Trot 'em out, buff 'em up, and lay 'em out on the table. The same tired old arguments for NOT conserving fuel.

EVERY time the government has proposed an increase in gas mileage, or decrease in emissions, the right-wing starts yelling it is not possible and if it is possible it is not affordable. They've said that about everything - gas mileage, emissions, safety improvements on cars, factory emissions, workers compensation, Social Security, accountability for HMOs, the works. Just can't afford 'em! Just not possible. Wouldn't be prudent.

Given their druthers, we would be getting 8 to 10 miles to the gallon and spitting carbon out the back of these things, but we could afford to drive a lot farther.

If a modest increase in gas mileage, and/or putting the reins on those enormous SUVs, would save us from drilling in ANWR, why not save what little bit of the heaven we have left? Seriously, why not do what we will have to do anyway, save every bit of oil for a valuable purpose, not hauling one person around in an Excursion or Expedition? A lot of the America I enjoy is there because someone, somewhere, resisted developing it. I'm sure a house on top of Half Dome would have a nice view, but it's great to be able to go up there without climbing over someones fence.

Contrary to popular opinion, not drilling in ANWR is costing the D's a lot. The unions really, really like the idea. The previous pipeline was good for union labor, big time. The D's sort of don't want to drill on principle. (The word is in the dictionary, for you conservatives. Maybe it's just in dictionarys used by liberals. Couldn't resist the comment, sorry. <mildly sorry>)

It doesn't seem to embarrasss the conservatives to keep saying the sky is falling every time some standard to improve mileage or reduce harmful emissions is proposed, even though the sky doesn't come down and the American economy is robust. Talk about "crying wolf".

Arf