TheAgitator.com
TMQ’s Axle of Evil
Tuesday, January 21st, 2003Jonathan Adler calls out mega-babe gawker, New Republic senior editor, NFL afficianado, Atlantic Monthly editor, and TheAgitator.com favorite Gregg Easterbrook over his simplistic rage at SUV owners.
I find myself siding a little with Adler on this one, and a little with Easterbrook. On the one hand, I would never, ever, ever, ever own an SUV. I find them obnoxious, and when I find myself swearing at someone on the road for remedial driving, that person is almost always behind the wheel of an SUV. My mind’s eye picture of the typical SUV owner is the dick villain in every cheesy ’80s movie — the blowdried trust fund kid with a pink sweater tied over his shoulders. He’s probably named “Biff” or “Ralph” and he’s always dating the girl Anthony Michael Hall is pining for.
That said, I just can’t bring myself to align with the Arianna Huffingtons of the world. Yes, I know, what Arianna’s doing is mere consumer activism — an integral part of a market economy. But I can’t help but question Arianna’s motivations, and where those motivations will take her next. Methinks it’s only a matter of time before she drops the benign tools she’s using at the moment (guilt, ridicule) and grasps for more binding ones (legislation, regulation).
First off, I would like to correct myself Radley. I commented on the Detroit Project commercials having not seen them and having not seen Huffington’s talking head pieces – she does seem to be advocating emission standards as well as consumer responsibility.
That being said, I think that you can be anti-SUV from a consumer advocacy position but stop short of asking Washington to pass more laws and regulations. Closely paralleling the anti-war debate that was going on yesterday, sometimes groups that for the most part are completely wrong, get it right. Sometimes there is a genuinely good idea taken too far by well-meaning by misguided individuals. The goal is not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just like you would not attend a rally with ANSWER, don’t give money to the Detroit project while they advertise, in part, that regulations are the answer. But still, there is room for a reasoned debate on the issue, and if you believe that people, on their own, without the government forcing them too, should stop buying SUV and other high gas using vehicles – make that argument. It is the only way that libertarianism can truly work. If the government is not going to tell us when something is wrong, it is because we have to tell ourselves – and that requires someone making the argument.
The reason you find yourself hating SUV drivers (and the reason for their ineptitude on the road) is because they are the same people that were behind the wheels of mini-vans in the 80â??s and early 90â??s.
Mary Schmich (the woman who wrote the “Wear Sunscreen” column that became the standard “end of high school” song) wrote a column in this Sunday’s Chicago Tribune about SUVs that I largely agreed with.
She puts aside the debate about gas consumption and safety and everything else and says that the real issue with SUVs is space. SUVs are too big to see around when you’re behind them, and when they’re behind you their headlights are overpowering. Parking next to them is a pain in the ass, as is maneuvering around a tight parking garage with one coming the opposite way.
Ultimately, that’s what it comes down to for me. They’re too goddam big for someone to drive around crowded cities.
The link to the article is at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0301190422jan19,0,1948700.column
In my youth — which wasn’t so long ago, mind you — the prevailing attitude was that farmers and ranchers drove trucks, and people in cities drove cars (if they drove at all). Now, every dipshit far and wide feels the need to overcompensate for their, ahem, shortcomings by driving troop transports. I liked it better when those sorts of people bought Corvettes and Ferarris… at least they didn’t block out the sun when they were nearby.
Aye, there’s the rub – we still have farmers and ranchers and people who need to tow RVs or boats or people who plow snow or have six kids.
I don’t drive an SUV, but I don’t condemn people who own them either. Granted, a single bobo who lives in Adams Morgan doesn’t need and can’t park a Suburban. But there are plenty of people who do need an SUV.
That’s why Huffington’s huffing really twists my knickers. Is she going to run those ads in Alaska or Maine?
All this is making me want to go out and buy and SUV just to stick it in their ear. The only thing I have against SUVs is their lousy gas mileage. Oh, and the supersized Navigator-types that really are a hindrance to others.
Well folks, I am one of these SUV driving assholes. I like it and am a proud owner. I wore out two sports cars before that and swore then to never own a 4×4 truck type contraption.
