Hollywood produced "Ishtar" and, more recently, Disney's "John Carter." But it has never made a bomb quite like Tuesday's California elections.
Expectations were high. California's political reformers told us that this would be the year everything changed. After a decade and a half of reform efforts, a new system of less partisan elections was finally in place, and fairly drawn legislative districts and a new top-two primary system would usher in a new era of democracy. Voters would be engaged, competition would be spurred, independents would get a boost and California would see the kind of big policy debates necessary to find solutions to the state's persistent governance crisis.
Oh, well.
But give the reformers credit; they did make change. In place of our old system, we got something that preserves many of our worst political traditions — while making things a little bit worse.
Turnout, never high in California, was even lower than the low-end predictions. About 18 million of the 23 million-plus Californians eligible to vote didn't participate, making "This Isn't Worth My Time" the only popular mandate to come out of this election.
Strong independents such as San Diego mayoral contender Nathan Fletcher and congressional candidates Linda Parks and Anthony Adams failed in campaigns against partisans who received far less positive publicity.
And instead of producing debates about how to solve California's big structural problems, the legislative campaigns under this new system kept to narrow talking points. Democrats of all varieties said they were for middle-class college scholarships (which require tax changes that Democrats can't enact because of the two-thirds supermajority requirement on revenue). Republicans talked about reducing the size of bloated government (even though state government is smaller on a per capita basis now than any time since Ronald Reagan was governor). Looking through campaign websites and fliers from around the state, I found only a handful of candidates who directly addressed the state's governability, and they were, with a couple of exceptions, Democrats in overwhelmingly Democratic places.
The combination of the top-two nonpartisan primary and newly drawn districts was a disappointment even on mechanics. The theory of the top-two primary is that it will produce more moderates because in heavily partisan districts, two candidates of the same party will advance to the general election. And those candidates will have to compete for the votes of independents and the other party. But in practice, few districts produced two of the same party: 14 of 80 in the Assembly, according to the latest returns, and just two of 20 state Senate races. Ironically, there might have been more top twos of the same party, but the new redistricting process made districts slightly less partisan than they were, making it harder for the top-two primary to work its magic.
Of course, a top-two race that produces two candidates of the same party is hardly an unalloyed good. In November, we'll get expensive reruns of races between similar characters, like Brad Sherman and Howard Berman.
But even if the mechanics had worked slightly better, the entire philosophy behind the California political reforms relies on two related assumptions. The first of these is that it's possible to — and that you'd want to — scrub politics and partisanship out of politics. The second is that there are legions of wiser, better, more moderate people than our current elected officials who would do a better job if we could somehow design a system to get them elected.
Those are both fantasies. I'm a proud moderate and an independent voter, and I can assure you that as a class we are smarter and better looking than you grubby partisans out there. But as the Pew Research Center has shown, we true centrists are shrinking in numbers (most unaffiliated voters in California, and elsewhere, vote just like partisans), and we do not participate in elections at the same rates as partisans.
We also are not magicians. Simply electing us to office won't do any good because California's governing system has robbed all its elected officials of discretion, especially on fiscal matters. The big decisions in state government are made not by people but by a giant algorithm, made up of funding formulas that come from ballot initiatives, the long and bizarre California Constitution, the courts, the federal government and decades of legislation. The hard truth is that we Californians over the decades have scrubbed the politics and people out of decision-making, and now we find that we can't use politics to make decisions.
Restoring democracy requires a redesign of California's entire system: elections, budgets, Legislature and the initiative process. That's constitutional convention stuff, of course, and exactly the sort of thing that California's good-government industry of think tanks and foundations and billionaire donors will tell you is terribly unrealistic. Sadly, the good government industry's own hold on reality is rather flimsy; after this disaster of an election, the goo-goos have already launched into their usual self-congratulation and happy talk about the progress they are making.
The folly of their thinking was apparent to anyone who turned on a TV in Los Angeles on election night. The most visible politician on L.A.'s local news broadcasts was not from California. It was the governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker.
This journalistic choice made all the sense in the world. Walker, unlike California legislators, governs a state where elections matter because Wisconsin doesn't have all the rules and the big algorithm that render our own elected officials so powerless.
As a result, the Wisconsin election produced what California's reformers say they want: deep civic engagement, big turnouts from every community around the state and major policy debates about the state's future. It was no accident that the Wisconsin election was a profoundly partisan race, with bitter differences in a real contest for real power.
Maybe we'll try that sort of thing here some day.
