Amy Goodman Interviews Medea Benjamin on Code Pink's Disruption of Thursday's Brennan CIA Confirmation Hearing

PA earlier posted Code Pink's own video of the hearing HERE.

Bretwood Higman Continues to Question Integrity of Pebble Earthquake Data

Sedimentary layers show evidence of liquefaction – perhaps caused by strong earthquake shaking

Dr. Bretwood Higman spent time near the proposed Pebble Mine site last summer, searching for more information on the seismic history of that area.  He's concerned that the classification of the Lake Clark Fault as "inactive" is either misleading or worse.

In a blog entry posted Saturday, Confessions of an Earthquake Detective, Higman raises serious questions, most of which remain unanswered by the Pebble Partnership, the State of Alaska or the Federal agencies responsible for assessment of the risks at the site.

Higman has been writing about his concern on earthquake risk for some time.  So far none of his conclusions have been faulted (only slight pun intended) in any meaningful ways.

In his Saturday post, Higman cuts to the chase regarding the credibility of the Partnership [emphasis added]:

PLP must either be strategically holding back information, or else it lacks the expertise to do a real seismic hazard assessment.  

Put crudely: Either PLP is lying, or it’s incompetent.

I know from experience that Bretwood Higman is one of the most tenacious and thorough Alaskans in existence. Here's his summation of yesterday's article [emphasis added]:

Honestly I don’t really understand how scientific results inform regulatory decisions, but what I’ve seen so far does not make me confident. It’s very easy to fail to find evidence. The mine company has financial incentives to overlook evidence of earthquake risk, just as I have financial motivation beyond merely curiosity to find that evidence – my funding comes from groups opposed to mine development. And regulators, ideally the impartial party here, have tight budgets and a broad mandate, thus little time to focus deeply on a difficult scientific problem like this. Tackling this problem would put government scientists into a political minefield that they may not wish to enter.

This year we’ve seen “the system” attempting to face the scientific challenges presented by the massive scale of Pebble Mine. The EPA, on the invitation of villages in the region, conducted a detailed “Watershed Assessment,” which is still under peer review. PLP criticized the EPA’s effort as premature and misguided, and pushed its own process, the PLP-funded Keystone Center dialogue. This in turn has been criticized for its biased exclusion of non-PLP science, among other things.  

Though I submitted my own work on seismic hazards, it was not considered even during the panel specifically on this topic. These efforts represent attempts to assemble expert assessments and critique PLP‘s science, but we’re a long way off from seeing concrete results from either. Though I’ve repeatedly pointed out unequivocal flaws in PLP‘s seismic hazard assessment, there was no acknowledgment of these issues as of the Keystone meeting in early October. If you want to see my testimony, you can go here, and skip to 17 minutes, 40 seconds.

So I’m going to stick to it. I have more data analysis, and a paper to write and submit for peer review. And hopefully I’ll have funding to get back into the field this summer.

You can donate directly to Dr. Higman's efforts HERE.

Here he is, last year, presenting some of his findings:

So Why Didn't SNL Air This Parody of the Hagel Confirmation Hearing? - Updated

Is it more tasteless than many SNL skits?  No.

Is it anti-Semitic?  It pokes fun at the obsequiousness of U.S. Senators when it comes to the country of Israel and its governments, so I don't think so.

There are a number of articles up about the pulled skit, with the video embedded in some:

Mondoweiss

Huffington Post

The Daily Caller

Breitbart erroneously reported that the skit was aired.

Update - 4:00 pm:  The Times of Israel headlines their article on this Unaired Saturday Night Live skit parodies senators’ full-throated support for Israel during the Hagel confirmation hearing 

heh ...

Preparing to Write About Judith Butler’s Profound Brooklyn University Address

Last Thursday, philosopher Dr. Judith Butler delivered a profound address at Brooklyn University.  She was one of two speakers at what might have been a small gathering of students and Brooklyn activists, wanting to hear some intelligent ideas about the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.  The movement, begun by Palestinians in 2005, models itself somewhat after similar movements seeking to put pressure on the apartheid South African regime, from the late 1980s, through the fall of that regime in the mid-1990s.

The other speaker was Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of Global BDS.  Barghouti has a Masters degree in electrical engineering from Columbia, and a Masters in philosophy from Tel Aviv University. Dr. Butler, in her address, which was about 40 minutes long, noted in the opening remarks:

At the time [Butler was invited] I thought it would be very much like other events I have attended, a conversation with a few dozen student activists in the basement of a student center. So, as you can see, I am surprised and ill prepared for what has happened.

