Radioactive Communist Zombies

Public Schools that Don't Have Children's Best Interests at Heart

(Hmmmm, I don't have an "Education" category.)

Two public schools in Washington State have done a fine job showing what the true priorities of public schools.  And it's not the education of children.

First off, an East Tacoma elementary school turned down volunteer work by parents because it might interfere with union rules.  The Seattle Times reports:

"There was a lot of work that could have been done, but wasn't," said Ron Joslin, whose daughter is a third-grader at the school.

He and other parents complain that district officials scaled back the scope of work planned by several dozen parents working with more than 100 volunteers from Comcast.

"Somebody from the school district said it would take away union jobs," said Tiesha Williams, one of the parents who turned out Saturday. District and union officials acknowledge that the project list was narrowed at their request.

Well, if you're going to volunteer, you have to follow the rules, apparently:

Tacoma Public Schools spokesman Dan Voelpel said the district appreciates volunteer efforts to help make schools better, but there's a protocol for volunteer cleanups. First, volunteers must fill out a form detailing what the work party plans to do.

"Our buildings and grounds supervisory staff need to review it to make sure that what people want to do is safe and up to school standards," Voelpel said. "And we have to, by union contract, notify the unions affected. They can determine if the work being performed substantially takes away from union labor. They can object to the work proposed."

So, parents and volunteers want to help a school, but the union can object.  Never mind that the unionized workers must not be doing the job because otherwise, it wouldn't need to be done.  But you see public schools are not for educating children, they're for supporting unionized labor which will tend to vote Democrat.

And speaking of supporting unionized labor, another school district in Washington was been giving preferential treatment to children of people who work for the school district.  The Washington Policy Blog sniffed this one out:

The North Thurston School District has created a lottery for the assignment of students to Aspire Middle School, and has stacked it to give preference to children on the basis of their race, which appears to violate their civil rights under Washington law RCW 49.60.400. 

In addition, this so-called lottery saves spots at Aspire Middle School for the children of public school employees.

So a public school district is more interested in giving preferences to those who's parents work for the school district.

Just remember: public schools are not in the business of educating children.  They are in the business of producing Democrat voters.  Any education that might go on is incidental.

Is Digital Better Than Paper for the Environment?

Have you gone "paperless" to help the environment?  Get your bills through email and/or read your news online?

Well, you may not be helping the environment as much as you think.  Or much at all, really.  In fact, you may be doing worse damage than if you used paper.

That according to Don Carli writing for PBS.  You see, it all depends on where your electricity comes from (links original):

There is growing recognition that digital media technology uses significant amounts of energy from coal fired power plants which are making a significant contribution to global warming. Greenpeace estimates that by 2020 data centers will demand more electricity than is currently demanded by France, Brazil, Canada, and Germany combined. What is less widely known is that mountaintop-removal coal mining is also a major cause of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and the pollution of over 1,200 miles of headwater streams in the United States.

If your goal is to save trees or do something good for the environment, the choice to go paperless may not be as green or simple as some would like you to think.

So, your electronic gizmos might be devastating the environment.

Chances are that the electricity flowing through your digital media devices and their servers is linked to mountaintop-removal coal from the Appalachian Mountains. The Southern Appalachian forest region of the U.S. is responsible for 23% of all coal production in the United States and 57% of the electricity generated in the U.S. comes from coal -- including the rapidly growing power consumed by many U.S. data centers, networks and consumer electronic devices.

So I guess you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.  But I do know this: the paper industry is very conscientious about replanting trees.  After all, that's what they need to stay in business. 

So maybe paper is the better choice.

Still (Always) Not About Safety

We've already discussed how traffic cameras are not about safety but about revenue.  And revenue.  And revenue.  And we've discussed speed limits are not about safety but revenue.

And to drive the point home (Hat Tip: Instapundit), in Michigan there is a state law requiring speed limits be set using studies, but:

Four years after the passage of Public Act 85, which requires municipalities in Michigan to conduct studies to set proper speed limits, most cities, villages and townships have not complied, according to Lt. Gary Megge, head of the Michigan State Police Traffic Services Section.

And why not, even though that makes the speed limits themselves illegal:

One likely reason, said Megge, whose section advises communities on how to set proper speed limits, is that communities want speeding ticket revenue, and failing to conduct the required speed studies allows them to keep enforcing their speed limits that Megge calls "artificially low."

"Artificially low" speed limits to raise revenue?  Gasp.  I'm so shocked (not).  The purpose of speed limits is to raise revenue.  If there were about safety they'd be set by engineers and the fines would be so horrendous nobody would break them.  But then, no one would make money, either, that way.

The Seas are Not Rising

Remember when Obama said the oceans would stop rising?  Well, apparently he's right.  But it's nothing he did.  You see, the seas aren't going to rise anyway:

[A]ccording to Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, are not in the cards. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years."

If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10 cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm."

So the seas might rise between zero and 8 inches?  Total?  Boy, am I worried about the future, now.  I think that might reach my ankles.

They Found the Worm

Remember the Palouse Worm?  That was the worm that had only been spotted four times in 110 years in Northern Idaho/Eastern Washington in the area known as The Palouse.

