Overhauling
As I mentioned in an earlier post, my grandfather and I once debated endlessly about many different things. In certain circumstances wherein I would refuse to budge on my advocacy of a wild idea, he would shake his head and look at me strangely and say, "You're a rebel. You're a revolutionary." Though I am committed to the ideas of Adam Smith, the Invisible Hand is not allowed to operate freely these days. Our natural reactions are constantly hindered by bureaucracies and, I would argue, a warped view of the meaning of liberty. A great example of this is the current energy crisis.
Let's get one thing straight: energy is a situation, not a crisis. A sensationalist drama queen bent dominates American culture, and it ultimately does not serve greater society very well. Things aren't simply what they are; events are without exception described as either the best or the worst in absolute terms, and after a while, people tend to ignore both the important and the mundane. Unfortunately, this callousness forces us to accept even the crappiest of situations, and it makes us vulnerable to easily avoidable frustrations.
In terms of the present gas situation, I have yet to witness an epidemic of long lines at the pump, and to the best of my knowledge, not a single gas station has closed due to a lack of availability. On the flip side of this consideration, I haven't met one person who's had to cash out a college fund or take out extreme amounts of debt in order to fuel their car or fill their car's gas tank. Yet we are lead to believe that the nation faces the worst gas crisis in at least fifteen years or thirty years (or whatever the hell number of years you want to pull out of the dictionary of overemphasis regularly used by the modern media). Nothing is as self-fulfilling as hysteria, and it's a bothersome problem.
I spend a good deal of time thinking about matters of transportation -- not just the price energy, but how we get around, the nature of traffic, and the resulting economic impacts. I've come to the conclusion that, if we ever did face a real energy crisis, and a revolutionary solution was required, it would not be so difficult to alleviate the problem and improve the state of human affairs to boot.
Several thoughts on the subject:
The minimum driving age should be raised to 21. First off, my license was still warm from the laminating machine when I started plotting how to get a fake ID, and I succeeded within a month. If high school kids want beer, they find beer. Second, most 16 year olds are not yet physically developed into an adult body, and it worries me to think about a 100-pound zit bag handling a one-ton piece of machinery. Third, and this is harsh but true, most high school kids only have two years of driving before they head off to either college or the military, where they are usually either not allowed or have no need to have a car for at least two years. Given the number of sham schools and all the quick and easy debt floating around these days, and the fact that we're fighting two wars simultaneously, a kid who can't find a college or a branch of the service to accept him or her is probably mentally retarded. Fourth, let us take their refusal to vote as a statement of indifference to everything. Their decision to neuter themselves politically implies that they don't mind getting shafted. Anyway, their idea of political involvement never extends beyond an MTV reality show, an apathetic campus demonstration, or the t-shirt du jour, which are adult-managed undertakings anyway.
2. The maximum driving age should be 77. This would drive the AARP crazy, but I think there's something intrinsically good about anything that that vampire-like organization promotes. [AARP-related sidebar: Old people are completely engaged in the political process. Who do you think stuffs envelopes for congressmen? Who has unlimited time to think in-depths about public policy? Who watches C-SPAN? Therefore, retirees so totally enfranchised ought not to have a specialized lobbying group.] Realistically, modern humans begin to have major health issues as they approach the 80 range. Our ability to make rational decisions declines in a hurry, and we are prone to sudden health issues such as heart attacks and strokes. Mental lapses become daily occurrences, and most importantly, the mind's ability to think reactively becomes practically non-existent. Is it wise to let these people operate potentially dangerous pieces of equipment? I would say, no way in hell.
(Because I think they are such a problem, the next five points deal with the same problem.)
