It is football season and Attorney General Jerry Brown is a no-show for the kickoff.

From the LA Times today:

Brown, the state’s attorney general and a supporter of same-sex marriage, also defended his decision not to appeal a legal ruling that found Proposition 8, which denies gay couples the right to marry, unconstitutional. The state Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to force Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to defend the proposition, which was passed by voters in 2008.

Brown said he took an oath to uphold state and federal law, including the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says that no person shall be denied equal protection of the law.

“The federal law is supreme and takes precedence over state law,” Brown said.

It’s fall – the start of football season.

The time of year where small schools play up, logging thousands of miles in travel to take on the ‘big schools’ for nothing more than the guaranteed sharing of gate revenue. But don’t tell that to the players who tighten their chin-straps, or the coaches who prepare their squads for the big win.

Each small school shows up, plays the game to the best of their ability and expects to win – knowing deep inside that the odds are stacked against them, and the possibilities are best described as remote … but they show, play and fight for the right to be accounted for.

But not Jerry Brown.

When it comes to the defense of the people’s vote relating to Proposition 8, California’s attorney general would ignore game time, refuse to schedule the bus and default that he has no investment in the contest, nor desire to engage – in the end labeling his decision as a ”strategic litigation decision.”

Jerry Brown’s refusal to represent the voters of his state on the issue of standing within the Prop 8 courtroom argument is comparable to a coach refusing to show-up for the game.

Would not taking your team to the stadium be a “strategic football decision”?

No, it is actually a decision to lose – there is no strategy involved.

CRI Board member and Attorney Tim LeFever played it this way, “You can parallel this with the private world; a client hires an attorney. The attorney makes a “strategic litigation decision” not to file an appeal even though the client wants to proceed. The attorney would be in legal trouble.”

Now substitute the voters of California for the client and the attorney general for the private sector attorney.

Times’ Seema Mehta reports, “Meg Whitman has said that if she were elected governor, she will appeal the ruling. The former EBay chief supports civil unions for same-sex couples, but opposes gay marriage.”

Whitman also has referenced that duty should always trump personal preference for the office of attorney general.

Mr. Brown, you’re wrong again, failure to show is not strategy … it’s another example of your insubordination.

26 years ago, a pesticide plant owned by Union Carbide, had an accident in their facility in Bhopal India.  The resulting accident produced a toxic leak that became the world’s worst  industrial disaster.  This last week,  the U.S. nuclear  program got hammered by India.  A  huge nuclear development deal fell through.  Here’s why:

Remember the Alamo…I mean Bhopal!  

During the night of December 2–3, 1984, water entered a tank containing 42 tons of  [1] methyl isocyanate (MIC). The resulting exothermic reaction [2] increased the temperature inside the tank to over 200 °C (392 °F) and raised the pressure.  The tank vented, releasing toxic gases into the atmosphere.  The gases were blown by northwesterly winds over Bhopal.  

It has been estimated over 25,000 died as a direct result and 500,000 have suffered from this accident.  In June of this year the lawsuit was settled and seven ex- employees where sentenced t0 two years in jail and a $2,000 fine.  All are now in  their 70′s and where released immediately.  Bhopal to this day, is basically a toxic waste dump.  

Tarapur Atomic Power Station

Last week, India passed a law requiring firms that supply equipment to nuclear plants, to be liable in case of accidents.  Russian and French companies now have an advantage since their governments provide some liability in case of an accident.  U.S. and Indian officials are attempting to circumvent the new law passed by Parliament, but the ghosts of Bhopal seem to be driving this legislation.  India was never able to prosecute Union Carbides top executive, Warren Anderson, for the Bhopal disaster, and they still remember.  It’s this issue that caused the stringent rules thrust upon U.S. companies.  Seems they still don’t trust a U.S. company.  I wonder why?  26 years of lawsuits here and in India, Supreme Court decisions here and in India, has left some in positions of the Indian Government, with deep resentment and some attitude!  

