EXCLUSIVE: Jasper James' 'Rocket' Video Premiere

Posted using ShareThis

Although you were scared, you prevailed. All your hard work, faith, and tireless hours of nail biting paid off!


Wasn't it just the most amazing feeling to know so early on election day that we had a new and progressive President? I was just reading Generation of Swine today. Such a great reminder of what swine we have had to endure these last many many years. And what an interesting trip down memory lane to revisit the disasterous presidency that Reagan bestowed upon America. It is such a better read now that Obama is President!

In another post, I will revisit the props that let us down. Specifically props 7, 8, and 9 because I believe they deserve a memorial of sorts.

In the meantime, cheers!

xoxo!
Tellinit!

I know I keep writing about the election and you're getting tired of it. Don't worry there are only 2 days left and I will stop at that point. I'll focus on something else! I am even getting tired of it, but then again I know you want to know what I think and I know you're tired of scrolling through all my posts so I am going to stream line my opinions and votes here, especially because I have scoured he blogs and have some new opinions:

Prop 1A: I am voting yes because I would like to see us be able to get to and from LA in 2 hours or less. I know the proposition will cost a lot of money, but I think it will be worth it because in the long run we will be using cars less, there will be fewer airlines and we will still want to go visit our friends and families in LA. Other countries are doing it and I believe we should too.

Prop2: I am voting yes for this because I haven't heard a good explanation for why I should not. My mom is voting no because she thinks this should not be legislated. She thinks everyone should put their money where their mouths are by buying eggs and meat that has been organically and locally farmed. Do what you will.

Prop 3: I am actually not sure and invite you to weigh in on this one. I am leaning no because of the bond money factor.

Prop 4: I am voting no on this proposition because this is yet another attempt to chip away at Roe Vs Wade. The Anti-choice movement is relentless. Remember how they lobbied Target not to provide the morning after pill at their pharmacies? I remember being a teenager and reading about parental notification bills in other states and feeling that my humanity was discounted by the Representatives voting for it. The counter argument for voting yes on prop 4 is terrible. They state that if a teenager is suffering from a case of incest or familial abuse she can make her case in front of the court. I don't know any teenager who would feel comfortable doing so.  The yes side also says that as soon as the teenager takes this option, Child Protective Services will get involved. Again, I don't know any teenager who would employ this option knowing such information.

Prop 5: I am voting yes on prop 5, because I believe in more drug treatment for drug offenders. I am not particularly tied to people voting yes or no on prop 5 because I have heard equally good yes and no arguments and simply made the personal decision that I will vote yes.

Prop 6: I am absolutely opposed to this proposition passing. I am voting no on prop 6 and think you should vote no on prop 6 because it takes funding away from the education system. Prop 6 is aimed at people associated with gang violence and especially targets undocumented immigrants.  I am voting no on prop 6 because it increases what crimes are considered felonies, enables 14-year-olds to be tried as adults, and increases life sentences. Prop. 6 would make the our overcrowding problem vastly more extensive by creating over 30 new crimes, sending more people to prisons and keeping them there longer.  The California Legislative Analyst estimates Prop. 6 will cost at least $965 million to implement in the 2009-10 fiscal year, with more one-time costs of over $500 million for prison facilities.

Prop 7:
I am voting yes on prop 7 because it will apply clean energy requirements to all utility companies instead of just PG&E, Sempra and Edison. I am voting yes on this because it will make them switch more quickly so that by 2025 half of our energy comes from clean energy. I am voting yes because this will eliminate the loophole that is allowing PG&E, Sempra, and Edison to get away with using dirty coal by capping their penalties at $25 million. For more information on the small renewable company argument and about the sellout environmental groups see my other blog posts.

1. Prop 7 was written by former Senator Martha Escutia who was the head of the energy committee. The funder of prop 7 went to school at UCSB and is an environmental philanthropist. Some are upset that he lives in AZ, but I don’t understand the big deal because we all know if this passes in California, the rest of the country will adopt the same law which would be a significant accomplishment for the country and the world. The people who are opposing prop 7 are politicized organizations who have to play nice with the utility companies as you will see if you read my other posts. The NRDC was founded by the recently retired CEO of Edison so they could have a utility friendly environmental group in their pocket. Ralph Cavenaugh of the NRDC was even quoted for saying "On environmental stewardship, our experience is that you can trust Enron."

