Posted by newshound on November 22, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tony Strickland probably doesn't care if he loses because he'll get to return to his career as an "alternative energy executive." (cynicism) I want to hear any supporter of Strickland's defend his claim that he is an energy executive! How could anyone vote for a hack like this?

Here's what I lifted from the Santa Maria Times about Strickland's energy claims:

"Strickland boasts that he is vice president of a renewable energy enterprise called Green Wave Energy Solutions. He and five partners formed the company about 18 months ago, he said, not long before he launched his Senate campaign.

“We created a company in order to develop an ability to have the transmission of ocean energy,” he said, explaining it would use technology that generates electricity from wave motion.

But the company has yet to produce anything, much less the power for hundreds or thousands of homes, as its founders envision.

“We haven’t yet,” he acknowledged. “It’s a start-up company.”

It looks to me like Strickland got involved in this company as a selling point for his campaign literature. Can't we get any real leaders in government who have real experience and real qualifications?????

Posted by ram4positivechange on November 22, 2008 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Alternative energy's a pretty big and complex subject and even time tested, top notch scientists, veterans and economists are careful in making such sweeping claims. For example, all the recent hype about ethanol fizzled into nothing, farmers who made the switch are almost totally wiped out or nearly so !! Has TS ever backed up his alternative energy "claims" with a business plan or some white paper on how he proposes to deliver?

Posted by gonzo on November 22, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Newshound.

Your saying I should switch parties and vote democrat simply because Strickland is trying to run a startup company. Your gonna have to do better than that.

Take a peek at just about any "alternative energy company" and you will find most are in a startup state as is Tony's. Most if not all will collapse as oil has dropped to $50. Ask T Boone Pickens if you want to know more.

"How could anyone vote for this?"
Its very simple. I vote republican because I believe in Capitalism. Hanna Beth is another "We need to spresd the wealth around" democrat

Socialism sucks. It doesnt work anywhere in the world and it wont work here.

Unless of course you would rather collect welfare than have a job. Which may very well be the case.

Hope this helps.

Posted by gonzo on November 22, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ethanol is BS. Even if the farmers converted the entire corn crop to ethanol it wouldnt last a week in this country.

The green thing going on is a passing fad that will go away with high gas prices. Read "Mother Earth News" from the 1070s and you will see the same info being recycled today.

The only proven alternative we have at present is nuclear. This is the only power source that can compete with fossil fuels at present to power our large cities. You may be able to power a farmhouse or two with a windmill or solar but that is hardly practical in our dense urban areas. At best these alternatives may be good for a few percent of the total.

Posted by newshound on November 22, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Gonzo,

It's about honesty and integrity. He doesn't say that he's an "aspiring" executive who hopes to one day accomplish something. You can't trust any politician who just blusters and spews empty air.

He should have just sent 10 bucks to the Sierra Club and called himself an "environmentalist" or someone "who has collaborated with the green movement to save the planet."

Hannah Beth Jackson is not a socialist. The socialists I see now these days are Republicans who bail out their friends in the banking industry with taxpayer money. You Republicans gave the American people lies, an illegal war, corruption, and the worst economy since the great depression. Congratulations on the company you keep Gonzo. I see Strickland as more of the same.

Posted by ram4positivechange on November 22, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gonzo, we got to be more realistic that just make sweeping statements that all Republicans are capitalists and all Democrats are socialists. Nothing is farther from the truth. Never let emotion get in the way of clear and objective judgment. I, for one will NEVER support socialism - I've seen what it did previously to China and India. Now with their switch to free market capitalism they are doing better. But (as always), human nature being what it is, even the "best-intentioned" capitalist can get carried away by greed, take a big hit, cheat, and then asks for a taxpayer bailout. Where's the fairness in that? I've played the stock market, won and lost and I'm not complaining - I knew what I was doing and am not asking for a bailout or handout. It's hurting, but I should have known better. So, if the purpose of Government is to prevent the abuses that are so endemic today - if that's what's regulation is then I guess a LITTLE regulation that is STRICTLY AND CORRECTLY implemented (or oversight if you want to call it that) would not be a bad idea. As we can see, it's going to hurt anyone who went along with the last 8 years of "vodoo" capitalism, but we will recover, get wiser with the new knowledge and play the game better. Hindsight learning COMBINED WITH intuitive learning by watching and ovserving closely what going on around us has a better chance. Remember, education does not start and end with the school classroom, it's 24/7, and would likely make us more diligent. And most important - we should NEVER get emotional, should think clearly and objectively.

Posted by hemlock1262 on November 22, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If -- though it seems unlikely -- Strickland should lose, have no fear -- in two years, there'll be another office for him to run for. As long as there is taxpayer money to grab, the Stricklands will be there to grab it. Odd how, for "small government conservatives" they seem to like being in government so much....

