Bachmann: Cheap gas for everyone!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Michele Bachmann is standing by her $2 gasoline pledge:

"Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 per gallon again.



"The price of gasoline the day that Barack Obama took office was $1.79 a gallon," she said in the Times account. "If
the price of gasoline was $1.79 a gallon just two and three years ago,
certainly we can get it back down to that level again. Why wouldn't we
be able to do that? We're a 'can-do' America."

As in, we can convert every single homosexual to Christian fundamentalist heterosexuality (while shoving the rest into the deepest recesses of the closet). You know, that sort of thing.

Because, of course, it's all Obama's fault. Everything. Is it raining where you are today? Obama's fault. Duh.

Not that Obama isn't a "can-do" sort of guy. I mean, he used his "can-do" moxie to save American capitalism from itself, didn't he? You know, the plutocrats getting rich fucking America.

It's just that Obama doesn't necessarily want to rape the environment into oblivion or deplete the country's long-term energy reserves for the sake of short-term savings.

And if Bachmann wants cheap gas, why not promote high fuel-efficiency standards? Or electric cars? Or some other alternative? And why not renewable energy to get America off its addition to oil?

Oh no, she prefers to try to suck people in with her cheap right-wing demagoguery.

In related news, if I'm ever elected president, I'll give a magic unicorn to every man, woman, and child across the land!

Seriously.

Is Libya the antidote to Iraq Syndrome?

By Nicholas Wilbur

When President Obama announced on March 18, 2011, that he would deploy the United States military in order to enforce a United Nations resolution, there was little doubt that the intervention on behalf of the Libyan people was not solely dedicated to their protection, even if that was the primary justification for the mission.

Nobody's jaw dropped when Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) told MSNBC three days later, "We are in Libya because of oil."

With the Arab world in chaos, anxieties over the future of oil production spiked gasoline prices by 20 percent in a matter of weeks. On par with the economy and the unemployment rate, gas prices determine elections. Unfortunately, high gas prices do not justify military intervention. Luckily, the potential for mass murder does.

The American people already have abandoned their aversion to yet another military endeavor, mainly because the administration and the media have joined forces to reassure the public that Libya is not an invasion, a war, or an occupation. 

Unlike "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan, which was an eye-for-an-eye assault on the elusive mastermind behind Sept. 11, 2001, and unlike "Operation Iraqi Freedom," which was sold to the American people based on false pretenses and hyped fears of mushroom clouds over major U.S. cities and weapons of mass destruction – and an invasion/war/occupation orchestrated by a millionaire oil company CEO who also happened to be the vice president, no less – Libya, conversely, has the potential to become the antidote to "Iraq Syndrome," an engagement that not only unifies the American public but that also reverses the reputation of the United States as a war-mongering, war-profiteering world police force.

The Libya intervention is not only a "just" mission, it is also "just" a mission. The president has promised both America and the international community that no ground troops will be deployed. 

In Afghanistan, there was an evil terrorist roaming around the hills laughing about his attacks on the World Trade Center. In Iraq there were (allegedly) chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

In Libya there is a dictator, Muammar al-Qaddafi, who has authorized aerial bombings of his own cities and deployed the army to hunt down and kill civilian rebels unsupportive of his regime. "Any Libyan" who "undermines the sovereignty of the state," who commits crimes against the army, or who opposes his reign "will be punished by death," Qaddafi said.

"We will show no mercy and no pity to them," he warned.

This "mission" is a political win-win for President Obama. However involved, however bloody, however defined by historians, the first phase of bombing the military facilities of a dictator is sure to give Obama a boost in the polls.

Beyond quelling fears of ever-higher gas prices, the use of military force against a world enemy has the potential to erase the image of Obama as a weak leader and an inexperienced and incapable commander in chief.

By framing the engagement as a humanitarian relief effort aimed at protecting the civilian rebels being targeted, incarcerated, and murdered by Qaddafi's troops, the administration can win the hearts of both the pro-military conservatives and the foreign policy isolationists on the left.

Conservatives are easy. They love a good fight against a bad guy, and Qaddafi is about as bad as it gets (worse, or at least on par with, Saddam Hussein). What's the point in having the greatest military on earth – and spending more on defense than every other developed country combined – if you don't flex a little military muscle every now and then? Furthermore, if we justified the dethroning of Saddam, Qaddafi, given his latest antics, should be no question.

Obama's announcement of military force in Libya:

"Let me be clear. These terms are not negotiable.

These terms are not subject to negotiation.

If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution,

the international community will impose consequences.

The resolution will be enforced through military action."

Many liberals, on the other hand, prefer that America keep to herself. But they have a weakness for peace missions. With the support of France and Britain, the United States – by far the most militarily equipped for the initial strikes on key air force facilities – is leading the surge. But the intention is to turn the mission over to NATO, which would brand the intervention not as another U.S. war but as a unified international coalition fighting as one in order to ensure peace and democracy in the Arab world. By promising that no U.S. ground forces will be deployed, Obama has tried to turn the hearts of his own base. By employing the rhetoric of past commanders in chief – the "reluctance" to use military force, the pursuit of peace, the refusal of a dictator to agree to the terms of resolution drafted by an international coalition – Obama has earned a nod of approval from the entire world.  