Then the woman came along, then a house in need of some Home Depot supplies, later a baby (together with strollers, diaper change supplies, and large bags of shopping – more diapers). The car wouldn’t do the trick so it was either a van or an SUV. While both physically are just as large, the SUV puts more iron around my family. Some day, when you get to this stage, you might come to the same conclusion, unless some shit-for-brains polit-buro politician decides that your choice of vehicles just doesn’t agree with his/her personal tastes…..
Yes SUVs are a bitch to park, they burn gas but they have their use – kind of like transport trucks…..
Transport Trucks, man I hate those fucking things, they are big, burn lots of fuel, are a bitch to park and you can’t see around them. The drivers, probably named “Ed” or “Al”, cruise along like they just don’t care, fart in their seats and eat greasy foods which are known to cause random health scares almost every day. Something must be done about this……….yeah.
There is no need for huge SUVs. But, I live in Colorado. I know most of you guys live out in the East. In about 3/4 of our parking lots, there is “SUV and Truck Parking” and “Compact Car Parking”. We need SUVs.
No way that I want anyone in my family to drive anything but an SUV. It’s just too unsafe in the snow. On a really snowy day, you see all those little Honda Accord’s, Toyota Camry’s, and even little trucks like Chevy S-10′s stuck or driving about 6 mph on the highway while in an SUV, you fly right by goin just about whatever speed and it feels dry under your tires.
I can understand the gas mileage argument, which is why the huge SUVs are not only inconsiderate, but even illogical (why would you want to pay $50 every time you fill up when your car can only take you a couple hundred miles). But the mid size SUVs are the only way to go out here, unless you want to be late for work every day.
I drive an SUV, I love it, and I don’t really care what anyone thinks about it. My name’s not Biff and I’ve never driven a minivan or a Ferarri. Since I’m not a man, I don’t have any of those Male “shortcomings” for which I must overcompensate. I don’t pull a boat, I don’t have six kids and I don’t have any plans to have six kids.
I have absolutely no justification for owning my vehicle. But that’s the great thing about America, right? I don’t have to tell anyone why I want to drive what I want to drive.
SUV guy and Dave:
As I hope I have made clear through all this discussion, I am with you guys. Coca-Cola is bad for me. Its basically sugar water and I would probably be a lot healtier if I just cut it out of my diet completely. Still, I have 2-3 cokes a day. Sometimes I just need a coke. I don’t think the government should ban them, but if coke was as healty as water, I’d be drinking 10-15 a day. The point is, before I go to the machine to get my self a Coke, I ask myself if I really need it. If I don’t, I don’t buy one. I just think it should be the same thing for SUV drivers.
Well put Bryan. I love red meat, the government would have to pry steak from my dead, lifeless fingers. But if I could will myself to eat less, I certainly would.
Jill, SUV guy, et al.:
I think most regular readers of this site would agree with you that you are most definitely free to buy and drive whatever you want, even if you are single and choose your Escalade or Hummer solely for the fact that it is a trendy, status symbol of a car.
I also think most would agree that normal-sized SUVs like Explorers and Blazers have many legitimate functions and are not what anti-SUV people are opposed to. At least not me.
As a resident of Chicago who lives on a narrow street with real parking problems, it is just frustrating that an Expedition (or worse, an Excursion)takes up two parking spots and sticks itself much further out from the curb than a standard-sized car does. And many people are nervous about parking close behind one, because they are more difficult to maneuver and a standard parallel parking “love tap” from an SUV would likely inflict some damage to the front of your car.
That’s my problem with SUVs. Buy ‘em up and drive ‘em all you want. If it makes you feel safer, great (although recent numbers suggest that rollover deaths make SUVs less safe than you think). But just know that there are lots of other people that live on your street who can’t find a spot because you’re using two or can’t squeeze past a waiting taxi because your car is too fat and is sticking out or can’t see around you to know if its safe to turn.
I guess it just comes down to courtesy for me. No, I don’t think you are supporting terrorists by driving SUVs, and no I don’t think you are destroying our planet, and no I don’t think any regulations would be a good idea. But yes, your giant SUV annoys the hell out of me.