Posted by freethought on November 22, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Ethanol is BS. Even if the farmers converted the entire corn crop to ethanol it wouldnt last a week in this country."

Gonzo - The ethanol push came from the Bush Administration. His agenda caused corn prices first and other crop prices later to climb exponentially. Thanks Goerge W.

"The green thing going on is a passing fad that will go away with high gas prices. Read "Mother Earth News" from the 1070s and you will see the same info being recycled today."

The "green thing" has been around for decades now. It's not going away unless Republicans take control of the Executive and Legislative Branches again. They are the ONLY ones denying we have a gloval warming problem. Nuclear ("New-Klee-Rr" not "New-Kyu-Lar") energy is a viable source, and would be environmentally safe if we can figure a way to bury spent rods a good mile or so beneath the earth's surface. However, solar, wind, and hydrogen energy are all technologies that have been continuously updated and are continuously growing daily since the '80s.

Basically, the only blockade to renewably energy is the Republican party. However, that threat will continue to shrink as old retired Republicans die off, and younger, more acceptable Americans from all parties take a stronger position of responsibility on these issues.

Posted by freethought on November 22, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On the crop thing - Due to deflation, prices are dropping at a record pace matched only previous exponential price increase. Thanks 2nd Great Depression!

Posted by handyhood on November 22, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whats the difference between a democrat and a communist?

THE SPELLING!

Posted by newshound on November 22, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Phony Tony" - I like that.

Posted by sslocal on November 22, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Strickland should win just to insure that the Dims don't get their 2/3's majority. If they do, you can count on more taxes big time.
Go Tony.

Posted by freethought on November 22, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What's the difference between handihood's comment and a lame joke?

NOTHING!

Posted by freethought on November 22, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sslocal - How do you expect us to get out of the Republican-led recession/depression we're in without taxes? HeliBen? We've been in trouble for awhile now, and I still don't see any cash-laden helicopters in the sky. Nothing is free. One of the many reasons we're in this mess is owed to stingy people wanting it all for themselves, and not caring about what happens to the country as a whole. That, my friend, is the Republican way.

Posted by gonzo on November 22, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"We need to spread the wealth around" is socialism if not communism to the core.

I am a mechanical engineer by profession and taxing oil companies so Obama can give it to Al Gore's friends will result in a big fat zero for America.

The only impediment to alternative energy is economics. Only when capitalism finds a way to make a profit will it succeed. The federal government can throw dollars at it until the economy bleeds but it wont change.

If you want alternative energy go for it. Build a windmeill in your backyard. There is no one stopping you. You can even sell power back to Edison. There are even tax incentives. The problem is its a money losing proposition. They cost about $30,000 and generate maybe $100 in a windy month. It will pay for itself in about 40 years more wit interest.

You would be far ahead investing your $30K in Exxon stock. Do want money or do you want to be green? Do want higher utiliy bills that go with green energy.

Posted by smithjc on November 22, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

has anyone else noticed the way the red star slants these stories and the headlines? Previous headlines referred to strickland's "tiny lead", now the headline is that his lead is "cut in half". any guess which way the red star leans?

Posted by gonzo on November 22, 2008 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the alternatives are so great start doing them. They are available right now. Electric cars, solar panels, wind, french fry oil, whatever. Fork out the money and go green now.

Obama will not change that as of right now the cheapest way to drive a car, train,semi truck, ocean freighter is with fossil fuel.

If he forces alternatives before they are economical. He will stunt the economy.

Nancy wants to slow down drilling in favor of unproven alternatives. Way to go Nancy.

I must say JW that was one of your better posts. You didnt rant and whine like you usually do good job.

Posted by freethought on November 22, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Scapegoat - Find new material. You're sounding like my parrot.

Posted by freethought on November 22, 2008 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gonzo, as you said, you're a mechanical engineer, not an economist. Some of your suggestions are impractical and don't apply. FOr instance, the whole "build a windmill in your backyard" is rediculous. You say, "No one is stopping you." How about neighbors, HOAs, and the city? They'd put a huge stop to such construction without a permit (which would never be issued).

Try using the solar panel comparison. It works better. Of course, solar panels are getting cheaper all the time and no one can legally stop you from installing, so many of us will eventually have solar panels on our roofs.

I'll agree with you on the cost is still too high for many green energy choices, and that is what needs to change. The problem is that auto companies, like GM, have done nothing to make such purchases attractive.

