GOP bends election laws in CA

Newsweek suggests that the Republicans have finally figured out a way to undermine the large state’s tendency to swing Democratic:

Instead of laboring in vain to turn California Red, a clever lawyer for the state Republican Party thought of a gimmicky shortcut. Thomas Hiltachk, who specializes in ballot referenda that try to fool people in the titles and fine print, is sponsoring a ballot initiative for the June 3, 2008, California primary (which now falls four months after the state’s presidential primary).

I think that is a nice way of saying he is someone who specializes in lying and tricking people.

And if the idea was somehow adopted nationally, it would mean competing for votes in only about 60 far-flung congressional districts—roughly 7 percent of the country. Everyone else’s vote would not “count,” if you want to look at it that way.

Apparently counting votes is no way to run an election. This clever fellow wanted to find a way to modify the rules so that the other side can never win.

Thomas Hiltachk, some will know, is the arch-conservative who tried last year to abolish overtime after an 8-hour workday, and who successfully filed Proposition 69 — a DNA database for felons.

Going back even further it appears Hiltachk did work for a smoking “watchdog” group called the Los Angeles Hospitality Coalition, which was exposed as a shameless front for Philip Morris.

“Of all the outrageous and unbelievable things that happen in Washington, this one takes the cake,” said Ellen Miller of the Center for Responsive Politics, which studies campaign contributions and fully discloses its own funding, which comes from foundations. “Posing as a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization to be unveiled as nothing but a special interest tool is really the bottom line of gall.”

Or so they thought…new depths are now being probed.

Bending the truth and a spate of questionable ethics has somehow served Hiltachk well, leading him to become the Governor’s right-hand man — a GOP weapon now apparently targeted against fair elections.

Walk, Don’t Run. Drive, Don’t Walk.

Energy consumption and emission is the focus of this mind-bending, paradigm-shifting article in the Times Online.

Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.

Similarly, it seems an airline mogul has been pointing out that beef eaters are a bigger problem for the environment than those who fly:

Michael O’Leary, boss of the budget airline Ryanair, has been widely derided after he was reported to have said that global warming could be solved by massacring the world’s cattle. “The way he is running around telling people they should shoot cows,” Lawrence Hunt, head of Silverjet, another budget airline, told the Commons Environmental Audit Committee. “I do not think you can really have debates with somebody with that mentality.”

Statistics are a funny thing, as everyone from Groucho Marx to Mark Twain has famously observed. The question is, however, what really impacts people in their daily life.

The ideal diet would consist of cereals and pulses. “This is a route which virtually nobody, apart from a vegan, is going to follow,” Mr Goodall said. But there are other ways to reduce the carbon footprint. “Don’t buy anything from the supermarket,” Mr Goodall said, “or anything that’s travelled too far.”

And to think that kids who sat on the couch and ate bowls of cereal were derided for not keeping a healthy lifestyle. Little did we know they were really trying to save the planet…if you don’t count the marathon television and video game sessions.

Airline Security Monkey Business

Passengers apparently asked a man if he knew he had a monkey on him, according to a BBC report.

A man has been questioned by police at LaGuardia airport in New York after smuggling a monkey onto a flight from Florida by hiding it under his hat.

Passengers spotted the animal when it climbed out and perched on the man’s ponytail, Spirit Airlines spokeswoman Alison Russell told reporters.

How will the TSA react? I can’t wait for new signs to be put up in airports…”Monkeys Not Allowed” or “Keep an Eye out for Suspicious Monkeys” or “Report All Monkeys Immediately”. That might be overly optimistic. Maybe instead someone will start selling monkey-detectors and everyone will have to remove their hat and put it into an automated monkey scanner. Apes might still get through, though.

Just goes to show how detection systems fail and require trained human observers to supplement. A network of neighbors who report suspicious activity are most effective if they are treated as a viable system and backed by a reasonable model of justice.

The Challenges of a Bio-Refinery Model

The problem with starting a company that is supposed to be good for the environment is that the owners have a big moral dilemma (e.g. a market opportunity) when faced with the waste (e.g. byproducts) they produce.

The NYT reports that industrial chemists in America are seeking ways to make profit from biofuel beyond its primary use. Scientists are working on disposal alternatives for fuel byproduct:

In another lab at Iowa State, Robert C. Brown is using distillers’ dry grain —a main byproduct of corn ethanol that is largely sold as animal feed — to produce hydrogen and a compound called PHA. Mr. Brown hopes his version of PHA, which is biodegradable, could be used for surgical gowns and gloves that must now be disposed of as medical waste.

Ethanol as a fuel is as much a dead-end for our general welfare as corn-syrup is for food, but don’t try to tell that to an industry trying to squeeze every penny out of crops while externalizing risks. Concerns for the welfare of the planet, let alone a fellow human, are not the usual rules of game here. The value system underlying the research is based on the much older highly-industrialized model of finding profit in areas without regulation (e.g. to ensure health). The news these days usually attributes this kind of risky behavior to China , rather than right in our own back yard.

The price of glycerol, now 20 to 50 cents a pound, could drop as low as 5 cents a pound as biodiesel production increases.

Mr. Kraus [professor of chemistry at Iowa State] said the higher quality glycerol made with the new process could command a much higher price. “What we see,” he said, “is an opportunity to make something that might cost 80 cents a pound.”

Money talks. In sum, it appears that the bio-fuel innovators are starting to try and emulate the model they think of as successful:

This, in turn, could help transform the biodiesel industry into something that more closely resembles the petroleum industry, where fuel is just one of many profitable products.

“Just like petroleum refineries make more than one product that are the feedstock for other industries, the same will have to be true for biofuels,” said Kenneth F. Reardon, a professor of chemical and biological engineering at Colorado State University in Fort Collins. “Biorefining is what the vision has to look like in the end.”

The problem with this is that the petroleum industry model is unhealthy. It puts the environment, including human health, low on the list of priorities for success.

In an emerging market where health and the environment threaten to be a top priority, a big paradigm shift for the vision of a bio-refinery seems like a sensible conclusion. More than one product, indeed, but waste disposal should have a whole new meaning. Or as the Director of Beijing Olympics cycling events put it recently

[President of the International Olympic Committee] Rogge’s comment reminds us that we have to work harder to fix environmental problems.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. After billions have been spent, pollution and waste are still a problem, which means a market opportunity of many more billions ahead.