Two good articles from Post today.

The Manhattan Institute finds that immigrants in America adapt quickly. Though measuring economic, cultural, and civic integration is difficult, it’s useful to look at the index as a good way to compare different groups rather than interpreting 100 as a full integration (whatever that really should mean). Either way, the numbers tell a story that contrasts sharply with what one will find in the Parisian banlieues.

Despite this, sadly, there’s still plenty of racist hostility to blacks, as Sen. Obama’s campaigners are finding. It’s a story barely reported on the campaign trail over the past few months, but Sen. Clinton may have hinted at it when she discounted Obama’s electability. At first I thought she was referring to his liberal, if scant, voting record. Now I suspect she may have been referring to something else.

I’ve often thought of elitism as meaning that one simply has high standards. A dictionary’s definition is probably more nuanced (dare I say elitist?) than mine, but I suggest a read of Paul Farhi’s article in Friday’s Post about the term’s use in politics:

It doesn’t matter that those who run for president are almost always better educated, better dressed, more telegenic, far wealthier and more articulate — all in all, drawn from an elite class — than just about every voter in the country. We know it, but prefer to hear about log cabin beginnings and back stories brimming with Horatio Alger spunk and Norman Rockwell imagery. We want politicians, in the cliched formulation, that we’d be comfortable having a beer with (tellingly, no one ever says “have a nice glass of merlot with”; we are not France).

Elitism isn’t about money or privilege, it’s about attitude, says Farhi:

It might seem a tad ironic for multimillionaires such as Clinton and Limbaugh to be calling anyone “elitist,” but “elitism” isn’t really about money. Donald Trump has money, but few think “elitist” when thinking of Trump. Elitism is instead an attitude, a demeanor, a vocabulary, a self-possessed air. It suggests condescension and contempt, a lack of empathy, an arrogant aloofness.

It’s worth a read.

All three candidates have promised the impossible: to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to lower the cost of gasoline.

McCain wants a gas tax holiday from Memorial Day to Labor Day. His rationalization is that the slight savings would encourage consumer spending. He also avers that such boosted spending would bring about economic recovery to offset losses to the Treasury. Yeah right.

The Clinton and Obama camps have added an anti-corporate flare to their equally populist proposals, promising gas tax reductions to be compensated by a “windfall profits” tax on “Big Oil,” the Democrats’ favorite bogyman.

But what about the environment? Any gas tax reduction incentivizes consumption of gasoline and thus the production of greenhouse gases. Cheap gas, often mistaken for being listed in the Bill of Rights, is entirely antithetical to curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Like President Bush’s belief that Americans need not sacrifice one bit to pay for war, the Democrats believe Americans need not sacrifice one bit for clean air or to reduce CO2 emissions. They prefer to shift the burden to “Big Oil” and the auto companies, whom they demand to produce more fuel efficient cars. Candidate resort to rhetoric demanding in increase in the CAFE standards, expecting the auto companies to deliver.

Sadly, raising mileage standards is unlikely to reduce emissions anytime soon. Blaming mileage standards does, though, provide politicians with convenient political cover as they shift the burden of environmentalism to car companies. This is unwise for several reasons.

First, raising mileage standards takes years and does nothing to address the emissions of existing vehicles.

Second, the moment a president signs a bill mandating high standards, the auto industry’s lobbyists will shift into top gear, lunching and golfing in full force to dull the bite of any CAFE legislation either by obtaining extensions or all-out waivers.

Third, a high-mileage vehicle, though emitting less CO2 per mile, can still emit an overall large amount if driven frequently.

The simplest and most effective solution is also the least politically popular: increasing the gas tax to act as a carbon tax. This would immediately reduce greenhouse gas emissions since gas consumption would decline as the price rose. However, while the Democrats like to bash the Bush administration for doing precious little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they know that the public would not tolerate any intentional increase in gas prices.

Though the president displays a weak commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, his aversion to Kyoto and other initiatives is more honest than the Democrats’ double-talk. He states correctly that the nation is neither willing nor prepared to pay the economic price of reducing emissions. This is true.

Too many Americans believe they are entitled to cheap oil and Democrats and Republicans have long realized that these people vote. Half of Americans live in suburbs, which are notorious for their car-dependency and whose very existence is due largely to cheap gas and free highways. Are the people who drive to the store, to school, to work, to the mailbox—everywhere!— going to appreciate paying $7.00 per gallon? Not likely.