Opinion L.A.

The best in Southern California opinion journalism,
Monday through Friday

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

In today's pages: Props. 7, 8 and 10

September 19, 2008 |  6:36 am

Elections fever has infected the Opinion Manufacturing Division, with Nov. 4 being the subject of every editorial and Op-Ed today. It's a quadfecta! David Blankenhorn, president of the New York-based Institute for American Values, lays out a strong but familiar argument for Prop. 8 (the proposed amendment to the state constitution that would limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman). Citing the work of anthropologists and social scientists, Blankenhorn argues that marriage is a "pro-child institution" designed to tell children that the people who brought them into the world will be there for them:

In 2002 -- just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so -- a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.

He doesn't address divorce and speaks only in passing about adoption, but there's still plenty in the piece to argue about. Hit the comment link and have at it, people!

Over in the editorial stack, the Times' editorial board takes up two of the other, umm, 736 propositions on the November ballot. The board urges a "no" vote on Prop. 7 and Prop. 10, two measures whose environmentally friendly descriptions don't match their likely effects. Prop. 7, which would require utilities to obtain half their power from renewable sources by 2025, is replete with ill-thought-out provisions that could actually discourage use of clean power by individual businesses and homeowners, the board argues. And in the board's view, Prop. 10 is a scam to benefit billionaire oilman-turned-natural-gas-magnate T. Boone Pickens:

This measure asks taxpayers to fund $5 billion in bonds -- at a time when the state is in desperate financial straits and may be approaching a dangerous level of indebtedness -- for a scheme disguised as an effort to benefit the environment. Yet its true aim is to subsidize vehicles powered by natural gas, which would build a customer base for its sponsor: Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a company Pickens co-founded that operates natural gas filling stations throughout the U.S. and Canada.

Rounding out the ensemble, columnist (and Barack Obama supporter) Joel Stein writes about an effort by a pro-Obama PAC to prod young Jewish Obamaphiles to visit their grandparents in Florida next month and lobby them not to vote for John McCain:

They will travel to the Fort Lauderdale area, where they will visit their grandparents, organize political salons in their condos and eat incredibly bad food. The grandkids also will meet up at a bar one night, which -- if the psychological impact of spending a few days with frail, elderly, widowed relatives is taken fully into account -- may do more to repopulate the world's Jews than the creation of Israel.


Post a comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In





Comments
1.

It is clear that Edison and PG&E would rather burn cheap dirty coal and continue to cash out on record profits than invest in clean energy. Clean coal was a scheme by these same companies to cover the fact that they have ruined our wild fish supplies worldwide; ruined our local water supplies; and continue to destroy our lives with diseases they create with their toxins. Please read the fine print and decide for yourself. People first.

2.

I guess the LA Times is out of the business of investigative reporting. Or even reporting. Your 'analysis' of prop 7 is just short of a cut-and-paste version of the utility funded no on prop 7 website. Why don't you research before you parrot their claims? As if CA’s energy crisis - replete with rolling black outs, isn’t enough to convince you, the Pasadena Star News reports about Edison’s latest rip-off of consumers: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_10504174. The ONLY funding behind the claims against Prop 7 is from the Big Utilities that caused the energy crisis and that rip rate payers off. It should worry everyone that the Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters proudly fly their flags on utility funded commercials. http://confusedinsolarcalifornia.blogspot.com/. But then, if the LA Times did actual reporting, then they would know that the coalition opposed to Prop 7 is IDENTICAL to the coalition that helped pass deregulation. Literally – the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the NRDC, all helped to shepard deregulation through the Legislature. So a new major measure that would usher in renewable energy in CA being opposed by the identical coalition shouldn’t surprise an investigative reporter. Why didn’t the Times report on the fact that the Democratic Party took over $1,500,000 from the utilities in the last four years and the Republican Party took over $1,140,000? Why doesn’t your editorial mention that the Legislature has tried to pass an increased RPS bill over the last three sessions but that it FAILED each time? And also, why hasn’t the LA Times editorial staff taken legislation 101? You mention the 2/3 vote issue as if it were a huge hurdle thrown up by the proponents, when in fact, CA law states that the only way to amend an initiative is through another initiative – unless the measure is written to allow an amendment by the legislature. A 2/3 vote gives Californians a chance to vote on something that won’t get immediately torn apart by special interests, i.e. the big utilities sponsoring the No on 7 disinformation campaign. LA Times, get your facts straight!

AND – two weeks ago the LA Times wrote an article about how the Legislature was failing on renewable energy! http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-renewable25-2008aug25,0,6497443.story. But now you say to wait and have faith in the Legislature to get it done. How long are we supposed to wait? And what side is the LA Times on? Get your story straight!

3.

As an energy policy expert with many years of experience in this field, and as the energy program director of an environmental group that is active in state energy policy, I was extremely disappointed in the LA Times normally great editorial staff with respect to Prop 7. Prop 7 does nothing to harm small-scale renewables and will very likely do much good. Its main focus is large-scale renewables, which we absolutely have to have to achieve a sustainable future, in addition to small-scale renewables (which we need, but aren't sufficient in themselves to create a non-fossil fuel future).

Also, the proposed alternative, legislation that would mandate a 33% by 2020 renewables requirement, has failed three years in a row in the Legislature. And even if this year's version had passed, it would have been a meaningless mandate because it would have included a number of new offramps for non-compliance and no newe tools for achieving the higher levels of renewables.

Prop 7 provides a number of powerful new tools for achieving much higher renewables targets and also strengthens penalties for non-compliance. Email me at thunt@cecmail.org if you'd like more information.



Advertisement

About the Bloggers
Opinion L.A. is the work of the Los Angeles Times editorial board.



Recent Posts
Thanksgiving thoughts |  November 27, 2009, 8:58 am »
Chapter and verse on a litmus test |  November 24, 2009, 6:44 pm »
Dream (or nightmare) team |  November 24, 2009, 11:16 am »
Making a list and checking it seven times |  November 24, 2009, 11:13 am »

Archives