Conservatives should embrace transit (and bicycling), but don't
Photo by Jeb Ro.Public transit enables the close-knit neighborhoods that social conservatives desire, argues David Schaengold. Yet most Republicans oppose public transit expansion (as do many conservative Democrats), with few prominent exceptions like Florida Rep. John Mica and the late Paul Weyrich. Why is this? Schaengold writes,
Sadly, American conservatives have come to be associated with support for transportation decisions that promote dependence on automobiles, while American liberals are more likely to be associated with public transportation, city life, and pro-pedestrian policies. This association can be traced to the '70s, when cities became associated with social dysfunction and suburbs remained bastions of 'normalcy.' This dynamic was fueled by headlines mocking ill-conceived transit projects that conservatives loved to point out as examples of wasteful government spending.
Of course, just because there is a historic explanation for why Democrats are "pro-transit" and Republicans are "pro-car" does not mean that these associations make any sense.
Support for government-subsidized highway projects and contempt for efficient mass transit does not follow from any of the core principles of social conservatism.
Schaengold goes on to refute the canard that highway-oriented development is the free market at work. In fact, highways are one of the largest big government spending programs, and American's choice to build them instead of transit was almost entirely a governmental decision.
Furthermore, argues Schaengold, "Pro-highway, anti-transit, anti-pedestrian policies work against the core beliefs of American conservatives in another and even more important way: they create social environments that are hostile to real community."
They promote impersonal big-box retail over community-building small business, prevent communities from sharing the work of raising children by forcing parents to spend most of their time driving children from place to place, and turn neighbors into strangers.
These arguments apply equally to bicycle transportation as to transit. Cyclists, like pedestrians, move at speeds conducive to seeing the window displays in small shops and are more likely to treat other people as human beings instead of as obstacles to speed around, and represent a free market of people making individual transportation choices. Yet cycling has become even more a Republican symbol of liberal yuppiedom than transit.
As Stephen Miller points out, in this week's Republican response to the President's radio address, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) repeats Eric Cantor's inaccurate month-old claim citing "new bike racks in Washington, DC" as an example of wasteful stimulus spending. Promoting the idea that real conservatives drive big muscle cars and mow down liberal walkers, bikers and subway riders may play well with a shrinking segment of the Republican base, but if conservatives were really serious about recapturing a sense of community engagement lost in the last century, they'd rethink this knee-jerk reaction against any form of transportation with less than 250 horsepower per person.
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=2108
Maybe they should stop chanting "Drill Here, Drill Now" too ;)
Replace it with the more sensible "Rail Here, Rail Now!"
I fully endorse mass transit and rail in particular. I am also a realist and "drill here drill now makes equal sense.
Yup, I'm also a conservative that generally supports mass transit. When I read the title of your post, I immediately thought of John Mica and Paul Weyrich, so I'm glad the article mentioned them.
(As for bike racks paid for by the federal stimulus ... um, yeah ... that does in fact seem pretty wasteful. I would think that regardless of conservative/liberal or pro/anti transit, that bike racks sound like a really shameless pet project that has next-to-nothing to do with the supposed justification for recent federal spending.)
Quote from: Joe on April 21, 2009, 08:33:50 PM
(As for bike racks paid for by the federal stimulus ... um, yeah ... that does in fact seem pretty wasteful. I would think that regardless of conservative/liberal or pro/anti transit, that bike racks sound like a really shameless pet project that has next-to-nothing to do with the supposed justification for recent federal spending.)
Did you read the article? Apparently that claim is inaccurate.
Just like the claim that Harry Reid had put money into the stimulus package for rail from LA to Las Vegas. It's real easy to rile up Republicans with false claims.
Interesting that vulcano studies are wasteful according to Jindal, but studying beach erosion ( Mica's earmark) is laudable.
BTW, Jindal of all people should understand the need to prevent disaster.
Agreed, as a conservative, I do support PRIVATE and locally operated mass transit. I strongly believe that solar panels should be subsidized by our local government operated utility and the State of Florida. And I support advanced battery research with the goal of total electric private transportation. I also support immediate drilling here in America to reduce our dependance on foreign oil. And I support immediate expansion of atomic power. I DO NOT support the expansion of federal control or funding of these areas without the consent of the states. And I feel inadequate, since I only have 200 horsepower.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 21, 2009, 07:44:21 PM
I fully endorse mass transit and rail in particular. I am also a realist and "drill here drill now makes equal sense.
