Green fascism

As part of its efforts to reduce carbon emissions, the University of Colorado at Boulder is proposing a parking ban for all students beginning next year.

The Colorado flagship school has little reason to propose the ban, other than environmental concerns voiced by CU Environmental Center Director Dave Newport, justifying the ban by claiming that 75 percent of students already walk, bike ride, or take a bus to school.

Naturally, the school's number-one concern is the $1.2 million in revenue that selling parking passes generates annually, a huge issue at a university already worried about its budget.

Unfortunately, little thought has been given to the ethics or the political ramifications at the core of the proposal, including backlash from the Regional Transportation District, commuting students, Denver-area parents with students at CU, and whether or not a government institution, who receives 14 percent of its budget from taxpayers, can legally ban parking at publicly-funded parking lots.

What the university ultimately forgets, however, is that the freedom of CU students and community members alike is far more important than any carbon emissions or other environmental concerns. Students should have the choice of how to commute to class and make their own decision to reduce their "carbon footprint," not be coerced into any measure any government or person may suggest, especially one that has not proven it will have any impact on reducing so-called greenhouse gases.

UPDATE:

The British prime minister is using fear to urge world leaders to take action on climate change.

On Writing

As a journalism major, mass communication scholar, and writer, people ask me how I can write so well or why I write the way I do, and I can honestly offer them little advice. Writing has always come very naturally to me, ever since the ninth grade, when I first discovered I had a knack for it.

That being said, I tend toward the school of emulation (whether or not this exists, I have no idea). What this means is the best way to learn how to write is simply to read a great deal, write a great deal, and perfect your skills so that when you read your own works, they more and more come to mirror the prose and poetry of great writers. Who these great writers are is, of course, a matter of opinion.

Thinking about the heaviest influences on my writing and my career, I always considered but a handful of writers as so captivating, so brilliant that they made an impression upon me, both in my youth and even today. For those who regularly follow this blog, these should be of no shock. Since first reading Anthem as a high-school freshman, I have considered Ayn Rand to be one the greatest writers in human history. Criticisms of Atlas Shrugged (including some I sympathize with, such as by Nathaniel Branden for its psychological issues, by others for the operatic quality of its characters) aside, I find Rand's prose to be compelling, descriptive, inspirational, everything that great writing should possess. Other than Rand, the biggest influence on my writing style and voice comes from H.L. Mencken (as an unabashed fan of H.L. Mencken, I wanted to point out this fantastic Friday article at Reason Magazine, which outlines the lives of several New Deal critics), Thomas Jefferson, and oddly enough, from the Bible. Also of note are Russian authors Leo Tolstoy, Nikolai Cherneshevsky, and Yvgney Zamyatin.

Following that advice, I offer this and only this: That good writing is not simply words on a page, but that it is an extension of the very soul of a man. When I write, I speak not from the keyboard or from any other instrument; these serve merely as vehicles for what rests deep inside my mind.

Stossel on the truth

As a former reporter and someone who deeply admires truth in journalism, truth in politics, and truth in advertising, I wanted to post an article by John Stossel on the truth about media bias. It is well worth a read for all who ask: "Are the media biased?"

When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine."

I admit that my guiding political and economic philosophy—libertarianism—now shapes my reporting, in this way: It prompts me to ask questions that others don't ask.

Again, as a former reporter, I can relate. While others in both my journalism school and at my newspaper continued to act like lap dogs for various political endeavours (whether they were something simple, such as student fee increases on campus, or something more complex, such as city proposals to build a new high school), I took pride in my desire to tread deep into the minds of politicians, wondering what exactly it was they were trying to pawn off onto their constituents.

Unfortunately, asking the right questions is a method little done in today's age where reporters are increasingly complacent of government intervention in individuals' affairs, where not playing lap dog to the mayor could cost you a beat assignment, where truth has to be concealed for fear of losing one's job. In fact, this postmodern version of reporting (known by its colloquial name as "shoddy reporting") is exactly the issue at hand in a media panel at the Tattered Cover Bookstore today in downtown Denver. I will be there, and I encourage you all to attend.

Audit finds waste in 'green' projects

This Washington Post story needs no introduction or extensive commentary. Rather it deserves to be linked to show first of all, the way money is tossed around projects in Washington, D.C., no matter how noble they seem to most Americans, and two, that the Washington Post has become increasingly observant and critical of the Obama administration's policies. For a newspaper most in the nation label as center-left, this is both unusual and an excellent example of true journalism.

Media Matters, just not media literacy

As usual, left-wing think tank (correction: "progressive research and information service") Media Matters for America is at it again, claiming that their "comprehensive monitoring" has revealed another crazy conservative claim: that the cost of the original health-care reform package will increase the national debt by $1 trillion over ten years.

