And this guy gets PAID to do this

Every time I read John Tierney, I become ever-more amazed that an idiot like this actually gets paid by the New York Times to write this stuff. There was a time when there were actually thoughtful opinions on the right. The early adherents to the neocon movement; guys like Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol and the other lunatics for whose books I used to write jacket and catalog copy back in the early 1980's when I worked at Simon & Schuster were wrong, but at least they arrived at their right-wing views via something approaching a thought process.

Today we have people like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter -- and John Tierney:

The problem with Americans is not that we're addicted to oil. As soon as oil becomes more trouble than it's worth, we will sensibly stop putting it in our cars. Until then, our problem is that we're addicted to politicians with plans for energy independence, like the Advanced Energy Initiative introduced by President Bush in his budget yesterday.

What exactly is so wrong with burning oil? The best argument is that it contributes to global warming. But so does burning coal and other fossil fuels. The fairest and most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be with a carbon tax on all fossil fuels.

But the advocates for energy independence want to do more than just regulate emissions. Since Jimmy Carter put on his cardigan sweater and declared saving energy "the moral equivalent of war," politicians determined to wean us from imported oil have been hectoring us with bogus arguments:

[snip]

We must take away the Middle East's "oil weapon." The only real oil weapon is the one that American politicians use to justify energy plans and Middle East adventures. It doesn't matter if our enemies in the Persian Gulf refuse to sell us oil directly. Once they sell it to anyone, it's in the global market and effectively available to us.

The only way to hurt us would be to refuse to sell to anyone, but Middle Eastern countries are far more dependent on oil than we are: their oil revenues constitute a much bigger percentage of their income than their oil represents as a fraction of our imports.

If Osama bin Laden took over Saudi Arabia, why would he want to risk a popular uprising from citizens suddenly cut off from their accustomed cut of the national income? Selling oil makes sense, as bin Laden himself acknowledged when he said in an interview in 1996, "We are not going to drink it."

The United States spent decades propping up the shah of Iran only to see the country fall into the hands of our archenemies, but Iran is still exporting oil — and it is a lot more reliable producer than Iraq, despite all the money and lives we've spent there. The best guarantee of future oil supplies is the sellers' greed, not our diplomatic and military efforts.

When something finally comes along that's cheaper and more reliable than oil, no national energy plan will be necessary. Capitalists will be ready to sell it to eager American drivers. For now, the best strategy is to buy gasoline and stop worrying that it's sinful or dangerous.

When you hear politicians calling you an addict and warning that you'll be cut off, try my plan for energy independence. It's modeled on the Daily Affirmation of Stuart Smalley, that recovering addict and devotee of 12-step programs (whose creator on "Saturday Night Live," Al Franken, will probably be horrified).

After you fill up your tank, twist the rear-view mirror so you can gaze at yourself. Repeat these words: "I'm good enough, I'm rich enough, and doggone it, people in the Middle East like my money."

Yes, people in the Middle East DO like our money. And every dollar that we spend at the pump goes right into the pockets of the very same people that the Bush Administration claims are the reason we have to allow the government to monitor whom we call, what we look at on the Web, what books we take out of the library, and with which organizations we are affiliated.

I can only think that Tierney's real agenda in this column has nothing to do with an energy independence plan. He's simply doing his part to make sure that Bush's relentless march towards dictatorship can continue unimpeded by something as inconvenient as moving towards a post-oil economy.