Posted on 12/05/2008 3:46:03 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
In the social circles of the New York Times editorialists, it's OK to have one kid. Two is pushing the envelope. Three or more is tacky, and a threat to the survival of the planet.
That being so, there's really no reason to let any car bigger than a Prius be built. Doing so just encourages the unenlightened to overbreed. And so it is that in its editorial of today, the Grey-but-barren Lady suggests that as a condition of the Detroit bailout, "Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
And I don't anyone telling me about 'sense' and 'purpose.' I'LL DRIVE WHAT I CAN AFFORD!
Limos and taxis should be the first to go.
Mark Finklestein may be a nut, but he sounds more like a nosey old woman leaning across a fence. What a couple does in the bedroom is none of his business. He needs to get back to worrying about where the neighbors dogs are pooping and leave the children alone.
“”Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date.””
Does the Times actually use punctuation like that? If so it’s in worse shape than I thought. A plural “s” gets no apostrophe.
Signed - the Serif Patrol.
There. That's better. :)
If you eliminate the backseat, you’ll eliminate a lot of the children, right there!
The NYT might have not thought through the implications of phasing out vans and SUVs, but the premise of this article is misleading and inflammatory.
ARGHH!
Since I am Mark Finkelstein, I can confirm that he was writing with tongue planted firmly in cheek. I was satirizing the views of the New York Times, not endorsing them! The article is a cross-post from NewsBusters, which is dedicated to combating liberal media bias, and the Times editorial was a prime example of it.
0be looks to be enjoying curing the AGW.
“Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date.”
The NYT has shown exactly why the bailout is a bad idea; Congress has no more business designing and selling motor vehicles than it does telling us how many children we should have. Can you imagine a car designed and built by a bureaucrat? In concept it would be fuel efficient, cheap to buy, environmentally friendly and come only in earth tones so as not to offend the eye. In practice, it would be over budget, unreliable, behind in production, sold at a loss, and prone to randomly burst into flames. It would make Yugo’s look like Bentleys.
That’s what satire is intended to do. Cf., A Modest Proposal.
I am buying another firearm today... and more ammo!
LLS
LLS
No need to worry. Your next vehicle will be the TWOCAR. It has eight wheels and comes in two identical parts.
Nor were there any indications that this piece is satire.
My Uncle Bernie, who had 11 kids, kept an old Checker Marathon Limosine going for decades past it’s expiration date. The thing had four rows of seats, with two front doors and one door, on alternating sides, for the next three rows. With four kids on a seat, he had room for two hangers-on.
When that thing pulled up, you knew you were in for a good time.
Cut off the groceries to New York..... truckers boycott NYC
Abused?!??!?!
You sound like a libtard.
If a person can afford to buy, fuel and park an SUV in a city then they should damned well be able to. I fought for their freedom to do so.
“...how many people have you seen in NYC that just use these monsters to get from Queens to Jersey city?”
None actually as I haven’t been to Queens, or Jersey City, but other than the part about Finkelstein being a nut I have to agree with your post on the matter of purpose.
What I have observed is many >feel< more secure in the larger SU Vehicles. It happened to my wife after a Truck pulling a 53ft Trailer ran over her car on the way to work one day. Long story to describe, so I won’t, but at the time I had already noticed many people who really didn’t need the off road capabilities of SUV’s were buying them primarily for the “security” they felt driving the larger vehicles. They were buying them as self defense.
I cannot blame them for wanting such security after the discussion in our house after my wife’s car was crushed under the trailer of the truck the driver had made the illegal, and downright stupid Left turn in front of her from the far right lane. She was genuinely scared to drive a conventional sized sedan again, and wanted the security of a larger vehicle.
We decided to stick with the conventional sized automobiles we favor the past twenty years or so regardless of the accident, simply because the particular car we buy is quite safe, well constructed as proven by the fact that only her car was damaged, not her.
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.