Energy and NIMBY Liberals

The Vatican can go solar, but Amherst won't!

A few years ago a neighborhood group stopped by my house to solicit my signature for a petition. The cause? They wanted to derail a planned housing development a few hundred yards away. I declined to sign. To do so would have been hypocrisy of the highest order. After all, Phoenix and I live in a neighborhood that three decades ago was the howling wilderness. Okay, I exaggerate, but there wasn’t a single house here twenty-five years ago. In fact, there wasn’t even a road--just trails blazed by deer and the occasional hunters who stalked them.

Want to know why liberals get a bad rap? The NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) Syndrome is one of the reasons. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately because I live in Massachusetts, a (very) blue state with a reputation for being so liberal that rightwing talk shows use us as a synonym for the Anti-Christ. That’s true enough and helps to explain why I live here. (It surely isn’t for the balmy winters!) But when it comes to NIMBY development, Bay Staters can give Southern rednecks a good run for their money in the hypocrisy derby.

Exhibit A: Wealthy Nantucket residents continue to battle plans to develop an offshore wind farm project, though they won few friends by complaining how the aesthetics of it would ruin their view and devalue their multi-million-dollar properties. It looks as if, at long last, they’re going to lose that struggle and the windmills will be built, but one wonders why these folks weren’t leading the effort to build, not stop the project. Shouldn’t people with resources be the ones to pave the alternative energy highway?

Exhibit B: The latest NIMBY protest is unfolding in Amherst, a city allegedly so liberal that it was once dubbed “the only town in America with its own foreign policy.” The University of Massachusetts unveiled a plan to erect a 2-megawatt solar array on university property. This galvanized the liberals across the street (and behind a screen of trees, by the way) into action that some of them haven’t seen since roughly 1968. They accused the university of seeking to ruin their neighborhood, dubbed the project “the dragon,” and succeeded in forcing it to be relocated. (It will go to neighboring Hadley. If there is any justice, it’s that Amherst won’t get any potential revenue from the sale of future energy.)

What a Bunch of NIMBY Numskulls! Look, folks, it’s this simple: the days of cheap energy are over. Oil is going to run out. We need new sources of energy, even if it means you have to look at solar panels when you walk your Pomeranian. Those of us who have been blessed with good fortune simply can’t adopt an “I’ve-got-mine-let’s-stop” attitude. I don’t advocate destruction, but I’d shed no tears if a few Amherst Volvos with “Go Solar” bumper stickers got vandalized. And “Boo! Hiss!” to UMass for caving in. The university should have done what Governor Deval Patrick did on Nantucket: tell the locals to suck it in and adjust.

Vance Gilbert Embarrassment Reveals Farce of Security Check System

Just your average looking "Middle Eastern" kind of guy?

Who knew that Vance Gilbert was a security risk? A recent flight from Boston bound for Washington was aborted when an alarmed passenger spotted folksinger Vance Gilbert reading a book about aircraft that had lots of photos of cockpits. The plane returned to the terminal, Gilbert was taken from the plane, questioned by police and the Transportation Safety Administration, returned to the craft, and allowed to proceed to the Nation’s Capitol, a place where black men such as he were once bought and sold. Apparently, D.C. policymakers still haven’t figured out what to do with people of color.

If you believe a Boston Globe op-ed on this, the incident was regrettable, but understandable. To whatever Globe writer penned this unsigned piece I reply, your logic is flawed, your attempt at taking a middle position is insensitive, and your assertion that all panicked travelers must be taken seriously is brick-headed thick. The Globe admits that Gilbert was “wronged,” but points out that we can’t, on one hand, tell passengers to be on the lookout for suspicious people and, on the other, ignore their tips. Yes we can. We must investigate reasonable concerns, but to surrender to pure panic means that--to pull a 9/11 phrase--the terrorists have won. It’s smackdown time on the Globe’s logic.

Was Vance Gilbert racially profiled? Of this there can be no doubt. The Globe op-ed actually used this phrase: “Gilbert is African-American but can pass for Middle Eastern.” My God! Did someone actually write this? Was that person oblivious to what the term “pass” means in the black community? That sort of language is as offensive as if the writer had come out and said, “All colored people look alike to me.”

Let’s go a bit further. This plane was taxiing down a runway when it reversed course. This means that Mr. Gilbert had (supposedly) already been screened when he bought his ticket, and again when he passed through security. If he was suspicious or dangerous, shouldn’t the TSA have flagged and snagged him before he boarded? The incident is more than regrettable; it exposes what many of us have been saying all along: airport security isn’t real; it’s merely an illusion designed to prop up the airline industry. That same industry, by the way, has balked at the expense of taking measures that would actually increase security, such as x-raying every single bag that goes into the hold and requiring every passenger to submit to a full body scan before boarding. (Note to the overly modest: Stay home if you don’t want TSA personnel to see a scan of your body.) And, if you think that anyone is really doing background checks on ticket purchasers, you’re naïve. There are some names in a computer database that automatically trigger alerts, but no one is checking each name. That would take a lot more TSA personnel, which Congress won’t authorize because, my goodness, they might join a labor union.

Nonetheless, couldn’t the crew have checked out Gilbert without humiliating him in front of the entire plane? I’ve only met Gilbert a few times, but I can tell you what everyone says about him--that he’s seen as one of the gentlest souls in the music business. He’s witty, talented and, above all, kind. Vance Gilbert represents the sort of security risk that one might associate with a monarch butterfly. He was on a plane filled with computers and in constant contact with the flight tower. How hard is it to send a message to the tower the essence of which would have been: “We have a passenger in seat 28G. Can you run a quick check on him?” Even a Google search would have revealed a profile the likes of: Gilbert, Vance, folksinger, benign.

And now the piece de la crétin. The book Gilbert was reading was on vintage aircraft. That’s right--old airplanes…. I’m no pilot, but I’m thinking that maybe a DC-10 or a Boeing 767 is a bit different in makeup, design, and operation than your average Fokker triplane. Couldn’t one of the flight attendants doing pre-takeoff checks have walked by Gilbert’s seat and said, “Hey, whatcha’ reading there? Old planes? Cool!” Let’s not kid ourselves; that’s exactly what would have happened if Gilbert looked like a white salesman from Iowa.

The Globe would have us believe that “the State Police, Transportation Administration, and United Airlines all acted reasonably.” I’d agree if we replace the word “reasonably” with “predictably.” In my view, each owes Gilbert a public apology, and he’s magnanimous enough that he’d likely accept it. As for the rest of us, I’d say that we ought to express our disgust to the TSA, United Airlines, and Congress. Demand an end to the farce that currently passes as airport security. Give us real checks that treat everyone exactly the same way, or just tell us that we’re on our own when we board.

If anyone out there knows Vance, tell him that Rob Weir of the Valley Advocate couldn’t be sadder or more outraged that this happened to him. Peace, bro.