Is Prop23 Relevant to Nevada County?

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my bi-weekly KVMR-FM 85.9 commentary aired earlier this evening (20 August 2010).  NC Media Watch adds to the relevancy argument here.]

By now everyone has heard of AB32, California’s new law to implement statewide energy cap and trade regulations.  Governor Schwarzenegger signed it and turned it over to the California Air Resources Board or CARB to implement through new regulations, bureaucracies, and fees levied on all levels of life in the Golden State.  The debate about its effect on the state’s economy, already heated before AB32 passed, now became torrid.

The wealth creating businesses and jurisdictions, with energy price sensitive economies, have analyzed and argued that AB32 would devastate an already ailing California economy, and further harm a business climate that puts California at or near the bottom of nationwide economic rankings.  But organizations and jurisdictions that hope for federal subsidies, and subsidy dependent investors hoping to create ‘green’ jobs, are the vocal proponents of larger government and increased taxes and fees that AB32 implementation would entail.  For good or ill, both sides are in solid agreement that AB32 would impact every facet of business and life in our state.

The battle lines were drawn when our Assemblyman Dan Logue introduced AB118 to suspend the implementation of most of AB32 until our 12.3% unemployment rate would come down again to a tolerable and more historical 5.5%.  Logue’s argument was that AB32, no matter how implemented, would be a serious drag on our economy, and to recover we needed less regulation and taxation, not more.  Many studies and analyses supported this argument.  But Logue’s bill failed in tax-and-spend Sacramento.  However, the public opposition to AB32 was overwhelming, enough to morph AB118 into Proposition 23 which we will all vote on in November.  Naturally, this started the pro/con Prop23 war, which brings us to the present.

CARB commissioned an economic study by an exposed academic fraudster to promote AB32.  He claimed it would create half million new ‘green’ jobs.  CARB also expanded its already huge staff to write new regulations and oversee implementation.  The discredited study was duly re-credited by the media, and has now become part of the left’s mantra in opposing Prop23.  The study has also allowed certain office holders and wannabes to abandon principle for politics.

In the meanwhile, various business and government associations have joined their voices in support of Prop23 to suspend AB32.  One of these important governmental organizations – the Regional Council of Rural Counties or RCRC - met this Wednesday in Sacramento to consider Prop23.  Nevada County is a member of RCRC, and voted with the majority to support Prop23.  The vote was an astounding 21 counties voting for Prop23, none against with Napa abstaining.
 
Another important aspect of RCRC’s public support of Prop23 is the related appraisal that AB32 will impact the economies of all rural northern California counties.  And also that the passage or defeat of Prop23 is clearly relevant to all residents and businesses in the RCRC region.

So now we come to Nevada County and its Board of Supervisors who will soon have an opportunity to declare their position on Prop23.   The Board has a stated policy not to take a position on issues that are not directly relevant to Nevada County.  I agree that they should abstain from resolutions concerning gay marriage, or the mid-east conflicts, or the gulf oil spill, or the mosque at Ground Zero, or even Arizona’s illegal alien law.

But I do maintain that the overwhelming number of Nevada County voters want to see their Supervisors take a stand on Prop23, simply because AB32 will affect all of us here in the mountains.  And most likely, it will affect us more than the folks living in the flats.  It would be a sad day if the Board ducks the issue using, for example, the lame ploy that resolving to support or oppose Prop23 would violate their ‘relevance policy’.  That is one shaky leg they should not attempt to stand on.

I am George Rebane and I also expand on these and other issues in my Union columns, on NCTV, and on georgerebane.com.  These opinions are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

Comments

[Russ Steele]

Click here if you want to see a puple cow whine

[George Rebane]

Oh my, and I'm KVMR's only conservative commentator. We must have missed all the calls for 'balance' during the remaining 99+% of the time when the station is presenting the other side.