Joe Mathews, a contributing writer to Opinion, is California editor of Zócalo Public Square.
Source: www.latimes.com
State likely to set energy standards for consumer electronics - Santa Cruz Sentinel
The typical American household now has 24 electronic gadgets, and those computers, game consoles and cellphone chargers are putting an ever-growing burden on the electrical grid and household bills and the state's electricity grid.
In California, electronic devices now account for 31 percent of home electricity use. And the bulk of those devices are from home entertainment systems and personal computers.
The California Energy Commission, which has led the nation in adopting energy-efficiency standards for traditional appliances like refrigerators and air conditioners, is now turning its regulatory attention to more than 15 new products, from game consoles and computer monitors to outdoor streetlights and water-using products like toilets and pool pumps.
The commission is in the early phases of setting new standards that would likely come up for a final vote next year. The process, which includes workshops with industry, utilities and environmental groups and a public comment period, typically takes 18 months.
"Energy efficiency is our No. 1 priority," said Ken Rider, an electrical engineer with the commission's appliances and process energy office. "It's the cleanest, cheapest way to take care of increased energy demand in the state."
Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, said it makes sense for California to turn its attention to consumer electronics.
"Consumer plug
load is on the rise as traditional loads like refrigerators and dishwashers are becoming more efficient," he said. "Consumer electronics are making up a bigger piece of the home energy pie."But the Consumer Electronics Association, whose 2,000 member companies include Silicon Valley titans like Apple (AAPL), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) and Intel (INTC), fiercely opposes new standards and warns of "serious flaws and shortcomings" in the process, including the use of old data. The association is also urging state legislators to support a bill by Assemblyman Charles Calderon that would curtail the energy commission's authority. The trade association argues that consumer electronics change so rapidly, with new iterations of products hitting stores every six to 18 months, that regulations are onerous, quickly outdated and unnecessary. And they stress that while the number of consumer electronics per household rose dramatically in the 1990s -- from 9.7 gadgets per household in 1990 to 17.4 per household in 2000 -- the number of gadgets per home has been flat since 2005.
It also maintains that the "convergence" that collapses multiple products into one actually saves energy. The ability to check email and take photographs with a smartphone, for example, means you don't have to turn on the home computer or keep a digital camera. Many game consoles provide access to the Internet.
"The California Energy Commission makes poor assumptions about the direction of technology," said Doug Johnson, vice president of technology policy at CEA. "Convergence is a good thing for efficiency. Smartphones are now a necessity, and many products are used in ways that save energy."
San Francisco-based PG&E is generally supportive of energy-efficiency standards. The utility partnered with Best Buy's San Carlos store to create a "Home Energy Department" display within the store to educate consumers about energy-efficient products.
The state says new standards could save $7 billion each year in electricity costs, reducing the need to build more power plants and lowering water use by 70 billion gallons a year. The state also argues that efficiency standards save consumers money on their electricity bills each month.
Many environmental groups support new standards, arguing that they would not only save energy in California but also serve as a catalyst for improving the energy efficiency of products sold elsewhere. The sheer size of California often pushes manufacturers to make changes. "These standards will ensure that new products sold in California contain the latest and smartest technology so that our products sip rather than gulp energy," said Noah Horowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Several popular products -- including Microsoft's Xbox, Sony's PlayStation, Nintendo's Wii, set-top boxes used with cable and satellite television sets, personal computers and monitors -- would be affected. Because the commission has not yet settled on a definition for computers, it's not clear if tablets, like the popular iPad, will be included.
Contact Dana Hull at 408-920-2706. Follow her at Twitter.com/danahull.
energy tips for your gadgets
1. Unplug It. The simplest way to save electricity is to unplug products when they are not in use. Search the wall sockets in your house for chargers and other devices that don't need to be plugged in. When you detach your cell phone from its charger, unplug the charger too.
2. Use a Power Strip. Plug home electronics into a single power strip with an on/off switch. This will allow you to turn off power to the devices in one easy step. One caveat: home entertainment equipment such as cable and satellite boxes and DVRs need to be reprogrammed or given time to reboot and download information when turned back on. You may want to plug these devices into a separate strip and only turn them off when you plan to be away for more than a few days.
3. Enable the power management features of your computer, such as "sleep" mode.
4. Instead of using a "screen saver," let your computer turn off or go to a dark screen.
4. Use a power meter. Products like Kill A Watt and Watts Up? Pro Power Meter can be plugged in between an appliance and a wall socket to let you see how much electricity it uses. That information can guide your decisions on which appliances to unplug or replace.