I'm a realist too, and examine common knee jerk responses when I see them. Here is some background:
QuoteCan We Drill Our Way to Energy Security?
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
03/05/2009
Although oil prices have receded from their all-time high of $145 per barrel, the U.S.’s energy security situation remains disturbing. Oil is still the sole strategic commodity in the U.S.’s transportation sector, and I have previously addressed the looming problems related to our exclusive reliance on oil. It is no secret that prices will rise again, although the U.S.’s fledgling alternative energy industry may be destroyed before they do. Nor is it a secret that our oil dependence means that we are “paying for both sides in the War on Terror.†And while the U.S. suffers through its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, terrorists are aware that a successful catastrophic attack on one of Saudi Arabia’s major production hubs could be a virtual knock-out punch in their war against the West.
Against this backdrop, a large number of commentators advocate increasing our domestic drilling--for example, exploiting offshore oil resources or those in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This policy briefing examines whether we can drill our way to energy security, and concludes that commentators should not overstate the benefits: exploitation of conventional fossil fuel resources within the U.S. will neither end nor seriously ameliorate our strategic vulnerability. Domestic drilling is not necessarily a bad idea, but we should not lose sight of the need to diminish oil’s importance as a strategic commodity. Contrary to the claims of some skeptics, we can do so.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and Other Domestic Resources
Many drilling proponents point to the U.S.’s failure to exploit energy resources in ANWR as one of the clearest failures of our current energy policy. While the amount of oil recoverable from ANWR is not known, an objective look at the research done on its resources makes clear that drilling there will not change our current strategic weakness.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has provided the best, mean, and worst-case estimates for ANWR’s resources. Under its “high resource†case, ANWR will allow for cumulative oil production of 4.3 billion barrels; its mean estimate is 2.6 billion barrels, while its “low resource†case projects 1.9 billion barrels. Some more optimistic observers have claimed that around 10 billion barrels of oil can be extracted from ANWR. But even if that high estimate were accurate, ANWR drilling would not translate into energy security.
More here: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11784811&Itemid=102
Your post lends itself to what "Drill Here - Drill Now" proponents are trying to do.
QuoteWhile increased domestic drilling may well be a laudable policy, it is important not to lose sight of the bigger picture: rather than just increasing the supply of oil, we need to actively foster alternatives.
I'm a conservative who agrees with privately owned mass transit, but also with an integrated energy policy that utilizes our current resources while planning for future energy sources.
Alright, lets go between the upper and lower and say that there is 6 billion barrels there. That is $300 billion dollars that we do not send to the middle east. At $100 oil it becomes $600 billion. That ain't knee jerk money. ANWR is just one of the answers to our current problem. We must utilize what we have to MINIMIZE our dependence. Research and technology will help us develop non oil resources. The answer is not Dem or Rep, or conservative or liberal, it is American.
Quote from: Sigma on April 21, 2009, 09:39:26 PM
I'm a conservative who agrees with privately owned mass transit.
Why privately owned? Don't you think ticket prices would be higher so as to incorporate profit?
Yes, ticket prices would most likely be higher whether privately owned, or government owned (but not subsidized by tax payer dollars).
I think that's why a lot of people "thumbs down" to mass transit. They know that it will be subsidized by the taxpayer - most of which do not use it. They also want to see a return on their investment, which government has shown it can not do as well as private ownership.
I'm just a little confused, if the asteroid that caused the mass extinction 65 million years ago landed in Yucatan and oid is a fossil fuel. logic would dictate that the gulf of Mexico would be the largest oil field in the world. With an explosion of that magnitude you first have an explosion killing anything in its path and then an implosion depositing all that organic matter in the gulf.
Quote from: Sigma on April 21, 2009, 09:39:26 PM
Your post lends itself to what "Drill Here - Drill Now" proponents are trying to do.
While increased domestic drilling may well be a laudable policy, it is important not to lose sight of the bigger picture: rather than just increasing the supply of oil, we need to actively foster alternatives.
I'm a conservative who agrees with privately owned mass transit, but also with an integrated energy policy that utilizes our current resources while planning for future energy sources.
