Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture
Subscribe toPosts [Atom]
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 11/10/2006 09:30:00 PM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
For everyone who voted no on prop 87, I want you to hang up your cell phone, pull over your Hummer, take a deep breath, and then choke on the dirty air. Because, hey, you deserve it.You must believe in oil company lies more than you believe in the truth of that big green cloud drifting towards us from LA. You are so easily - so easily - made to believe that the environment is a partisan issue, and so you happily play the part of the good ditto head you are, bopping along in your Escalade to Rush Limbaugh's bumper music. Ooo! Dr. Laura's on next! Honk if you're stupid! You are so scared that protecting the environment is going to somehow cramp your style. God forbid you drive a car that runs on renewable resources from your own country. How dare us dirty liberal hippies suggest such outrageous things. So, the next time you climb into your Suburban to go buy metered-dose inhalers for your asthmatic grand children, just remember that it doesn't have to be this way - you had a chance to change all of our lives for the better, and you blew it. (Whew. Thanks Sara. I owe you one.)
Sara, you wrote "...here you go Worker Bee--have had it!" Did you mean "have at it"? Or have you finally "had it" with all the juvenile anonymice comments? ;-) Hope you are not getting tired of keeping this blog running--we need you!
I did mean Have At It -- but sometimes I have "had It" with the juvenille comments and sometimes want to give up like The Goleta Observer....still, I think BB had it's place.
Harping,If you're lumping my rant into the juve catagory, I'd love to read your argument for polution and oil dependency.
Worker Bee you're too much. Hard to kae you serous. Let's hope they keep you off the streets.
One of the best points that Prime Minister Blair ever is that we can expect such huge economic costs associated with global warming, that it makes sense to invest in a change.Sometimes political commercials can be amusing. Proposition 87 wasn't going to stop global warming, pollution, and terrorism, but it had the potential to make a difference in each of these categories. And it makes sense to do our part as the largest energy consumer of any state in the nation.There were two major objections over Prop 87. One, that the fee will be passed onto the consumer:"Slicker than Oil: The Debate Over California’s Proposition 87" appeared two weeks ago on the Applia Econ Blog; News for Econ Students. It is written by Paul Romer, a Stanford professor of economics. He is a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, a fairly conservative think tank named after Herbert Hoover. All the more important for his conclusions.His analysis of Proposition 87 shows that it will not increase gas prices (using what he calls an "introductory macroeconomics course" level analysis) and lays to rest the arguments of the oil industry. While he remains neutral with regard to 87, he does say that opponents are totally off base in the main arguments they are making.This is a little of what he has to say:"The market for oil is global, and the price of oil is set by global supply and global demand. California produces less than 1% of all the oil produced in the world, so changes of a few percent in its output would be far too small to have a noticeable effect on global supply and demand. Taken together, all the producers in California are in the same position as a single firm in a competitive industry. …Understandably, these producers have raised a lot of funds to support a campaign to oppose the imposition of this new tax. The tax would have raised up to $4 billion before it expires, so for oil producers as a group, it makes sense to spend millions of dollars to defeat the tax. What is interesting about the campaign ads that they support is their repeated claim that the tax will raise the price of gasoline. No doubt, their campaign consultants have found that raising this irrelevant issue is the most effective way to get people to vote against this proposition."Second is claim that it will damage the economy by being a disincentive to production. Ok, I know a fee of this sort can have a small effect, but lets look at the scale involved. While America suffered in record high gas prices, during the third quarter Chevron earned a record $5 billion in profits, Exxon an unbelievable 10.5 billion, these combining with 3 of the other largest in the world at 31.6 billion (SM Mercury News Oct 28th, 2006). Don’t tell me there isn’t a cushion in their profit margin. Despite the $200 million Chevron claims it will pay if Proposition 87 passes, based on the figures of its production this year, I doubt they would forgo the $3.83 billion in revenue from their California facilities. Oh, and a private rant: on this blog I am frequently attacked for being ambitious. I admit that is very true in that I am very committed and desperate to try to do some good things in this community. If that comes off wrong sometimes, I am sorry, but it takes many sacrifices to do this work: time, money, and relationships. It is truely shameful to denigrate that and the sacrifices so many other activists and electeds make by calling it pure ambition.
thanks for the lecture, Das. Oh and by the way we're not denigrating "so many other activists and electeds" for their shameless ambition---just you!
nice response anon- that's a typical response from someone who has no factual opposing argument.Maybe too much work to really get involved and conversant in the issue?As for Das, what is your alternative- shameful ambition, no ambition? While I routinely can disagree with Das, I find his efforts sincere, he does his homework, and he'll always discuss and argue without wimping out for snide comments like "thanks for the lecture."
I'm still patiently waiting for the pro-dirty air/foreign oil dependency argument. Bonus round: A pro-corporate greed argument will gain extra points.
Shows why we need people a little more mature in office. Get some thicker skin.
At least give Das props for blogging with his real name!
Worker Bee, who do you think owns the corporations? How about the retirement funds of the middle class...
Worker Bee, relax--I was not lumping your rant with that of the aforementioned juvenile anonymice. Anyway, you have a blogging identity so you can't be considered another "anonymous." ;-)
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we're not here to indulge in fantasy, but in political and economic reality. America, America has become a second-rate power. Its trade deficit and its fiscal deficit are at nightmare proportions. Now, in the days of the free market, when our country was a top industrial power, there was accountability to the stockholder. The Carnegies, the Mellons, the men that built this great industrial empire, made sure of it because it was their money at stake. Today, management has no stake in the company! The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.Greed is right.Greed works.Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.And greed -- you mark my words -- will save that malfunctioning corporation called the USA.And fund our retirements to boot...And what about all the greedy homeowners?
Post a Comment