« Terrorist Alert - The Brits Strike Back | Main | Is America Too Big? »

06 October 2010

Comments

Jeff Peline

George,
That picture you're using might be copyrighted. You might want to be careful about that.

Todd Juvinall

George, good article.

Greg Goodknight

George, what you don't understand is that SBC income is not a factor in Steve Frisch's activism, because his motives are pure. He just wants to do the right thing by his community.

This was the point of an old Tom Lehrer lyric...

We are the Folk Song Army,
Every one of us.... Cares!
We all hate poverty, war and destruction
Unlike the rest of you Squares!

Pelline just placed me on moderation at his blog with a trumped up claim of me being insulting. This was after he called me an "Arse". Double standards at work, nothing new for Jeff.

Jeff Peline

Greg,
No, you made a demeaning, insulting remark about a fellow reader because you couldn't win the argument on merits. You probably are better suited here.
-Jeff

Jeff Peline

BTW, John Stoos, who is more conservative than any of you, continues to comment freely on my blog. He is civil, respectful and provides intelligent insights. You should get to know John better — perhaps some of his civility will rub off.
http://churchofthekingsacramento.com/index2.htm

Greg Goodknight

No, I didn't Jeff, and your double standards were showing through.

A poster, a Pat Wynne, I believe, was incredulous that it was 113 degrees in LA recently, and that it had never been that hot when she was living there. I made a a fairly obvious point to the effect that, well, while she might be really old (I don't know her), human lifetimes are too short to use to make climate determinations. Maybe Jeff would post it here, I didn't save a copy.

Jeff has been itching to get rid of me precisely because I was making points on the merits, time after time, and couldn't be dismissed as easily as a creationist right winger like Stoos.

Jeff Peline

Greg,
You bore me. But if you prove to be civil in your moderated posts, I'm happy to let you comment freely again. I've already cleared one of them.

Greg Goodknight

Jeff, I've been remarkably civil in an incredibly hostile and insulting environment, your blog. I sincerely doubt it's "boredom" that drives you to allow that, and I'm not doing it for your entertainment.

Jeff Peline

Greg,
John Stoos enjoys the environment and holds up fine.

Paul Emery

"KVMR has made it clear that it also felt it was wrong of me to point out SBC’s relationship to the implementation of AB32. In fact, their position was that the money trail from the American taxpayer to the SBC coffers was only an unsubstantiated opinion that I hold."

Do we have to go over this again. It is very frustrating trying to carry on a meaningful discussion on these pages when deep, thoughtful and detailed discussions are dismissed whenever convenient to make a point. What was wrong George is that you completely disregarded the protocol that I established for the show. Hopefully it was your inexperience in media forums that led you to disregard my instructions.

Rather than rewrite I will repost an earlier piece I wrote from "AB32/Prop23 is Very Relevant to Nevada County"

"I am profoundly disappointed that I have to respond to the characterization of my "instructions" concerning the discussion of Prop 23 that I hosted for KVMR radio on Wed Sept 1 between George Rebane and Steve Frisch.

My biggest concern when I proposed the conversation was that it turn into a debate about other issues rather than the pro's and con's of prop 23 and I had a particular concern that callers would engage in personal attacks on my guests. In order to address that question I made it clear in all advanced promotion and description of the show that questions be general in nature for both guests and not directed to an individual guest. Also, in my conversations with my guests prior to the show I made it clear that this was not a debate but a discussion and that the program was about Prop 23 and that personal agenda's and opinions my guests have of each other was not relevant to the topic. Protecting the dignity and opinions of the guests from unfair hit and run attacks is a top priority when I do a radio show..

So when George asked if he could read an opening statement, which was not discussed as part of the format, I reluctantly, with Steve's consent, allowed. I thought that my desire for this radio show not to be confrontational was very clear. I was extremely disappointed when in George's introduction statements he launched into his characterization that Steve was a " pro-government lobbyist" among other descriptions that I won't repeat since they are already part of this blog.

That was absolutely what I was trying to avoid. It was completely unfair to Steve because he was not expecting a direct confrontation in an intro statement that was not part of the original concept. To be fair I should have stopped the show at that time and gone off air to straighten up the situation.

In all my years in radio I don't recall a guest being put to such a disadvantage and I apologized later to Steve about my lack of control in allowing this to happen.