[Jeff Pelline]

When has KVMR presented the other side of prop 23 to it's listeners? Please point me to that commentary? Tks

[Russ Steele]

The Top 10 Highest State Income Taxes: All Obama Blue States
Forbes, by Ashlea Ebeling:
1. Hawaii:  11% (income over $400,000 (couple), $200,000 (single))
2. Oregon:  11% (income over $500,000 (couple), $250,000 (single))
3. California: 10.55% (income over $1 million)
4. Rhode Island:  9.9% (income over $373,650)
5. Iowa:  8.98% (income over $64,261)
6. New Jersey  8.97% (income over $500,000)
7. New York:  8.97% (income over $500,000)
8. Vermont:  8.95% (income over $373,650)
9. Maine:  8.5% (income over $39,549 (couple), $19,749 (single))
10. Washington, D.C.:  8.5% (income over $40,000)

[Russ Steele]

Here is some of the other side, on Page 9 of 11 from the Legislative Analyst’s Office 7/15/2010 3:30 PM FINAL Analysis of Prop 23.

Economic Changes Would Affect State and Local Revenues. Revenues from taxes on personal and business income and on sales rise and fall because of changes in the level
of economic activity in the state. To the extent that the suspension of AB 32 resulted in somewhat higher economic activity in the state, this would translate into an unknown but potentially significant increase in revenues to the state and local governments.

Potential Impacts on State and Local Government Energy Costs. As noted above, the suspension of certain AB 32 regulations would likely result in lower energy prices in California than would otherwise occur. Because state and local government agencies are large consumers of energy, the suspension of some AB 32-related regulations would reduce somewhat state and local government energy costs.

Now the other side:

Thus, the suspension of AB 32 could preclude the collection by the state of potentially billions of dollars in new allowance-related payments from businesses.

And now the reality check:

“.... the billions of dollars in new allowance-related payments from business” would all be passed on to the consumer. So, no matter how you slice it we the consumer ends up paying for AB32. However, we have an option in not having to pay those billions by passing Prop 23. VOTE YES on PROP 23!

[George Rebane]

All questions concerning what content KVMR has presented should be addressed to the station. The station is an outlet for primarily liberal views of all kinds - that was the meaning and intent of my use of the "other side". I also don't know of anyone presenting the conservative response to their liberal commentaries. My commentaries are not intended to counter or rebut anything specific that the station has aired. I select my own topics independently and without any editorial restrictions on my subject matter or expressed viewpoints.

In sum, I feel grateful for having been asked to offer conservative commentary on KVMR.

[Todd Juvinall]

The whiner does not allow dissent so his crying out is meaningless.

[Barry W. Pruett]

George: Thank you...nail on the head.

[Jeff Pelline]

Lots of mudslinging but nobody has pointed me to the Prop. 23 counterpoint on KVMR.

[Bo Reardon]

Mr. Russ Steele, if you EVER direct me to Peeline's blog (intellectual pornography, waste of internet space, obvious mouthpiece for the co-exist crowd, lack of focus, reason, facts, common sense) again I will consider you an enemy. Dr. Rebane's commentary was a little bit "middle of the road" for my taste, but, he did accurately portray AB32 as "the devil." Thank you to KVMR for this service.

[Paul Emery]

Jeff

Are you suggesting that anytime we air an opinion piece or commentary we should immediately air a counterpoint?

[Russ Steele]

Jeff,

Here is your opportunity. Contact KVMR and tell them you volunteer to give the Prop 23 rebuttal. I am sure that they would be glad to give you 4 minutes to mumble about the benefits of AB32. Then you can post the text like George has and we can all take look at your insight and wisdom on the issue. Come on it is easy, you just write out four pages of double space text and read it on the air. I am sure you are up to the challenge with your insightful intellect and extensive research capability. Show us were we the consumers will not be paying the stimulus and subside bill for all those green jobs that AB32 is projected to create. Come on you can do it. A smart guy like you, you can really show us the error in our thinking and analysis of the problem. Why you can even show the pros down at the LAO all the mistakes they made in their evaluation of CARB models that are leading the public down the road to serfdom. I am sure you are up to the challenge Gosh if George and I can do, you can too, being so much smarter than we are. Go for it!

