Slandering SUV drivers: Environmentalists go overboard with smear tactics
Union Leader ^ | 1/09/03


Posted on 01/09/2003 2:41 AM PST by kattracks



THE ANTI-SUV division of the wacky wing of the environmental movement has outdone itself in its hysterical criticism of people who drive sport utility vehicles. Now they are running television ads accusing SUV drivers of financing terrorists, which is outrageous.
The ads were created by columnist and gadfly Arianna Huffington. She modeled them on the Bush administration’s anti-drug-use ads, which suggest that if you use narcotics you may be financing terrorism. The ads are so misleading that ABC’s New York affiliate won’t run them. An official from that station told The New York Times, “There were a lot of statements being made that were not backed up, and they’re talking about hot-button issues.”

If a connection between buying oil from the Middle East and funding terrorism exists, then everyone who buys petroleum products — from SUV drivers to long-haul trucking companies to Honda Civic drivers to people who grease their hair and dry clean their clothes — may indirectly contribute dollars to terrorists. But you would never see an ad suggesting that if you send your suits to the dry cleaners, you support terrorism.

In cities across the country, SUVs have been smeared with dog excrement, doused with acid and even burned by environmental activists. Yet no activists are attacking New England homes that use oil heat and are built with sawed down trees, or the owners of 20-year-old cars that get worse mileage and produce far more pollution than SUVs, or the owners of pickup trucks, which can get worse mileage than some SUVs and are better sellers.

If those in the anti-SUV crowd were rational, they would stop targeting SUVs and focus on retiring the fleet of aging gas guzzlers left over from the 1970s and ‘80s. These vehicles are much more damaging to the environment than are SUVS. But those old sedans aren’t driven by middle class and wealthy suburbanites, who are the real targets of hatred for the anti-SUV crowd. Can you imagine environmentalists shouting insults at a poor family in a 1978 Chevrolet or an old couple in a 1984 Cadillac? Of course not. But those people are doing more damage to the environment than a yuppie driving a 2002 Ford Explorer.

================================================== ===============

Check out the feedback at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne...5/posts?page=1

Good stuff!

Klaus

thats why there morons with no brains in-between their ears! its kind of funny. if there so big on protecting the enviroment when they burn cars what does fire release into the air? Carbon Dioxide! so by making their stupid little tactics THEIR hurting the enviroment!

Are you a Freeper, Klaus? Or was this a result of an article search?

Tho I'm a conservative with a wild libertarian streak, some of those people qualify as truly whack-a-doodle!

Just another search. I like the Libertarian viewpoint.

The two sites I like to check out each day:

http://www.wsj.com

http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm


Klaus

WSJ is my favorite paper. I read the Post for fun and the WSJ for more serious news and for fun as well. I've been a subscriber for years and it's really improved over the past couple. I'll have to check the other site out. OpinionJournal.com is great as well.

Do you have the e-subscription to the WSJ? How do you like it?

I have both - The print and the e-subscription. The last renewal offer let me add the electronic subscription for something like $15. It was worth it to me.

There are times that an article comes out about the CDC, and my coworkers want a copy. I can cut and paste it from the electronic version and email it to them. One thing though... You can only go back 30 days.

Check out Neal Boortz. He has a radio talk show that generally is broadcast between 8:30 and 1:00 PM Monday - Friday. It depends on the local radio station, and how much of his show they air. He is a trip!

"Now they are running television ads accusing SUV drivers of financing terrorists, which is outrageous. "

If that is outrageous, then Bush's ad claiming that drugs support terrorism is even more ludicrous. Where do you think the money comes from? It doesn't come from drug cartels, it comes from Middle Eastern countries who's primary source of income is exporting oil to the US.

"If a connection between buying oil from the Middle East and funding terrorism exists, then everyone who buys petroleum products ... may indirectly contribute dollars to terrorists."

This is an over-simplified analysis of the problem because it assumes that every application is an equally efficient use of the resource.

That is not true. An SUV being used to haul a family and their equipment around off road all the time is a much better application than the same SUV used by a single driver in the city commuting to work.

If America's consumption were lowered enough, it would certainly reduce if not eliminate the oil we import from the likes of Saudia Arabia: home to Osama and his family fortune as well as 15 of the 19 hijakers and various government officials with connections to terrorists; and Al Quaida's budget would take a serious turn.

That is not likely to happen if people do not understand the difference in fuel efficiency between a Honda Civic and an SUV both being used by an individual driver to commute to work.

Jason

[This message was edited by "Hummer", heh, heh on January 23, 2003 at 02:16 PM.]

Yeah, I should really fork out the dough for the online subscription, because I usually find some article I want to e-mail.

Right... I'm sure the terrorists will refuse money from gas purchased by car poolers...

Klaus

Klaus: "Right... I'm sure the terrorists will refuse money from gas purchased by car poolers..."

