Maybe these GOP senators will finally get around to approving drilling in ANWR to address these shortage issues as well.

It's fun to see how many freedom-loving types are straining at the bit to tell the rest of us that we may not buy or sell gasoline without the mark of the beast on our foreheads.

You can buy all you want as long as you pay what it costs your society.

"as long as you pay what it costs your society."

To get better gas mileage, you can simply build cars that are smaller and lighter. Like my GEO Metro. The costs to society will be when you hit a deer, guard rail, or, heaven forbid, a semi-truck.

Allen:

There are plenty of composite metals that are light but strong.

Matt: This is why I call him a lefty. Because his every instinctive turn is to the left.

oj, what is a composite metal? This sort of thing is amusing when you're Darwin-bashing, annoying when you venture out into the real world.

See, and I think you guys are leftists and trend-sucking dilettantes because you worship the anti-human automobile.

joe:

http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hs=POK&hl=en&lr=lang_en&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=lighter+composites+fuel+efficiency&btnG=Search

David Cohen:

This all comes down to OJ's dislike of modernism in general, of which automobiles are a part (along with skyscrapers and ugly baseball stadiums). That's a conservative impulse, if a somewhat quirky one for an American.

Further, let's say I tell you I have a hypothetical friend who is a Republican, a self-described conservative since childhood, a strong supporter of the military, instinctively patriotic, distrustful of secularism, contemptuous towards soccer, generally a strong supporter of President Bush, and so inclined to respect the old ways that he thinks leeching sick people is a good idea. This friend additionally believes that European welfare state societies are inching ever closer to a Stygian pit, and he gets a kick out of busting the jowls of leftist literary figures in the book reviews he posts on his website -- to the hysterical screams of the perpetually offended. Would you have trouble classifying this individual politically?

Granted, OJ's not a libertarian and he thinks government can be made to work in certain circumstances -- in other words, he's not doctrinaire. And most of his seemingly leftist opinions flow from conservative impulses -- i.e., he supports immigration because America is a great land of opportunity and we've always been good at assimilating people to our way of life.

The reason nine-tenths of the posters here are conservatives is because they recognize one of their own. You'll notice that most of the ornery lefty goblins who get shuttled to this site from God-knows-where don't seem to view OJ as their ideological pal.

To which I'd only add that libertarians are the enemy, as much as statists, because both are enemies of society.

There's a lot of low-hanging MPG fruit to be picked (on a fleet-weighted basis) before we force everyone into Mini-Cooper clown cars. Taxing the most extreme examples of automotive ostentation for their true cost to society is a reasonable start. To compensate the egos of the poor, insecure little rich people for the increased cost of their V-12 rocket or SUV the size of Delaware, we can always give them free viagra.

Of course, we should also be dealing with the supply-side issues as well. Shale oil at $35 per barrel, plus the refineries to process it, will kick the ball down the road for about another 100 years, by which time Ron Popeil should be offering the Mr. Fusion home reactor for $19.95 plus free shipping if you order NOW.

I tend to break libertarians down into two categories, reasonable versus idealistic. I'd put Hayek and Friedman in the first camp, Rand and Rothbard in the second.

I think you can work with the first group, because they are usually willing to cooperate with people who don't fully share their views (they can also have conservative streaks -- I once heard Friedman say that the primary problems of our society are moral and not economic, but that government has made those moral problems worse).

The second group tends to be more cultish. It's probably not wise for conservatives to associate with people who break off friendships over political disagreements and who believed that the Soviet Union was victimized by the overreaching, bureaucratic American military.

OJ is about as far left as Victor Davis Hanson and not an shortsighted dogmatic ideologue on every subject.

Actually Levin and the unions have been in the forefront against increasing CAFE standards hoping to preserve his constituency and save their jobs. Their efforts have marginalized Detroit competively to the nations detriment.

Face it ... on this subject you're to the left of OJ in siding with Levin and crew.

Incidentally, in listing OJ's attributes it occurred to me that he would make a great character in a novel. He seems like the kind of zany character you'd make up, throw into an amusing situation and watch what happens. The same thing goes for Harry Eager, bart, and many of the others who post here.

Must get out my notebook...

At least OJ doesn't have the hobgoblin of foolish consistency hanging about, as one can see by contrasting this post with the previous one.

Genecis: So conservatives should figure out which position to take based upon what position labor unions take? You can't really mean that. Levin and the Unions oppose CAFE standards because they are bad for the automobile industry. That's fine as far as it goes. I oppose them because they don't work (in fact, any effect, good or bad, is so far in the future that I suspect Domenici is simply using them to forestall more drastic ideas) and because I think that the federal government shouldn't be regulating that sort of thing.

Mr. Murphy:
I've had several people insist that OJ is a figment of my imagination. He's like my personal Snuffalufagus.