The research group, citing a Congressional Office Budget report, thinks they are incredibly clever because they properly pointed out that the actual change in the deficit is only $239 billion, not over $1 trillion dollars, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, Reuters, and several other media outlets. However, while the "research and information service" is technically correct (indeed, the final net effect on the budget is only $239 billion), they neglected to point out that their cost estimate, less than one quarter of the original price tag, comes with a $583 billion "revenue from other provisions" (by which, the CBO means new taxes) as well as an additional offset of $219 billion, money redirected from other programs.

So, the Los Angeles Times and other sources were correct in reporting that the original health-care proposal was indeed a $1 trillion package, just incorrect in stating that it would place the country $1 trillion in debt. Why is Media Matters picking on this? The underlying point is to illustrate the high cost of Obama's health care plan, not to get caught up in the particulars about its effect on our future national debt.

Update: The Baucus plan still costs $856 billion, of which $359 billion are new taxes. Where are the Media Matters scholars on that story?

To be fair, Media Matters did correctly point out the fallacies of the Investor's Business Daily poll, which apart from being completely non-scientific, also was conducted by mail, which is according to any public opinion scholar, myself included, a horrible way to conduct a poll. Unfortunately, many on the right, many of whom I both admire and respect, have taken the poll at face value, without questioning the merits of the survey method.

For a scientific, much more prognosticating poll, check out the recent Gallup poll, in which 60 percent of Americans doubt the ability of the health-care plan to accomplish its goals, and only 40 percent of Americans thought that a health-care plan passed this year would actually make health care any better.

Obama: Racism not "the overriding issue"

President Obama in a Sunday interview said he does not believe that racism is "the overriding issue" in the health-care reform opposition, but rather, the central issue was the proper role of government in people's affairs.

Since this blog is generally very critical of President Obama, it seems to necessary to recognize the good, even in a man lacking almost all virtue, and I applaud him for his rationality. Unlike most left-wing politicians and pundits, who would sooner race-bait a debate than recognize that perhaps their logic is flawed (or even completely erroneous), Obama has made it clear to the press that the core of the recent protest is whether or not it is proper, prudent, or even moral for government to take part in health care.

Hopefully, Obama's example will enlighten others about the merits of healthy debate, one which side-steps ad hominem attacks.

Americans: Half my taxes flushed down the toilet

According to a recent Gallup poll, American citizens now believe that 50 cents of every tax dollar that Washington D.C. takes is wasted. This is a significant increase from 2001, when that number peaked at 46 cents on the dollar, and a fairly large increase from 1986, when that number sat at 38 cents on the dollar.

However, 50 cents on the dollar is only half the story. Only 21 percent of Americans believe that less than 26 cents on the dollar is wasted, meaning that a full 79 percent think that at least 26 percent of their taxes is flushed down the proverbial toilet. Even more telling is that 35 percent of Americans now believe more than 51 cents of their tax dollar are a joke, a sharp increase from 2001, when only 26 percent thought the federal government wasted more than half.

What this tells me is two things: (1) The people are tired of being taxed. (2) And if some portion of people think a particular government program is a good idea, most of those people will still believe that 25 cents of every dollar spent on said program is completely wasted. Sorry, Obama, but more taxes for corporate subsidies (bailouts), government-run health care, and any other nanny-state fantasy the Democrats can come up with is simply not popular right now.

Young people, Obama, and health care

It seems prudent to provide a link to this morning's Washington Post, which points out another underlying problem with health-care reform, the glaring fact that those most affected by recently-introduced bills will be the nation's young adults, myself included. Whether the bills suggest "repairing" the system through a public option, a private non-profit, or simply a government mandate requiring all citizens to have health care, it is clear those who will suffer most are the 18-30 crowd, the very people who only last November placed Obama securely in office.

Interestingly enough, this same demographic is beginning to regret their decision to elect the man they were sure would clothe the naked, feed the hungry, save the environment, and pay for their college tuition. Polls show that in June, 71 percent of Americans aged 18-29 approved of Barack Obama's job as president, as of late, that number has shrunk by more than ten percentage points to only 60 percent, a larger slip than any other age group.

One can infer that this is due to the administration's advocacy of health-care programs that require them to have insurance they simply cannot pay for. In fact, recent Gallup polls show that people 18-34 are equally divided on the issue of health care reform, with 34 percent encouraging their representative to vote for, and 34 percent encouraging their representative to vote against recently introduced legislation. An additional 31 percent were not sure (which incidentally is also by far the largest "undecided" block taken in the poll; can you say ostrich syndrome?).

With any luck, more and more young Americans will begin to realize the true nature of the man who was once looked at as trusted as nothing more than a farce, a harbinger of a socialist ideology that will plunge millions of young adults into debt for generations.