The bottom line is that calling Steve "pro-government lobbyist" was a characterization that could not be accepted as fact and demanded a response from Steve So there we go right at the start we're off topic and engaging in a two way confrontation, which is exactly what I was trying to avoid."

Todd Juvinall

I have read Pelline's blog and read as he caves to the really far lefty nuts there in their desire to cleanse themselves of conservatives. I read his threats to Greg, Stoos, Mike and the rest. I never see any threats to his buds. He is a hypocrite simple as that. He "may" let Greg post. Well isn't that special? Sorry, the left is intolerant of dissent and always looking for excuses to shut off anyone who doesn't agree. Pelline is just a run of the mill liberal, hubris abounding.

Greg Goodknight

Pelline, Stoos is a born again creationist preacher, unable to sway anyone on matters of science. Nor has he had any village idiot turned loose against him and allowed to post lies in order to defame him.

One specific lie by Doug Keachie was that I had in the past claimed there would be no sunspots in the current cycle, made specifically to try to damage my credibility on climate matters. You've allowed him and others to Troll on your watch.

Who Cares

calling Steve "pro-government lobbyist" was a characterization that could be accepted as fact

Todd Juvinall

Pelline, you need to stop threatening folks man. Grow up.

Jeff Peline

Todd,
Here's an analogy you can understand: A person's blog is like their living room. You can decide whether you want to come over and poop there — or not.

George Rebane

No Paul, we don't have to go over the whole thing. Please reread my post, I did not contradict anything you claimed. Even though I remember only your exhortation not to inject personally directed remarks during the discussion, I recall no requirement not to state what we believe to be fact during our turn to speak, and especially facts that would properly frame the program for the listener.

You quote me twice as having called SteveF a "government lobbyist". Could you please point me to where I did that?

To this day I disagree with the KVMR policy of denying their listeners such data. However, in the unlikely event that the occasion should again arise, I will explicitly clarify my remarks beforehand.

Greg Goodknight

Jeff. you've allowed Doug Keachie to stand in your living room and make, time after time, personal attacks against another 'guest' in your living room.

I suspect you were doing the same in TheUnion's living room.

What does that say about your living room and how you allow your guests to conduct themselves?

Jeff Peline

Paul,
Why don't you see if George Foster is up to some commentary on KVMR? Though of the same political stripe as "the other George," I promise you'll find it more enlightening.

Paul Emery

George

Since you asked from "AB32/Prop23 is Very Relevant to Nevada County"


"In short, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Prop23 issue with Mr Frisch, whom I consider to be a pro-government lobbyist appearing here in his professional capacity."

Steve Enos

Speaking of not-for-profits and their political actions, how about this, how about the National Organization for Marriage and what they have been up to?

Here's a link to the story ans some additinal information about this:

http://yubanet.com/california/NOM-Charitable-Organization-Violates-Tax-Exempt-Status-by-Campaigning-for-Senate-Candidate.php

George Rebane

Thanks Paul, for some reason my text search did not pick that up.

JeffP, please behave yourself.

Todd Juvinall

JeffP, based on your statement about living rooms, I suspect you have fecal matter all over the internet. You are just a hypocrite man. Fess up, it is cathartic to let it out. Go ahead, we won't laugh. Snickering.

Steven Frisch

I'm sorry George but could you clear something up for me? Is CABPRO a "private California corporation" or is it a 501c4 organization as has been claimed by Martin Light and Barry Pruitt?

Steve Enos

From the latest CABPRO newsletter:

"While CABPRO is a not-for-profit organization, we have deliberately declined the 501c3 status for two reasons. The private corporation designation allows us to keep our membership confidential, and it frees us from unnecessary outside controls".

Steve Enos

Barry Pruett posted on his blog the following:

"As we all know CABPRO is a corporation formed under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code."

George Rebane

SteveF - I think as a private California corporation, it's up to its management and board to decide what information about itself it would want to reveal.

Steven Frisch

Actually George about the last point, I totally agree with you. If CABPRO is a private, for profit, California corporation it is entirely up to them to decide when and to whom they wish to disclose information.

If that is the case they should stop lying about who they are. And they should have correct Mr. Pruett when he provided false information on THEIR BLOG.