[Dixon Cruickshank]

Peeline your such a putz, its not Georges job, call the fricken station and demand to be put on the air - you expect George to do it for you - really?

you must be a twin, one of you couldn't be that stupid

[Jeff Pellne]

Paul,
"Immediately"? How about ever? Where is the balance? Where is the Prop. 23 counterpoint? Where is the disclosure about George Rebane's contribution to Tom McClintock's campaign? Tom is spearheading the effort for Prop. 23? You are being used by George Rebane and the "hard right." Let me know when you plan to air the counterpoint. Look at all the mudslinging here just for raising the issue of balance. Who is "Bo Reardon." What a bunch of "sickos."

[Dixon Cruickshank]

Will KVMR disclose George’s contribution, as well as his bias toward the initiative?

His contribution and yours to any socialist group have no bearing - his "bias toward the initiative" is called an opinion - maybe speaks of why you are the FUE, you missed Opinion 101

[Jeff Pellne]

Oh, and more mudslinging from a guy supposedly named "Dixon Cruickshank." LOL.

[Paul Emery]

Jeff

Should we ask for campaign disclosures for anyone who expresses a political opinion on KVMR ?
As for climate issues issues in general-
Perhaps you missed our almost two week daily coverage of the climate change conference in Copenhagen and the one week coverage of the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth conference in Bolivia where support for AB 32 was a major topic of discussion. They received a half hour a day coverage between 6 and 8PM for a total of three weeks.

[D. King]

Where is the balance!!!
I want higher energy prices NOW!!!

Who said that?
No I didn't!
Yes you did!
Shut up!...Get out of my head!

[Barry W. Pruett]

Before we go Jerry Springer again, let's calm down a little and look at what is happening. Mr. Pelline is asserting that KVMR is cow-towing to local conservatives and lecturing KVMR on the principles of journalism. The assertion that KVMR is unbalanced towards conservatives is so ludicrous that it should not even be debated. Jeff Pelline is the last person in this community to be lecturing anyone on the principles of journalism or balanced reporting. His blog is like the Neveda County branch of MoveOn.

Kudos to KVMR for allowing conservatives in the community a forum to voice opinions.

[Michael Anderson]

I can't figure out if this thread is a Hippy-Dippy Love Fest, or Thunderdome at Burning Man.

Maybe it's both.

Carry on...I am thoroughly enjoying the entertainment.

[RL Crabb]

Your problem is you've lived here too long, Michael.

[Jeff Pellne]

To repeat: Can anybody point me to the KVMR commentary that provides an opposing view to George's; that is, one that discusses what's wrong with Prop. 23? No, they can't, because there has not been any such commentary.
The issue is not about global warming in general or whether KVMR gives voices to conservatives. It is about whether KVMR has provided an opposing view to Prop. 23.
The issue is critical since it will soon go before our county board of supervisors. KVMR owes it to the community to present both sides.

[Russ Steele]

Jeff,

Here is your opportunity to shine, why demand some else do what your are unwilling to do. Step up to the plate and lets hear your other side of Prop 23. Rather than attack people for their points of view, lets hear the argument agains Prop 23. You can do it!

[Todd Juvinall]

When I created and KNCO aired my talk show called Republican Policy Friday back in the 90's we usually got the leftwingnuts doing the call in. We had spirited discussions and my friend and co-host Peter Hughes (a transplanted Englishman and electronics genius)would thoroughly enjoy ourselves. We did this duo show for about four years until Peter passed away and I turned it over to Karen Chileski in 1998. Anyway, in all that time no one, not even the most strident lefty asked for or whined as much about the program as Pelline is now about a 1/2 on KVMR. My God! Give it up Pelline.

