Political Imbecility

Politicians, like children, often say the darndest things.

Consider this argument in favor of illegal immigration  disseminated by those opposing border crackdowns.

          “Illegal immigrants don’t contribute to crime in the U.S. because statistics show they, as a group, are less likely to commit crimes than Americans.”

Think about that for a moment.  Even if the crime rate among this group was one out of one thousand, illegal immigrants vs. one out of one hundred (it’s not) for citizens, would the admission of one thousand illegals result in one more additional criminal into the country than there was before?  Obviously… to those who think rather than mindlessly recite a liberal talking point.

          “State laws requiring voters to present ID at polling sites discriminate against poor (presumably mostly liberal Democrats) people.”

It may be true that poor people are less likely to have appropriate IDs.  I don’t know.  But does the law exempt certain classes of people from being licensed to drive cars because a lower percentage of a particular class have one?  Why not?  Because a license is designed to serve public safety by requiring prospective drivers to prove they  are competent to operate a motor vehicle.

In a similar vein, requiring the production of an ID before a person votes contributes to the integrity of our Democracy.

          “A politician says he’ll accept damning information about an elected opponent from a foreign county even if that source is a foe of the U.S.”

Please.  There’s a “real world” out there.  Does quid pro quo come to mind?  It should.

Are Plastic Bags Getting a Bum Rap?

There is a movement centered in liberal enclaves such as California, New York and Vermont to ban seemingly all consumer items made from plastic, such as grocery bags, drinking straws, carry out food containers, etc.

The movement is for the benefit of the environment, of course.

But a hard-headed look at the facts suggests that the “ban plastic” movement is more likely to generate feelings of righteousness among the proponents than it is to help the environment.

It’s habitual on the Left for its members to herald the plus side of their freedom–restricting proposals while ignoring - or simply being ignorant of - the negatives.

Sure, plastic items are a bane which do indeed clog and foul waterways and ocean beds.  But to ban them is not necessarily a plus for the environment.  People still need grocery bags, straws and so forth.  Are there any environmental costs connected to the replacement cloth bags or paper straws?

The Wall Street Journal recently published the results of studies by the United Kingdom Environmental Agency and the Ocean Conservancy on replacements.

The negatives on plastic bags are well known and publicized.  But did you know that production of one cotton grocery bag, used only one time, has the same environmental impact (carbon footprint) of 131 plastic bags?  Even paper bags have to be used three times to equal the environmental cost of one plastic bag.

[In other words, the reality is that the use of alternatives is not automatically an improvement for the environment.  Cotton must be grown and processed to make the reuseable bags.  Trees must be cut and wood treated to make paper bags.  All such activities involve considerable environmental impact.]

It hardly seems realistic to expect most people to use cotton bags 131 times or that a paper bag will be used 3 different times.

Thus a ban on various consumer plastic items seems a very bad idea, indeed.  But avoiding a ban doesn’t foreclose other approaches which may indeed be a net plus for the environment.  Public service campaigns, for instance, to stress the harmful impact of improper disposal of plastic items may work.  Another, thought:  mobile volunteers to help clean up roads and waterways.  Generate social pressure, not litter.   Surely therer are other ideas which have merit, too.

Encouraging people to do what they understand is in their best interest is far more likely to succeed in protecting the environment than requiring adherence to a short-sighted, freedom-restricting, “feel good” policies so popular on the Left.