Cellulosic ethanol? Sounds promising

I don't know about you, but the plethora of "solutions" being bandied about to cure us of our oil addiction is dizzying. For years (or even decades), we have been hearing about various up-and-coming technologies to fuel our cars. This includes, amongst others, hydrogen power, battery power, solar power, gasohol, and corn-based ethanol. Yet here we are -- still using oil in our cars in 2006. It's frustrating. People have been screaming for a solution for years. Still, none of these technologies have panned out.

There have been a number of possible reasons why no single viable solution has stood out from the rest. Here are some of those reasons:

• Lack of investment: Money has been invested in all the technologies I mentioned. However, it is often a pittance compared to what is needed.
• Lack of scientific breakthroughs: It could be lack of investment, incapable science/scientists, or just bad luck, but we just have not seen the breakthroughs that would be needed.
• Lack of infrastructure: Even if a solution was found, it would often require a herculean effort of unprecedented proportions to get the solution to market. There are gas stations located all around country. Any solution to replace gas would likely need some kind of similar infrastructure to make itself viable.
• The oil lobby: Let's face it -- with the money the oil companies make, they could find a solution if they wanted to. Obviously, they aren't overly interested in supplanting oil (for obvious reasons). And they have such a tight hold on the loyalties of our elected officials that the government, despite what Dubya or others say, is not going to try too hard to find something to replace oil.

With that being said, I read something last week about cellulosic ethanol and it sounded promising. It's similar to corn-based ethanol, but it can be made from pretty much any organic matter -- not just corn. Listen to this:

But unlike corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol can be made from a variety of things that might otherwise be considered waste – sewage sludge, switchgrass, plant stalks, trees – virtually anything that contains carbon.

According to the article, not everyone is sold on it. And you can be rest assured that oil companies and the politicians on their payrolls won't be helping it along. However, it has drawn the attention of former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and is attracting significant investment capital. Will it get enough money and attention to reach the critical mass necessary for us to FINALLY, at long last, get a solution that works? I don't know. I wouldn't start turning joyous somersaults just yet. Still, the recent confluence of events (high oil prices, terrorism, increased pining for alternative fuels) could provide the impetus needed to get us over the hump once and for all.

As for me? I'm still hoping we'll eventually have Mr. Fusion, the trash-powered energy source for the DeLorean time machine in "Back to the Future". But hey, trash-powered -- sludge-powered -- it sounds like we're headed in the right direction!

John Konop on net neutrality

I caught part of C-SPAN's Washington Journal segment on net neutrality this morning. One of the callers said that he was a Republican who was running for Congress and that he lived in Canton, Georgia. He didn't, however, try to get a plug in for his campaign as he didn't even identify himself by name. Still, I liked what he had to say and wondered if the caller was John Konop, a Republican candidate for Congress in Georgia's 6th Congressional District. I was able to confirm that it was him.

In his brief comments, Mr. Konop concisely articulated the argument in favor of net neutrality and against the tiered system. Essentially, it comes down to big corporations and their ability to monopolize the broadband internet networks. If the large telco companies can begin selling these tiers of high-level service, the "haves" (big biz) will be able to pay for and receive the fastest next-generational services at the expense of the "have not's" (small biz and average folks like you and me).

As an analogy, think about the lanes on one side of an interstate. What will happen if the five left-most lanes are reserved for big businesses and all small businesses and consumer traffic were relegated to one right-hand lane? Your speed and my speed (e.g., on blogs or on personal email or on internet searches) could easily trickle to a crawl. Networks are a zero-sum game. If one segment of users gets more bandwidth, the other segments get less bandwidth.

Also, small businesses who aren't willing or able to pay the bounty for the high-speed tiers would be essentially squeezed out of the marketplace. This is bad for all of us because it only creates high barriers to entry for companies who are trying to establish themselves. As a result, there will be less competition in the marketplace and the large businesses will be free to charge higher prices.

Unfortunately, a bill favoring big business has already passed the House. It's now being debated in the Senate. If you haven't already, please contact your Senators and urge them to vote against the tiered system and in favor of net neutrality.

On a side note, this wasn't the first time I had been in agreement with John Konop. I wrote about him last month. His position on net neutrality (which Tom Price did not vote for, BTW) is just one more reason I've decided to vote for him in this year's Republican primary.

If you want to hear the comments or see the segment on network neutrality, just go to the Washington Journal page on C-SPAN's website and watch the show from 6/26/06. Mr. Konop called in about 56 minutes into the show.