[Mikey McD]

Russ, you try and find 4 minutes of good stuff in AB32! MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.

I contend that if Russ and George were for AB32, their stalkers would be against it.

My question is... How far to the extreme left does a person need to be to say KVMR is being 'used by the far right'?

I found it very helpful that Mr. Emery gave specific programs (hours worth) which directly discussed AB32 issues. Thank you Mr. Emery.

[Jeff Pellne]

To repeat again: Can anybody point me to the KVMR commentary that provides an opposing view to George's; that is, one that discusses what's wrong with Prop. 23? No, they can't, because there has not been any such commentary.
The issue is not about global warming (AB32) in general or whether KVMR gives voices to conservatives. It is about whether KVMR has provided an opposing view to Prop. 23.
The issue is critical since it will soon go before our county board of supervisors. KVMR owes it to the community to present both sides.

[Russ Steele]

What is repeating the same thing over and over a sign of ? Could it be a sign of shallow thinking, being lazy or something else?

[Barry W. Pruett]

Okay...KVMR is a conservative rag. Now, I have seen it all.

[Russ Steele]

Here is the latest on this issue from Jeff P's blog

Steve Frisch
I sent Paul an e-mail early this morning offering to do a commentary on why California voters should reject Proposition 23. (Paul, I sent it to you [email protected] address since I did not have your personal e-mail)
Sierra Business Council, the organization I am affiliated with, plans to make a statement to the Board of Supervisors in opposition to Proposition 23. Do any readers know when it is likely to be on the agenda? If one of the Supervisors reading could weigh in on timing I would appreciate it.

There is more but, Jeff P is going to let the SBC Rent Seeker defend AB32. Why would they defend AB32, they will benefit from the billions generated by the carbon fees collected from businessiess, then passed on to NGO's like SBC. We will hear all about SBC self interest.

Jeff Pelline
Thanks Steve for your input and upfront disclosures, including financial ones. No word yet on when this will be an agenda item. It is not on the agenda for next week’s BOS meeting. I checked. Looking forward to hearing your commentary in the wake of George’s. If it were me, I would have invited both of you on at once, but glad to see the ball rolling nonetheless.

[Steven Frisch]

Really Russ, if you are such a critic why were you a member of SBC for 3 years? Why did you accept a government subsidized position in our week long leadership institute? You never asked any questions then about where the money came from or who was supporting you. I find it ironic that the leadership training focused on collaborative leadership skills. Clearly you learned little.

I am kind of sick of being called names over here for the services we provide. We are a non-profit, legally constituted under state and federal law. What non-profits do you support Russ. Every one of them was constituted under law to meet a specific purpose that someone else would think is a self interest. Are you a member of the chamber? Some would say they represent business against the interest of labor. Are you a member of the Tea Party? Some would say they represent a special interest. Isn't that why we create social sector organizations? We have a right to do so and to freely associate under the first amendment of the Constitution. And in past posts you supported eliminating limits on donations to non-profits as an unwarranted restriction of free speech. Don't you see the hypocrisy of this position?

I would ask your readers, do you go to church? Those are non-profits, subsidized by the federal government. Are you rent seekers and self interested cads? Are you sucking at the teat of government? Are you self interested ? Yes, yes and yes. And you know what, you have a right to be, because we have the freedom in our society to associate ourselves with others who share of beliefs and seek to advance them. That's what a free society is all about.

I run a legal transparent non-profit that provides a measurable public benefit as a social sector organization. Your attempt to diminish that are childish and tactless, and constitute a threat to the free speech of ALL people who choose to associate freely with others. If you go to church, beware the Russ Steele's of the world. If they quash dissent from one source, they are sure to extend that practice to others, to the detriment of all.

You can sling mud at me all you want but I will not stop exposing the truth as I see it and I will not be intimidated by accusations against the organization I work for.

Since George has been censoring my posts, I will ask him to post this one since it directly relates to me.