3a. All interstate trucking traffic should be banned in and around major metropolitan areas. If you think about it, achieving this goal would not be as hard as you might think. Some set of laws could be passed mandating that trucks operating within urban areas must have gas tanks allowing for no more than 10 miles of driving distance. For the life of me, I can't figure out why commuters are forced to drive slowly behind three shoulder-to-shoulder interstate trucks, when you know their routes probably run parallel to some series of train depots. Isn't it worthwhile for society as a whole to let our non-perishable goods sit on trains for an extra day or two, when you consider the time, energy and utility wasted by sitting around in traffic? You may ask, "What if somewhere is more than 10 miles from the nearest train depot?" I would say to you, "Be sensible, you short-sighted boob." Somewhere more than 10 miles from the nearest train is probably way the heck out in the middle of nowhere, and therefore pretty unlikely to have major traffic issues in the first place.
3b. When you drive on the highway as often as I do, you notice two main patterns of confusion on our highways, both of which come down to trucks. As I've discovered in a practical sense on a project I worked on this spring, systems can only operate as fast as the slowest mover. This point becomes terribly evident when there is apparently no reason for traffic, except that trucks take forever to stop and forever again to get rolling. Trucks clogging the highway at rush hour produces a big screw-you to car drivers, who are the ones who principally pay for the roads in the first place via taxes at the gas pump. My second point on this topic is, no one likes to drive behind trucks, especially people who don't like to drive fast in the first place, so what tends to happen is: slow morons get all the way over into the left lane, even if they're afraid to go faster than the trucks in the right two lanes, all so they don't have to drive behind the stupid trucks, thereby jamming up the people in back who would prefer to go faster than the trucks. One way or the other, trucks tend to cause traffic.
3c.) Instead of ganging up on businessmen, kicking the crap out of women, and employing horrendously obvious and immoral cover-ups, why don't we station cops on highway overpasses and nail trucks driving in the left lane? In Chicago, we have prominent signs at regular intervals that say "Trucks Use 2 Right Lanes" on our main 4-lane highway, yet trucks treat the 3rd lane as a passing lane. I suppose the Department of Transportation could draw picture signs to convey this (apparently) complex message to the truckers more easily, or maybe they could translate the signs into hillbilly ("Hey Y'All: Git 'Er Done Away From Yer Heart" -- might have to use a really, really tiny font.) Then again, it's not like the truckers would notice any sort of sign, given that most of them can't read, are high on crystal meth, or are too busy jerking off to bestiality porn. At any rate, when was the last time you saw a cop pull a truck over for a traffic offense?
3d. The price of diesel fuel should be kept artificially high to dissuade excessive trucking. When I was little my mom had a Mercedes that used on diesel fuel, but we got rid of it at least 15 years ago. I cannot for the life of me remember the last time I rode in a diesel-powered car. Diesel fuel is mostly there for trucks, so let's make the diesel a deterrent and thereby reduce the unnecessary amount of truck traffic clogging our highways. From an economic point of view, when you consider all the gas that idling cars are forced to waste thanks to the endless traffic caused by trucks, we would probably save money on the macro level by raising the price of diesel to nearly insane levels. We could then use the additional tax revenues to address the problems outlined in 3e and 4.
3e. Roads are built for cars, but trucks get to use them. We recently built a new road to the clubhouse at my golf course, and the guy from the paving guy informed me the only reason he's in business is: asphalt is manufactured with cars in mind, and trucks tear the shit out of it. So, if you think about it, without massive trucks rumbling down the highway, not only will passenger cars be able to move in an unimpeded fashion, we would avoid having to rebuild the same stretch of road every other years, thereby alleviating the potential for traffic jams caused by work sites. The cumulative economic benefits are obvious.
3f. Another main reason for traffic jams is, the number of cars on the road is greater than the available open space. Do I need to point out that you could fit two or three cars in the space that one truck occupies? This is another self-evident point: if we ban trucks from urban highways, we will have more room for cars on the road. I shouldn't need to mention that the extra space trucks require to accelerate and stop wastes additional space that could otherwise be occupied by more cars. Do you get the sense that I hate trucks? Enough about them.
