Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

And just curious and with all due respect, but isn't this a 30 second sound bite political ad? ;-) Didn't Mr. Gore state these short ads are what is making the political system toxic? In all honesty in this ad Mr. Gore appears to fall right back into political mold, with no urgency in his voice on this matter, no passion, no conviction...Nothing like his movie or his speeches as a free man out of this system. Just calmly reading a script for a group of lobbyists instead of talking to people from his own heart. I love Mr. Gore, but political sound bites do not suit him. He's too good for them, and the words "climate crisis" should not be relegated to that category. That stated, I know his heart is in the right place regarding this issue, and I hope that resonates with people in California of all politics. I simply continue to be skeptical about giving a partisan political perception to An Inconvenient Truth, which was not a political movie.

And yes, while I am all for the oil corporations being made responsible for their immoral actions, the result of taxing these corporations will probably be passed down to consumers or they will find other ways via loopholes and fancy lawyers to absorb it and get around any measures against doing so. Isn't that always the way? How can anyone absolutely guarantee that won't happen in this case? Any tax to these corporations will also be a drop in the bucket in relation to their current profits which are obscene. We need to hit them in their profits before they make them, and that means making available other energy sources and fuels that we can put in our cars and homes NOW.

We have it NOW so what "research" are we talking about with this? And let's face it, all of these rich Hollywood types and others sponsoring this ad (who also put on extravagent shows for poverty that never seems to go away) surely must have enough money in their own bank accounts to bankroll their own corporation that would be formidable enough to overtake EXXON and to make alternate energies more accessible to ALL people NOW if they truly care, including and especially the poor. Where is it? Where is the ad telling people how and where they can get these energies NOW? Where is the real resistance to these companies and their immoral business practices?

And as far as alternate energies being made available to ALL consumers, that isn't always the case. In my state you can't get solar energy unless you own a home. What's that all about? Economic discrimination? When do we really take on those responsible instead of giving them excuses to continue as is and screw the little guy in the process? It's the same premise as censuring Bush but continuing to allow him to put out signing statements taking away our rights, rather than impeaching him. It's a slap on the wrist. We need to lessen dependence on oil products whether the source is foreign OR domestic by making alternate energy accessible to ALL people including and most especially the poor NOW so they don't have the profits in the first place.

It's the working poor in this country who are suffering the most now. We still have to get to work and will fill our cars with whatever is available, which yes, does go against the moral code of many who understand this situation including myself. But again, WHAT CHOICE ARE WE BEING GIVEN NOW? I don't see cellulosic ethanol available at any gas station in my town yet. So again, how does this hurt the oil companies now if it only calls for a reduction over ten years? And will Californians have a choice NOW?

I bet we could get cellulosic ethanol and biofuel out to market in this entire nation by next year. We already have it, but people would rather use this issue for political games for votes on all sides and bide time until THEY can make a profit from it first, rather than GIVE US WHAT WE NEED NOW. That's why I don't trust politicians and lobbyists on this issue, and never will again. Just look at this from the article above:

"Prop. 87 aims to reduce the state's petroleum usage by 25 percent over 10 years. By taxing big oil companies, Prop. 87 would raise $4 billion to encourage the development of alternative fuels and technology over the next decade."

Excuse me, but didn't Dr. James Hansen, Al Gore, as well as other scientists state that we only have a ten year window before we reach the point of tipping the scales? Again then, only a 25% reduction over ten years means people will still be using OIL in their tanks for that time period as well, no? How does that penalize oil companies if we aren't getting alternate energies to market NOW to compete with their profits? And what of the rest of the country? Again, WHERE IS THE URGENCY?

And debuting this ad in a hotel in Palm Springs of all places surely doesn't sound like those behind it are talking to the poor in this nation who suffer the most. But yes, yes, at least it's a start. I just tend to think some think of this as a rich man's issue as well now and just an opportunity to make a killing for themselves on investing in alternate energies that we don't even see advertised or made available to us! Where is the information? Where is the product? How is taxing these companies going to help us if we are too timid to fight to get these alternate products to market NOW to hit them where it would really hurt? We will still have no choice but to put their gas in our tanks until that happens tax or no tax.

The poor in this country also can't invest (which is really what "encourage the development" means) in these alternate energies with companies where you need to have millions before you can even be considered worthy to invest. So how does this help them especially if they can't afford to invest in it or even switch to it, or aren't allowed to do so because of their financial situation? This problem goes so much deeper than just a proposition on a piece of paper.

I would love to convert to solar energy to heat my home but again, since I don't own a home, am not a millionaire, don't have "connections," don't know the right people, am not a Hollywood type, and am just a poor working American trying to get by from month to month, I'm screwed. I then try to conserve and lower my consumption, but then don't call me "immoral" for using the electricity I use if I'm not considered worthy to have other types of energy because my social station isn't acceptable in being included in the loop, or I have no choice but to continue to fill my tank with gas because I'm not being given a choice. It is the poor in this country who are at the mercy of whoever holds the reigns, and that needs to end. Will this proposition do that?

Mr. Gore has repeatedly stated that this is a moral issue, and as we see it most assuredly is. So how is this proposition going to change the moral code of Americans if they can't break that addiction for whatever reason or won't? And more importantly, if they aren't allowed to break it over the next ten years because they are poor and have no other feasible choices? Mr. Gore of all people was one I thought would understand that aspect of this issue, and I would hope he would talk about the effects this will have on the poor much more in the future.

And what would a gallon of ethanol (which I don't like because it is made of corn and corn is a very water intensive crop) cost at the tank today in comparison to gas considering this crisis is so "urgent?" Cheaper so the problem doesn't get worse? Or more expensive because the profit motive exists no matter what business you are in or how long or short that window is especially in the first stages of introduction? I think that is a key factor in all of this, and it needs to be addressed in order to get the trust of Americans who have every right to be wary of anything coming to market. This isn't a POLITICAL issue, remember?

Again, unless you make these alternate energies available, accessible, and CHEAP NOW in order to truly put a bite into the profits of oil companies NOW, how does this help mitigate the climate crisis? And considering these asses in Washington DC have already inflamed more than half the world against us without any action being taken against them, I don't think I will feel safer no matter where my energy comes from until they are impeached and removed from power. IMPEACHMENT is really the way to make us safer. Perhaps that should be a Proposition for the people of California and this nation to vote on.

And I hope we get more information on this before November 7, because California is only one state out of fifty, and we don't have ten years to just "research and invest." But yes, I would suggest the people vote yes on this proposition in California despite all of this because it is a start...but then demand FULL accountability and push for bringing alternate fuels to their pumps NOW, not in ten years. Hitting the profits of those companies (that will see a tax as only a distraction if they are allowed to continue to make obscene profits) before they are made is the way to go. But that can only happen if people are given a real choice now.