Why the Supreme Court affirmative action decision was right

The Washington Post carries an interesting article today on why the recent Supreme Court decision allowing the state of Michigan to continue its race-based affirmative action program is “welcome”.  The absence of these ideas from earlier debates shows how easy it is to forget that the American people have, in theory, some political power to change laws (Paul Krugman op-ed today reminds us of the opposite.)


(The Post article also carries a link to last week’s column in which the same writer argues in favor of a tax on imported oil, as at the end of my Israel Essay.)

7 thoughts on “Why the Supreme Court affirmative action decision was right

  1. Phil, I find it odd that you are always whining about the disparity between ultra rich and average folks and how that disparity is increasing but then whine about how you have to support public schools with your taxes. I also find it odd that you talk such big talk about excess oil use, but remain someone who owns an enormous winnebago which he drove around the continent/flies around all the time in his own plane/and drives a gas-guzzling minivan as his usual vehicle because he likes to carry his dog and bike around with him all the time. What gives? Don’t you feel ike a hypocrite? Or do you not mean this stuff, just being rhetorical? Or does it not apply to you for some reason? Please explain. -Bill

  2. The disparity between the ultra rich and the rabble doesn’t bother me. What I find surprising is that so many poor people vote for politicians who promise to shift more of the tax burden from rich people onto poor people. Being amazed isn’t the same as whining. If wage slaves want to work longer hours to pay their taxes to support the government-funded airports where I land my DA40 for free, you won’t hear me complaining.

    I do advocate taxing imported oil but it wouldn’t affect my personal consumption much immediately because I already have machines that are as fuel efficient as possible for their function, e.g., the airplane gets 18 miles to the gallon and there are no 4-seat airplanes sold in the U.S. that are more efficient. Also, I live in the heart of the city and seldom have to drive very far to get anywhere (I put less than 6,000 miles per year on the minivan; people who drive a lot are those who live in sprawlville).

    However, such a tax might affect my consumption in the long run because it would lead to the development of more fuel-efficient products. Even a rich environmentally conscious person would not have been able to afford to hand-build a car like the hybrid Toyotas and Hondas. Only the existence of a mass market for such vehicles, which depends on fuel being expensive by the standards of the average person, can shake loose the necessary $billions of corporate investment.

    The approach to environmentalism that you’re suggesting (“don’t travel with dog and bike”, “sit on sofa instead of visiting Alaska”) was tried in the 1970s and proved to be a failure. People do not want to restrict their consumption. What does work is what the Europeans have done, which is to use technology and capital investment to produce the same amount of consumption with less oil input.

  3. actually the whole point of the post article was nonsense (not to mention their profiling of the readership…im a three yr old female in their DB)

    anyhoo, as everyone, even an ozzie like me knows, the entire american political system is anti-majoritarian.

    civil liberties, and things like racial equality before the law, are exactly the type of thing you want decided in front of nine wise old educated men and women, who have small r republican ideals and know why the constitution is anti-american, and not by the “people”.

    the people are stupid and ignorant, with no view to the long term. if you had a referendum tomorrow on whether you want to pay taxes, everyone would vote no, and the state would collapse a few months later.

    this is why the united states is a republic and not a democracy.

  4. Phil, You really want to claim that what you have is the most efficient? A gas guzzling minivan is not the most efficient vehicle out there. And just because you usually don’t use your car that much (which I appplaud and do myself), it’s not environmentally acceptable that you drive all over the place in one of the larger RVs you can buy. Sure, you could have gone bigger and badder. But you could have also gone a lost smaller and more efficient. If I enjoyed pouring oil into Puget Sound, that wouldn’t be acceptable just because we haven’t put enough effort into finding better methods for cleaning up oil spills, that’s no excuse. But I do appreciate your thought-provoking posts. -Bill

  5. A gas guzzling minivan actually is the most efficient vehicle out there that can hold a mountain bike, without disassembly, inside along with a dog and some friends. This is Boston; you can’t leave a bike on a car rack for the whole summer and expect it to still be there.

    As for the RV, I don’t own it anymore! That was an experiment for two trips. It was big (27′; the biggest are 45′ and the smallest are around 24′) but if you’re going to tour around with 2-4 people, one dog, camera gear, computer gear, and 3 bikes it is pretty much the smallest tool that is adequate for the job.

    But obviously if I wanted to move to Africa and live like a poor person it would be easier on the Earth. Ditto for the rest of us Americans. But none of us want to live like African dirt farmers so we continue to squander…

  6. That’s a reasonable reply, sort of. I agree that we don’t have to move to africa to avoid gas guzzling. Besides, my point wasn’t primarily about the detriment to the natural world. It was about the consumption of oil. You’re using a classic defense, of the sort “well, the only perfect option would be something ridiculous, so whatever I do is OK because no option is absolutely perfect.” There’s a lot of distance between not flying thousands of miles in a personal plane (less efficient than driving an efficient car) driving an RV around, etc., and moving to Africa and living on a dirt farm. You also have a tendency to inflate your requirements i.e., “I want ‘x’ and anything less than ‘x’ won’t do, therefore whatever I need to do ‘x’ is justified.” But you are correct that maybe I’m obsessing over minutiae. I’m just sick of people who always insist something has to be done, but aren’t willing to sacrifice anything themselves – “let poor people do it.” But keep up the posts.

Comments are closed.