Jeff Pelline's Sierra Foothills Report

It came down to the last game of the regular season, but the Giants (AKA the “cardiac kids”) won the National League title on Sunday, shutting out the San Diego Padres 3-0.

The playoffs begin on Thursday with the Giants hosting the Atlanta Braves. “Not my ears, no,” said General Manager Brian Sabean as the players poured champagne on his head inside the clubhouse.

The Giants captured their seventh West championship since divisional play began in 1969, their first in the post-Bonds era. The Giants hadn’t been to the playoffs since 2003.

After closer Brian Wilson struck out the last Padres player to win the game, the fans cheered, waived their orange rally rags, and the players ran around the ballpark, shaking hands with the fans. “It’s October, magic inside,” read one sign.

In the clubhouse, the players donned goggles for champagne showers. “It’s wet inside and the mood is extremely happy,” as announcer Mike Krukow put it.

The Giants pitching staff — often a bugaboo for the team since the days of Juan Marichal and Gaylord Perry — carried the day. And Buster Posey is on tap to become rookie of the year.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

Just after CABPRO recommended a “yes” vote on Prop. 23, APPLE-NC has recommended a “no” vote, issuing a press release that states its case. APPLE does not often do this.

It is a reminder that our area is at a political and economic crossroads — embodied in Prop. 23, an effort to roll back the state’s landmark emissions law. A “green” economy hangs in the balance.

I would argue that the hard right’s ongoing “my way or the highway” approach to politicking here has galvanized the moderates and the left, including ones that might stand on the sidelines.

I had expected a more conciliatory approach to politics after the June elections, when a tea party advocate lost and the most conservative supervisor was replaced with the most liberal one. This also came after Democrats Brown and Obama carried the county two years ago.

In fact, just the opposite has happened. I place much of the blame on electeds such as Tom McClintock and Dan Logue, our freshman representatives, who have not been very conciliatory. We also are home to Mark Meckler, a founder of the tea party movement.

APPLE joins the Sierra Business Council, the California Ski Industry Association and Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital, among others, in opposing Prop. 23.

McClintock, Logue and the county tea party, among others, support Prop. 23. In fact, Tom and Dan are its biggest proponents.

It’s shaping up to be another “shooting match,” harking back to the days of NH2020. Since then, our demographics have changed, with more moderates in the mix. The internet also has opened up new channels of independent communication.

APPLE’s press release is here:

“APPLE-NC, the Alliance for a Post-Petroleum Local Economy, Nevada
County, strongly recommends a “No” vote on Proposition 23, the
job-killing initiative on California’s November 2nd ballot.

Proposition 23 would effectively kill AB32 (the “Global Warming
Solutions Act”), the landmark 2006 law that has already spurred a new
explosion of investment in green tech industries, California’s “next”
economy. AB32 passed with bipartisan support from a diversity of
Californians, including business, labor and environmental leaders.

What would Proposition 23 do? Proposition 23 would freeze all
provisions of AB32 until California’s unemployment rate falls and
remains below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters (1 year), a condition
which has occurred only three times since 1976.

What is AB32? AB32 requires that greenhouse gas emissions in the state
be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.
Although AB32 specifies a staged implementation, with some provisions
– such as cap-and-trade – not taking effect until next year, many
businesses have already anticipated these stages in their current
investment decisions.

Why would the clean-tech industry be damaged? A popular myth is that
the clean tech industry is “pie in the sky,” a future fantasy. The
truth is that California’s “next economy” is already in full swing.

Consider also the following facts:

• From 1998 to 2007, more clean businesses (10,209) and more
clean jobs (125,390) were created in California than in any other
state.

• Three of every five dollars in clean tech investment
nationwide comes to California, five times more than our nearest
competitor.

• California’s energy efficiency policies since the 1970s have
saved Californians $56 billion in electricity and natural gas costs
and averted the construction of 15 large power plants.

Proposition 23 would seriously damage this clean tech revolution by
confounding investor and business expectations already set by the AB32
framework

Who’s behind Proposition 23? Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Linda) is a key
sponsor, but over 97 percent of the $8.2 million given to the Yes campaign so
far has come from oil interests (for example, from Texas-based Tesoro
and Valero Energy corporations, and from Flint Hills Resources, a
Kansas petrochemical company that is a subsidiary of Koch Industries).
And 89% of the donations are from out-of-state donors.