What happened was an explosion of invective against Butler, Barghouti, Brooklyn College, its President, and NYC Mayor Bloomberg, for supporting their being able to even talk on campus about BDS under the sponsorship of one of its departments, and without someone on the podium with them who could offer an opposing view.

Judith Butler drew some hearty laughs with this:

Yet another objection, sometimes uttered by the same people who made the first, is that BDS does qualify as a viewpoint, but as such, ought to be presented only in a context in which the opposing viewpoint can be heard as well. There was yet a qualification to this last position, namely, that no one can have a conversation on this issue in the US that does not include a certain Harvard professor [Alan Dershowitz], but that spectacular argument was so self-inflationary and self-indicting, that I could only respond with astonishment.

Haaretz commentator Chemi Shalev wrote Friday:

Far more Americans know of the Palestinian BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement today than did a week ago. Many millions of people have been exposed for the first time to the idea that Israel should be boycotted, divested and sanctioned for its occupation of the territories. Many more Americans, one can safely assume, have formed a positive image of the BDS movement than those who have now turned against it. 

Tafasta merube lo tafasta, the Talmud teaches us: grasp all, lose all. The heavy-handed, hyperbole heavy, all-guns-blazing campaign against what would have been, as Mayor Bloomberg put it, “a few kids meeting on campus” mushroomed and then boomeranged, giving the hitherto obscure BDS activists priceless public relations that money could never buy. 

Rather than focusing attention on what BDS critics describe as the movement’s deceitful veneer over its opposition to the very existence of Israel, the disproportionate onslaught succeeded in casting the BDS speakers who came to the Brooklyn campus as freedom-loving victims being hounded and oppressed by the forces of darkness.

Judith Butler herself spent a fair portion of her 1997 book, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, describing aspects of this.  Essentially:

Butler argues that hate speech exists retrospectively, only after being declared such by state authorities. In this way, the state reserves for itself the power to define hate speech and, conversely, the limits of acceptable discourse.

I first came across Judith Butler's writing in 2004, when researching false uses of the terms "anti-semitic" and "anti-semitism."  I had been accused in articles, blog posts, and even in an address to a joint session of the Alaska Legislature as one.  Butler's writing eased my anguish at the time.

I've wanted to write an enduring essay about Butler's Brooklyn College address since reading it.  I've re-read it twice now, trying to distill it for popular blog consumption.  That may be a task beyond my ability.

The concept of censorship making an idea being censored more known and attractive predates Butler's analysis.  The history of people finding ways around such censorship goes back to ancient times too.  When societies begin to break down through hubris, hypocrisy, corruption, pollution and so on, some members of the nomenklatura realize better than others what is happening, what is at stake.

Butler's writings and talks (on Youtube, for instance) show examples of her sense of irony, and some humor.  Her overall style, though, is quite dry.  Nobody has ever accused her of pandering for attention, within or beyond academia.

Thinking about her irony and perhaps intentional avoidance of populist metaphor and framing today, I found myself listening more closely to the wildly ironic Dmitri Shosatakovich's 12th Symphony, a work I'm considering conducting in 2014.  He wrote it at the beginning of the end of the paradigm of a communist utopia in the USSR.  He had ceased to believe in the myth long before, but had been rehabilitated, and was commanded to write a triumphal work, dedicated to the memory of Vladimir  Lenin.

He was hesitant, but fulfilled the commission.  It was thought to be a workmanlike, dutiful symphony, but it has never been regarded as one of his masterpieces.

From my first hearing in the mid-1960s, I detected that he was mocking the idolization of Lenin.  He couldn't be more obvious than he was, or it would not be performed.  He mocked his own film music to the dozens of patriotic Soviet movies he scored.  He parroted the false drive forward of the increasingly failed system that entrapped him and other artists.

Watching the increasingly Sovietesque moves to somehow save Israeli apartheid from being truthfully perceived remind me aspects of the downfall of the USSR - not so much as in the Mother country, but in its satellites.