This took the U.S. by surprise as it had anticipated companies like General Electric and Westinghouse Electric (now owned by Toshiba) landing $150 billion contracts to build India’s nuclear plants.  The U.S. have been involved in India’s nuclear aspirations since it first tested an atomic bomb in 1974.   An agreement in 2005 was supposed to clear the decks for U.S. and India to resume trading and building nuclear technology until this impasse.  Obama is scheduled to visit India in November, so there is a sense of urgency to get this worked out.  (As a side note, the U.S. hasn’t built a nuclear plant in U.S. soil in over 30 years, but we can build them for someone else!)  

Because nuclear is so political, many in the Indian government have said,  

“You want to play in our country, you play by our rules… there are plenty of profits to go around and someone will agree to our terms.”  

Clearly Russia and France have the upper leg and dominate the nuclear industry already and this will push the U.S. back into the stone age for nuclear development.  Three options are being proposed by the U.S. and after reading them, none will make it to the boardroom, much less the trash can.  

With the U.S. trying to start their own nuclear industry again, building a few plants in India would have been hugely beneficial for down the road.  Currently, the President’s BRC is meeting once a month across the country and should have a proposal to the President and Congress next year.  

This author has been afforded an advisor status to the BRC and I continue to advise the panel on topics from a civilian point of view.  Since this country must modernize its own energy policy, anything that effects our own companies globally is important to watch and learn from.  Both China and India are moving at light speed to bring nuclear energy to their countries, while the U.S. wonders and watches what happens.  Stupid!   

To view my articles on nuclear energy, please go to my website and read up on several I have written and are featured by the BRC on Nuclear Energy.  

Visit my website and help me make the change to return Congress to the people. WWW.Smithinthe5th.com  

[1] a highly toxic and irritating material, it is hazardous to human health.  Used to make pesticides.  

{2} The Bhopal disaster (also referred to as the Bhopal gas tragedy) is the world’s worst industrial catastrophe. It occurred on the night of December 2–3, 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. UCIL was the Indian subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). Indian Government controlled banks and the Indian public held a 49.1 percent ownership share.  

In 1994, the Supreme Court of India allowed UCC to sell its 50.9 percent share. The Bhopal plant was sold to McLeod Russel (India) Ltd. UCC is now a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Company.  A leak of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas and other chemicals from the plant resulted in the exposure of several thousands of people.  Estimates vary on the death toll.  The official immediate death toll was 2,259 and the government of Madhya Pradesh has confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release.  Other government agencies estimate 15,000 deaths.  Others estimate that 8,000 died within the first weeks and that another 8,000 have since died from gas-related diseases.  A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial and ~3900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.  

Chemicals abandoned at the plant continue to leak and pollute the groundwater. Whether the chemicals pose a health hazard is disputed.  

Civil and criminal cases are pending in the United States District Court, Manhattan and the District Court of Bhopal, India, involving UCC, UCIL employees, and Warren Anderson, UCC CEO at the time of the disaster.  In June 2010, seven ex-employees, including the former UCIL chairman, were convicted in Bhopal of causing death by negligence and sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of about $2,000 each, the maximum punishment allowed by law.  An eighth former employee was also convicted but died before judgment was passed.

What is Senator Barbara Boxer ’really’ up to with her out-sourcing jobs attack against Carly Fiorina?

It seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

Here is Senator Boxer chiding Fiorina for off-shoring jobs to China in order to save a company’s competition (inside of an economical downturn), as the tenured senator rides around California touting her votes on TARP, stimulus, company bailouts with dollars seized at gunpoint (taxes) in order to  – as the senator says – ‘save’ government sector jobs from an economical downturn.

Questions:

• Isn’t Senator Boxer, in essence, outsourcing our tax dollars to government unions?
• And if Carly is going to be smeared over outsourced jobs to China, when do the media begin to dust for Senator Boxer’s fingerprints on California’s future similarity to Greece?
• Since we are talking about economics, is outsourcing always the evil it is painted to be?

Nobody likes the concept of outsourcing jobs to another country, but doesn’t the method actually save jobs when juxtaposed to Senator Boxer’s concept of government bailouts? We don’t like losing jobs to bankruptcy either; in most cases outsourcing is a choice of necessity not desire.