[Paul Emery]

Steve

I welcome you to express a rebuttal commentary to George's piece on KVMR. Contact me at home this weekend [email protected]o.com

[George Rebane]

SteveF, bravo! excellent repartee. While I think your logic is skewed a bit, your civil counter here is the kind I want to promote on RR.

Re criticism of SBC. I believe that any organization funded by tribute taken from me by the government is a fair target of my criticism if I see that the monies it gets are not spent according to my values. Specifically, if SBC were funded by private monies willingly offered, then I would salute you and send you off with a 'Vaya con Dios!'

[George Rebane]

SteveF, and should that suit your ends, I will gladly welcome your post of the transcript of your KVMR Prop23 commentary on RR.

[Mikey McD]

It is unethical (and should be illegal) for an employee of a non-profit to promote legislation/proposition which directly affects their personal pocket book. I would hope that the anti-prop 23 crowd would see the obvious conflict of interest (illegality) behind frisch's words and select a better puppet. No one from any church or Tea Party is PAID by tax dollars like SBC AND permitted to lobby politics...as was his op/ed piece this diatribe was void of fact,reason, integrity.

[Anna Haynes]

For heaven's sake Michael, use your real name. Stand behind your words.

[Todd Juvinall]

When I see a response as long as SF's in defense of himslf then I know they are hiding something.

[Anna Haynes]

Blogpost-mention alert -
Speaking of the (life-protecting) purpose of the law Mr. Steele and Dr. Rebane wish to inactivate, I'm wondering if these two still view Christopher Monckton as credible.
( http://ncfocus.blogspot.com/2010/08/acolytes-of-church-of-monckton-nevada.html )

[Steven Frisch]

George what makes you think you know anything about my budget? From the very beginning you and Russ and your posters have ASSUMED you know what you are talking about, but never did anyone bother to ask me to describe my budget or our business model. For your information less than 15% of my budget is government grants. The other 85% is earned income from contracts, and private grant, membership and major donor contributions. I have intentionally not brought my explicit data to the table because I don't trust your readers not to attack my staff. I am very thick skinned, but it would be patently unfair of me to expose my staff, the people I owe fealty to, to the personal attacks commonplace here.

I am very happy to have people critique our positions or the work we do, but to challenge the existence of a non-profit is just silly. I bet there is barely an American alive who is not a member of some social sector organization.

[Steven Frisch]

To Mikey McD I don't give a rats a** what you think should be legal or not, I am not only completely within my legal rights, I know it, and challenge you if you disagree to prove it. Right here, right now. If not stop implying I did something illegal. There is a name for that, it is called libel.

Your comments constitute a personal attack and are contrary to the terms of service that George has set. I have been intentionally posting a few personal comments here myself, to test the waters on what the standards actually are. Guess what, If I posted what you did I would have been censored. George, you are supporting a double standard and it should be obvious to you.

By the way churches are free to discuss policy and legislation and take government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and exemptions. Many churches also are directly paid by government to provide social services, a practice I support. To hold one set of social sector organizations to a different standard is discriminatory.

Your position is just bluster. You are not thinking it through. I bet you are a member of a few social sector organizations yourself. My guess from taking a look at your web site that you are a member of the NRA. The NRA is a 501c4, but their foundation is tax exempt. I bet your daughter, who is featured on your web site, has taken a few NRA gun safety courses. Here is a description of the NRA Foundation services:

"Established in 1990, The NRA Foundation raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearm related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological and artistic context. Funds granted by the NRA Foundation benefit a variety of constituencies throughout the United States including children, youth, women, individuals with physical disabilities, gun collectors, law enforcement officers hunters and competitive shooters."

You think there are a few people in the country that don't think that should be tax deductible?

[Barry W. Pruett]

SBC is a 501(c)(3) organization with its main charitable purpose being education with gross receipts of $1.33 million in 2008. SBC received $468,000 in grants in 2008. Steve Frisch was paid $95,000 for his work in 2008. SBC was supported by 84.5% by the public in 2008 and 99.4% in 2007. Since 2006, SBC has not reported any lobbying activities to the IRS.