Will immigration enforcement doom GOP?

I keep hearing that Bush and Bush's Brain (Karl Rove) favor amnesty for illegal immigrants because they don't want to alienate Hispanic voters. Well, perhaps they should take a look at what's happening in Georgia before continuing on with their relentless pandering initiative.

In Georgia, SB529 was passed this year in an effort to prevent illegal aliens from getting certain state services and to crack down on employers who hired illegal aliens. While the final bill was watered down some from its original version, it is still considered to be one of the toughest illegal immigration bills in the country. And according to the AJC, the bill has already started having an impact (see previous posts here and here).

Based on Bushrovian logic, Sonny Perdue (Georgia's Republican governor), who supported this legislation and signed it into law, should be enemy numero uno amongst Hispanic voters, right? Well, as pointed out by PeachPundit, a recent Survey USA poll showed that Sonny has an approval rating of 88% with Hispanic Voters. That was a higher rating than he had with other sub-groups such as Republicans, conservatives, and white voters.

Of course, these results can't be extrapolated with 100% certainty to the country as a whole. However, it's interesting that Georgia's Republican-backed effort to crack down on those who do not respect our borders or immigration laws does not appear to have had any kind of adverse impact at this point on the Governor's popularity with Hispanics. If anything, the converse may be true and it may be helping our Republican governor with law-abiding Hispanic citizens.

And maybe, just maybe, Bush's "Brain" has miscalculated again.

Make sure to check out Jack Kingston's blog

Jack Kingston has the best blog (and it's an award-winning blog) that I've seen from a politician. He and his staff post frequent updates about various topics being argued before the House. He offers his opinions and provides explanations for his positions. He provides podcasts and links to videos. And the site allows comments. That's brave in this era of flame wars, but the dialogue seems to be very civil. I usually have agreed with him in the comments I've made, but I was still treated courteously when I didn't agree. Feel free to go there and let your voice be heard.

Responsive and accountable politicians who take steps such as this should be applauded and encouraged for reaching out to their constituents. That's a good thing to see no matter what your ideology is. The more of this, the better.

Jack Kingston: Keep tearing down those walls.

The love of lobbyist money is the root of all evil

I am sick to death of the influence of corporate lobbyists over the politicians in Washington. Money buys facetime and influence and it even buys elections that allow the corruption trains to continue and flourish.

It'll be the death of this country.

Think about the most serious problems we, as a country, are facing. Pretty much all of them can be linked back to politicians who govern based on what is best for their corporate contributors. And this governance is usually at the expense of what is best for the average person.

For example:

• Illegal immigration -- This issue has corporate America written all over it. They want cheap labor. They don't want to pay for health benefits. They don't want to pay market wages. And you can be rest-assured that they are doing everything they can do to make sure that we have an oversupply of cheap, pliable labor in this country.
• Our addiction to oil -- Oil companies are filthy rich and getting richer by the second. They have one of their own in the White House. They have NO interest in alternative energy sources (contrary to their dovish and benign commercials). Are oil companies going to find ways to fund elections of "friendly" candidates and influence votes once those candidates are in office? You'd better believe it.
• Terrorism -- Our biggest threat. It is an extension of our dependence on foreign oil. We have to "play nice" with rogue nations because they have the black stuff under their feet. Terrorists from these countries hate us for "stealing their natural resources" and we can't get the leaders of these rogue nations to crack down like they should. "Our friends, the Saudis"?? Please.
• Outsourcing of good middle-class jobs -- Of course, when corporations can't bring in the cheap labor to keep wages artificially low, they are more than eager to send the jobs themselves to the cheap countries. And politicians will endorse and applaud their actions. Why pay an American $60K to do a job that an Indian will do for $5K? Never mind that fact that these companies continue to charge first-world prices for products that are now made with third-world wages -- and all this while Washington remains completely inept at getting the countries taking our jobs to open up their markets to US goods.
• Security of our ports and borders -- The aforementioned need for artificially cheap labor addresses why corporations aren't interested in secure borders. Regarding the ports, just look back at the Dubai ports deal. Anything for a buck -- even if it opens us up to countries that knowingly harbor terrorists.

