| re: CA high speed rail One might be tempted to point out that proceeding to build an automobile based infrastructure in earnest just as one's domestic oil production was peaking was ill-advised. One might be tempted to point out that refusing to even admit that there might be a problem with importing 60% of one's oil to keep said automobile infrastructure going right about when the world's oil production is peaking is, well, batshit crazy. And one might also point out that a continued irrational attachment to one's automobile based infrastructure, in defiance of international finance norms, of international law (when one needs to 'unilaterally' launch wars to dislodge 'terrorists' from the 2nd or 3rd biggest puddle of oil in the world), and a rejection of the most certain cure, rail; well, one could, couldn't one? But then one would be off-topic, wouldn't one? |