I don’t see the logic with the coke comparison… Unless you’re referring to a caffeine addiction, then the need really is only a want. Failing to drink a coke isn’t going to end your life (or even do it harm – probably quite the opposite) so what you’re really saying is that you want a coke, so you get a coke. Whether you purchase one is based on a variety of factors including how else you could spend your dollar, how badly you want one, your finances, etc… I have an SUV from a combination of want and need (family), and while yes, I sometimes look at people and think “what the hell do you need an H2 for,” I don’t think they are irresponsible or bad people for having one (they may be). After all, who am I to judge the motivations, priorities, or the degree of need of others??
Well said Eric, knowing that a fat ass SUV gets takes up some space, I make sure to be as courteous as I can be, I even get out of the way if a faster car catches up to me on the freeway, imagine that ;-)
Having said that I own a mid size SUV which is no different from a mini-van in its ‘foot-print’. In winter I see little Hondas bouncing off curbs and feel sorry for those who need to punch through the snow to get to work, but I guess they save $300 per year on gas or something like that.
I agree that bigger SUVs may be too big for some. They are like small buses really, but that somehow never annoyed me. I really don’t know what the big deal is, as I said, there is a number of trucks and buses of all sizes and shapes out there already, dealing with what amounts to a small mini-bus is nothing.
City planners designing narrow streets / parking spots are playing mind-games with the public – buy ‘small’ or face hassles, it seems.
You can see it if you travel a bit and visit different cities, some are friendly towards bigger cars others are not. I don’t know, maybe it’s just an optical illusion.
Eric, I totally agree. You don’t need an Excursion to drive through snow, pick up five kids, take your wife to the mall, get groceries, drive dramatically through water like on the commercials, trek mountain passes, go skiing, camping or hunting, or anything else. But little SUVs are definitely a different story.
Wait a minute. I drive an SUV. It’s a Jeep Wrangler with 60 pounds of bird crap on the hood. My name is not “Biff M”.
What kind of stereotyping is going on here.
Damn the gas mileage and support for terrorists, you just try and run down the neighbor’s kids in an accord. Little bastards think they’ve got it made if they get to the porch. “Not Today Jackass.” I yell while dropping the transfer into low.
(Jim M wonders if he typed that out loud)
Jill, you couldn’t be more wrong. It’s not at all uncommon for females to feel the need to fill inadequacies with gigantic SUVs. Just look at the H2 marketing line…
Something you people back east jUSt don’t understand. We people out west have bigger families, spend alot of time in the outdoors, and tow trailers and boats we use suv’s for a purpose…
I get so tired of whiny so called “intellectual” people back east trying to shove their values and ideas down the rest of the country’s throat. If you don’t like suv’s don’t buy them!
Actually, as someone “out west” (is L.A. out west enough?) I’m sick of SUV drivers shoving their SUV’s pollutants down my throat. I don’t like SUVs, and I don’t buy them. But then, I guess I’m pretty “intellectual”, so I’m not entitled to my opinion.
Why is it that I have to get my friggen Civic tested every year while Biff’s SUV gets to pass with emissions that my Civic could never ever produce?
If you live in LA, the pollutants were there long before SUVs were around. SUVs are adding just like all the crap in the hellhole
Come on, complaining about SUV’s is like peeing to put out a 4 alarm fire.
Personally, I think anyone who purchases a car that gets less than 21 miles to the gallon is a fool. But why the big beef with SUV drivers? Why not take on those who drive two blocks when they could walk. Or those who drive older cars? Or for that matter, why not complain about people who have too much extra square ft in their househoulds? Or who who burn unnecessary fires in their fireplace? Wouldn’t it be more effective to put all this energy into convincing the AUTOMAKERS to give us %^%#@# hybrid engines?
Sure, it’s stupid to drive around in a big gas hog. But jumping on this band-wagon is only wasting gas. Let’s put our energy (puns intended) into really doing something to reduce emissions rather than having a big stone throwing party at ordinary people we like to stereotype as “Biff”.