4. There should be a 50% tax on domestic automobile sales and a 100% tax on foreign automobile sales. We Americans have developed the absurd idea that driving is some sort of individualistic right, not a special privilege. Thanks to the low interest rates set by the Fed following 9/11, and the need to produce more and more cars thanks to crippling union contracts, it's way too easy to buy a car. (I could go into it in more depth, but this is a rant, not a term paper.) If the common man needs to go to work, we should provide him with a common means of transportation. The country was founded on the belief that each man is his own individual ruler, but there's nothing in the Constitution about the right to live like a king. What's the cause of Americans' fear of dealing with one another? We are so anti-social, so reluctant to rub shoulders with our fellow citizens. If we insist on acting like islands unto ourselves (which I would argue is not the natural state of man) such a selfish stance should carry a hefty fine. The extra tax monies generated should be directed toward building a much more extensive system of passenger railway systems -- interstate, regional, and local -- which will produce a variety of benefits for society, not the least of which are environmental. Regular, face-to-face contact with our fellow citizens will, at the very least, make us deal with one another and thereby chip away at some of our more arcane fears of the other. It might sound slightly socialistic, but trains produce a leveling effect that can't but help make our country stronger.
So, there you have it. If we ever do witness an American Caesar, someone who is willing to buck the system and impose a revolution, I think he should start with completely revamping our transportation system. I am a Republican at the core, but I believe taxes should be used when appropriate. Anyway, I'm not much of a Republican these days; I'm definitely more of a Libertarian -- too bad the leaders of that party typically sound even crazier than I do.
In other news, I had a terrible premonition last night that we are in for a long summer of social upheaval; I am somewhat fearful that race riots are impending. Basically, I am throwing this out there at the tail end of this post because I think traffic and energy concerns contribute to rage across the broad spectrum of American society, and mass rage usually boils over into outward aggression against government institutions. It is becoming apparent to me at this point in history that Americans in general (and particularly in cities, and more particularly still among minorities) live in increasing fear of their government. For any republic to operate properly, the people must be the master, and the government must be the servant, but that is not the trend of current affairs. There seems to be a disconnect between what's best for the people and what the government is willing to offer, a point that is perfectly illustrated by our critically myopic transportation options. Some of this has to do with the Patriot Act. As Ben Franklin said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to a little security deserves neither and will lose both." Our liberties are under attack, and our security is at risk. Once that ball starts rolling, what to do you do about it?
Let's get one thing straight: energy is a situation, not a crisis. A sensationalist drama queen bent dominates American culture, and it ultimately does not serve greater society very well. Things aren't simply what they are; events are without exception described as either the best or the worst in absolute terms, and after a while, people tend to ignore both the important and the mundane. Unfortunately, this callousness forces us to accept even the crappiest of situations, and it makes us vulnerable to easily avoidable frustrations.
In terms of the present gas situation, I have yet to witness an epidemic of long lines at the pump, and to the best of my knowledge, not a single gas station has closed due to a lack of availability. On the flip side of this consideration, I haven't met one person who's had to cash out a college fund or take out extreme amounts of debt in order to fuel their car or fill their car's gas tank. Yet we are lead to believe that the nation faces the worst gas crisis in at least fifteen years or thirty years (or whatever the hell number of years you want to pull out of the dictionary of overemphasis regularly used by the modern media). Nothing is as self-fulfilling as hysteria, and it's a bothersome problem.
I spend a good deal of time thinking about matters of transportation -- not just the price energy, but how we get around, the nature of traffic, and the resulting economic impacts. I've come to the conclusion that, if we ever did face a real energy crisis, and a revolutionary solution was required, it would not be so difficult to alleviate the problem and improve the state of human affairs to boot.