Source: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy; California Energy Commission
Source: www.santacruzsentinel.com
California's top-two primary experience cools party 'hotheads' - Seattle Times
My right-wing friend, ginned up (literally) from his team's impending "victory" in Wisconsin, called me on Tuesday night. I took some of his glow off by noting that I, too, would have been hard-pressed to remove a governor who had committed no crime. Opposition to the recall did not necessarily signal affection for Gov. Scott Walker. Furthermore, I expressed my satisfaction in the electoral reforms being tried in California, changes that would weaken the partisan clubhouse in which my friend found political and social refuge.
The Wisconsin vote was not one of those pointless Hatfield and McCoy affairs, though the out-of-state millions pouring in gave it that air. In addition to not wanting to replace a governor over policy differences, many voters sympathetic to public employees also felt that their extravagant pay and benefits had to be reined in.
Politicians used the neutered terms "unaffordable" and "unsustainable" to justify their positions, but these obligations were also unfair to private-sector workers, who were getting nowhere that deal while having to pay for it. The decidedly liberal states of New York and Massachusetts also cut obligations to public employees without the in-your-face dramatics.
Meanwhile, political events of greater national significance were happening out west. California had joined Washington state, Louisiana and Nebraska in offering primary voters one ballot containing all the qualifying candidates' names. In this system, the two contenders with the most votes end up on the November ballot. They could be two Republicans, two Democrats, two "others" or any combination.
With everyone voting, the hotheads would have a harder time forcing their litmus-tested candidates on the general electorate. Voters in November may have more appetizing choices than a Republican who doesn't believe in birth control and a Democrat who thinks teachers should be able to retire at 53.
While such primary voting systems sap the kingmaking powers held by the bases of both parties, it most endangers the tea party and other Republican extremists. Democrats do have their radicals, but they're not nearly as "out there" as the Republicans'. In any case, the far left has been largely marginalized by Democratic leaders. These changes could revive the dying breed of Republican moderates. Politicians have often been forced to disown modern science and mainstream social views to win primaries. With single-ballot primaries, they can both preserve their dignity and run in November.
Here's an example out of central California. Rico Oller, a Republican signer of the silly no-new-taxes pledge, was on the primary ballot for a state assembly seat. So was Republican Frank Bigelow, who supported certain spending. The firebrand Oller offered this revealing reason for opposing open primaries using a single ballot: "Delivering a moderate Republican who can work with the governor (Democrat Jerry Brown) is code for raising taxes."
Those are not universally held emotions, even among Republicans. Interestingly, business has been backing Bigelow and other Republican moderates because they want to end the partisan gridlock in state government.
It appears that the two top vote-getters in this generally conservative district were Oller and Bigelow. So come November, voters will have a choice between two different kinds of Republican rather than just a left-winger and a right-winger. Meanwhile, Democrats and independents will have their say.
Is this good for Democrats, who will probably have more Republicans to work with? Is it good for Republicans, who will be fielding more electable candidates in this very Democratic state? We shall see. But one thing seems obvious about the one-ballot primary: It's good for the democracy.
Froma Harrop's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her email address is fharrop@projo.com
Source: seattletimes.nwsource.com
California faces blackouts as nuclear plant sits idle - Herald Times Reporter
LOS ANGELES — Southern California utility officials are warning that blackouts in the region are possible this summer as a result of the sidelined San Onofre nuclear power plant.
The damaged plant is likely to remain shut down until at least the end of August while investigators probe excessive wear in tubing that carries radioactive water, the plants operator said Thursday.
The officials say if a heat wave hits while the twin-reactor plant is offline, rotating blackouts are a possibility. Utilities have been scrambling to find replacement power as a precaution, including restarting two retired natural gas-fired plants in Orange County.
Southern California Edison said the company intends to submit a plan by the end of July to federal regulators to restart the Unit 2 reactor, where damage to tubes in its steam generators has been less severe than in its twin, Unit 3.
A proposal to restart either reactor must be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and that review could take weeks or longer. Edison spokeswoman Jennifer Manfre said its likely the plant between San Diego and Los Angeles will remain offline at least through August.
The trouble began in January, when the Unit 3 reactor was shut down as a precaution after a tube break. Traces of radiation escaped, but officials said there was no danger to workers or neighbors. Unit 2 had been taken offline earlier that month for maintenance, but investigators later found unexpected wear on hundreds of tubes in both units.