My son is the Supervisor for a major driller for a district that covers the TX/OK panhandles, NE NM, CO, KS region. He, nor anyone else is working at this moment. I have quized him about this and his simple answer... "Before the recent bust, we were hitting gushers of TX-OK sweet oil, then the price fell through the floor. We have all the oil we need... like forever, BUT, it's too deep, too mucked up and too damn expensive to get at it. Now when your ready to pay $500 - 1,000 dollars a barrel, we'll be the big dog on the block again, but we all know that isn't going to happen." There is nothing my kid would rather do then whip a field or two back into action but he doesn't see it coming.Quote from: Sigma on April 21, 2009, 10:36:46 PM
Yes, ticket prices would most likely be higher whether privately owned, or government owned (but not subsidized by tax payer dollars).
I think that's why a lot of people "thumbs down" to mass transit. They know that it will be subsidized by the taxpayer - most of which do not use it. They also want to see a return on their investment, which government has shown it can not do as well as private ownership.
Higher fares are a self defeating cycle. Look at the Skyway, we finally hit 3,000 a day at .25 cents, so last year, JTA doubles the fare. Whoops now we get 1,500 a day. Not worth the effort. You want real payback from mass transit?
MAKE IT FARE FREE CITY WIDE!
Consider it an alternative to constant investment in highways, and watch ridership soar from 10 Million a year locally to 30 Million + . Americans love a freebee, just check out Memorial Park or the riverwalk on a sunny weekend afternoon. My blog supports FARE FREE TRANSIT. SEE ALSO: http://frepubtra.blogspot.com/OCKLAWAHA
QuoteCan We Drill Our Way to Energy Security?
Stop right there. No need to read any further. Drill here, drill now has nothing to do with the above statement. Exploiting our own oil and gass resources is about
reducing our dependence on foriegn oil. Wind, solar, and bio do the same. Additionally... I invite you to visit the oil fields in the mideast or venezuela, or nigeria... I have. Drilling in the states is a clean and regulated process... it is not in the areas I listed.
Yes...and opening up the area just off Florida's coast (inside the Federal 10 mile limit) for drilling is a great idea too...just ask the Republicans in the Florida House!
Please don't use the Skyway as an example of mass transit. It is a joke.
And some people do not want to subsidize others' "freebies". More people would ride if there was an efficient, quick system. Ock, I think you are the expert here and have given some good examples. I just think that the system should cover it's costs and initial investment. Government spending is wasteful because there is no skin in the game. Private investment would be better planned, and better spent $$. You would never see a private enterprise invest into a useless Skyway.
Based on the comments from the conservatives on this board, it sounds like we can all agree on a need for more mass transportation and energy alternatives. What we can't agree on is how to get there.
For those who support more drilling, I ask that you take a hard look at the numbers. This is the closest that you can get to an objective analysis. Take any proposed drilling project and look at the following: the most liberal estimates on how much oil can be cumulatively produced, what the maximum yearly production will be, how many years that oil will be withdrawn over, how many years it will take to reach maximum production, how many years before the project comes online, the past and projected growth in annual consumption for the US, and the past and projected growth in annual consumption for the world.
I hope you arrive at the same conclusion that I have, which is it won't make any difference in the cost of oil to us and it doesn't necessarily reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If you want to truly make a difference, do what I did, live near where you work and then walk, bike, or bus to get there. I now drive about 4000 miles/yr less than I used to. When Springfield has more commercial options, I'll drive even less. I personally feel good that I have given less of my money to corrupt greedy oil companies and less of my money has ended up in the hands of possible terrorists.
Quote from: Sigma on April 22, 2009, 09:29:08 AM
Please don't use the Skyway as an example of mass transit. It is a joke.
And some people do not want to subsidize others' "freebies". More people would ride if there was an efficient, quick system. Ock, I think you are the expert here and have given some good examples. I just think that the system should cover it's costs and initial investment. Government spending is wasteful because there is no skin in the game. Private investment would be better planned, and better spent $$. You would never see a private enterprise invest into a useless Skyway.
If you've read these boards, you know I was the one that fought hard to kill the Skyway before it ever got off the ground. Sadly nobody in City Hall wanted to hear it, free federal money! The ridership has never gotten even close to the projections but then neither has the system. Quiting the project as they did, is like wearing one shoe in a Olympic track event.