Here is Yevgeni Mravinsky, conducting the Leningrad Philharmonic in Shostakovich's iconic slap in the face of false monumentalism, from a 1984 broadcast:

Bristol Bay Times-Dutch Harbor Fisherman Editor Addresses Kulluk Tax Inaccuracies

Bristol Bay Times and Dutch Harbor Fisherman editor Carey Restino printed an editorial in today's electronic edition of those papers, probably in response to disinformation that came out on the Shell drill rig Kulluk Thursday, due to the last two lines in an Associated Press article:

Critics suggested Shell may have risked the trip to dodge the tax. 

Shell says the vessel was on its way to Seattle for maintenance.

Restino, in today's editorial, writes:

It's been an interesting month for Unalaska reporter Jim Paulin, who broke the story that Shell's reasons for leaving Alaska included a $6 million tax bill the company was going to have to pay if the Kulluk oil rig was still docked in the Last Frontier on Jan. 1.  

The story came to light more than a week before the Kulluk's ill-fated night on the seas - and then the beach - off Kodiak Island. As the Kulluk left Unalaska, Paulin and others pondered why it was choosing to leave its specially-built dock for the Lower 48. As luck would have it, Paulin had a conversation with city councilman Dave Gregory while collecting newspapers at the airport shortly after the Kulluk left. Gregory, obviously savvy about the tax laws pertaining to vessels, mentioned that Shell would have to pay a chunk of change if it stayed in state for the New Year. Paulin followed up with an email to Shell spokesman Curtis Smith, who confirmed the expense, saying the state's tax laws were a factor.

Restino then goes into the details of the correspondence between Paulin and Smith

In an interview with KUCB's Stephanie Joyce, Voser said, "There was a statement made by a Shell person, but in a completely different context, in a completely different meeting. That was then taken out of that context and then someone made a story out it. Just to be very clear on this one."  

Just to clear the air, here's exactly what exchanged between Paulin and Shell's spokesman Smith. Paulin called and left a phone message for Smith requesting a comment regarding the allegation that Shell's ships were leaving state to avoid taxes. 

This is what Smith wrote back:  

Hi Jim, 

Sorry I missed your call. Trying to stay on holiday but that does not always work.  

Anyway, we are now planning to sail both vessels to the west coast for seasonal maintenance and inspections. Having said that, it's fair to say the current tax structure related to vessels of this type influenced the timing of our departure.  

Best,  

Curtis  

Jim responded with this email:  

Thank you and seasons greetings.  

Could you describe the tax structure, and how much it would have cost Shell for taxes Discoverer, Noble Discoverer, etc.  

Did Shell bring any vessels to Adak? Where is the Kulluk going on W Coast? Thanks, Jim Paulin  

Smith then wrote:  

Hi Jim,  

I'm in and out of(phone/internet) coverage today.  

Frustrating.  

Don't know the exact tax structure but it would have cost Shell multiple millions to keep the rigs here.  

Kulluk off to Seattle. No vessels in Adak 

Best,  

C-

To the credit of KUCB public radio in Unalaska, and to Alaska Public Radio, which has been running Stephanie Joyce's KUCB stories on this, they have observed throughout that Voser's concrete information was 180 degrees in contrast with that being put out recently by Shell.

Voser is telling the truth.  Shell is lying.

In a sense, it doesn't matter what Smith and Shell thought.  The Parnell administration has found an old ruling by Attorney General Avrum Gross on taxing offshore rigs in Alaska:

[The Kulluk] is affected by a legal opinion issued by former [Jay Hammond administration] Attorney General Avrum Gross in 1977, the year oil first flowed through the trans-Alaska pipeline. Gross addressed the question of whether the state could tax property used to drill for oil more than three miles offshore. Oil companies objected to taxes on support vessels, and Gross decided the policy also applied to drill ships in federal waters.  

“It is our opinion that property used or committed by contract for use solely in OCS (outer continental shelf) exploration and development in federal waters off Alaska cannot be taxed,” he wrote.  

State oil and gas attorney Martin Schultz said the policy covers the Kulluk. 
“It’s a pretty straightforward interpretation as it applies to the Shell Kulluk,” Schultz said. “That particular definition has not changed since this attorney general’s opinion was issued.”

The Gross ruling from 1977 is probably definitive.