Gradual wear is common in such tubing, but the rate of erosion at San Onofre alarmed officials because the generators are relatively new. The company has said 1,300 tubes will be taken out of service, although the number is well within the margin to allow the generators to keep operating.
The company has found that the wear is being caused by vibration and friction with adjacent tubes and bracing, but investigators have yet to say why thats happening or how they will fix it.
The NRC has said there is no timetable to restart the reactors, which were replaced in 2009 and 2010 in a $670 million overhaul.
About 7.4 million Californians live within 50 miles of San Onofre, which can power 1.4 million homes.
Safety issues at the plant have attracted congressional scrutiny, and some officials in nearby communities have called for San Onofre to be shut down permanently. The Irvine City Council urged the NRC to review safety conditions at the plant before it is considered for relicensing in 2022.
Source: www.htrnews.com
Blend - an exhibition of artwork by pupils from Sandelford School - ballymoneytimes.co.uk
An amazing new exhibition of artwork by pupils from Sandelford School has just gone on display in Ballymoney Town Hall.
This beautiful and inspiring exhibition which is entitled “Blend”, features a wonderful array of work by students, past and present, who have been working towards their CCEA Level 1 Certificate in Drawing and Painting at the Northern Regional College, Ballymoney. All of the pieces on display show the creativity, development and determination of each individual to reach such a high level.
Speaking at the launch of the exhibition, the Chairman of Ballymoney Borough Arts Committee, Mac Pollock, congratulated the students on the high quality of their work and encouraged guests to spread the word so that as many people as possible would visit the exhibition.
“Blend” is on display in the Shiels Room, Ballymoney Town Hall until Thursday 21 June. Opening hours are Monday to Thursday & Saturday from 9am until 5pm & Friday from 9am until 4.30pm. Admission is free.
The exhibition has been organised by Ballymoney Borough Arts Committee in conjunction with Sandelford School and the Northern Regional College, Ballymoney.
Email to a friend
Print this pageSource: www.ballymoneytimes.co.uk
Artist who wanted to paint 1612 on Pendle Hill slams critics - Lancashire Telegraph
[getrss.in: unable to retrieve full-text content]
Barrowford artist Philippe Handford had been set to create the 1,700ft wide temporary artwork to mark the 400th anniversary of the infamous witch trails, which was intended to be ‘a defining image for Pendle’. However, objections were raised by some ...Source: www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk
California vineyard quarantines lifted - Traverse City Record-Eagle
FRESNO, Calif. — An invasive species that led to vineyard quarantines across Northern California and threatened the state's wine industry has been eradicated in four of the affected counties, federal officials say.
Two years of testing and trapping have shown the European grapevine moth no longer is present in Fresno, Mendocino, Merced and San Joaquin counties, meaning the quarantines in those areas can be lifted, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said this week.
"That's obviously very good news for the folks here in the Central Valley," said Barry Bedwell, president of the California Grape and Tree Fruit League. "Our focus now is on that core area in Napa where it still exists."
The department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service says removing the quarantines means exports of host commodities such as grapes and stone fruit from those counties can resume to Mexico without additional inspections, treatments or special packaging markings that have cost growers an estimated $10 million a year.
"It means we no longer have to jump those regulatory hoops to ship," Bedwell said.
Mexico is one of California's top five export markets for table grapes and the third largest importer of stone fruit.
Quarantines remain in effect in Napa, Solano, Sonoma, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Nevada counties.
The bug managed to destroy an entire Napa County vineyard's crop at peak harvest time before anyone recognized the new invader in September 2009. Detection of the moth — one of the grape industry's most feared pests — triggered an aggressive state and federal eradication campaign to keep it from taking hold.
Intensive spraying and a quarantine that restricted movement of fruit and equipment failed to contain the voracious eater, which quickly spread into neighboring Sonoma County. A year later the moth spread to the southern Central Valley, before spreading out to the coast and a small area of the Sierra foothills.
Scientists from France, Italy, Chile and Germany traveled to California to help form an eradication plan.
As the weather warms and larvae emerge from eggs laid last year, traps in Napa County have shown few bugs, which Bedwell hopes will mean the eradication of the moth in California's premiere grape-growing region and the eventual lifting of all quarantines.
Nobody yet knows how the moth got here, though some suspect it hitchhiked in on smuggled grapevine cuttings.
Source: record-eagle.com
No comments:
Post a Comment