And then yesterday I received a really funny email from someone and I feel compelled to respond.

To catch up any first-time readers: Joe Pizarchik was nominated to be the director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Opposition to that nomination started even before he was nominated (I don’t know how that happens, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised). These people have said Joe is unethical and environmentally irresponsible—and that’s the short version. I don’t mind people saying they disagree with his decisions, but I cannot be silent when someone says he’s unethical. And so I began responding.

Some will say I have a bias. Of course I do. And it would take about a minute on the Internet to find out what that bias is. Does that make me less credible? If you think so, your mind was already made up before you read my blog. But unlike those people making horrible accusations, I’ve supported my comments with documentation from official sources (see my Freshman comp, lessons 1-3, in this blog for a definition of good sources). My words would stand up in court. The opposition knows theirs wouldn’t.

Which brings me back to that funny email that prompted this entry. That email challenged me to provide specific sources in support of Joe Pizarchik. That is the job of a reporter, as I’ve said. In my blog entries of September 25 and 26, I did just that. I quoted government sources on coal ash:

Here are two articles, easily available on PA DEP’s website, responding to two charges by EIP about coal ash. The first one refers to lead pollution, the second to trace metals.

This one is PA DEP’s response to charges from the Clean Air Task Force.

And I’ll provide a new one, which is specifically about TVA coal ash.

And then there are other accomplishments during Joe’s tenure (which, FYI, started in October 2002), including his work on the Flight 93 memorial, his work on the Good Samaritan Act, the reduction in mine-subsidence insurance rates in PA, and his work on securing explosive magazines in PA. Plus a strong endorsement from someone who has worked with Joe. And yet somehow this doesn’t silence the critics.

Speaking of reporters, I do have to give recognition to Daniel Malloy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. He’s the only reporter I’ve seen who made an effort to acknowledge the other side of this argument. Granted, I haven’t read every single piece written about Joe’s nomination, but I’ve read a lot. Malloy quoted Senator Bingaman. He also obviously spoke to the Department of the Interior about Joe. In other words, he did his job.

So that’s it in a nutshell. I hope a lot of people read this and click on ALL the links. Read about Joe. Know the truth.

I see on the Energy and Natural Resources committee Web site that Joe Pizarchik’s nomination will be voted on next week. I know that means this weekend my blog will get a lot of hits from people looking for information about Joe. I urge everyone reading this to take the time to read my posts from September 25 and 26. Follow the links. Read the text at those links. I didn’t write any of it. The material comes from PA DEP’s site as well as other government and journalistic sources. It’s not opinion (i.e., someone’s blog), it’s fact (see my Freshman Comp, Lessons 1-3, on good sources). And the material was written before Joe was ever nominated, so none of it was written with that outcome in mind. And if you take the time to read all of it, I’m sure you’ll come to the right conclusion. That’s what happens when intelligent people think.

This is from the minutes of a May 3, 2008, meeting:

V. Flight 93 Advisory Commission Briefing Reports

A. Land Acquisition Briefing Report

Co-Chair White presented the following report:

Co-Chair White reported on the purchase yesterday, by the Families of Flight 93, of 930 acres of land from PBS Coals. It was a team effort of Federal Government, State Government, landowners, the Families, surveyors, closing agents, Hazmat experts, and so on. The lands are largely within the fee simple area of the memorial boundary, south of US 30. The 67 acres north of US 30 will be coordinated through and with the Conservation Fund, an outstanding partner of the NPS and Families. The Families will transition the bulk of these 67 acres to the Pennsylvania Game Commission. A two acre tract on US 30 is home to a cell tower, and future discussions are planned with the lessees that occupy and own the tower on a number of issues. In regards to the lands south of US 30, much of the time that was consumed over the past 2.5 years in acquiring this land was a result of concerns about acid mine drainage from recently closed or abandoned sites. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), Mr. Joe Pizarchik, will discuss this matter further.

Mr. Joe Pizarchik stated that PADEP, the National Park Service, and the Families have worked with PBS Coals in helping them set up a process to conclude their environmental obligations at the site, which was one of the factors that advanced the purchase of the property. In addressing these environmental obligations, they are on the verge of finalizing and having in place a trust fund to provide for the perpetual treatment of the discharges to satisfy PBS Coal’s environmental obligations. Several meetings with local landowners and local watershed activists took place to potentially create a new entity to take over the operation and maintenance of those facilities. Lambert’s Run is in PADEP’s plan to clean up all of Pennsylvania’s streams, although this will take some time due to the problems not occurring overnight, but over a long period of time.

Superintendent Hanley thanked Co-Chair White for all of his hard work in land acquisition. She also thanked Mr. Pizarchik for all his work with his agency in working with the NPS, Families and the EPA.

This one I’ve copied because to find it requires wading through a bunch of other stuff that isn’t relevant (it is from this source).

FINAL-OMITTED RULEMAKING – STORAGE, HANDLING AND USE OF EXPLOSIVES

Deputy Secretary Scott Roberts, Office of Mineral Resources Management; and Sergeant Vincent Babich, PA State Police (PSP), Office of Domestic Security; presented a summary of this final-omitted rulemaking. They were assisted by Joseph Pizarchik, Director, BMR; Richard Lamke, Chief, BMR’s Blasting Section; and Mark Roda, Assistant Counsel, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel.

The Department’s explosives regulations are being amended because neither the PA OHS nor the PA State Police have regulatory authority over the construction or operation of magazines. Both agencies have assisted in the preparation of the amendments, have reviewed them, and concur that their implementation will significantly reduce the risk of explosives theft and the resulting risk of injury to persons and property damage.

This final-omitted rulemaking was approved at the January 18, 2005 EQB meeting. It was subsequently delivered to the Standing committees, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and the Attorney General. At its March 10, 2005 meeting, IRRC disapproved the rule on a 3-2 vote based on concerns about clarity (regarding acceptable alternative security measures) and applicability to the fireworks industry.

Deputy Secretary Roberts reviewed the options available to the Board to respond to the IRRC disapproval Order. Based on the discussion at the IRRC meeting, the items included in their Order, and additional meetings the Department held with the fireworks and explosives industries, the final-omitted rulemaking has been revised. Joe Pizarchik described in detail the specific changes made in response to the IRRC disapproval Order. He noted that a minor format correction to Section 211.115(d)(4)(vi) and a revision to the Preamble regarding IRRC’s action was identified by IRRC staff after the mailing had been made to EQB. Those edits were distributed to the EQB members at the meeting.

Sergeant Babich indicated that the State Police is investigating a recent magazine break-in. It was unclear what, if any, explosive material had been removed because of incomplete inventory records. Joe Pizarchik noted that this magazine site was broken into before and the licensee had constructed a gate and was in the process of adding physical barriers.

Margaret Urban asked which regulations cover inventory control. Deputy Secretary Roberts indicated that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) cover those standards.

William Capouillez noted that high-risk sites with multiple break-ins should be the first required to implement their security measures.

Alternate Chairperson Sexton thanked the OHS, PSP, EQB legislative members and representatives of the regulated industries for their cooperation.

I have been writing for a few months about how some groups have come out so strongly against Joe Pizarchik, accusing him of anything and everything, even things that happened before his tenure. I have also been lamenting the lack of research people are doing, how they are just believing whatever they read from sources they think are credible. What they’re not reading is PA DEP’s responses to the original allegations from these groups. Here are two articles, easily available on PA DEP’s website, responding to two charges by EIP about coal ash. The first one refers to lead pollution, the second to trace metals.