Posted on 12/01/2002 10:23:31 PM PST by GalvestonBeachcomber
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.
I wonder if any of these DMF's ever drove up in North Michigan on a seasonal dirt road not plowed by the road commission during a snowstorm or in spring muds.
I rest my case.
You know the answer to that question as well as anybody else here. It's rather simple. They need them.
They need to carpool the kids to school, and to soccer practice.
You, on the other hand, are just selfish to want one of these leviathan vehicles that serve you no real purpose.
Liberals only want to make laws that affect everybody else, but never apply to them.
You know the answer to that question as well as anybody else here. It's rather simple. They need them.
Most people don't need an SUV. A minivan or station wagon would be a more logical choice for most people. But choice is what it's all about. They want an SUV. And I don't have a problem with that.
My response to that liberal would be: Why weren't you using public transit? Now, a bike riding liberal might be the first to sue.
That's perfectly fine, as long as
A. You recognize that while you don't like SUV's, other people have the right to own them and not have them unfairly restricted or vandalized.
B. You don't feel the need to write books, newspaper editorials, or give public speeches demonizing SUV owners and calling for SUV bans.
I have nothing against people who don't like SUV's, guns, fatty foods, meat, fur, rock music, dirty movies, religious programs, short skirts, or neckties. My problem- and the problem of most FReepers I would suspect- is people who don't like these things and feel that is enough justification to prevent you from enjoying them.
The Liberals response to this phenomenon is to pass yet another bad law. The Liberal will never find fault with the fact that the original law was bad to begin with.
The SUV is a result of the auto makers building to the CAFE rule.
You could review CAFE yourself, and note that in order for a car to be permitted to have more than 200 housepower, it has to have no trunk, a tailgate level with the load floor, and a flat load floor over the rear axle that extends to the back of the driver's seat. Congress designed the SUV when they wrote CAFE. Automakers just refined the design somewhat. The fact that SUVs block the view and have a high center of gravity is the result of the stupid design decisions made by Congress when they wrote the law.
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.