[Carry_Okie]

Ping for discussion.

[EggsAckley]

PING

[LisaAnne]

Thank you for the ping. I will definitely read it tonight when I get home.

[Russell Scott]

Benedict Arnold is being exposed for what he is: a clueless, godless, facist phony. Apparently some of Daddy's genes did get into the Terminator's circuits. Go Tom Go!

[NittanyLion]

Wow! Appears outstanding at first glance, and I'm bookmarking for further review.

Thanks for all your hard work!

[rdf]

Go get 'em!

Richard F.

[rdf]

Go get 'em!

Richard F.

[.38sw]

...for reading later.

[pogo101]

Some of AS's stuff I like. Some, I'm of two minds about. Most, however, I don't like, esp. that stuff about the "false choice" between jobs and environment. Maybe SOMEtimes it's posed as a false choice, but to every choice there is a cost (or forgone benefit) and a potential benefit (or avoided cost). Maybe we don't always know what the dollar figures are, hence the need for an arbitrary "dollar value of a life" (or "of avoiding contracting cancer") in most cost / benefit analyses.

It's a little icky to have to assign value like that, but it's simply liberal nonsense to refuse to assign ANY value and to insist that weighing costs against benefits is somehow an invalid "evil corporations" approach.

[Snuffington]

Being that bearers of bad news have a nasty history of getting their heads chopped off, you might want to wear a chain mail tie after posting this.

[Dog Gone]

This whole fuel cell thing is premature, a massive boondoggle intended to please the multinational natural gas industry. We don't even have the pipeline or LNG delivery and storage capacity to run our electrical power generating plants now, much less to use it as a feedstock for cars!

While I don't think very much of Arnold's "policy," I dispute your conclusion that the fuel cell boondoggle is meant to please the natural gas industry. By your own admission, they don't need increased demand for natural gas.

[My2Cents]

I'd like to see this "overwhelming evidence."

There is no evidence. Clearly, California workers work better, and the economy thrives under a pall of smoking, choking, dirty air.

[kidd]

A well thought out analysis.

And yes, as you pointed out, this is simply political posturing.

Most of this environmental platform shows that Arnold has a "Los Angeles" attitude. His forest management ideas belong to someone who never really goes near a forest.

There is nothing here to encourage businesses to return to California. It seems that businesses can expect more mandates and regulations that will make them less competetive. There is also no mention of how to handle California's water problems (shortages and water table issues).

Its clear to me that Arnold is trying to win the uninformed voter. Perhaps, in California, thats the best strategy. Just don't expect any of this to be enacted upon.

[Writesider]

September 22, 2003

Memo to Arnold: Don't Just Say Something, Stand There!

So, Pedro Nava, California Coastal Kommisar, perennial Partisan-Democrat-Candidate and Santa Barbara's answer to Al Sharpton, is on the political prowl again. And this political season he can be spotted at any local gubernatorial event organized by either Party. And you can always pick Nava out of a line-up since he's the only one with a chip on his shoulder the size of an oil derrick, which would explain why he comes across so small.

And now added to his political repertoire are clever one-liners regurgitated with the efficiency of a Hydro-Powered Hummer. For example, yesterday, when asked about Arnold's environmental policy speech, Pedro suggested the terminator was all hat and no cattle, apparently a convenient slam at George W. Bush and his Texas roots. Admittedly, Pedro was crafty enough to use that opportunity to hit two piñatas with one stick.

But, the most curious thing of all, is why the local press continues to allow this guy to be the voice of the environment and all things relating to it. Is it because he is a State Coastal Commissioner? Big deal, that is a political appointment by a fellow partisan Democrat who, like Pedro, couldn't care less about sound-environmental-policy because he's too busy exploiting a trendy-left-environmental-agenda for partisan gain. And to add tremendous insult to an enormous economic injury, that exploitation is accomplished by undermining the downtrodden in California who just also happen to be disproportionately Latino; like NAVA!

Memo to Pedro Nava: let your people go!

And the most ironic, or perhaps despicable, aspect to Nava's pro-environment charade, is the fact that most of the green policies, laid out by Arnold, in his Sunday speech out on the Carpinteria Bluffs (sacred ground for some), are utterly indistinguishable from the know-nothing environmental-left-wing crowd who have hijacked the Democratic Party and all of its candidates, again; like Nava!

But don't take my word for it; consider some of Arnold's ideas:

Ask the federal government to buy back offshore oil leases to eliminate offshore drilling (and good-paying jobs?)

Cutting air pollution statewide by 50 percent (these type of austerity measures always hurt the poor the hardest)

Reducing energy consumption by 20 percent within two years (by establishing dictatorial energy controls imposed from Sacramento?)

Creating a Sierra Nevada Mountains Conservancy (just what the state needs, more government control of our natural resources)

Strengthening the California Coastal Commission (so politicos like Pedro Nava can exploit it for political gain)

Increasing parks in urban areas (minorities need good-paying-jobs, not more havens for neighborhood drug-dealers)

Every one of these new policies have been (in some way, shape or form) proposed or supported by the Democrat's and their anti-working-family environmental-left-wing-allies.

What remains to be proposed is an actual strategy to empower the private sector and help it create the millions of new jobs (particularly in the industrial-sectors) necessary to generate the revenues needed to balance the state budget. Because, after all, it isn't simply a matter of controlling spending. It is about an economic-growth-model built on market-oriented incentives in both the private AND public sector.

That continues to be the story-behind-the-story. Arnold, Cruz and Davis are focusing on the wrong things, as California continues its steady slide into the pacific ocean of red-ink and lost economic opportunity. The issue, with respect to the huge deficit and the 295,000+ lost manufacturing jobs, isn't that we lack trendy-left environmental policies! It is the exact opposite of that. We got into this economic and fiscal mess mostly due to the trendy-left, feel-good-environmentalism advanced by Davis, Bustamante, et al.

So, once again, the only unsolicited advice I would offer the Arnold campaign, with respect to environmental policy, is don't just say something; Arnold, stand there! And as for Pedro Nava, I say lose the chip amigo, take a well deserved political siesta and call me in the morning.

******

(Joe Armendariz is Executive Director of the Santa Barbara Industrial Association and the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association and one of the only conservative Latino's in California. Next week him the other two are holding their annual convention in a phone booth?

[Hoverbug]

As far as I have read it so far, OUTSTANDING!!!

(bookmark)

Hb

[AmericaUnited]

What good are all these words?

Basically not worth much without a comparison vs Davis and Busty's positions, the other two people who also stand the best chances of prevailing in this election.

[DoctorZIn]

Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[Ben Ficklin]

You need to hire an editor.

[farmfriend]

Breaking my posting strike for this very important thread by Carry_Okie.

[NittanyLion]

I read the whole thing - very interesting analysis.

IMHO the overriding, and most troubling, theme repeated in Arnold's proposal is the idea that government mandates can generate demand and essentially create consumer markets for hydrogen and other "environmentally friendly" products. As you stated quite well, the development of any market involves a long and quite complicated supply chain, but this is particularly true of automotive markets. It's quite likely auto makers would rather forgo CA sales than reconfigure a portion of their supply chain in an endeavor that will surely generate losses. 85% of the previous market with a 2% margin is better than that 85% plus the additional 15% at a 5% loss (not actual numbers, but representative).

I won't get into the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the absurdity of proposing hydrogen as a viable fuel source, because that seems to be common knowledge. But rest assured such grandstanding is infuriating.

Incidentally, can you provide sources regarding the emissions of plants/trees versus factories (essentially stating that plants may produce more particulates than factories are allowed by law)? I found that fascinating and would love to bookmark the source for future use.