[M McD]

Your assumptions are wrong (for example, I am not and never have been an NRA member). The reason so many folks on the side of reason are not vocally standing up to you radical lefties is because of your stalker characteristics. Let's agree to leave my children out of this, there is no reason for you to attack them too.

Your NRA, Church, Tea Party examples don't support your argument, none of these groups receives tax payer money to operate. Your fuzzy logic used to clear your conscience regarding conflict of interest makes a reason based discussion impossible.

I will do my best to ignore you for the rest of my life if you make an effort to do the same with me(especially my children).

[Steven Frisch]

So what non-profits are you a member of? The assumption of NRA membership was only an example anyway, it was an illustration, and abstraction, the main point remains.

I absolutely did not attack your children, that is a ridiculous statement. You have your child featured on a public web site field stripping an AR 15 rifle in 52 seconds. You are her father and you posted it on a public web site. I merely mentioned it to illustrate a point. Even in your righteous indignation you can't just be honest can you?

I did not use the Tea Party as an example of a group receiving public funding, I used it as an example of a 501 c 3. My understanding is that the Nevada County Tea Party Patriots are filing for a non-profit status.
The NRA allows tax deductible contributions and has received government funds on several occasions to do gun safety courses. Thousands of churches receive payment from the government to provide services, it is what is known as "faith based initiatives".

I'll make you a deal, you stop being "personal" and I will stop being personal. Just don't call me illegal again and we can call it even. If you never reference me in a post again I will be quite happy. I will do the same with you.

George if yu want to take all of these down I would be quite happy.

[Steven Frisch]

Barry I was quoting 2010 figures and you have our 2008 990 form. An honest difference between years.
Our budget this year will be more like $1.9 million, and government grants will be about $275K. In my book that's about 15%. In 2008 it was about 35%. ($468K of $1.34 million). We are getting increasingly entrepreneurial. It would be my goal over the next few years to eliminate as much government funding as possible by building independent profit centers within our organization.

SBC has done no lobbying since 2006. Under IRS code supporting or opposing a CANDIDATE is not allowed for a 501 c 3. Supporting or opposing a ballot measure is allowed.

Here is the IRS publication describing the rules:

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#d0e6937

See isn't it nice to know that non-profits are so transparent.

[George Rebane]

Gentlemen, does anyone want to return to the question of whether Prop23 is sufficiently relevant to the fortunes of Nevada County for the Supes to take an explicit pro/con stand on backing that proposition?

I'm sure all of you could easily muster cogent arguments that would both illuminate the question and inform us of your wider point of view.

Just a thought.

[George Rebane]

SteveF, don't claim to know anything more about SBC's budget than what Barry Pruett has dug up. I take it you corroborate those numbers.

[Steven Frisch]

With all due respect George you empowered your readers to engage in personal attacks, irrelevant cross posts, and angry diatribes. These guys have been attacking my association with a non-profit for months. Now you are going to step in and say, "hey stick to the point." That is rich.

Here is the post that started it from RUSS STEELE:

"There is more but, Jeff P is going to let the SBC Rent Seeker defend AB32. Why would they defend AB32, they will benefit from the billions generated by the carbon fees collected from businessiess, then passed on to NGO's like SBC. We will hear all about SBC self interest."

What the heck does that have to do with whether or not Prop 23 is relevant to the board of supervisors?

This post calls me a rent seeker who seeks to personally profit from a public policy. Mikey's posts charge me with a lack of personal integrity, defines me as acting illegally, and calls me a unethical puppet.
Did you step in to say, "hey stick to the point"? No you did not.