2. It will not disrupt power development because it simply expands on what is already happening, but does add more sticks so that the utility companies will have to follow their RPS requirements for the first time.

3. Does not increase your electric bill - think about it. PG&E, Edison and Sempra are not going to spend more than $30mill to save you from paying high utility bills. Also, fossil fuels are expensive and are contributing to the increased utility bills we are paying already. Even the best of fossil fuels, natural gas, is expensive because of its scarcity and still emits global warming toxins. Clean renewable energy wins because it is clean and once solar and wind farms are built the source of electricity is free.

4. Does Not create market conditions for price manipulation. This is a weird argument. In fact the NRDC who is opposing prop 7 along with the utility companies are responsible for our last crisis with deregulation.

5. Not badly written. Former Senator Martha Escutia knows energy policy and wrote this initiative. Former energy expert David Freeman, who solved the energy crisis knows this and said California utilities can accomplish this. Former PG&E CEO who is now able to voice is unbiased opinion agreed. The person who first set the RPS requirements, Dr. Donald Aitken also agrees. The co-founder of the United Farm Workers union Dolores Huerta also agrees.

6. We need alternative sourced ELECTRICITY! This is not about fuel or about hybrid cars.

7. This will NOT undercut smaller clean energy COMPANIES, because all sizes of clean energy companies can contribute to the RPS. The opposition (the utility companies) are taking a section of the initiative that discusses PERMITTING and are pretending it is about meeting the RPS.

8. Thus plenty of competition, lots of clean renewable energy, less CO2, lower electricity rates, and more time to live on a healthy plant. Let's not forget the point. The point is that California is the 16th largest contributor to global warming in the world and we have to do something major to cut down our emissions before it is too late.


Prop 8: I am voting no on prop 8 (saw some people refer to it as prop hate - love this verbiage) because it is not okay to discriminate against anyone for their religious beliefs, their race, their sexuality, their gender preference, or sex. Discrimination is discrimination and oppression is oppression. People throughout the ages have always had what seemed like a logical reason to exclude a group of people and it has never made their flawed logic any better or more acceptable. In hindsight people always regret their hateful stances.

I am disappointed in your leadership. If I was a member I would revoke my membership. Since I cannot, I encourage you to revoke yours in in my place, or at the very least contact your leadership and ask them what the heck is going on!

I used to be the kind of voter who would rely upon the Sierra Club to give me an informative suggestion about how to vote. This year, I am thoroughly disgusted for two reasons in particular.

According to SolarCaliGirl's once again amazing research, the woman Liz Merry on the Sierra Club no on prop 7 TV ad, owns the solar consulting firm Verve Solar.

SolarCaliGirl dug up this information:

You have been driving news nuts! I can't (and can) believe what you've been putting on our TVs. Unlike they would have us believe, Americans are smart enough to see through your haze and through the Republican party's attempt to cast a shadow upon ACORN and early voting. In fact, 51% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Sara Palin. Americans know that enough is enough. So, as Nas said:

"I pledge allegiance to the fair and balanced truth. Not the biased truth. Not the liar's truth.
But the highest truth. I will not be deceived. Nor will I believe
In the Propaganda. I will not fall for the Okey-Doke. I am tuned-in."



Destroy and rebuild.

xoxo!
Tellinit!

I understand the confusion and understand where you're coming from. It is really great that we are all taking the time to figure this proposition out! So I am going to try to explain this further and please let me know if you have any further questions so I can keep trying to add clarity to the confusion ($30 million worth of confusion).

The two relevant provisions that support the argument that Prop 7 could exclude small providers are Sections 7 and 14. Section 7 amends the Public Utilities Code (PUC), but does not make any changes to current law on what qualifies for the 50% RPS. It seems that that particular point is undisputed. Section 14 adds a section to the Public Resources Code that defines the siting process for large scale renewable plants, i.e. 30 MW or more.

The opponents to Prop 7 are arguing that if (after Prop 7 passes) someone sues to exclude a provider under 30 MW from qualifying for the RPS, a court will look at the definition of the term "solar and energy PLANT" in the PRC/siting provision for large plants, and transport it to the PUC section on what qualifies for the RPS and then impose the definition of a solar and clean energy PLANT onto the wholly distinct term "Solar and Clean Energy FACILITY" for no better reason than becuase the terms sound the same. This was the heart of the attorney's argument - it turns on a prediction of how a future court will interpret a term.