Several thoughts on the subject:
The minimum driving age should be raised to 21. First off, my license was still warm from the laminating machine when I started plotting how to get a fake ID, and I succeeded within a month. If high school kids want beer, they find beer. Second, most 16 year olds are not yet physically developed into an adult body, and it worries me to think about a 100-pound zit bag handling a one-ton piece of machinery. Third, and this is harsh but true, most high school kids only have two years of driving before they head off to either college or the military, where they are usually either not allowed or have no need to have a car for at least two years. Given the number of sham schools and all the quick and easy debt floating around these days, and the fact that we're fighting two wars simultaneously, a kid who can't find a college or a branch of the service to accept him or her is probably mentally retarded. Fourth, let us take their refusal to vote as a statement of indifference to everything. Their decision to neuter themselves politically implies that they don't mind getting shafted. Anyway, their idea of political involvement never extends beyond an MTV reality show, an apathetic campus demonstration, or the t-shirt du jour, which are adult-managed undertakings anyway.
2. The maximum driving age should be 77. This would drive the AARP crazy, but I think there's something intrinsically good about anything that that vampire-like organization promotes. [AARP-related sidebar: Old people are completely engaged in the political process. Who do you think stuffs envelopes for congressmen? Who has unlimited time to think in-depths about public policy? Who watches C-SPAN? Therefore, retirees so totally enfranchised ought not to have a specialized lobbying group.] Realistically, modern humans begin to have major health issues as they approach the 80 range. Our ability to make rational decisions declines in a hurry, and we are prone to sudden health issues such as heart attacks and strokes. Mental lapses become daily occurrences, and most importantly, the mind's ability to think reactively becomes practically non-existent. Is it wise to let these people operate potentially dangerous pieces of equipment? I would say, no way in hell.
(Because I think they are such a problem, the next five points deal with the same problem.)
3a. All interstate trucking traffic should be banned in and around major metropolitan areas. If you think about it, achieving this goal would not be as hard as you might think. Some set of laws could be passed mandating that trucks operating within urban areas must have gas tanks allowing for no more than 10 miles of driving distance. For the life of me, I can't figure out why commuters are forced to drive slowly behind three shoulder-to-shoulder interstate trucks, when you know their routes probably run parallel to some series of train depots. Isn't it worthwhile for society as a whole to let our non-perishable goods sit on trains for an extra day or two, when you consider the time, energy and utility wasted by sitting around in traffic? You may ask, "What if somewhere is more than 10 miles from the nearest train depot?" I would say to you, "Be sensible, you short-sighted boob." Somewhere more than 10 miles from the nearest train is probably way the heck out in the middle of nowhere, and therefore pretty unlikely to have major traffic issues in the first place.
3b. When you drive on the highway as often as I do, you notice two main patterns of confusion on our highways, both of which come down to trucks. As I've discovered in a practical sense on a project I worked on this spring, systems can only operate as fast as the slowest mover. This point becomes terribly evident when there is apparently no reason for traffic, except that trucks take forever to stop and forever again to get rolling. Trucks clogging the highway at rush hour produces a big screw-you to car drivers, who are the ones who principally pay for the roads in the first place via taxes at the gas pump. My second point on this topic is, no one likes to drive behind trucks, especially people who don't like to drive fast in the first place, so what tends to happen is: slow morons get all the way over into the left lane, even if they're afraid to go faster than the trucks in the right two lanes, all so they don't have to drive behind the stupid trucks, thereby jamming up the people in back who would prefer to go faster than the trucks. One way or the other, trucks tend to cause traffic.
3c.) Instead of ganging up on businessmen, kicking the crap out of women, and employing horrendously obvious and immoral cover-ups, why don't we station cops on highway overpasses and nail trucks driving in the left lane? In Chicago, we have prominent signs at regular intervals that say "Trucks Use 2 Right Lanes" on our main 4-lane highway, yet trucks treat the 3rd lane as a passing lane. I suppose the Department of Transportation could draw picture signs to convey this (apparently) complex message to the truckers more easily, or maybe they could translate the signs into hillbilly ("Hey Y'All: Git 'Er Done Away From Yer Heart" -- might have to use a really, really tiny font.) Then again, it's not like the truckers would notice any sort of sign, given that most of them can't read, are high on crystal meth, or are too busy jerking off to bestiality porn. At any rate, when was the last time you saw a cop pull a truck over for a traffic offense?