Becky,
I think inherent in this debate is that people should do whatever they can to save gas and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. You point out a number of good ways to start. Most convincing is the walk instead of drive argument. It becomes a little more impractical for people to sell or destroy existing houses to live in smaller ones, but you could turn the heat down a degree or two – even that would save something. I pick on the SUV drivers because it seems most people buy a new car every 4-5 years (especially the types of people who would buy an SUV). With their purchases coming around so often, hopefully a argument against SUVs here and there might cause them to think about the effect their decision actually has. All I am say is if we are ready to go to war against another country (and even against something as broad as terrorism itself) lets all do our part. We can’t just ask the government and more importantly our soldiers to do something, and possibly die, without at least thinking about what we can do in our daily lives to help the cause. Its not a government mandate, its simple civic responsibility.
What kind of meaningful solution can government possibly produce??? And the fact of the matter for hybrids is that they are not feasible in our market today – they’re too expensive, inefficient, small, etc… Here’s an excerpt from TCS about hybrids (the rest of the article is about fuel cells and should be of interest to anyone from LA):
“Their little gas-electric Insight Hybrid, for example, introduced in December 1999, caused a furor among the elite press. They ignored the fact that it would carry only two passengers and no luggage and cost the company perhaps twice its selling price of $20 grand. So far only 10,000 of the tiny machines have been sold, although the larger Civic hybrid and the Toyota Prius have been more successful in the market (almost 40,000 Prius have been sold). But industry experts still believe each involves a huge loss for what are essentially elaborate publicity stunts.”
The rest of the column can be found at:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-010903B
Fine, don’t send your congressman a letter about hybrids.
I’m not sure if you read my whole post or just the last few lines. My point was that this whole SUV thing is just a way to point fingers at others which allows the finger pointer the illusion he is actually doing something constructive to solve the energy crisis, when in fact he isn’t doing a damn thing.
It may be fun to dog ol’ Biff, but if doing so allows you to feel the energy crisis is entirely his responsiblity then it is just an illusion. Since we are both unnecessarily burning the kilowats in this chat room maybe we should get off ol’ Biff’s back and put down the stones.
I love the American auto-industry’s “But only X number of hybrids have been sold!” argument. Go to your local Toyota or Honda dealership and ask for one of their hybrids. They fly off the shelves. If GM et al doesn’t quit hiding their heads in the sand, the automobile market is going to pass them by. Of course a few well placed campaign contributions will save them once again…
Becky,
My solar-powered laptop is totally fossil fuel independent. Uh oh! Clouds coming, gotta go!
re: gotta go.
ha, ha… me too. Time for me to write that letter in support of hybirds :-)
Detroit always has their head in the sand. Instead of picking on the hapless SUV owners – I say we turn our sights directly onto them!
I’m trying to do my part regarding motown by vowing never to buy American until they work out their issues. It’s not a hard promise to keep, though, when you compare their product to that of their competitors…
They may “fly off the shelves” but why would Honda keep making them if they loose $20,000 per vehicle?? If you call not wanting to lose money for each car they sell “keeping their heads in the sand” then we’ve got some issues to work out… Point fingers all you want, but until the price of gas goes up significantly, we’ll still see SUVs with combustion engines because auto makers will see no reason to lose money on hybrids…
One reason they might lose money is because they make too few of them. If their overhead is high (as I am sure it is) but the output is low (as we know it is) then they are going to lose 20,000 on every car because there is no way anyone is going to pay 20,000 extra over what they charge now.
The point is Paul, if they are flying off the shelves, there may be more of a market than the automakers are acknowledging.
However, the other side of the coin Becky, in order for more hybrids to be made there does have to be a market that can support them. One way to do this is to social stigmatize SUV drivers. People don’t want to be disliked and if a majority of Americans make it known that they think ill of SUVs and their drivers, some consumers won’t buy an SUV because they want to be liked. It is a common advertising tool. Unfortunately Detroit is not going to put a budget behind advertising the hybrid because the risk is too high (no company wants to invest all that money into something that they don’t know that the population as a whole will take to). That is why it is up to the average American to advertise for the hybrid and against the SUV until it becomes a safer bet.
I think social stigma is certainly preferable to legislation. Look what it did to drunk driving! The pro-SUV side has millions in marketing dollars to counter it with, so I think a little bit of it is healthy. While I might not want to be on the receiving end, I easily avoid that by not being part of this particular problem. Every other problem, yes, just not this one. Seriously though, if I were an SUV driver, and were bothered by the stigma associated with it, hopefully I would consider a different option next time I bought a new ride.