However, I have read several legal analyses on this matter, including one by Tam Hunt, who is a renewable energy lecturer at the UCSC Bren School of Environmental Manamgement. He explained that CA case law is well settled on the matter of statutory interpretation. Apparently, the "golden rule" of statutory interpretation is that a court looks first to the "plain and ordinary" meaning of the term and next to the proponent's intent. Here, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "facility" doesn't invoke a size restriction. But even if that doesn't resolve the issue, the intent of the proponents will be weighed heavily by the court. The proponents signed an affidavit under penalty of perjury that the intent was not to exclude small providers. They also stated to the court on record at the hearing you describe that it was not their intent to exclude small providers. 

Also notable is the fact that the independent, non-partisan Legisaltive Analyst's Office did not identify any potential problems with the language that would exclude small providers.

xoxo!
Tellinit
 

You really put into perspective for me how it is that 40% of our CO2 emmissions could come from how we power California. Of course, there are so many people in California, and the majority of our power comes from dirty fossil fuels. LADWP uses 48% coal and Glendale uses 100% coal. Ewwww! So then, factor in the 17% from Utah and other western states and that's a whole lot of coal and a whole lot of contribution to global warming! An excerpt from an excellent post:

And we 37 million need to plug our electric cars and trucks into renewable energy sources so we don't have black unfit-to-breathe air.

The No on 7 backers talk about taking decisions for renewables away from local communities, and how the bill is poorly written.

Our dirty air/climate change problems are incredibly bigger than any one community or flawly written plan. 

I don't know how flawly written the plan is but I do know that all plans put into action go through tweaking and changing, and the bottom-line is we need big safe renewable projects put into motion fast now.

Thank you for your blog!
xoxo!
Tellinit

You are very thurough with your investigation of the groups that are opposing prop 7 and in turn are opposing clean renewable energy. Seriously, your blog posts really impress me. I thought I did a pretty good job at illustrating the connections going on between the environmental organizations and the utility companies, but you really put it all together! For other readers, an excerpt of an excellent post:

To my surprise you keep telling me you are undecided about prop 6 and prop 9.

As I mentioned, my friend volunteers at SQ. She explained why both of these props should be no votes and I am pleased to finally be able to share her esteemed recommendations with you!

I love you. You are a great day! No wonder! You are Fantastic, Fabulous, Free, Fiery, and Fierce!

Besides that whaaat?! Prop 7.

$29,719,500.00! That's how much money PG&E CORPORATION AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, and EDISON INTERNATIONAL AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES have invested in thwarting clean renewable energy.
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1304245&session=2007&view=late1

If I had that money in my bank account right now, I would have a great day with you! I would pay off my credit card, my student loan, buy a new dress, plan a trip outta the biggity, donate to the ACLU, to the no on 8 campaign, to Obama's campaign, and donate $ to all my friends.

Instead they are wasting their millions on filling up my TV time with their ads and I just heard them on the radio this morning on my way to work! Ewwwwww.

xoxo!
Tellinit

I'm sure you feel as shocked as I do over the recent negative publicity aimed at ACORN.

It makes me so mad to hear McCain and Palin supporters hate all over this esteemed organization. Okay, so I used to work at ACORN, and it insults me personally. We did real grassroots organizing. Actually talked to people about the changes they wanted to see in their neighborhoods. Neighbors bonded and united over finding their voice. Politics isn't just for the top dogs. It's a system that the people can influence because we are the ones who vote. I'm on a tangent.

ACORN recently released a press release responding to McCain's efforts to stir the base and aptly described McCain's most recent political escapades as erratic. He's no longer (not that I ever thought he was) a Maverick. He's just ERRATIC with a scary mission to suppress voter turn out!

Annnyyway, I'm asking you to write some comments about why you love ACORN.

Let's feed some positivity their way!

xoxo!
Tellinit!

No on Prop 9!

