Month: May 2016

The New York Times recently announced it would take a $41.4 million loss “related to the announced closure of a paper mill operated by Madison Paper Industries.” The Times Company owned part of the mill, though not a controlling interest. The mill’s closure means that 214 employees at the paper factory, in Madison, Maine, will lose their jobs. in the past five years, Maine’s papermaking industry has lost 2,300 job.

Whose fault is it? Maine Republican Gov. Paul LePage attributed the issue in part to technological change. Businesses are increasingly reaching customers with ads on Google or Facebook, not with coupons or display advertisements distributed with Sunday newspapers or in glossy magazines, the governor said. Yet the statement from the governor blaming the decline of print for the job losses also mentioned foreign competition—not Asian glass-screen manufacturers, but Canadian newsprint mills. It turns out that not even a 20.18 percent tariff on Canadian competitors was enough to keep the Maine mill open. 

For several years now, the conservative writer Rod Dreher has been calling for something he calls the Benedict Option, in which cultural traditionalists focus less on trying to remold the federal government or other mass institutions and instead “concentrate on building local forms of community within which to live out their beliefs.” At some point he noticed the Free State Project, which aims to bring libertarians to New Hampshire and enhance the area’s antistatist instincts. This struck him “as a libertarian version of the Benedict Option.”

So he sat down for a conversation with Free State Project founder Jason Sorens, and they compared and contrasted their two exercises in applied pluralism. The American Conservative has published their dialogue, and it makes for interesting reading. Here’s an excerpt:

RD: I’m working on a book about the Benedict Option now and meeting people from all over who are engaged in the kind of community-building you’re talking about, but in an orthodox Christian vein. For Ben Op Christians, we must live in the world, but in order to live in the world as Christians, and to be for the world what our faith tells us we must be, salt and light, we have to live in a different way.

JS:…In the Free State Project, we’re united by a common political philosophy but not necessarily a common morality. Trusting that your fellows will respect your rights is an essential prerequisite for association, but it’s not a sufficient condition. As a result, the “Porcupine community”—after our logo, we use the term “Porcupines” or just “Porcs” for Free Staters who have moved and local liberty lovers who may not ever have signed up for the FSP—subdivides into various subcultures and smaller communities….

There’s a certain tolerance that goes along with this polycentricity. Orthodox Christians go to political or social events organized by polyamorous atheists, and vice versa—not that tolerance implies acceptance. You know that you’ll be working alongside people in one area while disagreeing with—and even not wanting to associate with—them in some other area, and so you learn how to get along and support each other.

You can read the rest here, and you can see my review of an earlier Dreher book here.

According to a new report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, the percentage of drivers in fatal collisions who tested positive for THC doubled in Washington after that state legalized marijuana. But other reports published the same day by the same organization cast doubt on the significance of that finding, underlining the perils of equating THC in the blood with impairment.

In 2014, the first year that marijuana was legally sold for recreational use in Washington, 17 percent of drivers in fatal crashes tested positive for THC, up from 8.3 percent in 2013, when recreational marijuana was legal to possess but not to grow or sell. “The proportion of drivers positive for THC was generally flat before and immediately after Initiative 502 [Washington’s legalization measure] took effect,” the AAA report says, “but began increasing significantly…approximately 9 months after Initiative 502 took effect. It was not clear whether this increasing trend was attributable to Initiative 502 or to other factors that were beyond the scope of the study.”

The report also notes that “results of this study do not indicate that drivers with detectable THC in their blood at the time of the crash were necessarily impaired by THC or that they were at fault for the crash,” since “the data available cannot be used to assess whether a given driver was actually impaired, and examination of fault in individual crashes was beyond the scope of this study.” The increase in drivers testing positive for THC may reflect an increase in marijuana use, but it does not necessarily indicate an increase in the number of dangerously stoned drivers on the road.

Another AAA study further muddies the picture. It found that the share of drivers involved in accidents (both fatal and nonfatal) or arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI) who tested positive for THC rose from 20 percent in 2005 to 30 percent in 2014. But this upward trend, which may be related to an increase in the number of Washington State Patrol troopers trained to recognize drug-impaired drivers, slowed after passage of I-502, contrary to what you would expect if legalization led to more stoned driving. In both this study and the one focusing on fatal accidents, drivers who tested positive for THC typically also tested positive for alcohol or other drugs. That was true for 66 percent of the THC-positive drivers in fatal crashes and 73 percent of the THC-positive drivers who were arrested or involved in any sort of collision.

The report notes that it took an average of about two hours for police to obtain blood samples after an accident or a DUI arrest. That lag, which in some cases might have been long enough for THC to fall below detectable levels, suggests that the prevalence of “THC-involved driving” may be underestimated. The researchers say “evaluating the impact of protracted time until blood testing is complicated by the lack of available standardized law enforcement data on the time of testing.”