Those are just a few of the issues we're facing. But the next time we are facing a dilemma, think about the position that corporate America would take on it and you'll notice how hard Congress is fighting for that position -- even if it means that you get the shaft. And note that it's not just Republicans but Democrats as well. They also receive corporate $$. Additionally, they take money from special interest groups who care about their own (usually fringe or radical minority) interests. Lobbyist money is flowing freely throughout Washington and has completely corrupted our system of government.

Somehow, I don't think that our founding fathers ever intended for our country to become what it is today.

With that being said, should corporations and special interests have a seat at the table? Yes, absolutely. We have a perfect example of what happens when corporate interests are ignored: France. In France, the unions are so strong and the government so weak that their corporate environment is horrible and their economy is hopelessly stagnant. However, in the US, the balance swings the other way. Our corporate influence is so overwhelming that the impact of government's actions on the average person are often ignored. People vote candidates into office and those candidates then legislate as if we were USA, Inc. There needs to be a balance between the influence of citizens and corporations on governmental policy. A bias in either direction can have dire consequences.

What are some possible solutions?

First, push for term limits. The longer a member of Congress stays in Washington, the more out of touch he gets with his constituents. And the power of the incumbency (name recognition, preferential treatment from the party) is so strong that it is nearly impossible to get some of these antiques out of office.

Second, we should push for public funding of elections. Because the cost of elections have skyrocketed, the average person can't have a realistic change of running for office. As a result, we have rich candidates who just can't relate to the struggles of the average person. Also, public funding of elections would prevent candidates from feeling obligated to vote like corporate flunkies for those corporate interests who supported their campaigns.

Third, continue to demand that corrupt politicians -- from both sides of the aisle -- get exposed, shamed, removed from office, and convicted. Make examples of them. The "perp walk" does wonders - and it's immensely gratifying to watch.

Finally, elect candidates that will promise to break the cycle of money-grubbing in Washington. Yes, candidates lie. But maybe, just maybe, enough of them will finally live up to election-year promises and give the government back to the people.

Wouldn't that be nice?

The Braves: Worst to first...and back to worst?

The Braves lost to the Red Sox yesterday in agonizing fashion by giving up six runs (and the lead) in the eighth inning. They have now lost seven straight games and 17 of their last 20. They are 30-40 and 14 games out of first place in the National League East. As far as baseball goes in Atlanta, this is about as bad as it gets.

Of course, the Braves weren't always expected to win. They were atrocious for much of their history in Atlanta prior to the 1991 season. In 1990, they finished last in their division -- and a showing like that was neither unexpected nor uncommon at that time. Then, in 1991, something miraculous happened. The team started winning...and winning...and winning. When the dust settled on the 1991 regular season, the Braves were in first place in their division. They went on to win the National League pennant and face the Minnesota Twins (another last place to first place team) in the World Series. The Braves lost in seven games that year, but things had changed. Atlanta had a winner in the Braves.

What has followed since then have been 14 consecutive division titles and one World Series championship. Every year, critics have predicted the demise of the Braves. Still, the Braves continued winning. They would trade for and trade away all-stars, but they kept winning. They would call up rookies to fill empty spots, but still they won. They would bring in journeymen who became stars in Atlanta (and who, very often, reverted to obscurity after they left the Braves). They would have devastating injuries to key players and, yet, they continued to win. They saw other teams in their divisions spend more money on big-name superstars. Still, those other teams could not win the division.

Fast forward to June of 2006 and the Braves are in unfamiliar territory. Last place. In June. Is this it? Is this the year that the Mets' or the Phillies' investments finally pay off? Is this the year that the rookies and younger players don't exceed expectations? Is this the year that the injury bug finally brings down the Braves?

I wouldn't write them off yet. Are they bad right now? Yes, they are AWFUL right now. However, we all know they aren't as bad as they're showing at this point in time. Heck, NO ONE is this bad. There are options. They can make trades. They can bring up folks. The Mets won't stay as hot as they are now. The other teams will revert to mediocrity. If the Braves can turn the ship right now, they can cut into this deficit before the all-star break and have some momentum heading into the second half of the season. It can be done. It HAS been done...by the Braves...many times before.

Here's a interesting thought. When the Mets and the Phillies and the other players in the division watch the scoreboard each night, they almost certainly look at one score first - the one involving the Braves. They know. They've been here before. They know that no lead is safe. They've seen the Braves lose and get written off prematurely -- only to step up and seize control of the division. I don't care if the Braves are in last place right now. Everyone knows what the Braves can do -- and have done -- year after year after year after year after... (well, you get my point).

