Transportation for America is a serious group with a serious agenda of promoting infrastructure investment in the United States.

But its recent venture into public organzing, the launch of a web site called MyCommuteSucks.com, seems as juvenile as it is crude.

It's one thing to "spread the rage," as one of its prominent tabs reads, but channeling that anger into actual policy is far more difficult. Rage is essentially mindless, and it can easily be hijacked to support a policy of disinvestment -- such as a counterproductive but oh-so-appealing gas tax holiday.

If you're going to win support for a program of focused and smart investment -- with the necessary revenue to support it -- you need appeals to reason rather than rage. But look at this nonsense petition on MyCommuteSucks.com:

Dear Congress,

My commute sucks and it's not getting any better. Stop pouring billions into a broken system.

Transportation shouldn't be an expensive, dirty burden. Fix it, clean it, make it work!

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

So how is a member of Congress supposed to interpret such a communication? Does Mr. or Mrs. Undersigned support more transportation spending or less? Would the petitioner support higher gas taxes or not? Does this citizen want a shift from emphasizing roads to transit or not?

At some level, I understand what Transportation for America is trying to do. But this seems to be more about catharsis than solutions. Or is it just a way of building up a big email list for future fund-raising? I'm doubtful it will be effective on that level either.