David Cohen:

Also note that they cause more vehicular deaths -- imagine the outrage if this were a sop to some Bush crony corporation and not an army of bureaucrats out to harass our nation's drivers and eat out their substance.

Governor Breck:

He once deleted a post I'd made because I accused him of making up one of the lefty trolls who frequent this website. The cast of characters here does seem suspiciously like a Simpsons episode, sometimes, wouldn't you agree, Governor Breck...if that is your real name? ;-)

oj,

Tin foil is a composite metal. You can even make a hat out of it.

Matt: trains are as modern as cars, and he loves trains. This is all just atavism, and that is why David's quite correct to lump him in with the left.

They're actually good for the domestic auto industry--anytime technological innovation is required it benefits Americans, not the outsourcing locales.

AOG:

Yes, if you don't want to fund the Sa'uds make cars lighter.

Trains are social vehicles.

Allen:

I wouldn't recommend it for your car though.

Hah, I knew you were a social-ist.

Yes, Socialists are statists, as libertarians are individualists. Judeo-Christians are social-ists.

So are cars, they reduce social friction by allowing people to go their separate ways who would do badly if forced into each other's company. Like for example if you and I had to share a train car, and you were to wind up travelling in the luggage rack. With cars you don't have that problem.

Actually, there's no place better to grab a nap than a luggage rack and especially on buses they're rarely filled.

Cars increase friction, thus road rage. Trains increase social intercourse and serve as a lubricant.

oj,

You're a good sport. Daffy at times, but ...

He is. He's still going in the luggage rack though.

Br'er Joe:

Please don't trow me in dat luggage rack....

How about the loo?

I've seen some lovely ones on long-haul trains in China.

Cars do not increase friction, some drivers do.

The same drivers that would wreck social intercourse on a train.

Anon

Bernard Gertz showed us how to lubricate that friction.

Only when one train cuts another off.

When it comes to the automobile, OJ is the ultimate NASCAR fan. Just keep turning left.

"Conservative" is a term of political convenience. It is an umbrella term for a variety of much smaller, more coherent group in coalition. The coalition is much larger and much less coherent, yet in general heading in the same direction. "Liberal" is the same thing. Neither term means in 2005 what it meant in 1980, 1968, 1945, 1929 or 1776. Many conservatives actually call themselves "classic liberals." And as been pointed out, the worse examples of liberalism or conservatism gone wrong have more in common with each other than they do with other members of that term.

The coalitions are not set in stone. It is the mark of politcal genius when one can establish a successful coaltion. FDR is one such. Reagan is another. Currently, the GOP is doing well because the Reagan coalition is still together. The Democrats aren't because they never cobbled together a successful coaltion after the old New Deal one fell apart in 1968.

From the way it sounds, if Clinton had been able to transform the Democratic Party post 1992 to a true centrist/"third way" platform, OJ would probably be happy to call himself a Democrat. But Clinton didn't so OJ stayed a Republican. This is probably why Cohen thinks he's lefty.

Coalitions are always tense because within it groups may disagree on specific issues important to them. But they tend not to split until a crisis puts those division at the forefront, and the political opposition has a stellar leader able to forge a new coalition that attracts defectors from the old one.

"See, and I think you guys are leftists and trend-sucking dilettantes because you worship the anti-human automobile."

This from a guy whose vehicles are a Suburban and a Zamboni.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 7, 2005 10:13 PM

Governor Breck:

What you say about OJ is disturbing because we were under the impression that you had seen him in the flesh.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 7, 2005 10:17 PM

Zamboni doesn't use any gas at all.

More support for a blood for oil policy. Surprising how popular it has been over the years, even though by now our losses from it are about the same as our losses in the Korean or Vietnamese wars.

(And, yes, I do drive a small car -- very carefully.)

I think he's a lefty because he believes all the things about America that the left believes. The difference is that he likes it like that.

OJ: "There are plenty of composite metals that are light but strong."

Nitpick: those are composite materials, not metals; carbon-fiber and the like. The sort of thing Burt Rutan builds aircraft out of. The RMI stuff is interesting, and potentially important, though I think there's a fair amount of optimism in their calculations.

My SUV is a bicycle.

Bill:

Point taken.

Another hilarious Bros Judd thread to wrench guffaws from my stony mien.

Matt Murphy, I still think that Orrin is Ignatius J. Reilly from A Confederacy of Dunces. Or he would have been if he wasn't happily married :-)

He is neither a Conservative nor a lefty, but a New England transcendentalist.

Proof: he marches to the beat of a different drummer, and he makes a better mousetrap, wherefore we beat a path to his door.

I still haven't made up my mind whether to sue him for putting out an addictive product or send him a cool million for making me smarter.

Does The Wife get a vote?

Eugene S:

As you point out, he's already got it made. Send me the cool million.

I suspect she'd vote for tossing him in the loo.

"Does The Wife get a vote?"

Does anybody but She Who Must Be Obeyed, ever get a vote?

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 9, 2005 9:17 PM