As for the apolitical majority of American citizens, strong rhetoric about the coalition, about the humanitarian crisis, and about the potential of mass graves come second, third and fourth, respectively, to the bottom line. If gasoline prices fall in America because of the U.S. military's involvement in Libya, the ends will justify the means.

If Obama is lucky, historians will document the "mission" in Libya through a lens that focuses not on the political intentions or the casualties it caused, but on the national and international support it garnered.

_______________________________________________________

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.

All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.

 – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf –

• Libya poll: 70% of Americans back no-fly zone resolution in Libya, CNN poll finds – L.A. Times

• "No time for doubters" – The Economist

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

A modest proposal

By Carl

Little noticed in the hoopla over the failed terrorism attempt of Christmas Day, with the concurrent fingerpointing (these rules were instituted under the Bush administration, something jackasses like Rep. Peter King (R-Frontrunning Poser) seem to forget) was an item that made me think a little:

WUHAN, Dec. 26 (Xinhua) -- The Wuhan-Guangzhou high-speed railway with the world's fastest train journey at a 350-km-per-hour designed speed, started operation Saturday.

Two passenger trains rolled out the Wuhan Railway Station and Guangzhou North Railway Station at about 9 a.m. and reached the terminals within three hours, compared with the previous 10 and a half hours.

The service between Wuhan, a metropolis in central China, and Guangzhou City, a business hub in the southern Guangdong Province, was put into trial operation on Dec. 9, reaching a maximum speed of 394.2 km (ed. note: roughly 250 miles) per hour.

Not quite as fast as a jet airplane, but no one drove a train into the 90th floor of the World Trade Center, either. And given the delays in airline terminals sure to arise from this incident, bullet trains might begin to make more sense.

Several reasons drive train travel in Europe and Asia that seem not to affect Americans: higher fuel prices due to government taxes, shorter distances between hub cities, less developed road systems (really, the Autobahn and perhaps Englands motorways are about the closest any nation comes to the US interstate highway system) creating slower speeds and longer travel times, among other reasons.

Indeed, China may be the only nation who suffers from both the need to have citizens in two places at once as well as the staggering large distances between those places.

Now, Barack Obama did propose investing in high speed rail systems, particularly across the heartland of the United States. So far, the only firm proposal is for a rail link between Disneyland and Las Vegas (courtesy of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid). I'm not entirely sure what the advantage is for having this. Do you drop your kids off with Goofy in the morning and pick them up at night after you've blown the mortgage payment?

But I digress. We have an opportunity now to invest in something that a) makes sense to do, given the economic catastrophe that higher fuel prices will create shortly; b) can be shovel-ready within months; c) would help wean us off foreign energy sources; d) could employ zero-emission power plants strung along the rail lines; e) would reinforce homeland security, both from a macroeconomic point of view as well as a micro-security viewpoint; and f) would give us a goal that most Americans can appreciate and wrap their minds around.

After all, rail travel has been around 150 years and there's a whole litany of romantic notions with regards to it. Imagine going from Chicago to Denver. It's a 17 hour drive. It's a three hour plane flight, plus two hours at security. At 660-odd miles and 250 mph on a train, it's 2 and one-half hours. And you're in downtown at both ends.

Makes sense, right?

Energy update

By Carol Gee

The economy looks different from an "energy" state. Very different. Travelling to Wyoming this winter has been interesting because of the contrast with my home state of Texas, also an "energy," but not in the same way. My relatives in Wyoming, who work at a variety of different kinds of jobs, all report that there is little evidence of a recession here. Jobs are plentiful, gas prices are low, and foreclosure rates are not as high as in distressed locales.

There are a few signs of change, however. I overheard oilfield workers reporting that most of the rigs in the Pinedale field will be moving to "one of the Dakotas," he couldn't remember which. This is probably associated with the drop in the price of oil. Retail shopping is off a bit this season, as this normally fiscally conservative populace goes back to their normal "saving ways."

Other signs of the times here include a real housing shortage in the town where I am staying. It is so bad that homeowners are renting out rooms to people who need a place to stay. Gasoline prices continue to drop, but grocery prices are high, which is normal. The big new energy push is in the wind arena. Hundreds of new wind turbines are going up in " wind farms" across the state. The affluent are, apparently, unscathed. As evidence, as I was travelling here, I observed several oversold trips to the ski areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

Snow is plentiful as are cold temperatures. Hats and gloves required, chili on the menu and runny noses are normal. The sense of really bad times for the nation and the world is here, however. The people in this state have always been tuned in to the news and are not removed from it at all. We live in a village, actually, Americans and Indians and Chinese and Russians.