This is what I gathered from my friend who volunteers @ San Quentin:

Right now prisoners are up for parole every 3 years. If Prop 9 passes, it will be every 15 years. That means an automatic extra 15 years of prison! Unfair and costly. More soon!


xoxo!
Tellinit

I know how you feel.



xoxo!
Tellinit

Well, anonymous poster, you said there are a lot of environmental groups like the Sierra Club opposing prop 7. As I already said, I think they're sellouts! The more I look at the list of people who are opposing prop 7 the more compelled I am to wonder "what the F?"  Haven't we already learned from Bush that it is no longer acceptable to simply accept the word form the anti-people establishment on how we should and shouldn't vote?  Isn't it now more important than ever to do our own research? The establishment environmental groups are selling us out becuase they would rather play in the big pig pen with the big money utility companies, big money corporations, and big money government. Lame.  So there's that and this:

The Sierra Club:
The Sierra Club and Walmart? Yup. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/118/working-with-the-enemy.html, http://www.prwatch.org/node/6995
The Sierra Club's seal for environmentally unfriendly products:
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1304245&session=2007&view=late1

The NRDC:
The NRDC and Walmart? Yup.  http://www.greenbiz.com/column/2008/06/30/prius-envy-and-greening-wal-mart?mode=one

This isn't even new, but still makes the point - the NRDC sells us and the environment out all the time:

The NRDC was one of a six environmental organizations including the National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, who pledged support for NAFTA if ceratin environmental protections were respected. The only problem was these supposed protections were almost certainly never going to be adhered to, as the rest of the environmental community noted, "it would be "environmentally irresponsible" to negotiate narrower, specific commitments or pledges from the Administration in trade-related areas outside of the binding fast-track language itself, as NWF had been proposing. "
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/40/075.html
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1993/05/mm0593_04.html

Another time when the NRDC was considered an odd political bedfellow on the wrong side of protecting the environment and Californians - was when they were for deregulation in California:
"This jolt of free market reality has scrambled the conventional wisdom of deregulation's most fervent backers -- a coalition of odd political bedfellows including rightwing Republicans such as Tom Bliley of Virginia and environmental lobbyists such as the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Conservation Law Foundation."
http://www.solarnet.org/greenwash.htm

http://www.peta.org/feat/greenwash/nrdc.html "The NRDC has aggressively lobbied the EPA to initiate several large animal-testing initiatives. Dissatisfied with the rate at which the EDSP was being developed, the NRDC filed a lawsuit in an attempt to force the EPA to begin the testing process sooner—without properly validating the animal tests that would be used—and has fought every attempt by PETA to ensure that animal tests undergo the same scientific scrutiny as their non-animal counterparts. The NRDC also coordinated a joint letter calling on the EPA to require that all pesticides undergo developmental neurotoxicity testing on animals. The nonvalidated developmental neurotoxicity test kills between 1,200 and 2,500 animals every time it is performed. In addition, EPA officials have admitted that they don’t even know how to interpret the results of this test."

The Environmental Defense Fund:
The EDF and Walmart? Yup. (So that's how President of EDF, Fred Krupp makes his $300,000+ salary! ) These establishment environmental organizations forgot that a deal with the devil is a deal with the devil.
http://www.greenbiz.com/column/2008/06/30/prius-envy-and-greening-wal-mart?mode=one

"EDF says it will "focus on creating a Green Company Program to improve environmental performance at the 30,000 Chinese factories that supply Wal-Mart and on building a purchasing system that rewards suppliers with environmentally preferable products." But who is going to pay for this and what's the incentive to act?

Domestic and foreign Wal-Mart suppliers often act out of fear, not goodwill. Fast Company has profiled domestic suppliers like Vlasic pickles and Huffy bicycles, both of which suffered from the company's relentless low pricing demands. It's a considerably more difficult expectation that thousands of suppliers in China will go solar or clean up wastewater discharged while making low-priced goods for U.S. consumers. It's hard to imagine these suppliers greening through some kind of reward system without a fundamental transformation of the low pricing model.

How will EDF and Wal-Mart coax suppliers into paying for clean up when they are already being squeezed by the company's buyers to produce goods at rock bottom rates that perpetuate abusive working conditions? In January, CEO Lee Scott discussed greening the company's supply chain and said the company "will favor -- and in some cases, even pay more -- for suppliers that meet our standards and share our commitment to quality and sustainability."