Senator Boxer has created a straw man developed on a misconception that businesses exist to employ and take care of individual citizens called workers. The reality is business exists to make a profit, and the side effect is actually employment.

Why has Senator Boxer not reduced more government programs, as well as needless government workers, reducing the burdensome impact on businesses which leads to the unemployment of so many in the private sector?

From a comment at Red County this week:

“The Democratic mayor of Los Angeles (and former Speaker of the California Assembly) Antonio Villaraigosa described the ‘tough decisions’ that he had to make in “extricat[ing]” the people of LA from 3,500 government employees.”

“Villaraigosa said, “we’re doing furloughs and layoffs, we’re doing everything we can, including early retirement, to reduce the size of our payroll.”Sometimes a responsible leader in the private sector or the public sector has to do this. But that isn’t what you are going to hear from Democrats this year. Democrats like Barbara Boxer are going to demonize Republicans, like Carly Fiorina, who were involved in layoffs because it was the responsible thing to do.”

Consider the recessionary plight of newspapers that outsourced to make a profit, in the process saving and creating jobs in the process. Numerous newspapers started to outsource their proof reading to India at 50-cents on the dollar. What the newspapers received in return was ’24/7 performance’ at half the price, a needed profit inside of the editing departments across America.

Did these newspapers ‘saved jobs’ with the out-sourcing of proof readers?

They had to lay-off workers, but the paper ostensibly grew its future value with the decision, and to the 80-percent (remaining workers) who kept their jobs, I am sure they were happy to keep their employment tenure.

Outsourcing may not be fair (or feel good), but its economics people. There is nothing fair about life, and Boxer’s company (big government) is the ’root cause’ of much – if not all – of the painfully, unfair process that is outsourcing.

The burden of jobs inside of America can be directly tied to government regulations, union contracts and the overall tax structure that preys upon the free market. Outsourcing to survive economically in a global economy is entirely different than outsourcing just because.

What Fiorina ‘oversaw’ for the HP shareholders were a survival tactic; not a greed plot.

As one caller put it on my morning show, “The greatest talent pool for innovation resides in the US, and within the US worker – and most of that (used to be) is concentrated in California. California companies should focus on being innovators in developing new products. Once the design is fixed and production is ‘debugged’ – the temptation in today’s competition is to outsource.”

Why is this true; because the cost-overhead of production is increasingly inflated due to government regulation. When companies outsource we get the best of both worlds; an intelligent workforce, low(er) overhead, and we avoid an inflated population of simple production workers that are vulnerable to the siren song of unions.

Sure, we need more manufacturing and production jobs in the country – don’t take me wrong here.

There should be much more done to retain, or bring back, various forms of manufacturing employment inside of the country, but it starts with government changing itself and not blaming the private sector for moves of self preservation.

That CEO Carly Fiorina outsourced jobs to maintain HP’s solvency is admirable in duty, undesirable in position, and should not be condemnable at face value.

As for Senator Boxer, come 2011 or 2012, how many of these ‘jobs saved’ with stimulus and bailout tax dollars will need saving again?

Madam Boxer, how many more union cost burdens and additional government regulations will you put upon the private sector from your comfortable digs in Washington DC?

Why the cost of chicken has gone up at your grocery store!  Tyson Foods new CEO explains how how ethanol energy policy has cost you and me money!

In my previous article entitled: The Ethanol Scam: It’s a Can ‘O’ Corn I detailed out how Ethanol is costing you money at the gas pump.  Today I was skimming through the news and I caught an interview of Donnie Smith, CEO of Tyson Foods with Scott Kilman of the WSJ .  He has been the CEO since November.  I was just about ready to move onto the next story when this caught my eye.

WSJ:  Has government support for the corn-to ethanol fuel industry affected your business?

Mr. Smith:  Prior to 2006, before ethanol became the user of one third of the corn crop, the cost of producing a pound of chicken was in the mid-20 cents range.  Today it is mid-30s.

WSJ:  What do you want to see done with the ethanol industry?

Mr. Smith:  Let industries compete without tax incentives.

OMG!  Get the government out of the ethanol business?  Can this be true?  The costs to raise a chicken has gone up since ethanol was mandated.  Costing you and me millions at the grocery store.

