More bad news, and a little good.

More from the Destroy-by-Reregulate Regime...

"Students to Bear More of the Cost of College (NYT)"

...Beyond the implications for Pell Grants, the new rules are expected to have a domino effect across almost every type of financial aid, tightening access to billions of dollars in state and institutional grants and, in turn, increasing the reliance on loans to pay for college. Taken together, many education experts say, the consequences for the nation's core financial aid programs are among the most substantial in a decade....But this year the administration found support from Congressional leaders seeking to constrain the cost of Pell Grants, an expense that has steadily increased as more low-income students go to college....Parents who earn at least $15,000 will be negatively affected in every state except New Jersey and Connecticut. Those in states including New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina and Wisconsin will be among the hardest hit.... [Read the reports: ACE and ACFSA.]

"Administration Overhauls Rules for U.S. Forests" (NYT)

...The long-awaited rules relax longstanding [language demerit!]provisions on environmental reviews and the protection of wildlife on 191 million acres of national forest and grasslands. They also cut back on requirements for public participation in forest planning decisions....The rules give the nation's regional forest managers and the Forest Service increased autonomy to decide whether to allow logging roads or cellphone towers, mining activity or new ski areas....The new rules incorporate an approach that has gained favor in private industries from electronics to medical device manufacturing. The practice, used by companies like Apple Computer, allows businesses to set their own environmental goals and practices and then subjects them to an outside audit that judges their success....

And at least some good news - two beginnings of victory, I do believe...

"Gregoire leads by 10" (SeaTimes)

Dino Rossi's bid to become Washington's first Republican governor in two decades unraveled in a big way yesterday. After winning the first two counts in the state's closest race ever, Rossi fell behind Democrat Christine Gregoire by 10 votes in what was supposed to be the final day of an unprecedented statewide manual recount. And he could drop even more after the state Supreme Court yesterday rejected a Republican attempt to block King County from reconsidering more than 700 ballots that the county said had been mistakenly disqualified....

"Tradition vs. equality argued in S.F. court: Advocates, foes lay out their cases before judge" (SFChronicle)

Advocates of same-sex marriage began a crucial legal test Wednesday in a San Francisco courtroom packed with supporters, arguing for marital equality and invoking California judges' trailblazing role in overturning a ban on interracial marriage 56 years ago....Joining the state, lawyers for organizations that oppose same-sex marriage argued that married mothers and fathers are better for children....

In contrast to [state lawyer Louis] Mauro, who based his defense of the law on tradition, [Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund lawyer Glen] Lavy argued that the ban on same-sex marriage was justified by the nature of marriage as an institution to promote the bearing and raising of children.

The state has a legitimate interest, he said, in "encouraging procreation to occur within the marital relationship so that those children can grow up with their own mom and dad.''

[Judge Richard] Kramer broke in. "Will they be deterred from procreating if the people in the condo next door are a same-sex couple?'' he asked. [!]

Lavy didn't answer directly but argued that the state is entitled to favor opposite-sex parents, who can raise their own biological children, over same-sex parents, one of whom has to adopt the other's child.

But why, Kramer asked, does the state allow husbands and wives to divorce, remarry others and deal with issues of adoption and visitation, "but not allow homosexual couples to marry and face the same problems?'' The state, Lavy replied, can tailor its laws to promote the ideal of lifelong marriage between biological parents.

"It is not bigotry to oppose redefining marriage,'' Lavy said. Unlike the former ban on interracial marriage, he said, the current marriage laws "were not designed to discriminate.''

"Simply because laws discriminate -- meaning they treat people differently -- does not make them unconstitutional,'' added the Liberty Counsel's Rena Lindevaldsen, a lawyer for the Campaign for California Families, another group opposing same-sex marriage....