Steven Frisch

[Unfortunately SteveF posted a comment here that displayed his faulty ability to reason, and concluded with a tirade of calling me names. Consequently, for losing his cool, he has earned a time out. gjr]

Steven Frisch

By the way, if CABPRO is a private for profit corporation then be honest about why they are in business and what they are advocating for, their own individual businesses ability to make a profit. Not some non-profit mission or some arcane social good or special interpretation of economics. They formed an organization to advance their own profit.

Do you even know the meaning of the word HYPOCRITE?

Don't you realize that is EXACTLY what you are charging me with above?

Bob Hobert

I've learned from the tirades above that A. Mr. Frisch is a taxpayer funded pro-government environmental lobbyist and B. KVMR has a policy of denying their listeners such information. What takes you fellows so many words? Oh well, back to reading Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand was so perceptive...

Steven Frisch

OK Bob lets see If I have this straight.

CABPRO should be able to lie the the public about their tax status and I follow the rule and I am the bad guy?

You guys are just stooopid.

Bob Hobert

I think this whole page is stupid. The discussion could have been about AB32 and Prop23.

Steven Frisch

George picked the topic, George allowed CABPRO, an organization he is a former board member of, links to, and is supportive of, to misrepresent themselves to the community.

George si the one who is morally challenged here.

Jeff Peline

Also, CABPRO's newsletter states:
"While CABPRO is a not-for-profit organization, we have deliberately declined the 501c3 status for two reasons."

So Barry Pruett said the group is 501c4 nonprofit, George said it is a "private California corporation," and the newsletter said it is a "not-for-profit" corporation.
Which is it? Don't people who are donating to CABPRO deserve to know?

George Rebane

SteveF - you are accusing of CABPRO lying to "the public about their tax status". Can you point to where such lies were advanced? You also use the word IF, and then reason as if you had not used that conditional. For the record, I have never misrepresented CABPRO nor allowed them to be misrepresented on RR. Nor have I ever seen CABPRO misrepresent themselves in any public statement or forum. Again, please substantiate your charges. Your assessment of their status is in error.

And your charge of hypocrite is curious. I have not accused you of wrong doing in your advocacy of issues that benefit SBC. But because you are a taxpayer funded 501c3, I believe it proper that you declare your professional status when you're advocating issues that would directly benefit SBC at taxpayer cost. When I was in corporate life and a major rainmaker, my affiliations and benefits were always known whether I spoke to the media, at a conference, school, or customer presentation.

An example of a proper statement for you to make in your introductory remarks on issues such as AB32 is, "Apropos to what I'm about to say, I want you to know that SBC receives a major part of its funding from various government agencies and tax preferred institutions. My successful advocacy for (insert issue/cause) may well contribute to the future funding of SBC." Then go ahead and sing your heart out.

Finally, yes this piece is about you and your role in promoting AB32. And you get credit for using words such as "morally challenged" instead of some of that other stuff. Now if you could only explain to the readers the line of reasoning that makes you identify such a challenge for me.

George Rebane

JeffP - You unfortunately reason as if those descriptors are somehow mutually contradictory. This may explain why you have other problems with what people say and write, and explains some of the obvious frustrations that you express.

Rest assured that CABPRO members and benefactors know exactly the kind of organization they are supporting. Their deserts are fully met.

Jeff Peline

George,
Why doesn't CABPRO just publicly confirm its status for members, benefactors and the community at large?

Steven Frisch

Just answer the question George. Is CABPRO a non-profit or a private for profit corporation?

Spare me the other bull hockey. Every time I speak on behalf of my organization I identify myself as the President of the Sierra Business Council, which is a 501 c 3 non profit.

The evidence of CABPRO's claims of being a non-profit are all over the place for the public to see. It is in their membership letter, on their web site, in a blog post on their web site, and in blog posts on your site and Russ's site, which Martin light, the ED of CABPRO reads and comments on. I have repeatedly substantiated my claim.

There is nothing wrong with CABPRO being a for profit corporation. Over on Pelline's site I clearly stated they should have a perfect right to state their case proudly, a right which all of us as Americans share.

There is something wrong when two former directors of CABPRO have such substantially different explanations of their corporate status and the ED will not even answer the question.

There is something wrong when a former ED of the organization says they are not a non-profit and the current ED allows that claim to sit on their web site.

There is something wrong when CABPRO questions my right to speak out on public issues, and then endorses candidates.