At what point do we start realizing we are getting screwed at the pump and at the kitchen table?  I want to shout from the top of the Empire State Building:

CONGRESS…STOP SUBSIDIZING CORN ETHANOL AND DRIVING THE PRICE OF FOOD UP YOU IDIOTS !

When a CEO of one of the largest food companies complains about the same issue and can back it up with actual increased costs, when do we pull the plug?  When do we listen and demand we stop hurting families trying to buy food in the U.S?  He went on further to say his firm slaughters 2 billion chickens a year.  Most birds hit the slaughter house at 8 pounds of usable meat.  With a quick calculation of .10 cents a pound, that translates to $1,600,000,000 (One Billion, six hundred million in extra feed costs) just in Tysons costs to slaughter.  The cost to buy at the store level is even higher.

Had enough green!

Help me stop this rush to ethanol at the expense of our own food chain and costs to produce it.  It is INSANE!

What more proof do we need?

Visit my website and help me make the change to return Congress to the people. WWW.Smithinthe5th.com

Five years after the Bureau of Land management (BLM) opened up millions of acres in the southwest for solar, not one volt of electricity has been produced!

In an article I wrote called The Truth about Solar Energy I detailed the Governments plans about this subject.  As a follow up I will explain the absolute mis-management that has followed and why we won’t see one volt of electricity for years to come.  As someone that follows politics and energy issues, it just irritates me to no end to watch and observe the mis-management that passes as good governance. 

After 5 years we get squatters!

Literally, we now have squatters leasing millions of acres of prime desert land and not one solar panel has been laid.  The BLM in their absolute stupidity, offered a first come first served program whereby ANYONE could sign up for the land WITHOUT any solar experience or intent to build a solar plant.  Brilliant!

Enter Goldman Sachs & Co.

We all know what a solar powerhouse this company is right???  Not!  In Nevada, Goldman Sachs has made claims to half of all the available land the BLM designated for solar leases.  They have no intent on developing it.  But in 2009 Goldman Sachs did buy a small solar facility in San Bernardino.  Yeah… they now have some expertise after sitting on the leases for five years.   Give me a break!

The fast tracked sites are supposed to have approvals this month.  On one parcel, the lessor is Brightsource Energy and another is by Nextlight.  Stuck in the middle of these two parcels is the Goldman Sachs parcel which conveniently has the transmission wires passing across their site.    Location, location, location.

In 2005 Congress mandated by 2015 to have 10,000 megawatts of energy or about 5 million homes of renewable energy from solar.  So far, not even one permit has been pulled to start the process and we are now 5 years into the 10 year window.  Never count on the government to get the job done, they just muck it up!

How easy was it?

The BLM leasing system was to good to be true!  All you had to do is apply and you too could become a land baron in desert properties.  One such company called Lightsource Renewables tied up 2,500 acres near transmission lines.  The company had no experience of this kind and has two… count them two employees.  But they, like everyone else figured out the value of the land and tied it up.  They have since declined to develop, but the lease is still in their name.  Everyone did the same and now we have a Mexican standoff with all the land-lease owners waiting for someone else to develop their parcel and make their own parcel more valuable.

Goldman Sachs now controls 52 of the 354 applications in the region.  They have no experience except in losing money on Wall Street, but somehow they where able to tie up huge portions of land.  To top it off, Senator Diane Feinstein, has proposed to make many of the portions of land near the Mojave dessert, National Monuments. 

We can’t drill for oil in the U.S., most are scared shirtless of Nuclear, and now we are making the desert un-available cause Fienstien wants to make the area a National Monument. 

Where in the hell are we going to put all the new solar plants… in downtown Sacramento?  Goldman now owns leases that cover half of the leased land in Nevada.  Would that be a monopoly?  Another company, named Cogetrix now controls 120,000 acres of land just in Nevada.  It has been a pure and un-adulterated land grab by a few companies trying to cash in on the absolute stupidity of the Government and BLM.  Remember, its the BLM who rounds up horses once in awhile to thin the herds.  That makes them experts in solar technology!

How it should have happened.