While the Skyway should never have been built, we now have $200 Million invested in it. Any transportation savvy person can tell you running from a bus transfer lot, to a parking garage is hardly optimum. It simply MUST reach where people are going or coming from. A few short extensions would achieve this and it will NOT cost $100 Million a mile. In fact the cost would be closer to Light Rail.
The government allows you to drive every day on an ever expanding highway network, one that eats nearly as much of the budget as our military. Somehow people need to realize THIS is a subsidy, but one that Suburbia approves of. Now imagine a fare free transit system taking 30 Million persons a year off the local roads. Roughly 15 Million automobiles. Would we still need to build the Big-I, rebuild I-95 in the Southbank, or widen JTB?
In the area of covering expense, private transit had to have City franchises to operate on City Streets. Then the Cities would not allow any fare increases, it was a national crisis. One could hear the doors locking at the transit companies all over the nation.
Looking at the economics to recover costs? A new hybrid bus costs in the neighborhood of nearly one million dollars a copy. JTA carries 10 Million passengers a year with 60+ bus routes. So using the same "pay the way" logic, we would need to carry the same passenger load with only 10 buses. In transit 25% of the income is from the farebox, and 75% of the cost is labor. This is where the Skyway "could" shine - IF it went anywhere besides back and forth above dead streets.
Factor in the Billions of dollars of new development that follows streetcars and light rail, and the subsidy fades away, more then compensated by new towers on the tax rolls.
See transit as an INVESTMENT, see it as a highway fund reliever, see it as a development tool...OCKLAWAHA
Stephen -- No, you shouldn't
if you don't use them.
But don't you walk on sidewalks that are part of the road system?
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 21, 2009, 09:53:25 PM
Quote from: Sigma on April 21, 2009, 09:39:26 PM
I'm a conservative who agrees with privately owned mass transit.
Why privately owned? Don't you think ticket prices would be higher so as to incorporate profit?
Privately owned would also be more efficient, and possible less expensive over the long run. At the least it would save the usual taxpayer subsidy. But of course the main reason that I specify private, or local government is because the federal government has no constitutional authority to be in the transportation business.
Stephen,
The idea that you postulate has its backers. User fees only for government subsidies and government projects. The pure version would do away with school taxes and most other "fees" such as the St. Johns River fees and such. But of course, "art" and "downtown development" would fall under the same restrictions. People who live at the beach would certainly question why they are subsidizing the downtown area.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 22, 2009, 06:52:05 AM
QuoteCan We Drill Our Way to Energy Security?
Stop right there. No need to read any further. Drill here, drill now has nothing to do with the above statement. Exploiting our own oil and gass resources is about reducing our dependence on foriegn oil. Wind, solar, and bio do the same. Additionally... I invite you to visit the oil fields in the mideast or venezuela, or nigeria... I have. Drilling in the states is a clean and regulated process... it is not in the areas I listed.
"Drill here drill now" is a very narrow approach and basically just "more of the same."
It a huge distraction from where we need to go, and I will add Ock's quote that reveals the real problem with domestic oil production:
Quoteit's too deep, too mucked up and too damn expensive to get at it.
Rather than investing in very unproductive endeavors like the uneconomical "drill here, drill now" folks want,......let's broaden our horizons and invite future reality:
QuoteWhat’s more, our overdependence on fossil fuels and our underinvestment in a secure, reliable and clean-energy infrastructure costs our economy dearly. Each year we send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to import foreign oil. The unreliability of our electricity grid costs the economy approximately $100 billion per year in damages and lost business, and transmission congestion burdens consumers with $22 billion annually in higher energy prices. Our lack of energy diversity not only links our economic growth unnecessarily to ever rising carbon emissions, but it also leaves businesses and consumers more susceptible to dramatic price swings in the price of oil, coal, and natural gas as global demand rises. The status quo is simply too expensive to maintain.