By the way much of the things you state as fact about SBC above are wrong, but there is no point in even discussing that with you and your ilk.

Michael Anderson

Wow. Just came into this circus after working all day. Seems like everyone needs to take a powder.

The laws are very clear. This will work itself out according to what is required by law. If everyone would just focus on that for a moment we could get to the crux, and then move on to things more substantial.

George Rebane

JeffP and SteveF - I am not an agent of or for CABPRO, just a member. As a private corporation CABPRO will disclose information about itself as appropriate through its board and/or management. (This apparently is a difficult point for you both.) Its ED is your proper source of that informaton.

"By the way much of the things you state as fact about SBC above are wrong, but there is no point in even discussing that with you and your ilk." I have tried to be meticulously accurate within the scope of my description of SBC. I would appreciate it if you would correct my errors. (My ilk would be equally appreciative.)

For lack of a better course, I will ascribe your silence on my other requests/points as falling in my favor until you choose to append the record.

Steven Frisch

Lets see how this works....talk smack..... get called on it....pass the buck.....deny responsibility.

You are one stand up guy!

Jeff Peline

George,
"Just a member"? You also have said you are a former CABPRO board member. This feels very "balk balk balk balk!" But maybe it's just me.

Paul Emery

Even by George's admission CABPRO is a lobby, (When asked if they were a Lobby George responded "Paul, Todd will speak for himself, but again the answer to your CABPRO query is a resounding YES.") Shouldn't they be registered as such?

Todd Juvinall

George, these guys are floundering. This read is great. Keep asking them for the truth and they run for cover. The FUE and rent seeker don't even know the law. Very good, your ilk salutes you George!

Steve Enos

It is really simple isn't it?

From the CABPRO website:

"While CABPRO is a not-for-profit organization, we have deliberately declined the 501c3 status for two reasons. The private corporation designation allows us to keep our membership confidential, and it frees us from unnecessary outside controls".

CABPRO promotes and states they are a "not-for-profit", then states they are a "private corporation".

So CABPRO is a "not-for-profit" "private corporation"?

Barry Pruett posted on his blog the following:

"As we all know CABPRO is a corporation formed under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code."

Todd Juvinall

Does that mean it is a corp that makes no money? Tell us Steveie.

Anna Haynes

George, is CABPRO a nonprofit organization, as they claim to be?

Anna Haynes

Martin Light said CABPRO was a 501(c)(4) when I interviewed him back in March:
http://ncfocus.blogspot.com/2010/03/q-with-martin-light-executive-director.html

Steve Enos

I do believe that 501(c)(4)'s have spending reporting requirments and limits on the amount of their money they can spend on campaign efforts.

So... Barry says CABPRO is a 501(c)(4)... the CABPRO website states CABPRO is "a not-for-profit organization".

Can this simple question be answered with a simple yes or no?... is CABPRO a 501(c)(4) or not?

Anna Haynes

"... CABPRO executive director Martin Light and attorney Barry Pruett have said it's a 501(c)(4)..."
- from Rebane dances around CABPRO's legal status, posted today

Steve Enos

So... Martin Light from CABPRO says CABPRO is a 501(c)(4). Barry Pruett says CABPRO is a 501(c)(4).

So Martin Light, simple question to you... is that correct?

Todd Juvinall

Perhaps you hapless liberals need to read the application for membership. It is so funny reading these people. If Pelline was an editor, then he is a sorry example of a researcher. Anna has a website that looks like a cluttered room from my kids at three. No wonder.

http://www.cabpro.org/CABPRO/CABPRO_Home_files/CABPRO_Membership_Application.pdf

Steven Frisch

You lying sack of gravy....perhaps the public should read the membership application that was on the site up until last night when this nonsense really started to get serious, before your guys took it down, changed two words and put it back up. What do you thin we are...stupid?

By the way I heard Anna called the IRS today and guess what? according to them CABPRO is not a 501c4. So why did they say they were, why did they allow Barry to post a message on their blog saying they were? why did they allow Russ, who works there, represent them as such, and why don't you just admit it?

Is there something wrong with being a for profit business?


Todd Juvinall

I think you are overheating.

Todd Juvinall

Steve Frisch Someone told me you are a cook in a restaurant. Is that true?

Bob Hobert

What do you thin we are...stupid?