Detailed applications should have been required to even be considered for the program as important as this one.  Previous experience and a proven track record and financials should have been required.  That alone would have kept out the speculators and developers.  A time-frame to begin and complete work should have been incorporated into every letter of acceptance by the BLM.  This would have kept out the Goldman Sachs and groups  like them, who are in it for the increased in land/lease value only.  Let’s be clear.  Goldman Sachs has no intention of getting into the Solar Industry, they are speculators.  Multiple applications from the same company should have been limited to a perform first, then more granted later.  Not take all you can!  A  nice non-refundable fee for application would have stopped all the rest.

Now what?

Anyone sitting on an un-used lease needs to be given a 120 day notice to perform or the lease goes back to the Government for distribution to a qualified company.  If you have bitten off more than you can chew, you forfeit huge chunks of land until you get down to a more manageable size.  This will allow the competition in.  As it stands now, two large companies have tied up so much land, they, in effect, have completely shut down the Solar Industry in the desert by their own in-actions. 

For the right amount of size, a 49 square mile tract of land (7 mi x 7 mi) will produce the same amount of energy as a 1 mile square nuclear site during the day only.  Other companies are only asking for 6,700 acres to develop plants, but Cogetrix needs 120,000 acres???

Knock off the declaring of huge desert areas to become National Monuments. 

C’mon, how many millions are tracking through the Mojave dessert right now?  We are quickly going to make our own country “energy-locked” if we keep it up!

I don’t know what happens to common sense in Government, but is it any wonder why we are in such a huge hole as a country when it comes to energy development?  If I ever become this stupid when I am elected, I pray you folks will smack me upside the head and knock me back into reality. 

Help me put some common sense back into Government!

Visit my website and help me make the change to return Congress to the people. WWW.Smithinthe5th.com

Senator Barbara Boxer may not feel the need to apologize to the Brigadier General, but she should be very sorry for her vote buying at the expense of the taxpayers’ military budget.

Back on August 20th the senator’s ‘job tour’ stopped by Boeing’s C-17 plant in Long Beach, California.

During the stump speech Senator Boxer declared to the 5,000-plus plane manufacturing employees, “I cannot tell you how proud I am that we have surpassed 200 planes (since 1990), and that this magnificent aircraft is built right here in California by American workers – the only place the C-17 should ever be built is in California.”

Boxer ended her stump speech with an overt promise … as a returning senator to Washington DC, she informed the crowd that she would make sure that Congress would continue to order, buy and demand C-17′s from Boeing of California. The campaign message, “I will make sure that we keep you working in Long Beach as long as you keep me working in Washington DC.”

The problem for Senator Boxer is that the Air Force doesn’t want any more. And the Obama Administration has made mention of a certain veto for any military spending bill that offers additional (continual) budgetary spending for Boeing’s C-17.

The Washington Examiner reports, “The Obama Administration has repeated its promise to veto any bill purchasing more C-17′s. Whatever the merits of the C-17, the Air Force and Department of Defense have made it quite clear that they no longer want to purchase the plane.”

Senator Boxer’s push for more C-17′s is economically and fiscally disingenuous. She (as well as her Democrat colleagues) continues to persist in using tax dollars to fund pet projects for unions, government jobs and even cash flow companies that offer her campaign support in November.

A single Boeing C-17 Globemaster costs $250 million.

Since 1990, the Air Force has purchased 223 Globemasters when the Air Force’s reported demand is capped at 205. Today there is a cheaper alternative to the expensive C-17 (C-5 Galaxy; just 60-percent of the C-17′s cost), but the problem for Barbara Boxer is that the new, more affordable alternative is not manufactured by Boeing in California.

When Senator Boxer’s campaign chants “job, by job, by job” she is right; purchasing of the C-17 will maintain jobs at Boeing in Long Beach – but the question is for how long and at what ultimate cost to the taxpayers?

The report of such myopic spending caused the Examiner to opine:

“So long as our leaders in Washington continue to spend our money for their own benefit, and that of their friends, we will have ballooning deficits and a decreasingly productive economy. Judging from the growing clamor of voices, such as the Tea Party movement, the electorate now gets that. Our tax dollars are not for keeping the already powerful entrenched. The real question is, when will Senator Boxer and her friends in Washington figure it out?”

