The Present in Plain Text

Close This CAFE

Examiner columnist Tim Carney has an eye-opening piece today on CAFE standards, their impact on automakers and consumers, and the politicians and special interest lobbies that stand to gain most from these draconian regulations.

Proponents dismiss automaker grumbling about stricter CAFE standards as foot-dragging and argue that heightened mileage requirements would benefit consumers and the environment, but the verdict on that argument is still out.

For one thing, nothing currently keeps consumers from buying cars that get better gas mileage -- mandating improved fleet mileage actually reduces consumer choice. Secondly, greater fuel efficiency may not result in less fuel use -- it encourages drivers to drive more, possibly making no impact on oil dependency and certainly increasing traffic congestion.

Most importantly, stricter CAFE rules cost lives. CAFE pushes consumers to buy smaller cars, which are less safe in case of accidents. The National Academy of Sciences in 2002 released a paper that showed that CAFE results in an additional 2,000 highway deaths per year.

If it weren't immoral enough to impose regulations on the private sector that likely result in little to no benefit to the environment, Congress is content to sacrifice human lives for political gain.

See also my piece on ethanol subsidization and how this alternative fuel has been shown to mangle boat engines.

SC Rejects School Diversity Plans

As a follow-up to my previous post, the SCOTUS has ruled that race cannot be taken into account when assigning children to public schools.

Chief Justice John Roberts put it well in his majority opinion when he wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Although this is a decision that would appear to be self-evident, public school administrators vehemently oppose the decision over concerns that it will lead to school segregation. However, I tend to believe it simply upholds the common refrain that "reverse discrimination" is still discrimination, and I suspect that in their opposition schools seek to use the concept of integration primarily as an attempt to undercut school choice programs.

More:

[Roberts] was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

But Kennedy held out hope for school systems that use race that their criteria might be allowed in some narrow circumstances.

Reading his concurring opinion from the bench, Kennedy said, "This nation has a moral and ethical obligation to fulfill its historic commitment to creating an integrated society that ensures equal opportunity for all its children.

Thankfully, there's one good way to fulfill Kennedy's wishes: dispense with government schools forthwith in favor of full privatization.

You Reap What You Sow

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling today on whether Jefferson County (Kentucky) Public Schools may use race as a factor in implementing its school assignment policy.

A Jefferson County mother is suing the district in an attempt to get rid of the district's desegregation policy, saying her son was unfairly denied the school of his choice because he was white.

If you're skeptical of a plan that would improve education and ease perceived racial tensions by using race as a cornerstone, well, you're most likely not a public school bureaucrat. I adamantly oppose these types of disrimination practices, but I'm not sure the following comments by one of the plaintiff's lawyers helps her cause:

"We can't have this in our school system ... which will perpetuate racial isolationism because it does nothing to stop the achievement gap," said Teddy Gordon, a Louisville lawyer representing Crystal Meredith, whose son, Joshua McDonald, was denied his first choice in schools because he was white.

Gordon is right to an extent. This type of behavior should not be occurring in a public school system, but opposition should have nothing to do with perceived "achievement gaps." It should have to do with equal treatment under the law, which certainly is not the case today.

Learning is not dependent upon race; it's dependent upon how and what students are taught, how they are expected to behave in school, and a litany of other factors. In fact, according to Thomas Sowell, from 1870 to 1955, the all-black Dunbar High School in Washington, D.C., "repeatedly equall[ed] or exceed[ed] national norms on standardized tests."

Indeed, for educrats to reduce the complexities of modern government school bureaucracy to mere skin color as the panacea to their instructional woes is the epitome of racist thought.

Who Do You Trust?

George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton, or your neighbors?

If you answered the latter, perhaps you'll want to give secession some thought. Great essay by Bill Kauffman.

[Via LRC]

No Bong Hits for Jesus

The Supreme Court has ruled against Joseph Frederick and his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner today, apparently signaling its intent to legitimize only that speech which adheres to the court's preordained sense of morality.

Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.

Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Chew on that for a minute, especially you conservatives who were convinced that John Roberts was going to be the savior of the Supreme Court (I much preferred Janice Rogers Brown or someone of her ilk).

Judging by our public schools' sterling track record of educating America's youth, you'd think they were only allowed to prohibit students from advocating studying. Who knew?

UPDATE (6/26): Radley Balko examines this ruling much more thoroughly and concludes that it may have actually been a victory for drug reform activists.

For the record, if the school's primary contention was that it should merely have the right to regulate activity it deems disruptive -- i.e., that it isn't seeking to regulate the specific content of allegedly disruptive material -- then I can't argue too much with that stance, inasmuch as any school has the right to implement discipline policies. However, I think you have to be high as a kite not to believe the perceived advocacy of drug use was the principal's primary concern here.

Related:
What Would Jesus Do?

Ron Paul is a 9/11 Truther...

When asked directly by Lee Rogers about 9/11 government conspiracy (about 2 minutes in) he responded in favor of a new investigation on what happened on 9/11 due to typical government "ineptness,' and that that was a contributing factor (there's that pesky phrase again) in the attack being successful, not any deliberate attempt by government officials to stage the event.  He said here, as he has multiple times before, that he's "...seen no evidence of that." 

He went on to say that if there is to be another investigation into 9/11 it should be for the purpose of uncovering this ineptitude and holding those guilty of it accountable.  Dr. Paul further elaborated that it is usually the purpose of government reports to aid in the covering up of ineptitude, a statement I'm in total agreement with.

I was swayed  by the whole 9/11 Truth movement for about an hour one day, until I got off the phone with a good friend who reminded me of his 1st axiom of Government...

Never ascribe to conspiracy what incompetence will wholly cover.

See the entire interview with Dr. Paul here, here, here, and here.

Ta,

The "Hopsicle"

Radley Balko has the story of a great idea that melted away before it even got its time in the sun.

Silly me. All this time I thought we lived in America. Land of the free. Amber waves of grain. And barley and hops. Guess not.

Earth to Congress: Please Stop Helping

The AJC's Jim Wooten examines Congress's plan to solve our so-called energy problem, explaining why new taxes on oil companies to subsidize "renewable" energy sources will lead to gas prices at $6 per gallon by 2016.

Or, you could just go to France today.

Top of the Food Chain, My Patoot!

Infuriating as environmental regulations can be to people who have the audacity to believe they actually deserve to enjoy property they've purchased, I suppose it's nice to know that we here in Maryland aren't alone.

Courtesy of my buddy Kevin at BfloBlog, it seems the rather pesky Henslow's sparrow is preventing a developer from moving forward with a major housing project in Lancaster, N.Y.

Described by birders as “an uncommon and famously inconspicuous bird,” the small, brownish, black-streaked sparrows are considered by the state Department of Environmental Conservation to be threatened. But by the time the birds were discovered in 2000 on open grasslands just south of William Street near Bowen Road, the land already had been approved for development.

Homes now stand on uncontested parts of the property, but preservationists are blocking a new wave of construction of at least 25 homes with an estimated worth of $6 million.

“As long as the site serves as a habitat for these protected birds, disturbance is prohibited,” DEC spokeswoman Lori O’- Connell said.

What madness. All for a bird that's neither common nor noticeable.

Battle Creek Update II

We're getting there. After publishing updates on the Battle Creek sandbar situation yesterday, I've received further clarification from Corinne Cook on what's actually going on here. Yesterday's update was the result of information Ms. Cook obtained via a phone conversation with a representative from Calvert County (Md.) Soil Conservation. Today's update is a bit more accurate, as the information comes straight from an email Ms. Cook received from Bill Clark, district manager at the Calvert Soil Conservation District.