Well – if SUV drivers were the biggest energy problem that we face – then your logic would make sense.
First let me state that my car gets 32 mpg freeway and my husband’s gets about 26. So I’m not defensive.
But you are buying into this myth that it is the SUV owners that are the biggest problem. They are not. Why not MiniVans? Trucks are bad. Big ol’ Lincoln Town cars and Cadillac’s are bad. The focus on SUV’s is because that’s what the campaign organizers told you to get upset about.
My point is that this is all just a packaged campaign that’s designed to benefit somebody somewhere and you are sucking up the bait.
I guess I really don’t care if you want to play along. But just know that your shaming an blaming is more of a reflection of your following the pied piping of Arrianna Huffington (9,000 sq ft home) and Lear(21 car garage) than it is your desire to improve air quality. If it was, the Mini Vans and Cadillacs would cause you the same grief.
But go ahead and flogg them if it makes you feel better. It’s no skin off of my nose.
By all means point out where I am misusing oil. I hardly drive – I take the El here in chicago, or I walk. My apartment is a few degrees colder than I would otherwise like it.
Am I perfect, no. Do I think SUV drivers should be stoned, no. Do I think someone should point out the hypocracy of wanting a war on terror and an invasion of Iraq when the person calling for both is driving around in a machine among the most efficient in funding those they want to kill, yes.
Like I said, call me out when it is applicable. I am sure there are ways I could conserve more. If your suggestion is valid – as I feel mine is for most people – I will follow it and a little less money will find its way into the hands of those who have already tried to kill you at least once.
Oh yeah, I have been saying this all since before Huffington. Truth be told I first thought about it when watching Politcally Correct early last summer. I hear it from someone else (Bill Muher(sp?) but I think pretty much all good ideas come from someone else at some point. the fact is, it makes sense. You should be less concerned with whether people are jumping on the bandwagon and more concerned with whether the underlying rationale is supported. If its not, then we are misguided – but if it is then we are not sheep or bandwagon jumpers but rather have been convinced by logic, and that is the very thing we are trying to do to you and everyone else: convince them the same way we were convinced.
ok bryan – you win in the energy efficient contest so you earn the right to gripe :-)
I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t encourage people to drive energy efficent cars. And I acknowledge your point that SUV drivers tend to have the money to make choices – where as old car drivers do not – even though the old cars are FAAARRR worse than the newer SUV’s.
But I am arguing that a whole campaign is directed at the SUV and I think it’s a set up job. Why not the mini-vans? Their gas mileage is equally bad. And all those children! Now there is the REAL problem. If you only have 2 kids – you shouldn’t NEED a mini van. And more than two is REEEEALLLLY a bad thing for the environment. The worst of the worst.
And why don’t the big Lincoln town cars bother you? Or the Limos? What about the Winnebagos and campers? Why just SUV’s?
So I guess my point is that the demonization of SUV owners is just a big stoning party and really not about the best way to conserve energy. If it wasn’t we’d be more upset with the minivan moms, the mansions and massive Winnebagos.
I guess I’ve never been a very good follower. I’m not going to jump on one while ignoring the others. That’s just me.
I gotta go. Enjoyed the sparring. I’ll check later to see if you responded.
Actually, the reason I hate SUVs is because of the physical danger they pose, I just like to throw in the gas usage for good measure.
Obviously, this doesn’t apply to all SUV drivers, but SUVs seem to give their drivers a sense of immortality. A good bit of the marketing they do seem to play into some sort of auto-arms-race. Like, “If you go into the city without a friggen military vehicle, well, you’re taking your life in your own hands.” Yet with the roll over problems they are no more safe than small cars, and small cars would be much more safe without the constant threat of being plowed-through by a tank being driven by some idiot who can’t even see over the steering wheel. And what’s with the steel bars you frequently see on the front of SUVs? They serve no obvious purpose other than inflicting the maximum amount of damage upon whatever you happen to run into.
Having said that, I will not buy into the arms race, no matter how much I’m putting myself in danger.
Did it ever occur to you that they buy SUV’s because they are big and roomy? I’d wager that most of them are bought because they have kids or dogs and they don’t want a mini van. Just a thought.