A third AAA study focuses on the distinction between “THC-involved driving” and THC-impaired driving, finding no clear relationship between THC blood levels in DUI arrestees and performance on roadside sobriety tests (the walk-and-turn test, one-leg-stand test, and finger-to-nose test). THC-positive drivers were much more likely to fail the tests than a group of drug-free controls (although even the latter group had substantial failure rates, ranging from 33 percent to 51 percent, which makes you wonder how accurate these tests are as measures of impairment). But the amount of THC in drivers’ blood was not correlated with their test performance. “There was no correlation between blood THC concentration and scores on the individual indicators,” the report says, “and performance on the indicators could not reliably assign a subject to the high or low blood THC categories.” In short, “there is no evidence from the data collected…that any objective threshold exists that established impairment.”

The implications for states contemplating a per se DUI standard similar to Washington’s (which equates a THC blood concentration of five nanograms per milliliter with impairment) are clear: “Based on this analysis, a quantitative threshold for per se laws for THC following cannabis use cannot be scientifically supported.” That conclusion is similar to the position taken by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). “Whereas the impairment effects for various concentration levels of alcohol in the blood or breath are well understood,” NHTSA says, “there is little evidence available to link concentrations of other drugs to driver performance.”

The lack of a scientific foundation for defining impairment based on THC blood levels has not stopped legislators from adopting or considering such standards as a way to create the impression that they are doing something about the threat posed by stoned driving (which is real but pales beside the threat posed by drunk driving). Such rules are both underinclusive, since some people may be dangerously impaired at THC levels below the cutoff, and overinclusive, since some regular cannabis consumers are perfectly capable of driving safely at THC levels above the cutoff.

Carbon dioxide released from burning fossil fuels is the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Information Administration has just released its analysis of carbon dioxide emissions for 2015 and reports that after a slight uptick in 2013 and 2014 energy-related emissions have again fallen. The agency notes, “U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were 12% below the 2005 levels, mostly because of changes in the electric power sector.” The agency further notes that most of the reductions have occurred as a result of switching from coal to natural gas to generate electricity. Overall, the EIA reports that “the fuel-use changes in the power sector have accounted for 68% of the total energy-related CO2 reductions from 2005 to 2015.” The bottom line is that this reduction in carbon dioxide emissions results largely from cheap natural gas from shale produced by horizontal drilling combined with fracking.

More good news: Companies are wringing more and more value out of each unit of energy consumed and each ton carbon dioxide emitted. The EIA reports that “on a per-dollar of gross domestic product (GDP) basis, in 2015, the United States used 15% less energy per unit of GDP and produced 23% fewer energy-related CO2 emissions per unit of GDP, compared with the energy and emissions per dollar of GDP in 2005.”

Warmer winter weather also contributed to lower emissions as Americans burned less fuel to keep themselves comfortable. Interestingly, I reported earlier that a new study has concluded that climate change so far appears to be making the weather more pleasant for most Americans.

While U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from declined by 12 percent, the Environmental Protection Agency reports that as of 2014 overall greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases, are only about 9 percent lower than they were in 2005. The Obama Administration has promised the United Nations that the U.S. will cut by 2020 its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below their 2005 levels. And by 2025, U.S. emissions are supposed to fall by 26 to 28 percent below their 2005 levels.

Will the election of Donald Trump result in a libertarian-leaning Supreme Court that imposes constitutional limits on the Trump administration and its big-government agenda? Most sensible observers would say that the answer to that question is a clear no. But Ed Kilgore of New York magazine is not to be deterred by anybody talking sense. In Kilgore’s bizarre view, liberals should fear a Trump presidency precisely because Trump is likely to stack the Supreme Court with libertarian justices. Why would Trump do this? “To buy favor with those on the right who fear the Donald’s tyrannical tendencies.”

Kilgore’s argument only goes downhill from there. “Precisely because Trump is a loose cannon,” Kilgore insists, “he may be convinced to promise his new conservative friends what they really want on the Court: Justices who want to turn the clock back not just to 1972, when abortion was illegal in most states, but to the early 1930s when what we think of as the social safety net was considered a radical and unconstitutional idea.” Kilgore also raises the specter of a Trumpian Court resurrecting “the early-20th-century period when a chain of decisions begun by Lochner v. United States stymied progressive legislation until FDR’s threat of court-packing and then turnover in justices forced its abandonment.” (The case Kilgore is referring to is actually called Lochner v. New York. To understand what Lochner was really all about, start here.)

What’s wrong with Kilgore’s argument? How about everything. Donald Trump is a constitutional illiterate who thinks that the government should have the unfettered power to suppress speech, censor the internet, shutter houses of worship, discriminate on the basis of religion, steal private property, and punish private businesses for engaging in global capitalism. The idea that Trump—of all people—would end up transforming the Supreme Court into a hotbed of limited government, pro-Lochner libertarian legal advocacy is just plain dumb.