This implies the capital costs of cleaning up will be borne by suppliers. If that is all the company can offer, it is not going to work. Wal-Mart often expects suppliers to cut prices annually or risk losing contracts, according to Fast Company magazine. What if a factory owner in China can bear the cost to retrofit factories but Wal-Mart decides to pull the contract and source from Vietnam the next year because labor is cheaper?"

http://www.peta.org/feat/greenwash/ed.html The Environmental Defence Fund was one of the chief architects, and is largely responsible for initiating, EPA's notorious high production volume (HPV) chemical testing program. The HPV program was created to pressure chemical manufacturers to test (or retest) thousands of chemicals using a "checklist" approach that relies on numerous crude, painful, and uninformative animal tests. Environmental Defense opposed the incorporation of non-animal tests into the program. Even though the animal protection community has reviewed and commented on every proposed HPV test plan in an attempt to limit the number of animal tests performed, Environmental Defense has only commented on a small handful of HPV test plans. Yet in virtually all cases, Environmental Defense has called for more animal tests, even on substances well known to be blinding and corrosive.

The League of Conservation Voters:
How surprising (not) - the President of the board and Edison? and PG&E?:
http://www.clcvedfund.org/about/board.html#top
Mr. Gladstein has used his knowledge and experience in developing and implementing technology deployment programs for the Department of Energy Clean Cities Program, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, American Honda, Sound Energy Solutions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Leadership Cities program, to name but a few. In addition, he was part of the team that created the Carl Moyer Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, California’s highly successful program to reduce emissions from diesel engines. He is a graduate of Duke University, and holds three graduate degrees from the University of Texas, Austin and the University of California, Los Angeles.

That's it for now.  Help! The establishment is exhausting me! LOL.

xoxo!
Tellinit

So I actually care a lot. I'm a liberal. I am progressive. I am an active participant in my community. I help my friends out, I buy organic, I shop with a canvas bag, I still have an old car that I will drive until it breaks. I bicycle around. I volunteer. I am nosy and butt into conversations that I think I can add to. I ask questions.

This is what I know:
The Sierra Snow pack is melting faster than ever! The largest resevoir in California is at the lowest level in 16 years! Wild fires scared me so much this summer and they have more than doubled since last year! 1800 + wild fires in California! We are in a drought. We are in global warming trouble!

This is what I found out when I asked what the deal is w. prop 7 from a volunteer yesterday:

• 40% of man made CO2 comes from HOW we power California.
• I  learned that right now only 3 utility companies (PG&E, Edison, and SEMPRA) are required to use any clean energy but that this initiative will make ALL of them abide by renewable standards. Including publically owned utilties like EAST BAY MUD.
• The other thing I learned is that PG&E and Edison are putting so much money into the anti prop 7 campaign because they're scared. The initiative is going to remove the cap on penalties - which is only $25million - which is clearly chump change for them.
• Right now if one of those 3 utilties don't adhere to the renewable energy requirements, the penalties aren't a sure thing - because it's just a regulation. But prop 7 will make them a law.
• The utility companies are lying about how prop 7 excludes small renewable companies. I asked and this was what he said: There is no exclusion of small renewable energy companies in the initiative.

So that's it. I'm hungry. Filipo's here I come!

xoxo!
Tellinit w. gusto!

P.S. update Oct 18th: LADWP uses 48% coal to power LA. Another reason I am voting yes on 7.

Your momma is so smart, she's gonna vote yes on Prop 7!

Your momma is so smart, she's gonna vote no on Prop 8!

Your momma is so compassionate, she's gonna vote no on Prop 9!

That's all I know about your momma.

Prop 7: It's gonna make it easier for us to continue to live in this world. I.e. Utility companies will have to use more clean renewable energy to power California with. That's 50% by 2025. Clean renewable energy includes: solar, wind, and hydro. Clean renewable energy does NOT include "clean" coal!

Prop 8: Are we really still having this stupid debate? Let people be who they are! Equality! Freedom! For real!

Prop 9: My friend is a volunteer at San Quentin and told me all the reasons and now I don't remember what they are. All I remember is that it made me mad and at some point I'll explain further.

xoxo!
tellinIT

You crack me up!


The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.

Thank you for the afternoon humor!

xo! xo!
TellinIt

Sounds to me like you have way too much money on your hands! Maybe you should give some of it back to me so I can use it more productively. But no...instead you have to waste it on defeating Prop 7. $27 million! Damn Gina! Are you really that scared of using clean renewable energy?

It's late, I'm gonna go get hyphy!

xoxo!
Tellinit