Now...with that being said, if the Braves' miraculous streak of consecutive division titles does come to an end this year, I'll be okay with it. It has been a remarkable ride. They deserve credit having a level of success that no one else has ever attained. And I'm optimistic about most of the elements on this year's team. A couple of quality pickups and they will be just fine for the next decade or so.

However, there is still a lot of baseball to be played this year -- so keep your eye on the Braves. We're in the 4th inning of a long season. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Braves batting with the tying and lead runners on base by the time this season reaches its ninth inning.

Newdow and the Democrats' dilemma

On Monday of this week, a US district court judge threw out California atheist Michael Newdow's lawsuit against the government for its use of "In God We Trust" on coins and currency. Not dissuaded, Newdow says he will appeal to the ultra-liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

If you'll recall, Newdow was also the person who went all the way to the Supreme Court in a prior lawsuit that protested the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That suit was dismissed because of a technicality. Nevertheless, Newdow seems hell-bent (pun intended) on poking his finger in the eye of the country's religious establishment.

I have no idea of Michael Newdow's political leanings, but his crusade against faith and religion could pose problems for Democrats in the fall. In recent elections, "values voters" have been turning out in strong numbers at the polls and they tend to vote Republican. Of course, after the Massachusetts Supreme Court gave the thumbs-up to gay marriage in 2004, the rallying cry against so-called "activist judges" became louder than ever. Newdow's one-man mission against any and all symbols of faith and God in the public square will only serve to propagate the political interest of voters of faith to whom these issues matter. And if these church-going values voters show up in large enough numbers in November, that will almost certainly benefit the Republicans again. Even a slight edge can make all the difference in the world (cough-cough-Florida).

Now I don't think the Democratic establishment has anything to do with Newdow and his faith-targeted litigiousness. Quite the opposite, I'm a bit surprised that I haven't yet heard from some of the left's conspiracy theorists that Newdow's quest for a God-free society is a dastardly plan hatched by Karl Rove in an attempt to "turn out the base". It's pretty clear, though, that Newdow is not doing the Democrats any favors and they really need him to dial it down a notch or two. Maybe they have an atheist witness relocation program that they could enroll him in. Or perhaps they could get him to cease and desist with a bribe of some sort. I don't know. I truly believe, though, that there is an inverse correlation between the amount of press Newdow gets and the Democrats' chances in November.

In other words, if Newdow continues on with his mission, the Democrats may not have a prayer of returning to power in Washington.

House members reward themselves again

I see that the House voted to give themselves a raise for the seventh straight year. It must be nice to have the freedom to vote on whether you get a raise and what that raise will be.

In the real world, an employee generally doesn't get a raise/bonus if his employer is not making money. Hmmm...does the US have a budget surplus that none of us have heard about? Sadly, no -- we have record deficits. And when a company's finances are as poorly mismanaged as those of our government, they not only do not give raises or bonuses, but they also have mass layoffs and often have to shutter their doors. Still, though, the House made sure to take an additional scoop of greenbacks out of the nation's treasury yet again.

Perhaps I'm being too quick to judge. They did only give themselves a 2% raise. But 2% of a way-too-high-already-for-the-job-they-are-doing salary is still a lot of money. In this case, the raise amounts to a tidy sum of $3300. $3300 in additional salary is a lot of money to most of us peons.

Of course, the members of Congress have financial needs or desires. What could $3300 a year buy for them? Well, let's think about it:

• $3300 could pay for a vacation to Europe or Africa or Australia. Oh, wait a minute, they already get those free from favor-hungry lobbyists. Scratch that.
• Well, they could use the $3300 to pay for their kids' braces. Wait, they probably already get those for free because they have better health benefits than the rest of the country while doing basically nothing to help reduce the health costs for the rest of us "consumers" out here in the wildnerness.
• Oh, I've got it. They could use that extra $3300 to add to their pensions. Of course, they do already have ridiculously generous pensions while, of course, they pass lobbyist-influenced bills that restrict pensions for the rest of us. So...the additional $$ won't matter much at all.

Okay, so maybe they don't really NEED the money. It looks like they already have a pretty good gig. But even if they don't NEED it, don't they DESERVE the money? Let me see...