Um, sorta.....

Bob Hobert

George, shut down this page of inane insult trading and invite some serious commentary on AB32 and Prop 23. California is losing its juice while we increasingly wail away on each other over the irrelevant.

Steve Enos

So... Martin Light from CABPRO says CABPRO is a 501(c)(4)and Barry Pruett says CABPRO is a 501(c)(4).

Seems it's all been a lie... will Martin respond?

Greg Goodknight

Here's some serious info about AB32. The Chronicle is reporting that the diesel rules were based on faulty information from the CARB. They were off by a mere 340%.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL&ao=3

Weird Science at work.

Russ Steele

Steven,

You wrote: "why did they allow Russ, who works there, represent them as such." I would like to make some corrections.
1) I do not work for CABPRO, as a freelance writer I submit articles to CABPRO News for the editors consideration, just like I did for the Union before switching editors.
2) I do not recall ever representing CABPRO as a non-profit, best I can determine, they are a for profit corporation.

Please try to be more precise.

Steven Frisch

Perhaps you guys should have been more precise all along.

You are a featured poster in a newsletter and blog that has represented itself as a non-profit that appears to not be a non-profit. You have allowed others to post on the sites that you manage, or regularly comment on, the fiction that CABPRO is a non-profit without correcting it, while now claiming CABPRO is not a non-profit, and implying that you knew that all along. You have been listed on the CABPRO web site as recently as three months ago as a board member.

Are you seriously expecting people to accept that you did not know? What is this the Nuremberg defense?

And I have to ask, where is the allusive Martin Light in all of this? Why no transparency here? You are quick to attack, attack, attack, but when you are wrong why can't you just say "hey we were wrong?"

You are yesterdays news buddy.

Steven Frisch

By the way since you are obviously keeping up on this why did you not correct your buddies Todd and Barry?

Steven Frisch

That of course should read "illusive". Sorry.

Todd Juvinall

I think this is really funny. The left wing blog and their buds are apoplectic. Now they seem to be the only ones lobbying and possibly having some issues with the Elections code regarding non profits. I think this calls for an investigation. I would think a CEO and a bunch of really smart nerdy types on the left could figure things out. Alas, I guess that is not possible. I guess non profit means whatever one thinks it means.

Russ Steele

Steven,

Sorry, the listed as board member was an error. I did not know about the CABPRO status until today, when I started looking a the application in the CABPRO News, which makes it clear that those signing up could not take a tax credit for joining. I could not find any reference to 501 (c) any where in the text, or on the web page. I was not interest in this pissing contest until you started making misstatements about my association with CABPRO.

Steven Frisch

The statement was that " CABPRO is a not for profit organization" and the statement that CABPRO was a 501 c4 was referenced on your site. If you did not start looking at it until today you missed the content from yesterday, the membership letter was changed overnight.

I absolutely do not buy that you were unaware of this discussion. Any impartial reader would see that you guys got caught with your pants down.

Lets be clear: CABPRO is not a not for profit, it is a for profit organization of businesses that get together and pool money to endorse candidates and ballot measures. Their stated purpose on their web site is to influence legislation and decisions. That is the definition of lobbying. As such they should be registered as lobbyists.

While you were implying I should not be taking a position of public issues, you are associated with an organization that is lobbying, is not registered to do so, and is misrepresenting its status to the community at large.

Paul Emery

As I posted earlier, even George Rebane considers CABPRO to be a lobby. Check out the discussion on "B32/Prop23 is Very Relevant to Nevada County" The question is should they register as such.

Greg Goodknight

Steve Frisch, I don't recall anyone "implying [you] should not be taking a position of [sic] public issues", only that you're taking positions in print and on the radio and dodging just how much SBC revenues depend on the failure of Prop 23.

You've mentioned particulates in the past. I'd love to hear your take on the now public admission that the CARB scientists (including the guy who lied about having a Ph.D. in Statistics who was finally fired) overstated the diesel particulate levels by 340% in the documents used to justify AB32 limits?

Greg Goodknight

Now, let me say again that I've never been a CABPRO supporter, have never met George Rebane (though we've agreed we should sit down for coffee one of these days) and I've spent a total of about 45 minutes over coffee with Russ Steele. I did hear a woman from CABPRO speak once about a decade ago and it was on the nutty side involving the UN in whatever it was that she was on about. I've no idea whether her views were also the views of CABPRO, nor do I really care.