There is a better way forward: Building a green economy that transforms how we produce and use energy. Investments in new technology will access abundant domestic sources of renewable energy, cut costs for consumers and businesses, and build new industries. This clean-energy transformation also will increase economic productivity, boost the skills and incomes of American workers, and leave a legacy of productive public infrastructure that enables long-term innovation and growth. Smart policies to speed this transition will “crowd in†new private capital, create good jobs, and speed economic recovery.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/green_jobs_questions.html
"Drill here, drill now" are NOT smart policies. It's trying to blame the supply side, when really we need to address the demand side, and looking towards alternative energy supplies. Even Oilman T. Boone Pickens says we CANNOT drill ourselves out of our energy crisis, and rather than investing in unproductive domestic drilling, he's investing in wind.
Faye... This is not what I said.
Quote"Drill here drill now" is a very narrow approach and basically just "more of the same."
What it means... at least to me... is that we... the US... still ranks very high in the production of oil. And could produce more... thereby lessening our dependence on foreign oil.
I did not say it solves all our problems, it is
not more of the same and it
broadens our energy supply rather than narrowing it. By drilling more domestically and developing alternatives and conserving we can dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Why drill now? Because the alternatives cannot begin to replace our energy years for many years to come leaving us vulnerable to boycotts and disruptions of oil.
^ Not to mention that if Clinton had allowed ANWR to be opened up, we'd be getting the benefit of that much more crude being drilled and pumped domestically, during the meantime when all this wind and solar is supposed to kick in and save us.
BTW, let's build more nuclear while we're at it. Alternatives and choices are more than oil and wind.
You are right BridgeTroll. We should be drilling now to broaden our capacity for domestic energy consumption to bridge the gap between now and future energy sources. The 'drill here, drill now' issue, I fear, is one of instant disassociation due to political preference. It was something McCain supporters said. Faye is clearly an Obama supporter if I remember past posts of hers. Hence she replies with the Obama counter-argument to McCain "more of the same" and then quotes to a liberal publication for a counterpoint.
Mass transit should be embraced by conservatives. I fully embrace it. It's not the only answer. There still will need to be cars and roads for as long as I can see into the future. One thing I don't get is why there is an inherent problem with the "demand side". People want and need gasoline. Mass transit and more fuel efficient cars can help to curtail some of that demand, and that's fine, but millions of people will still prefer to drive cars. That's just the facts. It is much better to address the "supply side" while we take some steps to encourage (but not mandate through mindless carbon taxes) a popular rethinking of the 'demand side'.
I'm all for more solar and wind, but I know the realities of the technology enough to know we can't easily switch over. I'm not necessarily against more nuke. Pebble bed reactors are an exciting new technology in nuclear reactors that don't carry the same problems as current reactors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor.
I'm surprised no one has touched on an area that could be targeted to reduce dependence on oil: plastics. While the gains to be made here are not as great as significantly improving fuel efficiency, the same line of reasoning that's applied to drilling, "every bit counts", works well.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 22, 2009, 04:06:56 PM
Why drill now? Because the alternatives cannot begin to replace our energy years for many years to come leaving us vulnerable to boycotts and disruptions of oil.
Building an oil rig takes time, as does building a windfarm. We all agree on the latter,.......why waste money on old technology when we stand ready to use the new? That's how T Boone Pickens sees it ( he's a conservative) and that's how I see it, being an economist.
QuoteThe call for expanded offshore drilling is a fake solution that only Big Oil wants, because keeping Americans dependent on oil is the best thing they could do for their bottom line.
Oil companies currently sit on 68 million acres of our nation’s oil-producing land. This is land that they could have started drilling years ago, but they left it untouched while gas prices soared. In fact, the number of new offshore drilling permits tripled since 2001, and yet we’re paying triple what we were in 2001.
Perhaps opening more of our coasts to drilling isn’t the panacea oil companies claim it to be.
Yet today, these companies and their Washington allies are pleading for more. Though they already have access to 80 percent of our offshore areas, they want to open it all despite the significant costs to coastal businesses and the environment. Before opening the remaining 20 percent of our coasts, which would wreak havoc on fishing operations, tourism and recreation, oil companies should be drilling what they have instead of asking for more.
Members of Congress, when they return to Washington in September, should focus on solutions that will help Americans deal with rising energy costs, create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As even this administration ( Bush)pointed out, if we start drilling today, we won’t see a drop of oil for ten years. So instead of discussing plans that won’t deliver for at least a decade, we need to start investing in renewable technology and real solutions that will produce results without harming our coasts.