First, however, I must note that Ms. Cook has informed me that she was originally misinformed about a couple specifics related to ownership of the Battle Creek sandbar and the cost of the sea grass planting. As you will read, the land was never owned by Y.D. Hance, and the cost to taxpayers to plant the sea grass was actually $17,000, not $1,700.

Okay, here's the email from Soil Conservation (emphasis mine):

Calvert County government will be re-building the bridge at the end of Chaneyville Road that leads into Lower Marlboro.  As part of the construction they will be affecting several thousand square feet of tidal wetland.  The Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of Environment is requiring them to mitigate for this disturbance by creating tidal wetland else where [sic].  This is a requirement under the federal 404/401 wetland permitting process.

The creation of tidal wetlands has several critical components that need to be there for a wetland to work.  One place was found that meets all the criteria.  This was the sand spit at the Well’s [sic] farm.  This farm, on the north side of Battle Creek, is owned by Susie and Walt Wells.  It was never owned by Y.D.Hance.  He owned the farm up on the hill but not the lower fields.  All of this farm land, including the sand spit, is private property.  The sand spit was put into an easement program so that the created wetland must remain there in perpetuity. Since the area is being used for mitigation, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of Environment have a major concern that the area remain an established wetland.  If the area is destroyed or the plantings removed then Calvert County government [ahem, taxpayers!] will have to pay for the replanting.  The cost of the project was $17,000.

Tidal wetlands provide major benefits to the Patuxent River.  They help improve water quality, provide habitat protection for small fish, crabs, and provide a nesting spot for the endangered Diamondback turtle.  The addition of this wetland will help enhance the water quality and wildlife benefits in that area of the Patuxent River.  I was out there last week and there were several turtles laying eggs among the plantings we did, so the area is already working as designed.

So there you have it, dear taxpayers, you get to help foot the bill for a "wetlands" project so the Diamondback turtle (Terrapin, actually) will have more comfortable nesting spots. A turtle is more important than you are. Don't you feel good?

By the way, before you answer that, you may want to consider that the Diamondback likely faces a much greater threat from connoisseurs of turtle soup than it ever would from a handful of boaters in Maryland during the summer. But hey, as long as the Terrapin's the state reptile of Maryland and the mascot of the state's most popular college, golly gee, I guess it's just fine to fleece taxpayers to "protect" the poor little thing!

I don't question the argument that tidal wetlands provide benefits to the Patuxent River, or any river for that matter. What I do question, however, is why it's the government's responsibility to oversee such projects. Or, more specifically, I question the morality of forcing all taxpayers to fund these types of environmental projects. If this conservation is so important, certainly the state can manage programs funded by voluntary donations to the cause.

I'll note one final thing. The email from Soil Conservation states that the sand spit (sandbar) was put into an easement program so that the (artificially) created wetland would remain forever and ever and ever. Fine. The Wellses may have consented to the county's request to create the wetland, but even if they didn't, you could bet your lunch money that the government would have simply forced them to if it had no other options (given its requirement under those almighty federal provisions and all). So, if I understand this correctly, the county has essentially purchased an easement on the Wellses property, the funding of which it can now just pass off to taxpayers to continually maintain. High five!

If the government places restrictions on the use of private property, it damn well should pay property owners for its de facto ownership of our land. After all, the county doesn't pay me not to cut down the trees in my backyard, but it nevertheless prohibits me from doing so. It could at least put these particular proposals and regulations to a referendum. Indeed, I'm sure my buddy would have loved it if he could have relied on taxpayers to shell out the $60,000 he had to pay a few years ago for 4,000 grass plants after Hurricane Isabel pummelled 500 feet of his shoreline -- as he says, no grant, no interest free loan, no tax credit, no nothing.

And you know what? He'd also be the first to admit there shouldn't be any government assistance in such matters. He willingly bought his land. It's his to maintain, no one else's.

So it should go for all property owners. Even families who think their money's more important than yours and mine.

***
Related posts:
Battle Creek Update
Maryland Boaters and Taxpayers Take One On the Chin