Hot on the heels of a New York Times report suggesting hydrofracking is even more dangerous than we thought, I learn that the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) has proposed allowing gas drillers to drill near the Delaware River. The Delaware gives 15 million folks drinking water, and you don't want to be lighting your tap water on fire, do you? You know, like good folks in other parts of the state do? Hence, Penn Environment helps you tell the DRBC to prevent anyone from drilling near the Delaware. It strikes me that opposing new gas drilling would be a profoundly conservative thing to do. What would a conservative do, if not remind us that the solution (gas drilling) can be worse than the problem (dependence on oil)? What would a conservative do, if not remind us that we should only implement new solutions once we're sure they're safe -- and we're actually pretty sure hydrofracking is not safe? See, this is why I don't call cookie-cutter TV right-wingers "conservative" -- because, you know, they're not.
Speaking of drilling-where-you-ain't-supposed-to, the Alaska Wilderness League helps you tell the Obama Administration not to drill in the Arctic Ocean. What's rule number one in re offshore drilling? There will be accidents. What's rule number two? Don't drill if you can't clean up your mess. And we've got good reason to think a mess in the Arctic would be even harder to clean up than that mess in the Gulf. The Arctic is very, very cold -- think thirty-degrees-in-July cold. The Arctic has some of the most violent storms in the world. And the Arctic has icebergs the size of large buildings. And, of course, the oil companies' refusal to hire enough people to clean up a spill properly just makes all of that worse. Again: what would a conservative do? A conservative would remind us not to make the solution worse than the problem. A conservative might even tell us that solar and wind power would be a relatively uncostly way of weaning ourselves off of oil. No, conservatives do say these things, because I've heard them say them. TV "conservatives" don't say them, but, as I've said, they're a bunch of fakes.
Finally, Atrios has been calling the Washington Post "Kaplan Test Prep Daily" for years, and I've never figured out why. Until now: turns out the Post owns Kaplan University, one of many online, for-profit schools that seem to do a much better job taking your money than giving you an education that might get you a job. I figure that's so because almost 70% of Kaplan's students drop out within six years, because almost a third of their students default on their loans, and because Kaplan's classes are often many, many times more expensive than comparable community college classes. It gets better: Kaplan targets low-income folks and veterans, and they take federal money -- federal money we could, you know, be using on things that work -- meaning that whenever a student defaults on a loan, the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill. I need not mention that subsidizing Kaplan also subsidizes the Post's parade of disgusting, warmongering op-ed writers and "media critics," do I? So change.org helps you tell the Post to shut Kaplan down until it can be reformed into something vaguely resembling what it's supposed to be.