PPP Poll: Mark Begich More Highly Regarded By Alaskans Than Sean Parnell

Here it is, from Public Policy Polling:

Q2 Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Sean Parnell’s job performance?
Approve .......................................................... 46%
Disapprove...................................................... 44%
Not sure .......................................................... 10%

Q11 Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Mark Begich’s job performance?
Approve .......................................................... 49%
Disapprove...................................................... 39%
Not sure .......................................................... 12%

Considering things like the constant vilification of Begich by AM talk radio and their ilk, one would think Mark would be in worse shape.  Why he is not might be an interesting question for the media, or for pollsters to explore.  I suspect his ten point edge between approval and disapproval, versus Parnell's two point edge is mostly because the public perceives Begich to be doing his job well, and that they are far less sure about Parnell.  This is particularly interesting because of the political makeup of the people polled:

Q27 Would you describe yourself as very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, or very conservative?
Very liberal ...................................................... 9%
Somewhat liberal ............................................ 15%
Moderate......................................................... 33%
Somewhat conservative.................................. 25%
Very conservative ........................................... 19%

When the Harper polling information came out last week, I wondered how the absent Mayor Dan Sullivan would do in a poll.  PPP answers that:

Q25 (Asked of 537 Republican primary voters) If Sean Parnell did not run for the Senate next year, who would you most like to see as the Republican candidate, given the choices of Loren Leman, Joe Miller, Dan Sullivan, and Mead Treadwell?
Loren Leman................................................... 20%
Joe Miller ........................................................ 19%
Dan Sullivan.................................................... 29%
Mead Treadwell .............................................. 23%
Someone else/Not sure .................................. 9%

Head to head, Begich shows a substantial lead against Sullivan:

Q21 If the candidates for Senate next year were Democrat Mark Begich and Republican Dan Sullivan, who would you vote for?
Mark Begich.................................................... 47%
Dan Sullivan.................................................... 41%
Not sure .......................................................... 12%

Begich isn't unbeatable, but at this point he looks pretty formidable.

That Joe Miller is less popular than "The Undertaker," Loren Leman, and has a 60% disapproval rating, might be another nail in Miller's political coffin.

[the author supported Sen. Begich in 2008, and has contributed to his 2014 campaign]

The Afflictions of Judith Butler and Steve Aufrecht

Late Thursday evening, I had the opportunity to read UC Berkeley philosophy professor Judith Butler's profound address partially on the understood rules of academic freedoms on campus, delivered earlier Thursday evening, at CUNY's Brooklyn College.

Earlier in the week, I read University of Alaska Anchorage Professor Emeritus Steve Aufrecht's pretty damn good essay partially on the understood rules of commenters' freedoms on blogs like Aufrecht's, posted at his blog, What Do I Know?

Both Butler and Aufrecht pleaded eloquently for civility, common sense and the necessity of real dialogue.

Their topics were worlds apart.

Butler was at a controversial event that discussed the Global BDS movement, presenting it from a favorable viewpoint.

Aufrecht was wrestling with a dilemma he is facing, trying to engage a somewhat obtuse yet intriguing commenter.

Butler, in the first publication of her remarks, linked to here, is being afflicted in the comments by a host of people who might have learned a lot from her wisdom.

Aufrecht isn't being attacked.  But having to continue to deal with an anonymous internet entity the way he has indulged it fascinates me.  The way Steve is handling this is creative and positive. I've learned a lot from him over the past six years.

When the commenter first showed up at Steve's blog, it was to attack me.  I immediately apologized to Steve for what I considered an affliction upon him.

Steve's response shows us his humanity.

And his curiosity - the "?" in "What Do I Know?"

Words from Judith Butler's concluding paragraph Thursday could have been uttered by Steve Aufrecht:

We can or, rather, must start with how we speak, and how we listen, with the right to education, and to dwell critically, fractiously, and freely in political discourse together.

American Gandhis Disrupt Obama's Assassination Czar Confirmation Hearing

Very few people make me more proud to be an American than Medea Benjamin, the most irrepressible white peace activist in our recent history.

Since 2002, her organization, Code Pink, has disrupted hundreds, if not thousands, of public proceedings that enable our crazy, debilitating, devastating wars.  The wars themselves are criminal enough.  But the ways they strip humanity of riches -whether that be to purchase multi-billion dollar aircraft and ships, or to destroy the fabric of a society like that of Iraq - rape the planet of the ability to collectively attack climate change, pollution and the growing disparity of wealth between the too wealthy and too poor.

Benjamin and her colleagues were early to recognize the lack of distinction between dead people killed by George W. Bush from those killed by Barack H. Obama.  They are dead, killed by our criminal war policies and the machinery of execution.