Barry Pruett does not seem to have a problem outing my salary (not that I should really mind it is a matter of public record) and Mikey has a problem with me referring to his PUBLIC POST linked directly to his name and identity posted on this site. If he had a problem maybe he should not have posted it there:

http://mikeymcd.tumblr.com/

You allowed your people to get out of hand. I can't really be expected to lay down and not defend myself? Not going to happen. Call off your dogs and I will declare peace.

[Account Deleted]

George, I'd like to comment on Prop 23, but J.P.'s numerous requests for specific instances of anti 23 opinions on KVMR are so funny, all I can do right now is shake my head and laugh. Next, he'll want specific instances of the sun rising in the east. The anti 23 folks are not going to care about any costs that will be incurred by the public because of prop 32. They want these costs to be in place to force the public to behave in a way that the pro 32 folks want. The best way to pass prop 23 is to show the public the truth of what is in store for their pocket book if 32 goes forward. Most of the pols that pushed 32 will be conveniently out of office by the time 32 starts kicking in.

[Steven Frisch]

George, I corroborate those numbers. They are from my 2008 IRS 990 form. I have no problem with the accountability required by the federal government. It is the deal I make to be a non-profit.

I am also being totally honest about my 2010 numbers.

Care to comment on why neither you nor Russ bothered to ask me about my budget politely before attacking my integrity? I must admit, it really bothered my. It seemed mean.

[George Rebane]

SteveF, from your comments I'm not sure that we even speak the same language. Where/when did I attack your integrity? You often loop into semantic acrobatics that I am totally incapable of following.

And my 10:00pm comment was just a gentle invitation to all, please feel free to ignore it.

[Steven Frisch]

I love how you just skipped over that thing about calling on people to get back to the point, me accurately documenting where we got off the point, and documenting the personal attacks, and you did not intervene.
Some nice host you are.

Really, whats the point.

[Todd Juvinall]

Why do liberals always have to have the last word?

[Mikey McD]

McKenzie is not my daughter, she is an internet icon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irykjLjuKo8

(one of many you tube videos)

[Steven Frisch]

My mistake--it was posted on your web site under the moniker "Daddy's Little Girl"

George still is not answering the question and you guys are way to personal. Attacking a mans business is personal. Attacking his integrity is personal. Its bullshit and its hateful. Its why people hate blogging. Because no one can control the demons.

[George Rebane]

There is always one certain and unmistakable way for anyone to punish an unseemly, unrewarding, and/or unproductive comment thread - withdraw.

[Steven Frisch]

I will withdraw, permanently, as I stated with with Mikey above, and declare truce, if you people leave me alone. That means not posting about me, my business and my integrity. No more personal attacks.

Critiques of ideas, without attribution, are fair game.

I will hold myself to the same standard over at Pelline's blog. If not I will defend myself.

[Anna Haynes]

Re why we need to keep AB32 (& thus, why we should vote No on the backward AB23), see Steve Frisch here on California's past and future -
http://jeffpelline.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/our-orange-county-political-wannabes/#comment-10385
(Steve - save your breath over here, & just provide a link to over there. Also, if you can quit expecting decency and intellectual honesty in some quarters, you'll find it does wonders for your equanimity - since they aren't characteristic of Roger Stone territory.)

[Steven Frisch]

Serenity Now!

[D. King]

Is Prop23 Relevant to Nevada County?

I've spoken to a friend whose business uses
quite a bit of energy each month. He has,
long before it was popular, gone through
and changed many of his practices to reduce
his energy costs. I asked him what he would
do if his costs continue to go up. His answer
was simple and immediate; lay people off.
People are starting to understand what the
true costs of AB 32 are and are rejecting it for
what it is: A power grab.
As an engineer, I clearly understand what can
happen to you when you play with electricity!

http://www.cardiactherapy.org/images/PurpleHair.gif

Good luck to our friends from the left.

Yes on Prop 23.

[Todd Juvinall]

Yes on 23! Hopefully their education process will take hold and usually in the last couple of weeks of a campaign. When people realize the gravity of their electric bill's rising costs, then perhaps we can grab a victory.