Drilling For Ignorance

Maybe it's time for Republicans to lighten up on the energy debate.

With gasoline prices rising again, Republican presidential candidates are accusing President Obama of not doing enough to get prices in the opposite direction, suich as drilling for more oil. Obama shot back today in Miami, pointing out that his administration has drilled, baby, drilled - all over the place, with drilling increasing fourfold since he took office in January 2009. But with demand for oil in countries like China and India rising, Obama points out, gasoline prices are bound to go up based on global market demand. And generous subsidies still keep gasoline half as expensive as it is in European countries. If gasoline were sold in the United States at prices genuinely based on the free market that Republicans worship, we'd be paying as much as the French and the Germans.

Republicans, of course, are going to ignore these stubborn facts. They will also ignore the huge profits oil companies are raking in, as well as the fact that the U.S. now exports more oil than it imports - qualifying us for OPEC membership. They'll continue to insist on two-dollar-per-gallon gas. Of course, if we hadn't gotten addicted to big cars, if we had more mass transit, if Republican governors didn't keep canceling high-speed rail projects (as has happened twice in Florida in the past fifteen years), if more people could walk to work, and if more people could bike to work, as the mayor of Montclair, New Jersey does, how likely would Republicans even be starting conversations based on such asinine talking points? As I type, the House is pushing for dedicated spending for highways only, and mass transit projects like the Second Avenue Subway in New York City are aberrations rather than norm in this country.

Texas populist Jim Hightower once said that if ignorance were as valuable as oil, he'd want drilling rights on George Bush's head. He was referring to the elder George Bush. But if ignorance were as valuable as oil, the combined heads of both George Bushes wouldn't even pay half as many dividends as those of the four remaining candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

By the way, I have a message for those who bitch about high gas prices but won't ride a bus: Get a subcompact. You'll find a subcompact more nimble and fun than your SUV. Get a Chevrolet Sonic, and help an American autoworker keep his job.

Transport Is a No-Go?

President Obama just came out with a wonderful idea on how to create more jobs and get the economy moving, the very sort of idea Chris Matthews has been calling for on MSNBC - spend more money on transportation infrastructure, creating what Matthews calls "the smell of construction." Obama wants to spend $50 billion on upgrading America's passenger rail network, highways, and airport runways and pay for it by closing tax loopholes. Now who could possibly be against spending money to create more job and improve America's transportation network?

Oh, right. . . .

John Boehner, of course, has slammed the proposal as more government spending that does nothing to stimulate the private sector - except provide contracting opportunities for the privately owned companies that would actually build all this stuff, though you won't hear Boehner admit that. The right-wing New York Post, on its front page today, lampooned Obama as a pothole President as dismissed his latest proposal as another government spending spree.

You know, back when Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991, Republicans were against a lot of items in that law. Many congressional Republicans were opposed to more mass transit spending, and President George Bush did not want to commit a lot of money to Amtrak. They were for more spending on highways. They argued in favor of more highway spending to allow Americans the ability to travel where they wanted and when they wanted by car. Of course, people mostly use they cars to get to places they have to go to - like work. But at least in 1991, Republicans were at least for something, not simply saying no to the Democratic congressional majority of the time. Now they don't even want to spend more money on highways, and they don't want to spend more money on aviation either.

What's going to happen when Interstate 75, which runs through Boehner's district, starts falling apart? What would be wrong with the proposed high-speed rail line that would serve the Cincinnati area, where Boehner is from, adding more jobs to his district? Boehner apparently wants to become Speaker of the House first before he answers those questions.

We Built THIS Country?

My job commute has taken me through some pretty depressing townscapes of late. I'm from northern New Jersey, remember, which is typically held up as an example of what can go wrong with a place. And why not? So many freeways and shopping malls dot the region, as well as tract housing, barracks-style apartment houses, and loud neon signs. I'm at least lucky that I don't have to drive past the chemical refineries near Newark.

Northern New Jersey, of course, is hardly alone in being in abundance of such ugly suburban sprawl. Much of the country looks more and more like my neck of the woods, or my neck of whatever woods are still standing around here. One of the few remaining forested acreages in Essex County, half a mile from my house, is being cleared out to make way for more hideous McMansions that blend architectural styles of different countries that present something uniquely American, like hip-hop . . . and just as unbearable.

This got me thinking about some of the nasty comments native-born Americans make about immigrants being a drain on our society. "We built this country!" they shout. Yes, they did. Native-born Americans are responsible for the houses, stores, highways, and corporate farms that define our landscape. Ironically, they got immigrants to do a lot of the dirty work to get them built. But what exactly got built?

As a native-born American, this isn't something I'm proud of. :-(