You’re entitled to your opinion, and same as I and everyone else. That’s why we vote to determine what to do. Otherwise, a tyrant could have determined that for all of us, right?

But of course, the voting results say nothing about whether the results are “good” or “bad”. They are all relative, and also can vary in respect to the timeframe that you look at.

I listened to the commercials, as someone who has won a regional emmy, I can tell you that NO MATTER what had been written into the proposition, the no side could have had a field day coming up with why the proposition should not pass.

Example. “this 12,000 word document”…… sounds scary, but in essence, it’s completely irrelevant.

If Prop 87 had had fewer words in it, the no side would have called the Proposition “a scant explanation that spends billions of dollars with no visible guidelines in place. If Prop 87 had had more words, well, they would have further bleated on about the hordes of pages…

Example… “they do not have to produce results”…. If the prop mandated that all results had to be tangible, the argument would have been “and this proposition forces new technologies down our throats whether they are ready or not”…

Example…”It creates a new bureaucracy”…NO IT DOES NOT! The money was to go to an existing “bureaucracy” specificially so it would NOT create a new bureaucracy.

Example… “Not one dollar goes to public education”….actually, over 600 million was to be allocated towards college research studies on alternative energies and over another 100 million was to replace the older smoke belching buses with newer, safer and cleaner burning buses.

Example… “This proposition will cost 4 billion dollars a year”. No, it will cost 4 billion dollars over 10 years, aka less than 3 cents a gallon.

Example… “This proposition will never make back it’s money”….huh? using the word NEVER when giving out an opinion, an opinion that was used to steer votes, is criminal. By the way, the sooner we get in gear on alternative fuels, the less likely we fight future wars in places like Iraq, meaning the propostion could easily pay for itself many times over.

Example…. “Firefighters will have less resources to spend because of this proposition”….huh? this one, in my opinion, is so stupid as to not even warrant a response, yet sadly, it was an effective commercial, for misleading and confusing voters. I also heard but have not verified that the firefighters union was paid a fee to appear in the commericals, which should have been mentioned in every commercial they were in…”compensated” should have appeared in the ads.

Those of you who blog just voted against something that would have allowed you all to make a difference. In voting no, you basically took the position that you are impotent and incapable of making sure that the money would have been spent properly. I on the other hand believe that if you could have seen through the confusing tactics put up by the no side and the propositon had passed, you all would have done a wonderful job monitoring the progress of this proposition and making sure that our state and our country would have gotten an amazing bang for the buck.

I you have a chance, read the articles by Robert Rapier in Venture Beat.