As for fossil fuels being the way to go - we cannot stay on it forever. That fact is derived from simple math. There is a finite, ever-decreasing supply of fossil fuels left on the planet. Eventually, it will be gone. Do you deny this? What is also undeniable is the harm we are causing our environment. The so-called argument that the earth naturally emits more ozone depleting substances into the atmosphere than humans ever could uses cut-and-paste science to derive this self-serving conclusion. The planet has worked out a balance with vast areas called sinks that can absorb the natrually occurring stuff. We are simply added more than these sinks were developed naturally to handle. This is simple fact. This is science. This is math. It's not business or religion or politics. Of course, asking a Republican to understand that is like trying to convince a terrorist that he really doesn't have all those virgins waiting for him when he blows himself up.

Posted by freethought on November 22, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Still waiting for Scapegoat's "I know you are, but what am I?" type comeback.

Posted by live_for_purpose on November 23, 2008 at 2:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

freethought--

Al Gore was one of the biggest proponents of "alternative fuels." Don't blame Geroge W.

Posted by freethought on November 23, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

live_for_purposes - Yes, Gore did support ethanol subsidies, and even cast the tie breaking vote in 1994 allowing for them. However, the huge push began with Bush, as it was another move to bolster commodities prices (thus making many of his cronies ever richer) and a means of growing big business with no regard to the little guys. As a result, it cost so much more to put food on oru tables that many families turned to the likes of McDonald's as a primary source of nutrition.

Even today, Bush still supports ethanol production (link: http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2...).

Posted by gonzo on November 23, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Freethought

Some of my suggestions are imppractical or dont apply? That was my point.

Maybe the reason GM hasnt made alternatives practical is because they arent. There is plenty of competition in the automobile industry to solve that. IF there was something marketable you would see it. There is huge demand for anything green and at present you are seeing the limits of technology.

As an engineer I see very few people speaking with reason about the alternatives. There is a big glaring one that no one talks about NUCLEAR. It works and it can power a city.

Even if the HOAs and everyone else allowed windmills they wouldnt work in LA or Manhatten.

Solar panels have a chance in sunny places but not in Ventura. I cant think of a single alternative that would be effective at my home near the ocean.

BTW you could compress natural gas in your garage and run your car on that. Its possible. Illegal of course the equipment could be had for a few grand. The gas company might come asking why your using way more gas than you ever did. You can avoid the road tax this way.

Thanks for the snipe free post. That doesnt happen very often around here. JW's mom must have sent him to bed early tonight.

Posted by freethought on November 23, 2008 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gonzo - The suggestion of private wind energy as a means of getting your point across was what I was referring to as not practical, not only because legal action could be taken against the homeowner with the huge structure in his yard, but also BECAUSE it's a huge structure in his yard. I was suggesting that solar panels would have been a better argument, as they are also expensive (taking about ten years to pay for themselves), but the homeowners are protected by law against legal retribution AND they don't take up loads of yard space.

I agree on the nuclear power comment. It is clean, and would create loads of well-paid jobs.

On green cars, there are incentives nowadays that make their development practical - laws, incentives, and just plain old-fashioned responsibility. Japanese and European auto makers have put us to shame, as they have made huge strides in the area of cleaner, more fuel eficient, and alternate energy vehicles. GM, Ford, and Chrysler-Dodge have done very little to move forward, because they didn't have to. I find it very shameful that fear and greed are the only driving (no pun intended) force behind anything these companies do.

As for snipes, I can give as well as - if not better than - I get. You have been quite civil, so I feel compelled to act in kind (and I appreciate your snipe-free response as well). JW, however, has never been known on these threads for his subtlety.

Posted by freethought on November 23, 2008 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On the inefficiency of solar panels in Ventura County, I'm guessing you're referring to the Marine Layer that often plagues certain cities.

Many cities in VC, like Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley, don't have that problem. Also, newer technologies in solar panels using a wider spectral response to light have closed the gap quite a bit on the problem you stated.

Posted by gonzo on November 24, 2008 at 5:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can agree with all oftha.

I thing where we disagree is where the answers are going to come from. I believe the free market will develop whatever will be developed on its own wothoot windfall profits taxes.

Denocrats in general hate wall street. Unfortunantly wall st capitalism is what made america great.

Taxing oil companies and punishing GM/UAW and creating "green" jobs is wrong. We still need oil from these great American companies.

Jimmy Carter tried this same feat 30 some years ago. Take a history lesson and see how he fared. Thankfully it ended with a Ronald Reagans landslide.