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/oil-companies-sit-on-68-million-us-acres-that-they-have-not-drilled
I defer to the economist then... :)
Doesn't T. Boone Pickens stand to lose a big pile of money if the Feds don't come through with the windmill subsidies he's pushing for? Or am I just being cynical?
No room for cynics here... you non bicycling, oil using, greenhouse gas producing, non progressive.
Just kidding urban... ;)
I resemble that remark!
Quote
Building an oil rig takes time, as does building a windfarm. We all agree on the latter,.......why waste money on old technology when we stand ready to use the new? That's how T Boone Pickens sees it ( he's a conservative) and that's how I see it, being an economist.
But doesn't an oil rig produce (or help produce) more energy per capita than a wind farm? You can drill out of a well for years at a time at a solid, constant pace. Windfarms offer no such regularity.
Also, at what point will you start hating windfarms once big oil gets behind that? BP and the like are backing alternative energy use. If Big Oil builds their own windfarm, does so successfully, and makes millions or billions, where do you stand then? Hating "Big Wind" for making billions?
It makes zero sense to hate the companies that provide the energy, be it oil, gas, or nuclear. The old technologies, for a while to come, still are more productive and provide more power-per-punch than wind or solar.
Further:
Quote
if we start drilling today, we won’t see a drop of oil for ten years
I'm sick of this bumper-sticker argument. If Clinton and the pooswah Republican Congress in the 90s had opened up ANWR, more than 10 years ago, we'd be benefitting from that right now. Nope. Environmentalists afraid of losing a moose along the way killed that. Save the moose and go green.
So 15 years removed from the same argument, we have a) higher dependence on foriegn oil, b) nowhere near the power capacity of green energy to supplant and replace fossil fuels, and c) we're still having this retarded argument; because d) we're all collectively too ignorant of history and stubborn because politics can't keep its damn face out of anything.
Fat effing lot of good its done us thus far, wouldn't you say?
A bit surly but spot on Doctor!
Sorry. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, so I apologize. It just frustrates the poop out of me that we're (all of us in general) still having this same argument twice in my lifetime, and I'm not even that old!
I'm going to go run in the Corporate 5K now, to relieve some tension. :D
Does anyone know what they are paying for the proposed leases by acre? $1,000+ would indicate a pretty decent chance of oil. But just because we sink wells doesn't mean there will be ANY oil. They might find gas or even water. Deep water wells cost in excess of $100, Million dollars, so these guys are high rollers or they think it's a pretty decent shot at either oil or gas. Once the lease is made the per well royalty is a few hundred bucks a month, but again that all depends on what they find. It could be more if they don't need pump jacks and the well flows from the tree-pipes. Out in Oklahoma State Cowboy territory, some of the wells have hit 38,000 feet! Others come in with a bang and within months go out with a whimper. It's a REAL gamble. So environmental concerns aside, I don't think your going to see another Persian Gulf spring up off Jacksonville Beach. As for production once they actually start to drill, platforms and prep take some time, the oil might be flowing within a year m/l. The only reason for the 10 year crap is if you drill in BFE you'll need a railroad or pipeline to haul it out.
T.Boone is alumni of OSU (go team), he just gave "us" the nicest football stadium in the Southwest. I think he's of the age that he figures (like an Okie) I've made all I could ever hope to spend, so he's out to have some fun with wind. I honestly think it's a toy for him.
OCKLAWAHA
maybe Ock...but he does own the largest wind farm in the U.S....and he bought a huge chunk of land along the TX/OK border, where there is a good supply of wind.
yes, he's being environmentally responisble...but he's in position to make a bunch of $ too
Better T. Boone makes a buck and gets R done, then for 500 of us wannabe's stomp our feet and demand alternate energy now... It's the old wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: tufsu1 on April 23, 2009, 09:12:08 PM
maybe Ock...but he does own the largest wind farm in the U.S....and he bought a huge chunk of land along the TX/OK border, where there is a good supply of wind.
yes, he's being environmentally responisble...but he's in position to make a bunch of $ too
Which goes right back to my potential "Big Wind" argument. At what point will T. Boone be villified for cornering the wind-energy market and making record profits (through his legacy business)? You know it'll happen.
They've already got a name for it Doc! "Windfall Profits!" :D
LoL. Nice.