Signing off from the wilds of Wyoming. Further reports as information emerges.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

All this gas talk reeks of classism

By LindaBeth

You know, I'm really starting to get sick of all the "news" stories about rising gas prices and how that's affecting family summer vacations. Several times a week I hear, read, or see some sort of report about how people are "coping" with having to cancel vacations and instead are creating their travel experience at home (i.e., having a luau in your backyard because you can't afford to go to Hawaii). There's even a cute name for them: Stay-cations.

This is by and large the hot gas-related story of the summer. The gist of the story? Woe is me, gas is so expensive that we can't afford to take our family vacation, we're sooo stressed out over it, we're handling this stressful and tragic situation the best we can by having a pretend glamorous vacation at home.

Ahem, privilege, anyone? Honestly, I really don't feel all that bad for the families who are so economically privileged that they can actually afford to take off of work (or are privileged enough to have paid vacation time) and can go on a family vacation. Why should I?

I'd say I was solid lower-middle to middle class growing up. We went on a vacation every year: a week at my grandparents' condo in the Southern Tier of New York, less than 3 hours from home. Why? Because it was free. A few summers we didn't go; those years we visited my aunts, uncles, and cousins in New England. Besides the travel costs of my parents' station wagon? Also, for the most part, free.

We never went on what you might call a family vacation. And up until now, I didn't realize that going on some wonderful elaborate trip was some sort of innate American right such that we ought to spend valuable news time lamenting that middle class families this year can't afford to drive halfway across the country and stay in a resort for a week. Heaven forbid for a summer you actually spend that week doing activities--gasp!--in your own general region. Or that you might now have to vacation--shock!--every other summer. Or, that you--horror!--spend time socializing with friends and neighbors. In an age where we hardly know our neighbors, and where most people are unfamiliar with the gems and resources in their own town, is it really all that huge a loss that the privileged Americans have a Staycation?

Why are middle and upper-middle class families and their precious Disney vacations the face of the rising cost of gasoline and not the working class families who lived month to month as it was before the exponential price increases...who maybe have to skimp on food or medical services, and for whom a Myrtle Beach trip isn't even on their radar? Instead of moping about being stuck at home, maybe some of these families should spend part of their summer volunteering for charities who help those who will only ever hear about DisneyWorld in the stories told by other more fortunate kids.

(Cross-posted to Smart Like Me.)

Road warrior report

By Carol Gee

Travel in the USA is an interesting challenge in these days of storms and high gasoline prices. Here's the latest from one who's just been there.

**********

Good day to everyone at The Reaction. We are in "the wilds" of Wyoming on our annual trek to visit my family of origin.

We started in Texas, arriving here in Cheyenne via New Mexico and Colorado. Many motorcycles are on the road. A bunch of them, "non-Harleys," were headed for a big rally in Taos, New Mexico. There are also a surprisingly high number of RVs of all sorts on the roadn to as many as last year, but more than I expected. . The trip has been marked by huge road construction projects all along the way. Summer is for dirt work in the West. Winters shut down most construction due to blizzards and frozen ground. Happily for Democrats the freeways that have been under construction for years in Denver are all finished. Gas prices have ranged form a high of $4.04 in Colorado Springs, to a low of $3.81 in west Texas. Tomatoes are safe in Colorado and Wyoming. My traveling companion is living proof; he is alive and kcikin' this morning. We had a hamburger and a salad last night here at Cheyene's Hitching Post Inn. The quantity was generous -- 1/3 pound of juicy Angus at $5.65 each, plus tip. Motel prices ranged from $100 a night to $80.

It was 42 degrees in Big Piney, Wyoming last night. Storms are predicted along our route today. The weather ranged from a sand storm in the high desert of New Mexico to a magnificent thunderstorrm a few miles later. The clouds and lightning filled the sky with darks and lights and flashes. There is still a great deal of snow on the peaks of the Rocky Mountains, and the streams and rivers run high and fast for rain and snow melt. Agribusiness and abandoned (and a few working) family farms and ranches stretched all along the countryside. Grains and cotton grows with the aid of irrigation water pumped from below ground. We saw herds of cattle with lots of baby calves. Because of plenty of rain the plains and hills are green and lush in places. The antelope herds transplanted to New Mexico a few years ago have thrived, and often feed near cattle and share the watering holes or tanks beneath windmills. We saw a big herd of buffalo at the Colorado/Wyoming line, also boasting lots of adorable little ones.

Politics along the route has been a little hard to deduce without talking to everyone along the way. But I did pick up a few tidbits, for what they are worth. A School Principal in Greeley was fired because he was caught having an affair. We passed a great big sign announcing the "Focus on the Family" world headquarters in Colorado, within the same period as when Barack Obama was being chastized by them for his incorrect interpretation of the Bible. Denver is observing "Bike to Work Day" today. The city expects 1,000 to participate. The Denver TV station announced that there would be "streamed live video online in Spanish from the Democratic Convention" in August.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)