Posted by ram4positivechange on November 24, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think it's correct to generalize that democrats hate Wall St and Republicans love WS. Fair to say, EVERYONE who played the market with careful research, preparation, risk tolerance and was in it for the long term did good or broke even. "In and out" players looking for a quick buck or chased some exotic, economic theory probably lost their shirt. The issue is not about whether or not free market, democratic capitalism is the best bet. But we should be clear that, suddenly changing the rules to provide socialized welfare for the stupid rich who are losing their shirt, is a MAJOR issue, regardless of what their political leanings are. If the rule is "no safety net" for anyone PERIOD then that's how it should be. And that's not what's happening right now.

Posted by marketrealist on November 24, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The main thing I object to about Strickland is that he sold himself as a pro-environment pro-renewable energy guy. Instead he has a hard line anti-environment record. Please see below. He deceived the voters.

http://www.ecovote.org/sd19/scorecard...

Posted by gonzo on November 24, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The biggest threat to our environment by far is population growth and urban expansion. BY FAR. How does Ms Hannah feel about immigration. If you truly wish to protect the environment. The number one issue on your list of bills should be about controlling illegal immigration. I suspect Strickland would be little better on the number one threat to the environment than Hanna.

Perhaps America cant afford anymore eco. laws.

I went to your eco site. It screwed up my browser. I had to restart. It has a redirect that wont let you go back where you were. Aside from that:

Emotionally charged bill titles such as "Childrens Air Quality" "Enviromental Justice" and "Toxic
Pesticides Near Schools" probably wont make good law.

Gracious how could anyone be for poor air quality for kids, or pesticides in the schools. There is a valid argument not presented against each of these.

Air quality is an issue for everyone. We have air laws maybe we already have enough.

Pesticides in schools well aside from the problems a few years bac at Mound school is this really a big deal. The Mound problem was solved. Urban sprawl is what placed the schools adjacent to farmland in the first place. Maybe this problem is related to the number one threat to our environment

Oil spills? Do we in Ca have a lot of oil spills since the 1970's. The black tar you see on the beach btw is from natural seeps.

Posted by freethought on November 24, 2008 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Jimmy Carter tried this same feat 30 some years ago. Take a history lesson and see how he fared. Thankfully it ended with a Ronald Reagans landslide."

Gonzo - Carter created the Department of Energy in 1977 (still going strong), and established a national energy policy that promoted clean and alternative fuels. Carter was also considered famous for installing solar panels on the White House roof and set the mansion's thermostats at 68 degrees to save energy.

Reagan destroyed all of that once he entered office. He did it all in one sweep, first by reversing Carter's energy policy and second by removing the solar panels and turning up the thermostat. Funding for many programs were halted. Thousands of government jobs disappeared overnight. One gentleman who works in my office worked for DOE at the time, and had to scramble for new work when we were just entering a recession. This is why Reagan is considered the absolute worst president on record for the environment. Although I generally like what Reagan did for our country while in office (kept the Ruskies and terrorists at arms lenths through fear of retaliation), he was, after all, a Republican. Republicans simply do not buy that we are causing our atmosphere considerable harm. They'll only buy it once people start dropping like flies in the hundreds (or thousands).

Posted by gonzo on November 25, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok he removed the solar panels big deal. Thermostat. OK Ill give you that. Nancy also bought new China. I dont care.

If Carters alternative energy was so great then why are we still working on it? Its because it didnt happen.

Obama try as he might wont make it happen either. Capitalism will make it happ-en on its own accord. Unless of course you think Al Gore invented the internet.

What happened to the environment discussion?

Posted by marketrealist on November 25, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gonzo, sorry you could not open the website. I just checked and it worked on mine. I completely agree with you that population is the most important long term issue with respect to environment. However, note that we use ten to twenty times more energy per capita (and its associated environmental costs) than countries like India so its our wealth that makes us polluting. Environmental laws help to reduce our impact.

Carter was on the right path with respect to energy. If his policies had not been disassembled by Reagan, we would be a long way towards a viable renewable energy industry.

Then came GW Bush who actively squashed renewable energy. His administration would not even renew the investment tax credits that are generously given to the oil industry.

From his record, it looks like Strickland is Bush on steriods - a rabid anti-environmentalist.

Posted by freethought on November 26, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"If Carters alternative energy was so great then why are we still working on it? Its because it didnt happen."

Gonzo - No, it's because his plan was never given a chance. In the realm of clean energy, carter was a visionary. Reagan was a business man with mediocre acting skills. We stopped working on Carter's plan as soon as Reagan took office, so we have no idea how well it would work. What marketrealist indicated is absolutely correct (I am just reiterating).

Also, by removing the solar panels, Reagan was sending a message. That message was this - we don't have an energy problem, and we don't have an environmental problem. In this respect, Reagan was so obviously wrong. One of the most effective ways to lead is by example. Reagan's example put us back on the path of oil dependency Carter fought so hard against. These are the simple facts.