Obama's decision to elevate his Assassination Czar, John Brennan - a person who does not make me proud to be an American - to head the Central Intelligence Agency, is by far his worst decision since reelection.

If you want to donate to Code Pink, click on the Donate Now! button at this link.

Here is Code Pink's video compilation of their actions of patriotism Thursday, in the face of the confirmation of Obama's BFF war criminal in Washington DC:


The video shows several American patriots protesting insanity.  One of my favorites is Col. Ann Wright, who resigned from the U.S. State Department in protest of Bush II's war policies.

Here is Col. Wright in Anchorage, with Alaska civil rights icon, Diane Benson:

And here is Col. Wright in Gaza, with Medea Benjamin:

Anyone want to put odds on Obama having enough courage or wisdom to invite Medea Benjamin to the White House for a discussion?  Or a beer?

Lucy Lawless and Other Greenpeace Activists Fined $547.00 for Boarding and Delaying Noble Discoverer

About a year ago, a small band of Greenpeace activists boarded the Shell Oil-leased drilling ship, Noble Discoverer, in New Zealand, to protest drilling off of Alaska's Arctic coast.  Yesterday it was announced that they have been given a paltry fine:

"Xena: Warrior Princess" actor Lucy Lawless says she's won a "great victory" after a New Zealand judge handed her a modest sentence but declined to order costs sought by oil company Shell for her role in a protest aboard an oil-drilling ship.  

Lawless and seven other Greenpeace activists were each ordered Thursday to pay 651 New Zealand dollars ($547) costs to a port company and complete 120 hours of community service after earlier pleading guilty to trespass charges.  

Last February, Lawless and six other activists climbed a drilling tower on the Arctic-bound vessel Noble Discoverer to protest oil exploration in the Arctic. Another protester helped from the ground. Lawless spent four days in February 2012 atop the 174-foot (53-meter) tower, camping and blogging about her experiences. The action briefly delayed the ship's voyage.  

“I’m blocking Shell’s Arctic drillship because I believe passionately that renewable energy is the way of the future,” said Lucy Lawless at the time. “We don’t have to go to the ends of the earth to suck out every last drop of oil. Instead we need to smarten up and begin the transition to a clean, green, sustainable energy future and right now that means keeping Shell out of the Arctic.”

So, Shell lost their battle to have the participants and Greenpeace dealt with punitively.  Tough.

Meanwhile, the Noble Discoverer lies berthed in Seward, Alaska.  It is unclear whether or not it is free to move from its moorings.

Noble Discoverer - February 7, 2013

Back on December 27th, Ben Anderson wrote for the Alaska Dispatch:

According to Petty Officer Kip Wadlow, a spokesman with the Coast Guard in Juneau, the Noble Discoverer was put under what’s known as “port state control detention” on Nov. 29 when the drill ship was towed into Seward, thanks to a problem with its propulsion system. 

Wadlow said that Coast Guard inspectors boarded the ship to determine what went wrong. “While inspectors were on board the ship, they noticed several pretty serious crew safety and pollution-prevention system issues,” he said. 

By Dec. 19, the Noble Discoverer was cleared to leave Seward after the most serious issues were addressed. It won’t, however, travel under its own power to Seattle, where further repairs can take place. A tow vessel will take the ship to port. 

According to Shell Alaska spokesman Curtis Smith, the Noble Discoverer may have damaged to a propeller shaft during its trip from the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic to Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians Islands. En route from Dutch Harbor to Seward, Smith said the ship developed a “propeller vibration,” which is when a tug arrived to tow the vessel to port. Coast Guard inspectors noticed the other problems during their inspection. 

“For our part, we have supported Noble (Corporation) in swiftly addressing the items identified in the Coast Guard inspection,” Smith said in an email. “Of the 16 items noted, six have been closed and 10 will be completed in a west coast shipyard in the offseason. Many of these items were already planned for the Discoverer's post-season maintenance schedule.”

Anderson added:

Smith said that the vessel would be further repaired in Washington state during the winter, and the company fully expects the Noble Discoverer to be operational for the 2013 drilling seaason. He noted that the ship had passed all necessary inspections prior to departing for the Arctic. 

Uh, winter is about halfway over. What's the holdup?

Adding to confusion, Naomi Klouda wrote in the Homer Tribune yesterday:

Shell’s Noble Discoverer was moored in Seward to provide support during the grounding of the Kulluk. “That does a wonderful job of keeping restaurants and hotels busy,” [Seward Mayor Ristine] Casagrande said.

