Michigan Radio News

NPR News

« Essay: Where Are We Trying to Go? - 07.21.09 | Main | Essay: A Bridge Too Far - 07.23.09 »

July 22, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What? Can it be true? Is Jack Lessenberry suggesting that less regulation (less security regulation in this instance) might be good for the economy? Praise the Lord, and pass the tax cuts, brother. Hallelujah! Jack Lessenberry has seen the light!

Now, mindful of the fact that we really did foil one terrorist at the Canadian border (see, e.g., Millennium Bomb plot, LAX airport), I'm kind of sympathetic to the bipartisan approach taken in strengthening border security. Jack Lessenberry, of course, cannot resist taking a shot at anything that references 9/11 or the Bush era. But at least "border security" offers us something in return for the degree to which it might cramp the style of truckers carrying auto parts across the river. And that would be, uh, "security." If anybody suggests that there are better ways to increase border security, I'm all ears. I don't think that's what Jack Lessenberry is suggesting, however. Jack isn't suggesting better security. He's suggesting scorn for the Bush era.

As to other large regulatory schemes affecting our region, when was the last time you heard Jack Lessenberry complain about something like CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards, which are far more impactful on domestic auto-making, and which offer us all nothing in return. (Unlike "secuirty.") Thanks to CAFE, we don't get less gasoline consumption, or less carbon emission -- the kinds of things that Barack H. Obama and the Congressional Democrats are always yapping about in any CAFE discussion. How do we know? Years and years of experience with CAFE tells us that. You increase fuel economy; people tend to drive more, or drive bigger cars. You increase the price of gasoline (Democrats don't have the courage of their convictions to do that) and people use less of it. It's that simple. What CAFE does give us is a less competitive domestic auto production environment. With no "green" benefits.

But back to border security: here's to the celebration of The New Jack Lessenberry - Deregulation Crusader! Yay!

I love Canada but it is a doormat for America and a haven for drugs, terrorists etc.

Of course the Bush era was a cluster fuck and discussions about CAFE standards is a waste of time since the Big 3 could not give away cars even with robust rebates in this economy.CAFE regulations did not destroy the domestic auto industry backward thinking auto CEO's and inflated ego's of those in the domestic auto industry were more lethal.

Our homeland security & law enforcement folks as usual are worthless of course have profiled Mexico while giving Canada a free pass on racial profiling ( really makes no sense most domestic terrorists in our nation have been white males i.e think Tim McVeigh and others).

Regulation is the evil force which is causing the meltdown in America of course weak minded thinkers always like to to float simple excuses..

Jack's best point is that the Sept. 11 hijackers did succeed in frightening us into restricting our own way of life, and damaging our own economy and growth.

How does restricting bridge/tunnel travel stop the committed terrorist? (Ever hear of a row-boat?) How does it stop the next Timothy McVeigh?

Guess I won't be getting up to the Stratford Shakespeare Festival with my wife this year -- unless we fork out and wait for our newly required passports. Sad.

Much sadder when you expand that to the huge numbers of people who will be similarly impeded, let alone the losses with commercial traffic.

The comments to this entry are closed.

A Production of

***UPDATE 9/2/09: Read the user agreement, effective immediately.***

The Podcast


April 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30