If you were consistent – you’d be more upset with the Winnebagos, empty 2 ton trucks, campers, and those big old oldsmobile company car’s that are usually driven by one.
It sounds like your cause is more about hating “Yuppies” than it is about oil or war. Just as long as you realize that’s the real message you are sending.
“As for your argument that we must help ALL oppressed in order to help any, I guess I can assume that you never give to a homeless person – because if you help one you have to help them all and it would cost you just too damn much. And just helping one guy wouldn’t help solve the problem of the homeless – so what’s the point?”
Becky, the above quote is yours in reference to why we should go to war with Iraq, despite the presence of evil all over the world. The same holds true for why we argue against SUVs. Sometimes you just have to take one fight at a time. We choose SUVs. Who cares why. The point is, they waste gas unnecessarily and therefore we should try and convince people not to buy them. If other things waste gas more, or if N. Korea is a bigger threat than Iraq, does not mean we should throw up our hands and do nothing. At least, not according to you.
That last post was mine. I believe in claiming responsibility.
well, ok. Too bad so much energy goes into something that really won’t be all that effective. Like I said before, there are far better and more meaningful ways to really make a difference in reducing the amount of auto emmissions, but apparently that’s not your real goal.
By ignoring all the other gas hogs on the road, the real message you are sending is that you don’t like the people who buy SUV’s. If you chose to target “all vehicles that get less than 21 miles to the gallon” or all vehicles that meet certain admission standards then I wouldn’t think of you as an Adrianna Huffington drone. As you’ve already admitted, it’s not really about the environment, it’s about distasteful “they” who drive SUV’s.
By singling out SUV’s when there is no compelling reason to do so (as in say attacking all dictators world-wide at exactly the precise same moment) you just look like a whiny blamer/shamer.
BTW – I didn’t read the smoking NAZI thread. I’m just wondering if you approve of the demonization of smokers too or if you want to give them a pass.
Better go turn off your computer now – maybe Arianna will decide to focus on you next. If so, I’m sure her efforts will have as much impact on you as they will on the SUV drivers. You’ll just think, “shut up! 9000 sq ft home, witch”. That’s about the extent of the impact.
As for me, I’ll put my energies into meaningful efforts…like I said before, this one is just peeing on a four alarm fire.
something
People want to tell me what type of vehicle to drive?
They want to tell me what my needs are and aren’t for transportation?
Wow, its time to move to America, I need a little more freedom.
By the same logic it would be effective to demonize Muslims to help fight the war on terror. Not all muslims, just one particular sect.
Here are some potential slogans that just might do the trick
No God for Blood!
Jihad’s don’t let Jihad’s drive planes!
Virgins don’t like Shiite’s who visit America!
Too much energy goes into MANY things that aren’t all that effective. Part of it is the perception of society, part is the sheep mentality, part of it is ignorance, etc… For as many people as there are fighting SUVs, you’ve got so many more fighting things like nuclear power, outdoor air quality, etc… Are these the biggest issues out there?? No… Does it mean that they shouldn’t get some attention?? Again, no… Bryan is not being inconsistent in his dislike for SUVs… It’s all about priorities and your priorities may not be the same as Bryan’s. It doesn’t mean he’s wrong for overlooking one issue in favor of another – it just means that he sees them in a different light than you do. Calling Bryan an “Adrianna Huffington drone” is right up there with Robert Bennett calling Radley “pro-Saddam.”
Personally, I own a reasonable sized SUV (for the reasons Becky lists – room, family, etc…) and see nothing wrong with SUVs in general (I agree that there is a limit to what constitutes reasonable and what is just a land beast, i.e. the H2, Holy Cow!!). Bryan is right though in that public pressure is a MUCH better way to reduce the popularity of SUVs than government regulation. I also agree that there is a market for hybrids (I know this is old but…) but right now I doubt that it has the potential to make a profit (yeah, there may not be the $20,000 loss TCS mentions but it will still be a loss for the auto industry). Hybrids and fuel cells are great as far as I’m concerned but they should come about when it’s economically feasible (like very low emission cars are now) as opposed to when government says so. Their time will come eventually (maybe when fossil fuels are too expensive or when the combustion engine is considered evil…) – we just need to be patient…
I completely agree with you except that Radley ISN’T pro Sadaam. Byran is marching to the tune of Adrianna’s pied piper. Maybe “drone” was a bit strong….ok…so i’m sorry.