Not sure how accurate that is, but .....

Greenpeace activists in New Zealand managed to slow down Shell's Arctic drilling season a couple of days, maybe less, maybe not at all.  But the people running the show for Shell up here seem to have pushed experienced mariners into making bad decisions that have slowed Shell's aspirations far more than Greenpeace could have ever hoped.

Maybe Greenpeace should give Curtis Smith and his colleagues a special award for doing more to thwart offshore drilling in Alaska in 2013 than all the planet's environmental activists put together.

Begich Statement to APRN on Jewell DOI Nomination Raises Questions on His Ability to Run Kulluk Investigative Hearings

Wednesday's White House announcement of the Obama administration's nomination of Recreational Equipment Inc's Chief Executive Officer, Sally Jewel, to head the Department of the Interior in the president's second term, brought forth comments from all three members of Alaska's Congressional delegation.  The most comprehensive article yet on their comments was filed by Alaska Public Radio Network's Peter Granitz:

Senator Lisa Murkowski says Jewell’s private sector background would lend a healthy perspective to the department, but the transition to a massive government bureaucracy could be hard.  

“When you’re coming from outside the government, dealing within the government confines can be very, very difficult,” Murkowski said. “[Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu is a perfect case in point: Brilliant man, great credentials, but not a lot of background when it came to operating a department like Energy. And I think he’s been subjected to a lot of criticism for that.”  

Senator Murkowski says she’s met Jewell before at a cocktail party.  

“We talked about going hiking together,” Murkowski said. “She strikes me as that kind of person, somebody that is very easy going, very unpretentious.”  

But that doesn’t mean a yes vote is guaranteed. Murkowski worries Jewell could be too sympathetic to the environmental community.  

Before the full Senate can vote on the nomination, Jewell needs to pass a vote in the Energy Committee. If that happens, Senator Mark Begich does not know how he’d vote.  

“I am not just going to blankly support her because the president wants someone in that position,” Begich said.  

Begich is withholding judgment until he gets to know where Jewell stands on key issues like Arctic drilling.  

“The president has already said that is a policy they’re moving forward on, development of the Arctic,” said Begich. “But if the Interior Secretary isn’t supportive or slows down the process, that would be very problematic.” 
  

Senator Begich also appreciates that Jewell has been in the private sector. Before REI, she worked in commercial banking, and out of college, in the oil fields of Oklahoma and Colorado for Mobil. She’s been active in elections, giving money to many candidates.  

She’s mostly donated to Democrats, including a $250 contribution to Senator Begich in his 2008 Senate run. She also gave $500 to Senator Murkowski in 2009.  

Absent from her donor list is Congressman Don Young.  

He says he’s disappointed in the pick because he does not think she has an understanding of public lands issues. “I do believe her interests lie in recreational purposes and not multiple use of the lands,” Young said.

I emphasized Sen. Begich's comment on "slowing down the process" of Arctic development because it strikes me as a statement that raises a question about his impartiality as chair and chief hearing officer in the upcoming U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard hearing or hearings on the January 31st grounding of Shell Oil's drilling rig Kulluk, and the events leading up to that grounding.

I've requested to Begich's staff that his subcommittee provide information before the hearing opens, on the depth it might go into, particularly in regard to the swearing in of witnesses and subpoena of documents:

1. When will the hearing or hearings take place? 

2. Where will they be? 

3. Will witnesses be sworn in? 

4. Do you plan on subpoenaing any documents, such as the Aiviq log book, correspondence and phone records between Shell and the Aiviq crew prior to departure from Dutch Harbor, or other important records? 

5. Will the entire subcommittee participate?

Still waiting on answers.  I suspect most of those five questions can't be honestly answered yet, but by the third week of February, they should be in a position to provide information o the public.

His subcommittee owes it to Alaskans and a lot of others to pursue the depth of Shell's probable malfeasance in the Kulluk grounding, no matter where that leads.  Begich did write, in his letter to the Coast Guard Commandant, announcing the intent of his hearing:

I feel it is important to examine how this grounding occurred; the adequacy of the towing ships for the job in extreme, but not unexpected, weather; the failure of the tow vessel Aiviq's engines; reports of inadequate spare parts inventory; and the failure of the towing systems which led to the grounding of drill rig.

The author of this article has contributed to Sen. Begich's 2014 reelection campaign