This Is Getting Tedious.

About a month ago, consumer activist Tom Elias wrote a column about the Malibu LNG fiasco in which he expressed his hope that a group of current and former Hollywood stars would be able to thwart plans for Carbrillo Port. Elias hypothesized that these movie stars could have great influence over Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, himself a former box office giant.

Elias described the movie stars thusly:

"But now arises the new 'tribe,' all Malibu residents and property owners. Members include the likes of Barbra Streisand, Jamie Lee Curtis, Tom Hanks, Daryl Hannah, Ed Harris, Woody Harrelson, Olivia Newton John, Jane Seymour, Craig T. Nelson, Charlize Theron and Dick Van Dyke, to name only a few.

Malibu may be as sacred to them as Point Conception is to the Chumash, and Billiton's plant might mar the views they've paid millions of dollars to enjoy. So they've signed letters of protest, and even turned out for anti-LNG rallies."

And he noted:

"If consumers are lucky, this gaggle of Hollywood celebrities will have even more juice with current Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, their old acting buddy, than the big companies seeking to bring in LNG."

Fast forward to today's Ventura County Star where yet another Elias column graces the oped page.

This column trys to make an issue out of the fact that BHP Billiton hired Sacramento power broker George Kieffer and his law firm to represent its interests in California and-- gasp-- this was the same firm that worked on an unsuccessful LNG project 20-some years ago.

A-ha! Gotcha!

Me? I don't get it. A month ago, Elias was all for a group of mega-wealthy movie stars using their personal influence over their former colleague (Gov. Schwarzenegger), and now, because Billiton has hired a law firm to perform the same function, it's something nefarious?

If I ran a foreign company and had an $800 million project on the table in California you bet I'd hire a law firm to represent me. And, if there was a law firm with experience on this exact, same issue? I'd hire that firm.

So, by Elias's reasoning, it's ok for the movie stars (who, by Elias's own admission are simply NIMBY homeowners acting in their own self interest-- remember, Elias wrote: "Billiton's plant might mar the views they've paid millions of dollars to enjoy. So they've signed letters of protest, and even turned out for anti-LNG rallies.")to lobby and exert influence, but the other side cannot?

This is a battle that has been and will continue to be fiercely fought by two heavyweights. Which is the good guy and which is the bad guy depends entirely on your point of view (or simply your "view," as the case may be), but rest assured, both sides have interests to protect and both sides have lots of money and lots of connections. So let's drop the manufactured sense of outrage and argue this thing on its mertis-- and its liabilities-- and may the best person win.

Links to LNG proposal of 27 years ago surface [Ventura County Star]