Why does APPLE-NC Recommend a “No” Vote on Proposition 23? APPLE’s
vision and mission are best met by a sustainable clean-tech economy,
both local and global.

Job-killing Proposition 23, with its support for dirty energy, would
directly interfere with the accomplishment of APPLE-NC’s mission.”

Filed under: Uncategorized | 35 Comments »

This must be a tough pill for the local “anti-greens,” climate denialists, many CABPRO members and the hard right to swallow: As recently as last fall, their GOP candidate for governor, Meg Whitman, said she was a “huge” fan of Van Jones.

OMG. “Van Jones is one of the more outspoken and now visible socialist radicals (a self-declared communist) in the Obama administration,” right-wing blogger George Rebane has informed us. Added his friend Russ Steele: “Since the Sierra Business Council is promoting the dirty oil theme created by an organization lead by an avowed Communist, can we assume that they support Van Jones philosophy for destroying capitalism?” (The rhetoric never dies: This morning one of our former supervisors, CABPRO founder Todd Juvinall, calls Al Gore a “bloated fool.”)

The divergent opinions shows how our vocal, local conservatives can be out of touch with leading candidates in their own political party, let alone the “lefties.” It’s not too late for a Jerry Brown “protest vote.”

Meanwhile, “Nannygate” continues to haunt Meg, includng at last night’s debate. Voting begins next week!

The video is here:

Filed under: Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

The controversy about nonprofit political advocacy, transparency and accountability, written about here and elsewhere – including a well-researched article in the New York Times that I linked to the other day – focuses on 501c4s and c6s (CABPRO, some tea party groups and others), not 501c3s (Sierra Business Council or APPLE, the Alliance for a Post Petroleum Local Economy).

A good reference source is here. “With every election cycle comes a shadow army of benignly titled nonprofit groups like Americans for Job Security, devoted to politically charged ‘issue advocacy,’ much of it negative,” the Times reported.

And there’s a difference between recommending propositions (SBC), and propositions and candidates (CABPRO), as disclosed in CABPRO’s October newsletter and first reported here.

In short, 501c3s are held to higher standards – understandable since they involve public funds. But should the other nonprofits be held to higher standards too? Just because it’s legal now doesn’t mean it’s right.

In an earlier comment, reader Pat Wynne raises a cogent point about our myriad nonprofits here (more per capita than most counties): Notice how CABPRO recommends political candidates but most others do not.

Political endorsements often act to polarize and discourage critical thinking – kind of like a “tip sheet” at the horse races. This is magnified in a small town such as ours.

CABPRO has been accused of polarizing politics before, dating back to the NH2020 debate. Some background is here.

Some of the c4s and c6s are pushing the limits of interpretation, and I expect to see the IRS, lawmakers, courts and others more closely probe them and the rules after this election – and justifiably so. The media (except for here) is starting to shine a light on the issue.

This concern was addressed in the “Disclosure Act” legislation that recently was defeated by Republicans. “Strengthen Donor Disclosure of Political Expenditures by Corporations, Unions, and 504 (c)(4)s, (6)s, and 527s: Requires full and timely disclosure of campaign-related expenditures made by covered organizations, including corporations and labor organizations.

“The bill imposes disclosure requirements that prevent covered organizations from masking their campaign-related activities through the use of conduits and intermediaries.”

And let’s not forget who started this debate locally. None other than the CABPRO contingent, calling out the SBC for daring to oppose Prop. 23, which CABPRO fans vocally support. Barry Pruett posted this argument, on his blog and in the CABPRO newsletter, starting the whole thing.

The “c4″ pot calling the “c3″ kettle black? You decide.

With aspiring but losing clerk-recorder Barry’s ongoing “legal seminars” you’d think he was gunning to be our county DA next. Wouldn’t that be funny. Lightening striking twice. Maybe it’s time to, well, “move on.”

Exit question: With our changing county demographics and downtrodden economy, as well as new, independent channels of local communication on the internet, does CABPRO hold the sway it once did?

Filed under: Uncategorized | 14 Comments »