Nor should anyone be surprised about the fact that PG&E petitioned the CPUC to increase rates to pay for pipeline maintenance and then pocketed the money and left the pipes to rot and explode. PG&E petitioned for fees to trim trees near power lines and then pocketed the money. When tree limbs that weren't trimmed fell on power lines in Nevada County and started a wild fire that destroyed many homes, PG&E was fined and paid damages. But the total fines and penalties were a drop in the bucket compared to PG&E's profits for that period. The corporate bosses probably dismissed the fines and penalties as simply a cost of doing business.

Their petition for increased fees to to raise $5 million to fix pipes was made in 2007 and was supposed to be done by 2009. Not one shovel of dirt was moved to repair ANY pipes. They even went so far as to petition for another $5 million in fees for pipe maintenance this YEAR. They couldn't fix the pipes using the $5 million they already collected, but they could give huge bonuses to executives, and they could spend $46 million on their campaign to quash public utility startups.

Now they even want shelter from paying for damages caused by their own negligence!!! Their impudence knows no bounds!!!

It's time to hold PG&E truly accountable for their immoral negligence. DA's have prosecuted the company in the past and now it's time to also prosecute the individuals who are making decisions that disregard public safety in favor of the bottom line. We also need to tell them to fix their own damn pipes out of their own pockets. After all, if a property owner has to repair sidewalks in front of their home at their own expense, why can't PG&E bear the cost of fixing its pipes?

In fact, Carly has forgone presenting any ideas, much less new ones. Instead, she's decided to sling some mud at Senator Barbara Boxer. Same old GOP tactic. If you can't run on ideas and merit, just muddy the field to confuse the voters. The funny thing is that Carly is putting the cart before the horse.

She is not the senatorial nominee yet. There has to be an election before that happens. So it's interesting that she is running her campaign with the presumption that the nomination is already hers.

Meg Whitman has not made that kind of presumption. But like Carly, she is trying to run on her record as the CEO of a major company. Also like Carly, her success as a CEO is up for debate. There is also some doubt that their abilities to head a large company is even relevant to the offices they are seeking.

As I said before about Whitman, running a state is not like running a company. No matter how much you think you can accomplish by trying to implement sound fiscal policy, your efforts will be thwarted by the fact that government doesn't have a bottom line. There are no profits to be made and distributed. At the same time, if you cut everything to the point that all public services cease to exist, you effectively eliminate the reason for government in the first place. So you are fighting a losing battle if you apply sound business practices to government.

As for Carly, running a business has no bearing on writing and evaluating legislation. Unless Carly can demonstrate real knowledge of formulating public policy and drafting bills, I don't see how she can be a good senator.

One more thing that both women have going against them is their poor or even non-existent voting record. People have a hard time believing in someone who neglects to exercise their right a responsibility to vote in all elections. If you can't be bothered to vote, how do we know you really care about California?

This is an obvious case of one person maliciously vilifying another, for a petty and personal reason; the victim "may have" bad-mouthed the perpetrator in front the latter's boyfriend. Now Google is being dragged into the fight because they released the perpetrator's real identity under court order and the perpetrator is suing Google for failing to protect her anonymity.

In this case, I don't think Google was wrong. They have no responsibility to shield someone who is engaging in the defamation of another, from civic justice. People should not be able to say whatever they want behind a curtain secrecy. If you want to publicly attack someone, then you should be brave enough to do so in the open.

I know that there are bloggers living in countries with oppressive governments that rely on anonymity to speak out against oppression. When Yahoo and Google cooperated in exposing some individuals who were then arrested, tried and imprisoned, I was very critical of their actions because their motives for cooperating was economical, not legal.

But speaking out for freedom is different from calling someone a skank. One is an issue of free speech, while the other libel.

The first case was related to the strip search of a 13-year-old girl at her middle school. The court ruled that her constitutional rights against unreasonable search were violated. The ramifications of the case are mild since the decision did not eliminate the possibility of a strip search, it merely set parameters of when a strip search is appropriate, including taking into account how dangerous a substance is, and how likely it is hidden in an intimate place. Clearly ibuprofen does not fall under the dangerous category, and school officials only had the word of another student that the victim had the pills to begin with.

What is more remarkable about this decision is the court was nearly unanimous in handing down this decision. The court voted 8-1 in favor of this decision. Clarence Thomas was the only dissenter. He cites concerns that public school policy is not the domain of the constitution. So if schools started imprisoning students based solely on scurrilous accusations and without benefit of a trial, that's OK with Thomas as long as the schools are safe. Thomas also expressed concerns about students now armed with the knowledge of the best place to hide contraband.

Clarence, get a clue. Hiding stuff in your underwear is not a great revelation. Besides, even before this decision, schools had other means to conduct searches of students without violating their right to privacy with strip searches. I don't know of any police department that does not have a drug sniffing dog that can detect the presence of drugs without requiring a subject to disrobe in order to find drugs on their person. Once a drug sniffing dog reacts positively to the presence of drugs, the school officials would have probable cause to perform a more intrusive search. The difference now is that school officials will have to exercise some good judgment before mangling a person's fourth amendment rights.

As to the reverse discrimination case, no surprise here. The conservatives on this court including Thomas have a well established record against any kind of affirmative action policy. So to say that this decision is a clear rebuke of Supreme Court nominee, Sony Sotomayor is going a little too far. This decision came down to the usual 5-4 vote. That's not a rebuke.

The unfortunate consequence of this case is that employers have one less policy to help them ensure that they maintain a diverse work force that is free of discrimination. Some might see that as a positive, but most minorities not named Clarence Thomas, see the decision as yet another hurdle they'll have to clear in order to excel in the work place.

After all, both houses of the state legislature costs nearly a quarter billion annually to staff and maintain. If they can't do the job of balancing the budget and passing laws, then we don't need them. Lets dissolve the state legislature, institute direct democracy and spend that money on something worthwhile like education, public health or roads.

Now as long as they don't blow it, the Dems might actually be able to achieve some actual change without worrying about the reactionary obstructionists who only care about protecting the wallets of the wealthy.

But she doesn't really say anything that is different from the standard GOP line: cuts, cuts and more cuts. That's the only solution to fixing the budget. She brags that she ran a large company, balanced budgets, managed priorities, compromised and created jobs (guess you have to ignore those recent eBay layoffs during her watch). But she doesn't give any details.

The problem with her positions is that she thinks she can run the state like a business. But California is not a business. There are no profit margins to pad, or investors to please. States serve the people. So just making cuts to the services that the people rely on isn't a good solution.

Perhaps this time the voters in this state will finally realize that the GOP is NEVER going to fix the budget issues just by proposing cuts and playing politics. Lets hope that voters are smart enough figure things out.

The GOP still doesn't get that they lost the election. They didn't just lose the White House, but they lost ground in both Houses of Congress. They lost because they keep beating the same dead horse; lower taxes for the rich, and the economy will improve. Well I've got news for you morons, the money can't trickle down when there's a big plug in the drain.

We gave all this money to banks so that they would have the liquidity to ease the credit crunch. Instead of greasing the wheels of the economy, the banks have chosen to grease the palms of their senior executives. 
 
For example, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch approved billions in bonuses to executives just before they became insolvent. His justification was that the bonuses were necessary to keep those execs from going elsewhere. My question is; where else were they going to go? From one sinking ship to another?

Now the right-wing is extolling the virtues of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk as the visionaries of their ideology. You know you're party is in trouble when policy is guided by a media hack drug abuser.