What I see in this current feeding frenzy is the (local loony left) pot calling the (local wingnut right) kettle black.

Don Pelton

I've just read this whole thread for the first time, and -- taking it together with the KVMR "discussion" on Prop23, which I also heard -- I'm forcibly struck by one most conspicuous feature of the contentious dialog: It all started when Mr. Rebane imputed to Mr. Frisch a motive entirely and solely pecuniary:

" ... he is simply a professional singing for his supper."

In a civilized dialog, it's usually considered a bad practice -- unskilful -- to speak with utter certainty about the motives of the other.

I don't know Mr. Rebane, but I'd guess he's probably motivated primarily by principle.

What I don't understand is why he's unable to grant that Mr Frisch's support of AB32 is likewise motivated by principle, rather than a base regard for money ("supper").

Mr Rebane either intended to score an insult, or else he intended to have a dialog but went about it unskillfully.

Greg Goodknight

Anytime the president of a corporation is talking about something that is a facet of their business, they're doing what they are paid to do. And most of the time, they actually believe in what their company does.

Frisch is no different. At all. And it was a fair statement. If CABPRO could afford a $100K or so (or whatever his salary and benefits are) mouthpiece, they'd have someone slicker than George to appear on KVMR.

Steve, what are your projected revenues with Prop 23 winning, and Prop 23 losing. An inquiring mind wants to know.

Steven Frisch

I answered this question on another thread on Jeff Pelline's blog, and I did about 2 months ago on either Russ or George's blog, but no one took the time to actually LISTEN. You are all so busy trying to win that you can't ever just stop and listen.

SBC has NO current work that is funded by any state or federal entity for AB 32 implementation, NONE on the near horizon, and NONE in development right now. We are working on projects that reduce greenhouse gases, or help capture carbon, but they are all funded through other mechanisms, or privately, and are all VOLUNTARY. NONE of our work will be affected if Prop 23 passes. My salary is not dependent on one dime of AB 32 money.

That is the first, last and only time I will answer this question. If I were to start disclosing things I am not required to I would never hear the end of criticism from the right crew. I am sure as soon as George and Russ were convinced of the truth of my words, they would just find something else to attack me for.

This entire charge was red herring from the beginning, and they know it. Attacks like this are a strategy, learned from the master McCarthy and passed down through people like Russ and George because they intimidate people.

I oppose PROP 23 because it is bad law, it will hurt our economy, it is bad for public health, and I do not want out of state corporate interests buying elections in California. This is California. I live in California, not Texas. You 'states rights' people should understand THAT!

Steven Frisch

By the way Greg, no it is not always true that everyone is in it for the money. And I do believe that most corporate Presidents advocating for a policy that favors their business are doing it because the believe it is the right thing to do. I am actually a pretty committed capitalist.

Greg Goodknight

I look forward to seeing you working at "SBC" as a full time volunteer, Steve.

You are still dancing around the obvious. A VOLUNTARY arrangement for carbon sequestration or reduction of "greenhouse gases" that throws income towards SBC would still seem to be DRIVEN by state, federal and even foreign regulations pushing public and private entities towards groups like SBA for their carbon sequestration and reduction of the bogey-gasses du jour needs.

If 23 passes, the only US cap and trade legislation on the books will be put to a deserved long term sleep, and carbon sequestration schemes like yours will not be a growth industry. Please, if I have this wrong, please correct.

"If I were to start disclosing things I am not required to I would never hear the end of criticism from the right crew." -- I suspect the 'right crew' thinks the same things about what you're asking for, but you'd have to ask them.

Greg Goodknight

By the way, since it's VC (venture/vulture capital) that is pouring money into the No on 23 camp, *millions* of bucks, it isn't an issue of corporate vs non-corporate involvement into our laws.

McCarthy was a piker compared to Alinsky.

Steven Frisch

Greg, I did work as a volunteer on a couple of projects before I was a staff member at SBC. Volunteerism is a great thing. Somehow I suspect that is not what you meant. I think you meant that you look forward to a time when I am unemployed. I think that is pretty mean. Why would you wish ill on someone? Just because we don't agree on a policy issue? You really wish ill on people? That is crazy dude. All that anger will shorten your life you know.