For a more intelligent take on the possible future of the Supreme Court under a Trump presidency, I recommend a recent item by Shoshana Weissmann in The Weekly Standard, in which she correctly observes, “The Supreme Court’s duty is to overturn unconstitutional acts, including those of the president. President Trump would not likely nominate justices who would constrain his power to its constitutionally limited bounds.”

Weissmann also shares this comment from George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, who hits the nail right on the head: “If Trump has a choice between an originalist conservative with sterling credentials who would often block Trump, and a buddy of his who hasn’t read the Constitution but would let Trump do what he wants, who do you think Trump would pick?”

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump says he would make an “exception” to the “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the country he called for last December.

The lucky exceptional Muslim: newly elected London Mayor Sadiq Khan. 

This past Sunday, Khan, the 45-year-old London-born son of Pakistani immigrants told TIME that he wants to “meet and engage with American mayors” as soon as possible because, “If Donald Trump becomes the President, I’ll be stopped from going there by virtue of my faith.”

Last night, Trump told the New York Times, that he was “happy” to see a Muslim elected mayor of London, and in his inimitable style of repeating monosyllabic words to express an idea, added, “I think it’s a very good thing, and I hope he does a very good job because frankly that would be very, very good.” 

Back in December, a Trump spokesman affirmed that the candidate meant it when he said that the ban on Muslims would apply to “everyone” except for U.S. citizens, but when speaking with the Times, Trump said, “There will always be exceptions,” seemingly indicating that he considered Khan potentially one of the good ones.

This morning, the BBC reported that Khan was not interested in being Trump’s exception, saying, “This isn’t just about me. It’s about my friends, my family and everyone who comes from a background similar to mine, anywhere in the world.”

Reason‘s Shikha Dalmia wrote this past January of how all the since-vanquished (except for possibly Jeb Bush) Republican presidential hopefuls were “uncomfortable with Trump’s ban. But none of them were comfortable saying so…”

At no time did any of Trump’s rivals stand up to his anti-Muslim rhetoric by invoking something so obvious (the possibility of a Muslim politician wishing to visit the U.S. on official business) as just one of many reasons why beyond being immoral, such a ban is stupid and impractical. 

Just because many Americans don’t like either of the main party candidates doesn’t mean they’re not preparing to vote the way they always vote. The latest national poll from Public Polling Policy (PPP) has an equal number of registered Democrats and Republicans lining up behind their likely nominees (Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump) despite the fact that both candidates are seen unfavorably.

PPP notes that registered Democrats and Republicans are falling into line. Of the voters who are party members, 78 percent in both the GOP and the Democratic Party would vote for Trump or Clinton, respectively. Despite the #NeverTrump movement, a slightly greater percentage of Democrats (9 percent) say they won’t vote for Clinton than the percentage of Republicans (7 percent) who say they won’t vote for Trump. For each candidate, 21 percent of the party’s voters say they “would not be comfortable” with their frontrunner as the nominee. Clinton is viewed unfavorably by 55 percent of those polled, and Trump is viewed unfavorably by 61 percent.

Mind you, one of the outcomes of the Trump nomination (contributing to current party affiliation trends) may be Republicans leaving the party. So that may explain why these polls have Clinton winning the election 42-38 percent. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. For the poll, 43 percent identified as Democrat and 36 percent as Republican.

But there are more independent voters now than members of either party, so where does that leave third-party candidates? PPP included Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate in 2012, and Jill Stein, Green Party candidate from 2012. Johnson gets 4 percent of the vote in this poll and Stein 2 percent. A Monmouth University poll from March had Johnson at 11 percent.

PPP’s poll is a bit iffy (the liberal-leaning firm’s methodology has its critics). As a joke it asks voters whether they have a higher opinion of Trump compared to detestable things like root canals, lice, and Nickelback, but doesn’t ask the same about Clinton.  (If you care, Trump is preferable to hemorrhoids and cockroaches but little else.)

But it also takes note of who third party candidates may be pulling votes from. When Johnson and Stein are left out, Clinton’s lead over Trump actually widens. Third party candidates in this poll are pulling more from Clinton than Trump. Note that the poll has both a greater number of registered Democrats and Republicans than independent or unaffiliated voters. In reality, there are now greater number of independent voters than members of either party. This poll doesn’t accurately reflect the ratio of party membership in the voter population. Though this doesn’t necessarily mean independents won’t vote for the major parties, it does mean we should be careful of drawing too much from Johnson’s and Stein’s small poll numbers. This may be a useful poll in analyzing partisan loyalty, but be wary of those third-party figures.

Check out the poll here.