Posted on 12/02/2002 3:54:46 PM PST by u-89
Liberals Hate SUVs
It goes without saying that liberals hate the free market, big business, even democracy when the voters disagree with them. If truth were known, they hate the human race - at least that part of it which is not them. Darn those human beings for not living their lives according to the liberal prescription.
A sales pitch, masquerading as a book review, in The New York Times shows the liberal biases perfectly. The book was written by a New York Times reporter about the sport utility vehicle and was reviewed by a college professor who teaches journalism. Both show their low regard for others. I won't name the book; it doesn't deserve any publicity.
The professor and apparently the author do not raise the issue that is the premise of the book. The author is ticked off that sport utility vehicles are classified as trucks under the federal government's laws governing gasoline mileage. The two of them consider this a high crime and the result of nefarious moves and dark motives. Neither of them questions the government's right to regulate gasoline consumption by private vehicles, though there is nothing in the Constitution that would authorize it.
The fact is that when Congress passes bad laws, the number of which seem to be increasing, people find a way to get around them. Are SUVs trucks? They certainly look more like trucks than cars to me. The government can define anything and anybody in any way it wishes. And why should we care, given that it should not be meddling in the automobile industry at all?
The author and the professor, however, see a sinister motive even for people who buy these vehicles. "The SUV, it turns out," says the professor, "is a vehicle of aggression, a machine to menace other people with." Oh? I know two ladies who ended up with SUVs. They weren't looking to menace anyone. They were looking for a third seat and a safe vehicle in which to haul kids.
These two liberals (the reviewer alternates between quoting the author and spouting off himself) think SUVs are "tippy monstrosities with mediocre brakes that block other drivers' view of the road and inflict massive damage during collisions."
Another load of horse apples. It's a matter of the laws of physics that taller vehicles are more prone to tip over than shorter cars. Still, any car will tip over if the centrifugal force exceeds the grip of gravity. Ask a sports-car racer. Knowing how to drive means knowing the limits of your vehicle.
And in a collision, SUVs are generally safer. Again, the laws of physics. All else being equal, a heavier vehicle will deliver more force than a lighter vehicle. An SUV certainly is likely to demolish a Honda Civic, but an 18-wheeler or a dump truck will certainly demolish an SUV, and a train will destroy an 18-wheeler.
They also think it is deceptive and stupid for people to want four-wheel drive when they "obviously" are not going to be driving off-road. The liberal always knows what is in the minds of the multitude. Many SUVs don't come with four-wheel drive as a standard feature. In fact, though, in the parts of the country where there is likely to be ice and snow, four-wheel drive is definitely safer than two-wheel drive.
What is really causing these two liberals to choke on their own bile is simply freedom - a free people making their own choice about what kind of vehicle they wish to drive. They can't stand free people not agreeing with their prejudices. As it happens, I don't drive a sport utility vehicle. My children are grown; I've given up hunting; so a sedan suits me fine. But if I wanted to buy an SUV, I'd say it's none of the damned business of any liberal who doesn't like it. All liberals are just gutless wannabe dictators.
Tweaking libs is sooooo much fun. And you don't even have to do whole lot to light their fuses. You'd be amazed at how many libs get all bunched up over a plain old pickup truck with a gun rack and an American flag sticker.
Couldn't agree with you more! This is why we women should not be allowed to vote! We are screwing up the world with our accursed Mommy State! Flame me if you want to, but I honestly believe that the world we be a better place if women could not vote!
Those sorts of questions are always my favorite. I'd like to ask a rich leftist why, for example, he or she "needs" a 4,000 square foot house. We all know what a waste of resources a big house is, with all the heat and water they waste. Why not live in an apartment?
Also, why do leftists "need" to buy $400 Manolo Blahnik shoes (Sarah Jessica Parker, a leftist of note, likes this brand)? Why not go to Volume Shoes, and donate the $380 leftovers to charity?
Why do you need to buy original art for your home, leftists? Why not just buy posters? I could go on and on, but I won't; we all get the picture.
The media like to portray the Republicans as anti-environment. What the Republicans oppose, however, is specifically the leftists' version of environmentalism: create large tracts of federally-owned land which are off-limits to everyone except the "environmentalists", while forcing more and more people into the Democrat-enclave cities.
Conservatives, needless to say, don't share the leftists' vision. They believe that some resources are better conserved by measured use than by complete neglect. To use a crude analogy, consider two identically-constructed homes. One is occupied by a reasonably careful and prudent homemaker. The other is completely abandoned. In twenty years' time, which will be in better shape?
I think that most Conservatives are in favor of conservation. I think it makes sense to use our resources wisely. I do not, however, think that the "sky is falling" or that we are mismanaging our natural resources. We have an incentive to manage our natural resources, and I'm sick of more and more heavy-handed regulation to coerce us into doing more than each of us think is necessary to manage our own lands. More regulation does not necessarily equal a better environment. It has nothing to do with pissing off leftists, and it has everything to do with freedom.
Radical environmentalists, like Paul Ehrlich, have been telling us for years that the sky is falling. In my younger more liberal years I used to blieve them. When they were proved wrong, it still didn't stop them from predicting disaster. So you can forgive me if I view their admonitions with a jaundiced eye.
Certainly we should try to preserve the beauty of our wilderness. But because conservatives do not fall for the end-of-the-world malarkey handed out by the wackos does not mean that we don't care. I'm a tree-hugger myself, but we don't lack for trees. It's a renewable resource. And if we shouldn't depend so much on foreign oil, why do liberals oppose drilling for oil in desolate areas like ANWR?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.