Well, researches have now found two of them, an adult and a juvenile.  As AP reports:

Researchers on March 27 located an adult and a juvenile specimen of the worms, which have become near mythic creatures in the Palouse region of Washington and Idaho. The adult specimen was positively identified by University of Kansas earthworm expert Sam James a few weeks later.

And they aren't quite as magical, or as big, as advertised:

A [University of Idaho] statement said the two worms appeared to dispel two reports from the turn of the previous century that had added to the myth of the earthworm: The creatures did not spit and they did not smell like lilies.

The adult worm measured about 10 or 12 inches fully extended, while the juvenile was 6 or 7 inches. The worms were translucent, allowing internal organs to appear.

There's still talk of naming the species endangered based on the fact that no one has seen them.  But of course, that seems extreme, since it could be they just live deep, or they are naturally low in numbers.

But it's interesting to know that there are still some species out there we know almost nothing about.

Red Light Cameras Cause Accidents, Don't Increase Safety

(Hat Tip Instapundit)

The fad of putting up red light cameras at intersections basically has three results: 1) Gobs of revenue for jurisdictions that put them up, 2) Insurance companies racking up premium increases on those unfortunate souls who happen to get caught by them, and 3) More accidents.

Yep, more accidents.  That according to a University of South Florida  study:

USF's College of Public Health concluded that instead of improving safety, the cameras actually make intersections more dangerous. Further, its study said, the cameras give insurance companies a reason to jack up rates for those who get tickets.

How dangerous are red light cameras?

[One study] compiled 57 months of before-and-after data that showed red light cameras were associated with a 40 percent increase in accident rates and no decrease in severe crashes.

There are dissenters, including the insurance Industry, but:

And USF researchers determined that studies supporting cameras used flawed methods. One oft-cited study was financed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in 2002. It concluded that camera enforcement "generally reduces violations by an estimated 40 percent to 50 percent." In addition, injury crashes, including rear-end collisions "were reduced by 25 percent to 30 percent as a result of camera enforcement."

Pracht and Langland-Orban said that the institute's study, like most that show cameras are effective, didn't use scientific methods. For instance, the study looked at the crash rates of 11 intersections in Oxnard, Calif., with cameras, then included those results with the results from intersections that didn't have cameras.

Mixing the two was akin to testing the effects of a drug on 11 people, then merging their results with others who didn't take it, said Langland-Orban.

So the reliable, non-partisan studies show red light cameras cause crashes.

But they are such great cash cows for jurisdictions, don't expect them to be going away any time soon.  If ever.

Arizona Illegal Immigration Law is Not the Coming of the Apocalypse

Arizona's new illegal immigration law, that so many are decrying, can be summed up pretty easily: It requires the arrest of people who are breaking the law.

That's it.  What's so wrong about that?

Well, to the left in this country, everything.  My god, do you realize they'll be arresting . . . Mexicans?  (Oh, I suppose there could be an illegal alien Canadian, but most likely it'll be Mexicans.)  And they'll be asking people whether they are illegal aliens?

I wish the whole country had this law.

Jake Locker: One More Year!

Earth Day

I think it's Earth Day.  In the small Eastern Washington town I live in, Earth Day is just another day on the farm (literally).  This is the 40th Earth Day.  So what's happening?  Oh, mostly scares and new ways to frighten you.

Let me break the news to you folks: the planet is probably cleaner than it's been in 200 years.  Maybe even before that (not a lot of horse droppings in our cities anymore).  More people have access to clean water, abundant food, and a roof over their head than ever before.  All thanks to the technology and economics of the capitalistic West.

But the environmentalists want you worried, frightened, afraid that big bad technology is ruining the planet.  But it's not.  If anything, it's probably saving the planet.

So cheer up.  Things could be worse.  And would be without technology and capitalism.

More Taxes for You

Three news stories today about new taxes:

1) President Obama floated the idea of a VAT tax.  This would be the equivalent of a national sales tax and would raise the price of everything you buy by 10 - 20% (depending on what the level of taxation is).  Even the U.S. Senate has voted 85-13 against a VAT tax.  (Yes, I know "VAT tax" is redundant.)  And you can be assured, there will be no cuts in other taxes as the government will use the money for its own purposes.  It probably won't even bring down the debt much as the government will just spend more and more.

2) Democrat budget plans will raise money through the Alternative Minimum Tax scheme:

 President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the Senate promise to cut the deficit by almost two-thirds over the next five years, but their budget plan could threaten about 30 million people with tax increases averaging $3,700 in 2012 and after because of the alternative minimum tax.

Or they'll raise taxes elsewhere, including the death tax.

3) The father of Bill Gates is proposing an income tax on the rich in Washington State.  The tax would (at the start) only hit couples making more than $400,000 per year.  In a classic class warfare move, the initiative would cut property taxes by 20% and give some tax breaks to businesses.

Only problem is (well, maybe not the only problem), once the income tax genie is out of the bottle it's very hard to put back in.  And while the tax might start by only taxing the rich, there's no guarantee the definition of "rich" will be changed to include more people or simple the tax extended to the middle class.

The solution to all these proposes is for government to SPEND LESS MONEY.  And while Republicans (lately) haven't been great at that, they are a whole lot better than the Democrats.