• Perhaps they deserve it because they work so hard. Oops, I forgot that they have more recesses than the entire country's elementary schools combined. Scratch this one, too.
• Okay, I've got it. They deserve it because they fight so hard for "we, the people". Well, that doesn't exactly add up. From what I can tell, they care much more about what corporations (Repubs) and special interests (Dems) want than what us "common folk" want. (NOTE: On a positive note, the Repub stance of illegal immigration is a single, but notable exception).
• Maybe they deserve it because they could make so much more out in the real world. Most of them are lawyers and business owners, anyway, so they are making a big sacrifice to take a paltry salary of $165K. Accordingly, we should be glad to hand over the additional $$, right? Well, I don't think so. If someone feels slighted by a salary of $165K, they should NOT be representing the public because they simply cannot relate sufficiently to John and Jane Doe.

In the real world (you know, "Outside the Beltway"), a person's raise or bonus is normally decided by his boss -- the one who hired him or continues to keep him on the payroll. We (the People) vote the House members into office. In that respect, aren't we their bosses? Aren't we the ones who decide if they keep their jobs? If so, shouldn't we be the ones who decide whether the House members get a raise and what that raise, if any, should be? I say that we should have a national referendum at every election to determine what the representatives' salaries should be. That only seems fair, right? I know -- wishful thinking.

Sadly, we not only get a healthy dose of taxation with minimal representation, but we also get the "privilege" of paying them more and more each year for their non-services. Alas, this is the world we live in. What are you going to do?

Well, I have a solution. It's a simple one. Vote out the incumbents. Vote against them in primaries. Vote against them in general elections. Send them a message. Let them know that we are still the ones who ultimately put them into or kick them out of office. Then maybe we can start over with some Representatives who...well...represent us.

I know it sounds half-baked, but it's just crazy enough to work.

Potential crackdown has employers scrambling

I recently wrote about the impact that SB529, Georgia's new illegal immigration legislation, is having on the state. In that post, I referred to the article in the AJC that discussed how the crackdown was adversely impacting the illegal immigrants and their confidence in finding safe haven here in Georgia. Now, in a new AJC article, we find out that employers around the state are getting nervous about the legislation and the prospect of actual immigration enforcement.

According to the article:

Recent immigration raids, a new state law in Georgia and the move toward federal reform have collided to create a nerve-racking spring for employers.

Companies have boosted requests for audits of their worker-verification paper trail by as much as 40 percent since last year, some local law firms say.

And this is what they're checking for:

One of their main worries boils down to the seemingly simple I-9 form, a requirement for any employee hired after the current immigration law took effect in 1986. Companies are looking to their attorneys to offer assurance that their paperwork is in order, and that has spurred a spike in demand for audits.

Lawyers say they've been poring over client I-9s — which could number in the tens of thousands for large employers — looking for missing information and suspicious information such as Social Security numbers listed as 000-00-0000. (There are more of those than you might think, lawyers say.)

Wait, weren't employers supposed to check for this type of OBVIOUS fraud BEFORE hiring Juan Doe (or John McDoe or John Doevovichski)? You mean they weren't actually even trying to follow the law? I'm SHOCKED. I'm just completely SHOCKED that unscrupulous employers would skirt our nation's laws in this manner. SHOCKED I tell you.

I'm still not entirely confident that our new state immigration laws are strict enough. And I'm even less confident that our federal government will do anything substantive about immigration enforcement -- especially on the employer side. Still, it gives me a warm fuzzy to know that the law-breaking employers are nervous about the prospects of being held accountable for their misdeeds.

According to Eileen Scofield, head of the immigration practice at Atlanta-based Alston & Bird:

"Our work tends to ebb and flow because it depends on what the government is making a hot button," Scofield said. "But I've got a feeling it will stay like this for a while."

Mrs. Scofield, I hope you're right. I really do hope you're right.

Congressional commodities

Just in case you had any doubts about why Congress always votes for the interests of big business over the interests of you and me...

From Reuters:

"Members of the U.S. Congress and their aides took free trips worth nearly $50 million paid for by corporations, trade associations and other private groups between January 2000 and June 2005. Some of the 23,000 trips featured $500-a-night hotel rooms, $25,000 corporate jet rides and visits to popular spots such as Paris, Hawaii and Colorado ski resorts"

"The study found that many of those who picked up the tabs were at the same time seeking to shape legislation on Capitol Hill or win federal contracts."

And Tom DeLay was the "king of the handouts":

"Former House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay and his staffers accepted about a half million dollars in trips during the period under review -- more than any other congressional office"

Treasonous. The whole den of thieves -- including Democrats and Republicans -- is completely shameless and treasonous.