Everything else you said I agree with. But what bothers me is not that it is public pressure but that it’s mean-spirited. Blaming SUV owners for the whole damn mess while ignoring the multiple other gas hogs is the give away. As witnessed by posts above, this really isn’t about emissions, it’s about making oneself feel good by trashing “someone else”. If it wasn’t – it would be a more focused campaign …like, “less than 20 mpg”.
This is just an attack on a belief that people who drive SUV’s are…well go read the posts above. This is not an attack on emissions.
I’ll stick with the analogy of blaming Muslims for the terrorist attacks. It’s a blanket demonization against a group who really isn’t responsible for the whole mess – but who maybe could do a little more to make it better. Hollering at ladies wearing head might have some effect – but so what? It’s mean and it’s only done by people who enjoy bashing others.
I’ve enjoyed reading Byran’s posts on other threads and he seems like a nice guy. But I think what he is doing to ordinary people, who (may have) scrimped and saved to buy the car of their dreams, is mean-spirited and wrong. I’m just hoping that he (and others) will re-think it.
I actually do dislike 18-wheelers, the difference there is the drivers are trained, and their presence is a vital part of our economy. I would like to see trains used in place of trucks.
As for RV’s, yes, those are my most hated of all vehicles.
I agree… If someone is blaming SUVs for all the world’s environmental ills or for funding terrorists then they are wearing blinders and not seeing the forest for the trees. If you only want to look at environmental consequences, then yes, a campaign against 20mpg cars would be more appropriate than attacking SUVs but there are other issues to consider when looking at SUVs. You can make the argument (as many have in this thread) that SUVs impair the vision of other driver, have a higher rollover rate, cause more damage in accidents, etc… So there is a case to be made against SUVs, it just needs to be approached from the proper perspective.
Unfortunately, you’re right that most of the attacks on SUVs don’t necessarily target the proper issues. I’ll always think that public pressure is the best way to change people’s attitudes but most campaigns just resort to stone throwing (or tire slashing), stereotyping, and guilt trips (What Would Jesus Drive?? Give me a break…) I may not agree with the position, but I don’t think I’d mind people voicing their protest against SUVs if it was coherent, realistic, and logical.
Paul – good post.
Becky,
Go back and look at my post in this thread.
I have not made any mean-spirited stereotypes about them (i.e. they are all named biff and have a small penis).
Nor have I said that stopping SUV use would stop terrorism dead in its tracks.
Nor have I ever said that I care about emissions. I don’t. That is not what this discussion is about to me. (It is also not about SUVs being too big for the road as some have said. That may be true but it is not the focus of my point.)
All I have said is that Americans need to conserve more oil. I have explained that my reason for picking on SUV drivers (or more precisely, the SUV drivers that don’t need their SUV) is because I think most SUV drivers have enough money to spend on a car that they have some sort of choice. That is why I am not focusing on old cars right now. No one drives a really old car unless they have to (unless it is vintage I guess but that leads me to another point) I don’t pick on limos, vintage cars, and other vehicles of that nature because they are not as prevalent a SUVs. SUVs are flying off the shelves in a way limos aren’t. Obviously there is a need for some limos. I am not going to tell a 17 year old kid going to prom or bride and groom that they can’t ride in a limo on their special day because is uses a little more gas which give terrorist a little more money. The SUV driver drives everyday though. It is that kind of systematic behavior that I am trying to get him to see when he makes his next car purchase.
I am very much in favor of public campaigns for turning down the heat, walking more, or anything else the conserves gas (please don’t say lower emissions any more b/c that is misstating my focus). This post though was on SUVs. Therefore I am focusing on SUVs and their role in our war on terrorism. Bring in others if you want, but others wasting oil does not let SUV drivers off the hook for their waste.
