Thursday's interesting reads - 5/15/08

"Environmentalists Oppose Air-Cleanup Plan" By Jim Carlton for WSJ:

"The Port of Long Beach adopted an ambitious plan in February to clean its air by replacing thousands of aging diesel trucks that haul cargo at the facility. But the plan faces an unlikely opponent: a big environmental group.

The point of contention is that the port's plan doesn't guarantee that driving jobs will go to trucking-company employees, who are easier for unions to organize than independent owner-operators. That doesn't sit well with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group whose stated mission is to "safeguard the Earth" and also is tied closely to labor unions. The group, based in New York, has threatened legal action that might block the port's emission-cutting plan."

Sometimes you just can't please people, no matter how hard you try. But it never helps when they effectively collude with other interest groups.

"Alice in Housing Land" by George Will for the Washington Post (via Real Clear Politics):

"Are we to assume that last year, when housing prices were, say, 10 percent higher than they are now, they were exactly right? If so, why is that so? Because the market had set those prices, therefore they were where they belonged? But if the market was the proper arbiter of value then, why is it not the proper arbiter now? Whatever happened to the belief, way back in 2007, that there was a housing "bubble"? Or to the more ancient consensus that, because of, among other things, the deductibility of mortgage interest payments from taxable income, too much American capital flows into the housing stock?

Homeownership is, up to a point, a barometer of social health: Ownership deepens an individual's sense of having a stake in the health of the neighborhood and the larger community. There are, however, limits to how high the rate can rise: Not everyone wants or can afford to own. And there are prudential limits to how high government should drive ownership by, for example, pressuring lenders to satisfy borrowers who have questionable qualifications.

As housing legislation perhaps heads for a rendezvous with the president's veto pen, remember that the object of the policymaking exercise is not justice -- or compassion, which is not the same thing -- for this or that category of lenders or borrowers. Rather, the main point of the exercise is to mitigate bad consequences for two categories of innocent bystanders."

"The Republican Health-Care Surrender" WSJ op-ed by Dick Armey:

"A rational, conservative solution to rising health-care costs gets the government and other third parties out of our health-care business. Both our families and the GOP can win by expanding Health Savings Accounts, by allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, by doing away with tax policies that encourage third-party payment systems, and by embracing health-care price disclosure."

He talks mostly about how the Republican Party has wavered on health care reform because of political pressure. He's right. But it's on more issues than just health care.

"Keep the Immigrants, Deport the Multiculturalists" WSJ editorial by Jason Riley:

"If American culture is under assault today, it's not from immigrants who aren't assimilating but from liberal elites who reject the concept of assimilation. For multiculturalists, and particularly those in the academy, assimilation is a dirty word. A values-neutral belief system is embraced by some to avoid having to judge one culture as superior or inferior to another. Others reject the assimilationist paradigm outright on the grounds that the U.S. hasn't always lived up to its ideals. America slaughtered Indians and enslaved blacks, goes the argument, and this wicked history means we have no right to impose a value system on others.

But social conservatives who want to seal the border in response to these left-wing elites are directing their wrath at the wrong people. The problem isn't the immigrants. The problem is the militant multiculturalists who want to turn America into some loose federation of ethnic and racial groups. The political right should continue to push back against bilingual education advocates, anti-American Chicano Studies professors, Spanish-language ballots, ethnically gerrymandered voting districts, La Raza's big-government agenda and all the rest. But these problems weren't created by the women burping our babies and changing linen at our hotels, or by the men picking lettuce in Yuma and building homes in Iowa City."

I have zero problem with immigration. I welcome it. The only thing I ask is that they assimilate. It doesn't have to be right away, in fact it probably won't. I don't, however, think we should be asked to bend over backwards to make life easier for them. My primary reason for this is that, in the long run, it makes the ultimate goal of assimilation more difficult. As my wife and I have discussed, I think this is happening at church. Currently, my congregation (ward if you're familiar with the LDS church) offers full congregation-wide services in spanish via translation as well as Sunday School classes that are taught in spanish. This gives spanish-speaking members the opportunity to allow their children to attend church with english speakers, which only furthers assimilation, as these are often the same kids they go to school with. Another option, for people who are interested, is to attend another, much smaller congregation of only spanish speakers. The benefit: they get to worship in their own language. The cost: fewer opportunities for their children, as well as themselves, to learn english. Well, the point of this background is that a family who until recently attended church in our congregation decided to attend at the spanish-only congregation. The reason? The mom, who has been in the States for over 10 years (I think) doesn't speak english very well and doesn't feel she can participate in our congregation. It just makes me sad.

"Clinton Uses Farm Bill to Link McCain and Bush" WSJ Washington Wire:

"After introducing his aunt who was standing nearby, Ryan Reinhardt of nearby Aberdeen, S.D., went on to say, “She said I’m so smart I can be anything I want to be when I grow up. I’ve been a blue-collar worker. I worked in every coal mine and power plant in North Dakota, I worked at the Ford truck plant in Louisville, I worked at the GM truck plant in Arlington, Texas. I got more life experience than any man I know, and I would love to be your vice president.”

Reinhardt then went on to propose some unconventional policy positions. “We’ll turn the country around. We’ll start sending water to the polar ice caps so they build ‘em back up.”

“I think you should give me your resume,” Clinton said, after a brief pause.

“Just call me,” Reinhardt replied. “Because I’m very computer unfriendly.”

W-O-W. "So they build ‘em back up." Who are "they"? I'm really just being mean. And I think Washington Wire is just making fun of Clinton (and by extension the guy) by putting it up.