I guess you missed my point, so let me try to restate it a little more concisely: The amount of oil we collectively consume is proportional to the amount of money that goes to nations that fund terrorists.

There is no diffentiation once the oil reaches our port, as to where it goes: some goes to indivuduals who commute from the suberbs in their SUV's, some goes to people who carpool in hybrid vehicles. However, those who waste oil cause more of it to be imported, and those who do their best to conserve bring us closer to solving our unfortunate dependence.

The most efficient use of oil minimizes the amount we must import, and if we were to conserve enough, we could be selective about which countries we import from, putting a lot of pressure on them.

Jason

You should try looking for the NY paper "The Sun" too.

Hummer, heh, heh:

There is one all-encompassing point that I have made on this forum and it all comes down to an individual's or group's AGENDA.

First, my family came from a nation of Socialism so I know how specific groups or persons can incrementally push their agenda in an aggressive and counter-Democratic way! The Free-Market consumer has spoken and they are buying SUVs and trucks more often than cars in North America. Those who would try to alter the Free-Market in a subversive manner are Socialists in my book. Whether the cause be "environment" or otherwise, the entire counter-Democratic effort comes back to AN AGENDA THAT IS AGGRESSIVELY EMPLOYED BY A MINORITY OF THE POPULATION.

Let me give you an example of why I am a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN versus those who would defile the property of others or stand in the way of their economic freedom:

I do not like Japanese cars for multiple factual (and perhaps some opinionated) reasons, yet I don't place "Boycott Japan" stickers on Hondas. It is an American citizen's right to buy such a product if they so choose. My AGENDA IS RESPECTFUL of the Democratic and Free-Market rights of others and NON AGGRESSIVE.

Germany and France are two of the most fervent opponents of U.S. policy today [who can deny this?] and for that I refuse to buy German and French products, yet I don't antagonize those who drive a BMW.

Further, I cannot relate to those who would attack a fellow American for buying American .... do you see how this all comes full circle to a matter of PERSONAL AGENDA.

So long as you're conveying your points in a FACTUAL manner, I have no issues with you. It is the people that come here and bark their OPINION in a blind sense of rightousness that spur my disgust, for it is the same type of person that has no respect for individual liberties. Such a person seeks to have others conform to their sense of the ideal world.

Last, I've said before that I am a member of Sierra Club and I truly hope that progress is made towards less polluting forms of transportation and a decreased demand for crude oil. Until that day is realized, I NEED a LARGER than average family vehicle and I will buy American.

So long as we continue to have mature dialogue in this forum, I respect your engaging points.

SJ: First, I appreciate your willingness to engage in constructive debate and stick to issues. It sounds like so far we are on the same page. I don't have an agenda to tell people what they can or can't buy, and if at the end of the day, they choose differently, I respect that. In fact, I would encourage people to buy a reasonably sized SUV if that's what their family's needs are.

However, at the same time, I believe most people don't understand the implications of that choice on the environment and geo political concerns. None of the SUV backlash backlash articles or opinions I have heard actually attack the merits of actual arguments, just the people making them. Therefore, I feel that a lot of people are continuing to make decisions on bad data.

I was never an "environmentalist" until 9/11, but I think that event was serious enough for me to actually downgrade the size of my own next car purchase to something that meets my needs more efficiently, and try to find people who are fooling themselves into believing that terrorist money really comes from drugs, not oil and encourage them to do the same.

Jason

[This message was edited by "Hummer", heh, heh on January 24, 2003 at 10:04 AM.]

Right... Check out his public profile:



Profile

Member Profile for "Hummer", heh, heh

Date Registered: January 22, 2003
Status: H2 Veteran
Total Posts: 8
View Posts By this Member
Email: -
Home Page: -
Picture: -
Gender: -
Date of Birth: -
Location: -
Instant Messaging: -
Why did you join this forum?: to ridicule its members
Tools Add to Contacts
Start a Private Topic with "Hummer", heh, heh

Doesn't matter, who cares why she's hanging around, I read her first post, kicked the little fur ball around a little bit just for fun, then I don't even read her replies. I think she is lonely and if she wants to be around us, fine, just ignore the loser. To ignore and to talk over their posts is the most effective method to deal with them, that really hurt them. But then again, maybe we can all take turn to kick her a little just for fun.

Maybe she thinks she can convince just one of us to sell our Hummer? otherwise, what is the goal hanging around here? Pathetic loner doesn't even think through her goals and tactics.

Klaus: "Right... Check out his public profile:"

Can't I have a sense of humor and a serious discussion at the same time?

Jason

It is one thing to have trolls that sling insults and make blind accusations, but Jason has at least come here and voiced his thoughts in a reasonable aire (from what I've read).

I agree with some of his points and not others, which is to be expected.

I may be alone, but I welcome the occasional counterpoint versus the community thought.

When our beloved forum is in fact visited by social parasites, I will be among the first to sniff them out. I have a knack for smelling ACLU, KGB, and Stasi (to name a few) from miles away.