I am dancing around nothing. The voluntary carbon market was around long before AB 32, and if Prop 23 passes, will still be around. Besides the charge thrown around here was not that SBC would benefit from any regulation, it was that I stood to gain personally from the failure of PROP 23.
I do not. You asked the question, about revenue before and after a potential passage of Prop 23, and I precisely answered it. Prop 23 has no impact on SBC's revenue. Don't try to change the question.

You are wrong about voluntary carbon markets by the way. They are driven by specific entities, including many corporation, deciding they want to offset carbon emissions. Some people want to do the right thing because they believe in global warming. To be consistent with your philosophy, if they want to do that you should not want to stand in their way. Proof of the point they want to is that they ARE ALREADY DOING IT WITHOUT REGULATION. They started doing it more than 10 years ago.

I did not start the questions about non-profit status, Russ, George, Todd and Barry did, by challenging my legal standing to comment on a public issue, and comparing my organization to CABPRO. Barry, Todd, Russ and Martin are the ones who stated CABPRO is a non-profit. George stood by and allowed others to state CABPRO is a non-profit without correcting them, and he is a former board member of the organization. If he did not know their legal status he was pretty poor board member wouldn't you say?

If they are a non-profit I am not asking for anything they are not legally required to provide the pubic upon request. Mine is at the AG's office and available for review upon request. But of course it appears CABPRO is not a non-profit--they have been misrepresenting their status to the community for all these years. How ironic.

Plus, you just proved my point. I answer a direct question completely honestly and you will still find a way to attack me, wish ill on me, and misrepresent the truth.

Steven Frisch

As Violet said in "Its a Wonderful Life", what the matter with that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

hehe....just tweaking ya dude.

Greg Goodknight

I oppose AB32 because it is bad law, it is already hurting our economy, inflating Californian's energy costs doesn't promote public health, and I don't want bad science pummeling companies, no matter what state their headquarters is located, whose only crime is to have invested in California's energy infrastructure.

And of course, we now know that CARB chair Mary Nichols knew her 'scientists' had made a teensy little 340% error in the diesel particulate study that resulted in one of your favorite AB32 regulations. And she didn't even tell the board members before they voted on the regulation that she already had known the lead 'scientist' had a mail order Ph.D. and not the statistics Ph.D from a UC that he had originally claimed.

The CARB needs to be euthanized. Dysfunctional and duplicative.

Steven Frisch

You miss the point...the carbon projects I am working on are voluntary--private companies should have a right to offset their carbon emissions if they want to.

The diesel regulation was not "one of my favorite AB 32 regulations", on several occasions I have stated that if it is flawed it should be changed.

So now Ms. Nichols, after conferring with and negotiating a reasonable solution with industry, has proposed a change. Isn't that what you would want government to do?

You are sounding a lot like, "agree with what I want 100% or it is no deal". That just is not how it works in a civil society.

Mikey McD

Greg, may I suggest using more emotional based arguments to make your points... these nanny government (anti-liberty) types don't respond well to reason and facts; remember tears and fears, not logic and facts.

Think of the thousands of children on welfare and hot lunches due to AB32 already with many more to come. Think of the fathers who drink, yell and God forbid abuse their family due to the stress created by loosing their job due to insurmountable regulations and taxes. Think of the business owners who are forced to lay off employees (thanks to AB32) whom they consider members of their families. Think of moving your family into a 5th wheel on a relative land, leaving the only home, friends, neighbors, school your kids ever knew all because some idiots believe that economic growth comes by the seeds of regulation and taxes.


Mikey McD

...think of the additional divorces due (split families) to the financial stress created by AB32 and the rest of the nanny government micromanagement of out lives, think of the increases in prisoners as a life of crime is a more appealing option, think of the increases in suicides due men being pushed 'over the line' by a tyrannical government, think of the decreased donations to churches and other non profits in our communities as governments steal more from the citizens, think of the increases of families without health insurance due to lack of employment opportunities thanks to heavy handed government, think of the solutions to our (fuel, medical cures, etc) which will not be explored, designed or developed because government has stolen the wills (increased the risk and decreased the reward) of the entrepreneur.

Those who look to government for help get what they deserve.

Steven Frisch

The government is so tyrannical. I know where I hope the consequences of the nanny state begin.