California’s Boeing needs to be encouraged to move onto another, more effective, innovative and affordable product, while the taxpayers need to be paying for a product that is actually desired by the military –  and beneficial to the needs of the populous – not Senator Boxer.

In 1990, seven Republican women ran for US Senate – the media yawned.  In 1992, the media rejoiced at what they called “The Year of the Woman,” when ten Democratic women were running for the Senate.

In 1990, there was one news story on election night.  In 1992, the evening newscasts aired 29 stories exclusively devoted to women Senate candidates. In 1990, there were zero interviews on the morning talk shows. In 1992, the morning shows interviewed women Senate candidates on 26 occasions.

The difference was clear, party affiliation.

Bias, we’re told, is part of the political mainstream, and perhaps part of the media mainstream. Such a bias was clearly shown in an article title “For GOP women, 2010 may not be their year” printed in the LA Times on July 24, 2010. The paper continued with a sub-heading of “Despite a handful of high-profile victories, female conservatives continue to struggle in a party that has long seen them take a supporting role.”

In South Carolina Niki Haley surprised many political observers by beating a strong field of male candidates.  Haley a State Representative outpaced the Lt. Governor, the Attorney General and a four-term Congressman to move on to that states run-off.  However, after reading a quote from a Haley supporter ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked Haley the following question “Can you assure South Carolina voters that they’re not going to be embarrassed if they elect you?”

When Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina won hard fought primaries in California,  Stephanopoulos demeaned their business credentials as a minus, not a plus. “Meg Whitman, head of eBay. Carly Fiorina ran Hewlett- Packard. There’s some controversy there.”

Further proof is evident in the handling of comments by GOP Senate candidate Carly Fiorina and Democrat Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown.  Fiorina was on camera quoting a friend when a live microphone captured her saying Boxer’s hair is “so yesterday.” The media ran with the quote and the issue become fodder for the talking heads on the news channels.

Then there was Democrat Brown when discussing his opponent Whitman: “It’s like Goebbels. Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda. He took control of the whole world. She wants to be president. That’s her ambition, the first woman president. That’s what this is all about.” What kind of media coverage did we see on this statement?  The only network mention came from ABC’s Jake Tapper on “This Week,” and even he said “regardless of the tastelessness, Jerry Brown has a point … that she has a lot of money.”

There are many other high profile GOP women running this year, Linda McMahon in Connecticut, Sharon Angle in Nevada, Susana Martinez in New Mexico to name a few.

How will the headlines read come November 3rd? Year of GOP Women or Despite Strong GOP Showing GOP Women Fail to Gain Media Attention.

(Editor’s note: HOGUE NEWS welcomes the talents of Chris Orrock to the daily conversation.)

Tom Del Beccaro currently serves as Vice Chair of the California Republican Party, his accent to the Chairmanship has been all but assured going into the 2010 elections as Republicans are expected to do well this election and for the main fact that nobody has expressed a desire to run against him.

Nobody that is until now, enter former Assemblyman Guy Houston. 

From 2002 to 2008, Guy represented the 15th district in the California State Assembly. Houston, a resident of San Ramon, served as the Mayor of Dublin and was a real estate executive prior to serving in the Assembly. The district Houston represented covers parts of four counties: Contra Costa, Alameda, San Joaquin and Sacramento.

This same district elected Houston three times: in 2002, 2004 and 2006.

Houston faces what many consider an uphill battle to stop the coronation of Del Beccaro to the throne of the CRP.  Del Beccaro has been releasing names of endorsers in a steady stream for the past two years; a good question is how does Houston’s entry affect Del Beccaro’s long list of endorsers?

It will be interesting to see if Houston’s former colleagues in the State Legislature are willing to switch their endorsements, or if they stay the course with their current endorsement of Del Beccaro.

Will the CRP continue on the same path and promote Del Beccaro up to the next rung of the Party hierarchy, or will Houston have a plan to sway the party faithful into switching course?

And then … what if any impact will a Meg Whitman win on November 2nd have on the CRP leadership? Only time will tell, as well as a few endorsements along the way.