3d. The price of diesel fuel should be kept artificially high to dissuade excessive trucking. When I was little my mom had a Mercedes that used on diesel fuel, but we got rid of it at least 15 years ago. I cannot for the life of me remember the last time I rode in a diesel-powered car. Diesel fuel is mostly there for trucks, so let's make the diesel a deterrent and thereby reduce the unnecessary amount of truck traffic clogging our highways. From an economic point of view, when you consider all the gas that idling cars are forced to waste thanks to the endless traffic caused by trucks, we would probably save money on the macro level by raising the price of diesel to nearly insane levels. We could then use the additional tax revenues to address the problems outlined in 3e and 4.
3e. Roads are built for cars, but trucks get to use them. We recently built a new road to the clubhouse at my golf course, and the guy from the paving guy informed me the only reason he's in business is: asphalt is manufactured with cars in mind, and trucks tear the shit out of it. So, if you think about it, without massive trucks rumbling down the highway, not only will passenger cars be able to move in an unimpeded fashion, we would avoid having to rebuild the same stretch of road every other years, thereby alleviating the potential for traffic jams caused by work sites. The cumulative economic benefits are obvious.
3f. Another main reason for traffic jams is, the number of cars on the road is greater than the available open space. Do I need to point out that you could fit two or three cars in the space that one truck occupies? This is another self-evident point: if we ban trucks from urban highways, we will have more room for cars on the road. I shouldn't need to mention that the extra space trucks require to accelerate and stop wastes additional space that could otherwise be occupied by more cars. Do you get the sense that I hate trucks? Enough about them.
4. There should be a 50% tax on domestic automobile sales and a 100% tax on foreign automobile sales. We Americans have developed the absurd idea that driving is some sort of individualistic right, not a special privilege. Thanks to the low interest rates set by the Fed following 9/11, and the need to produce more and more cars thanks to crippling union contracts, it's way too easy to buy a car. (I could go into it in more depth, but this is a rant, not a term paper.) If the common man needs to go to work, we should provide him with a common means of transportation. The country was founded on the belief that each man is his own individual ruler, but there's nothing in the Constitution about the right to live like a king. What's the cause of Americans' fear of dealing with one another? We are so anti-social, so reluctant to rub shoulders with our fellow citizens. If we insist on acting like islands unto ourselves (which I would argue is not the natural state of man) such a selfish stance should carry a hefty fine. The extra tax monies generated should be directed toward building a much more extensive system of passenger railway systems -- interstate, regional, and local -- which will produce a variety of benefits for society, not the least of which are environmental. Regular, face-to-face contact with our fellow citizens will, at the very least, make us deal with one another and thereby chip away at some of our more arcane fears of the other. It might sound slightly socialistic, but trains produce a leveling effect that can't but help make our country stronger.
So, there you have it. If we ever do witness an American Caesar, someone who is willing to buck the system and impose a revolution, I think he should start with completely revamping our transportation system. I am a Republican at the core, but I believe taxes should be used when appropriate. Anyway, I'm not much of a Republican these days; I'm definitely more of a Libertarian -- too bad the leaders of that party typically sound even crazier than I do.
In other news, I had a terrible premonition last night that we are in for a long summer of social upheaval; I am somewhat fearful that race riots are impending. Basically, I am throwing this out there at the tail end of this post because I think traffic and energy concerns contribute to rage across the broad spectrum of American society, and mass rage usually boils over into outward aggression against government institutions. It is becoming apparent to me at this point in history that Americans in general (and particularly in cities, and more particularly still among minorities) live in increasing fear of their government. For any republic to operate properly, the people must be the master, and the government must be the servant, but that is not the trend of current affairs. There seems to be a disconnect between what's best for the people and what the government is willing to offer, a point that is perfectly illustrated by our critically myopic transportation options. Some of this has to do with the Patriot Act. As Ben Franklin said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to a little security deserves neither and will lose both." Our liberties are under attack, and our security is at risk. Once that ball starts rolling, what to do you do about it?
posted by Pat at 12:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home