Where are the alternatives in this situation Bryan?? You make it sound like the only way to further reduce the oil consumption benefiting terrorists is to eliminate SUVs from the road. What happened to the other options available. There is a lot more oil to be saved by transitioning from oil burning power to gas or coal than there is from SUVs (yes, you keep your heat down but that doesn’t change the percentages). Why not open ANWR to drilling?? Increasing our domestic production would reduce dependence on foreign oil more than SUVs would too… If reducing oil consumption used to aid terror is your main objective, there are more efficient ways to achieve that goal besides attacking SUV owners whom you know virtually nothing about. As far as I’m concerned (and I think a significant portion of the country too, considering the lack of outrage at the issue you’re trying to point out), fears about the miniscule amounts (we don’t need to have that debate again) of money from oil production that make it into the hands of terrorists as a result of SUV use are already getting the consideration they deserve in the purchasing habits of the American public.
Were vehicles solar-powered by hood and roof panels and, also, perhaps, hydrogen-powered, as is being developed, concerns regarding what people drove would, it is obvious, seem to be alleviated greatly.
Paul – I never have said whole sale exclusion of SUVs from the road. What I have always asked is for people to think about their purchases. That is why I have always limited my statements to those who don’t need SUVs.
Listen, I am not you parent. I’m not you. You know better than I do whether or not you need an SUV. Make your decision and stick with it. That is fine by me. All I am arguing is that in the process of making that decision, you (and everyone else in the general public) has to admit that by buying an SUV you are contributing more money to the hands of terrorist than you would if you bought a fuel efficient car. If you make that choice, so be it. I can’t nor do I want to forcibly stop you. But if you do make that choice, maybe think about it a little if you are amonst the people calling for American troops to go over to the Middle East and possibly die at the hands of an enemy that you helped fund (or at the very least, did not try to stop funding).
As for the rest of your post – I do believe in more AWAR drilling. I believe in anything that we can do to get more oil produced from somewhere other than the Middle East and anything we can do to use less oil so that the value of it goes down and the actual, real-life money getting into the hands of those wanting to kill us is the smallest amount possible. Will it ever be 0, of course not. But is could be less than it is now.
As I have said this entire time, there may be other ways to decrease the amount of funds going to terrorist, but since when do you fight a war strictly on one front. In WWII, no one argued that we should simply put all of the allied troops on the Western border of Germany and invade. The best plan is to come in from all sides. A bit of it may be nickle and diming the terrorist to death, but every little bit helps a little bit.
Maybe you’ve been saying it all along. But since Adrianna is paying for commericals to highlight this very small part of the problem, it might be worth it to at least acknowledge that harping on this personal pet peeve makes you look like her poodle.
Or it means she is responding to and being the public face of a general sentiment the more of the country shares then perhaps you care to admit.
For years I have always been a “live-and-let-live” kind of guy. In this case I’ve been “drive and let drive.” However, this is all past tense now.
I own a smaller size SUV for several tenable, logical reasons. I’ve been a volunteer fireman in a rural area. I tow trailers fairly often. I have three dogs, a wife and a little one who travel with me. I bought the minimum size vehicle to accommodate these needs.
However in the last two years, I’ve been laid off twice (in between which I worked for a company which went bankrupt). Now fuel prices are absolutely skyrocketing. I would get rid of the SUV in a heartbeat but we’re upside-down on the loan. I cannot afford to fill the damn tank all the way up and God help me this fall when I have bald tires on snow! I didn’t worry about these things when I had bigger paychecks. Things look completely different now from the other side of the economic windshield.
I am told by the media that gas prices are high because Americans are not changing their driving habits and are wasting fuel. If this is true, then it is also true that people who drive excessively large, wasteful vehicles should be made to pay more to purchase, own and operate them.
Someone who can afford a kazillion-dollar Hummer, Escalade, Navigator or somesuch has no trouble affording gas at 2, 3 or even 4 dollars a gallon. However, it is this un-necessary wastefulness which drives up the market price of fuel. Needless gas wasting by the apparently affluent is making life very very difficult on those of us who are finding ourselves on hard times (my case) or who are persistently in the lower economic brackets (many people’s case).
I have been a long-standing conservative person (not necessarily Republican, however) and have a broad stripe of liberty in my constitution. However, I do not think it is a stretch of the imagination to compare fuel-oil resources to food. I do not think it is irrelevant or specious to say that “those who can afford to waste oil are starving the rest of us.”
PAD
xenical Xen-770009122-345566