Mikey McD

If the left only had as much compassion for their neighbors as they have for dogs and trees we would all be better off.

Steven Frisch

McD one day you will be a headline.

I think this thread about says it all about George's moral fiber and the rights credibility. Anyone form outside can read the thread and understand who is compassionate.

I think its time to retire.

Mikey McD

Robin Hood, if Goldman Sachs, Walmart, Exxon, [insert company name here] received government money to lobby for more government money and government favors we would consider them crooks. But, if SBC and other NGO's do it we are supposed to look the other way? Unfortunately, in this real world example it is "I" John Q Taxpayer that is consistently violated.

Barry Pruett

We are all compassionate. Some of us have both compassion and common sense...

Bob Hobert

"So now Ms. Nichols, after conferring with and negotiating a reasonable solution with industry, has proposed a change. Isn't that what you would want government to do?"

No. I want government to get the facts right, not knowingly skew them to expand its control. Also - I too want to "do the right thing" (Prop 23) because I believe that underlying the anthropogenic global warming hoax lies a subversive threat to our constitutional liberty.

Michael Anderson

Nicely put, Barry.

Though you and I would probably have to agree to disagree on who among us walk with that mantle of common sense.

(-;

Michael Anderson

Bob,

It is my belief that Occam's razor precludes both of your contentions.

"No. I want government to get the facts right, not knowingly skew them to expand its control. Also - I too want to 'do the right thing' (Prop 23) because I believe that underlying the anthropogenic global warming hoax lies a subversive threat to our constitutional liberty."

Russ Steele

George is out of the country and he sent me a instant message by cellphone that he is having connectivity laptop problems. He ask me to let you know he will re-enter the conversation once the problem is solved.

Paul Emery

Bob

"No. I want government to get the facts right, not knowingly skew them to expand its control."

Did you apply the same criteria for the government getting the facts right for the justifications of our invasion of Iraq?

Dixon Cruickshank

Paul what do you expect? the FBI to give Saddam a lie detector test on WMD's before we did anything?

Saddam was very good, he had everybody in the world convinced he had them to gain stature in the Arab world because he didn't think anybody would call him on it, guess that was a bad bet but he had everybody fooled.

Sometimes you just have to take the best information available and make a leap of faith, because when your sure its too late.
Lee Iaccoca - on building the Mustang

Michael Anderson

The Mustang was a huge win.

The war in Iraq was a huge lose.

Equating them is pedantic at best, ridiculous at worst.

Guys like the Shah of Iran and Saddam were blowback from our inability to become less dependent on foreign oil when the problem became obvious forty years ago.

Paul's question is completely valid. Can you answer it?

D. King

“The war in Iraq was a huge lose.”

Yes, I’m sure you think so Michael.

Others, not so much.

http://tinyurl.com/2a4d363

But hey, you’re in good company.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niPmXym7u3g

Mikey McD

Repubs and dems USE government as the means to their ends (the repubs with fake WMD tales and the Dems with fake/embellished science). Need I point out that the real crisis is the faith/power/control with which we give our government?

Our government has micro-managed our lives to the point of forcing us into 13mpg gasoline powered trucks (using everything from tax incentives to yanking public transit, etc). Our government is a glorified prostitute, sleeping with the Unions and corporations at the expense of taxpayers, personal liberty, environment, world relations.

Dixon Cruickshank

My point was, your only sure when he has already used one = too late. I'm quite sure there was much thought put into it before a decision was made, it wasn't just cause he was a meany.

what do you propose to do with Iran - you might want to checkout the 13th Imam sect, the Atollah (sp) that overthru the Shah had them banned because they were too crazy - guess what they run the country now the Pres is one. When will we be sure they have one??

Paul Emery


Take the time to read Ron Paul's essay on the influence of the "Neo Cons" in our decision to go to war then tell me what you think. Here's a teaser

"The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

Todd Juvinall

Then I take it you are a Ron Paul supporter?

Paul Emery

I am on foreign policy and many other issues. I am trying to carve out a position of being a Green Libertarian. I think Ron Paul is one of the great thinkers of our time and needs to be read and discussed by all persuasions. He's not much of a Republican but sleeps in that camp for pragmatic reasons. It's amazing how fast he was dumped by the various TP's now that they've been sucked into the Republican election agenda.

The comments to this entry are closed.