?

Log in






web analytics

Dear America,

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!






web analytics

Dear tired of hearing it,

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.

Prop 9: I am voting no on prop 9 because prop 9 attempts to create a Californian Constitutional Amendment which would permit hearsay testimony, remove the right to counsel in parole revocation hearings, and dramatically alter the parole hearings process by changing the standard 1- 5 year parole denials to 3-15 year denials, with 15 years the likely standard.  In 2014 when the first three strike felon is eligible for parole after their initial 25 year sentences, an inmate whose crime was petty thievery could be sentenced to another 15 years in prison, not by a jury of peers but by the parole board.  According to the Independent Legislative Analyst's Office Prop. 9 would potentially cost the State General Fund "hundreds of millions of dollars annually", threatening funding for schools, public health and other public safety services.

Consider that right now prisoners with life sentences are only up for parole every 3 years and barely any actually are released on parole and prop 9 aims to make the process even more difficult by making parole happen every 15 years. Imagine the overcrowding! Imagine how contrary that is to California's constitutional intent to rehabilitate and re-enter prisoners into society! This from the NYT in 2005:
"The state has 30,000 lifers, of whom 27,000 will eventually become eligible for parole. As a practical matter, parole for lifers is a two-step process: the parole board must recommend it, and the governor must approve it. Neither step is easy. In a 28-month period ending in 2001, according to the California Supreme Court, the board considered 4,800 cases and granted parole in 48. Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, reversed 47 of the decisions."
 
Prop 10: I am voting no on prop 10 because it is providing rebates for buying alternatively fueled cars with bond money. It basically sounds to me like we are paying for our own rebates. I am also voting no on prop 10 because it proposes that we use more natural gas, which is costly and has encouraged other states to use more coal in the end because of its scarcity and high price. It is good to note here that the Sierra Club is pro natural gas and is pro drilling as long as we do it in Louisiana.

Prop 11: I am voting no although I do know tons who are voting yes. I think we're all sick and tired of the legislature taking advantage of its assured party wins just because of how the lines are drawn. They don't even have to run a real race because the Dems will win the Dem areas and the Reps the Rep areas. There is no question and it would be nice to see a real race and real accountability out of fear by our legislative representatives. However, all that said, I would rather have Democrats rule the legislature than Republicans any day. Doh!

Prop 12: I am voting yes on this because our veterans have gone through it! I have several cousins who have fought for the army and navy and have a good friend who fought for the marines. We have asked a lot of them and have not given much in return. I think they should be able to get some help to buy houses. Another thought is that our economy is in trouble and maybe this will help keep the housing market from completely crumbling...???

Prop 13: joking!






web analytics

Dear Sierra Club members,

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:
Her client list includes a utility industry association called the Solar Electric Power Association, whose members include all of the key utility energy players in California - PG&E, Edison, SDG&E, LADWP, SMUD, and many of the municipally owned utilities. It also contains Edison Electric Institute and the Electric Power Research Institute, two nationwide Big Utility lobbying groups, and major supporters of "clean coal" and nuclear.
 
This information shocks me as much as I am sure it shocks you.

I propose that we all contact them!
information@sierraclub.org
membership.services@sierraclub.org


"Dear Sierra Club,


Why are you lending your name to PG&E, Edison, and Sempra's campaign to keep relying upon dirty coal, something that your organization states it is against? I find it disappointing to find out that your leadership is allowing their relationships with these utility companies to sully your good name. Please explain Liz Merry's connection to these utilities via her company Verve Solar. Please tell me how this does not present a conflict of interest for your organization and how we the people can trust your group anymore knowing this.

Sincerely,

(your name)"


xoxo!
Tellinit!





web analytics

Dear Fox News,

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!





web analytics

Dear Confused Facility Digger,

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
 





web analytics

Dear Chasing Clean Air,

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:

Almost 17% of California's electricity comes from climate change producing coal from Utah and other western states. That may not sound like a lot to you but consider California powers homes and buildings for almost 37 million people!

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





web analytics

Dear Solar Cali Girl,

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:

CA Foundation on the Environment and the Economy

Board of Directors
NRDC, Sheryl Carter - Vice Chairman
Southern California Edison, CEO, Alan Fohrer
Environmental Defense, Thomas Graff
Union of Concerned Scientists, Amy Lynd Luers
PG & E Sr. Vice President, Nancy McFadden
Contributions Received from UtilitiesPG & E - $40,000 (2006)

Alliance to Save Energy
Board of Directors
NRDC President, Frances Beinecke – ASE BOD
Southern California Edison, John Fielder
Pacific Gas & Electric, William T. Morrow
Contributions Received from UtilitiesPG & E - $80,000 (2005 – 2006)

Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies
Board of Directors
GE Generation VP of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs (former); MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. (former), Jonathan M. Weisgall – CEERT Board President.
Sempra/SDG&E (former); Calpine (former); Edison Mission Energy (former), Deborah Reyes - CEERT Board Member.
Enron (former), Robert T. Boyd - CEERT Board Member.
NRDC, Ralph Cavanagh, Board Member.
FPL Energy, Diane Fellman, Board Member
Environmental Defense, Karen Douglas, Board Member
Union of Concerned Scientists, Clifford Chen, Board Member

Even more shocking to me was the discovery that climate change scientists, scholars and academics have written books chronicling the Big Utilities’ grip on mainstream environmental groups to silence their opposition and, indeed, turn them into allies.

In Who Owns the Sun, author Dan Berman, PhD (a journalist, professor, & environmental activist) writes about how

“America's most powerful corporations, utilities, and environmental organizations are in league with government to protect a dirty little secret: Solar power is a better way of meeting this nation's (or, for that matter, any other's) future electrical needs. But even though we already have the technology to turn sunlight into clean, reliable power, they want to keep us in the dark.

Energy corporations manipulate congress, and handsomely reward congressional advocates, to keep people hooked on fossil fuels and delay solar development. The utility industry is poised to slap a meter on the sun once fossil fuels are depleted. Corporations have found ways to collaborate with (and silence) former environmental adversaries. This book contains documented proof of how utilities are crippling—and attempting to own—solar energy.”
 
Thank you for introducing yourself!
xoxo!
Tellinit





web analytics

Dear undecided,

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!

NO Prop 6 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.

NO Prop 9 attempts to create a Californian Constitutional Amendment which
would permit hearsay testimony, remove the right to counsel in parole
revocation hearings, and dramatically alter the parole hearings
process by changing the standard 1- 5 year parole denials to 3-15 year
denials, with 15 years the likely standard.  In 2014 when the first
three strike felon is eligible for parole after their initial 25 year
sentences, an inmate whose crime was petty thievery could be sentenced
to another 15 years in prison, not by a jury of peers but by the
parole board.  According to the Independent Legislative Analyst's
Office Prop. 9 would potentially cost the State General Fund "hundreds
of millions of dollars annually", threatening funding for schools,
public health and other public safety services.
 

I hope you will take these into consideration when you mark your ballots on November 4th. Also, in regards to prop 9, I would like to point out that - Key provisions of Prop. 9 duplicate existing law, much of which was already approved by the voters in 1982 as Proposition 8, “the Victims Bill of Rights”, or by other existing laws already enacted by the state.

xoxo!
Tellinit

P.s. The guys @ SQ are talking about these propositions with the volunteers and are counting on us to remember that they are humans too.

Tags:






web analytics

Dear Friday,

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









web analytics