The Spectacle Blog
That’s the talk, as hundreds of thousands of ballots in Fresno County contained illegal, politically-charged language describing the global warming act-postponing measure. The Sacramento Bee reports:
Ballots printed for the county’s roughly 380,000 registered voters say Proposition 23 would suspend laws requiring “major polluters” to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That language was thrown out by a Sacramento superior court judge, who ordered several edits to the original language drafted by the attorney general’s office, including changing “major polluters” to “major sources of emissions.”
The Proposition 23 campaign has demanded that the county “take immediate steps to reprint the ballots remaining to be sent to vote by mail voters as well as ballots to be distributed on election day.”
“Fresno County is a county of significant size in California and in a close election, its vote, now tainted by this serious error, could call into question the state results and possibly give rise to an election contest and require a new statewide election on Proposition 23,” attorney Colleen C. McAndrews wrote in a letter to the Fresno elections officials.
Officials say it’s too late to do anything about the 140,000 mail-in ballots that have already been distributed, and that they will post signs with the correct language at polling places.
This is not insignificant; environmental extremists have been trying to label carbon dioxide emitters (that would be me and you also, readers) as “polluters” to push their fraudulent global warming scenario since they took up the cause. If you were just faintly familiar with the issue, would you be more likely to vote against the measure if businesses were identified as “polluters” rather than “sources of emissions?”
A major screw-up that could require a new election. Not surprisingly, the opponents of Prop. 23 are pooh-poohing the significance of the error.
Earl Richards| 10.29.10 @ 4:56PM
PROP 26 is just as destructive as PROP 23. Prop 26 is a treacherous, Big Oil rip-off which "passes the buck" from oil corporation, clean-up fees to the taxpayer, who will pay the oil recycling fees, the materials hazards fees and other fees. If you do understand the ambiguities and the intrigues behind Prop 26, then, vote no. Power to the people. Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell are silent partners behind Prop 26.
steve in SoCal| 10.29.10 @ 6:15PM
Earl, look at your reciept. Buy a tire: "environmental fee." Oil change: "environmental fee." FLush & change anti-freeze, "environmental fee."
RogerCfromSD| 10.29.10 @ 6:21PM
I will not believe or support anything environmentalist claim until such time as they produce verifiable evidence to support their claims, AND until they start practicing what the preach and sell off their huge 20K sq ft homes, muscle car collections, submarines, jets and helicopters, humvees.
Until THEY do that, why would I take them seriously?
fireofenergy| 10.29.10 @ 9:15PM
Proof: #1, humanity has increased the CO2 content by some 50% (undeniable). To say this is not cause for "alarm" is just plain short sited.
#2, New forms of energy are needed and they do (preferably) need to be clean (unless your kids don't mind choking in a dwindling supply of FF's).
However, I agree that politicians will exploit... Of course they will {try}. The only reason they succeed is because people in general are forced through FEAR to go pack into the dinosaur past (and then "unlimited FF's").
If 23 wins, we will have NO ENERGY CHOICE `~'
Boston12GS| 10.29.10 @ 10:49PM
Hey, fireofenergy:
It's "short-sighted", NOT "short-sited". There's no such thing as "short-sited"--just like anthropomorphic global warming.
Thanks! :-)
Curtis Rasmussen| 10.31.10 @ 11:38AM
Clean energy is unreliable and does not take fossil fuel out of the mix. Windmills only make power when the wind blows, solar only makes it when the sun is out. To smooth the peaks and valleys on the power grid, fossil fuel power plants remain online at all times.
The level of CO2 release remains, but cost increases dramatically for all the green feel-good crap that must be paid for. Just another job destroying ponzi scheme from the leftists, as subsidies (taxes taken from my pocket) are used to artificially lower the apparent cost of alternate energies. Look to Spain's solar power collapse to see our future if leftists like you have their way.
Until the tech improves, there is no choice.
There is an alternative that is proven to work: NUCLEAR. However, greenies pretend that it doesn't exist.
Undeniable? Where's the proof.
anon| 10.29.10 @ 8:00PM
Playing cute word games with ballot information has been a recent tactic of California liberals. The text sometimes directly conflicts with the measure, but it's ok if liberals lie, truth is only for conservatives...
Robert | 10.29.10 @ 10:16PM
I am for WHATEVER it takes to ADVANCE clean energy. That way, my kids will have a choice to say silly things (I mean, hopefully not {that} silly) about "the truth" `~'
Lewie| 10.30.10 @ 11:58AM
Ah, yes. The end always justifies the means. Never let scientific truth get in the way of agenda, right?
cynthia curran| 10.31.10 @ 1:08AM
Actualy, prop 23 needs to win in a bigger county like San Diego. With the exception of the central part of the state and Orange County and maybe the Inland Empire, currently i think prop 23 is having problems, Need San Diego to off set the bay area.