Posted on 01/07/2003 11:27:48 PM PST by kattracks
ASHINGTON, Jan. 7 Ratcheting up the debate over sport utility vehicles, new television commercials suggest that people who buy the vehicles are supporting terrorists. The commercials are so provocative that some television stations are refusing to run them.
Patterned after the commercials that try to discourage drug use by suggesting that profits from illegal drugs go to terrorists, the new commercials say that money for gas needed for S.U.V.'s goes to terrorists.
"This is George," a girl's voice says of an oblivious man at a gas station. "This is the gas that George bought for his S.U.V." The screen then shows a map of the Middle East. "These are the countries where the executives bought the oil that made the gas that George bought for his S.U.V." The picture switches to a scene of armed terrorists in a desert. "And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his S.U.V."
A second commercial depicts a series of ordinary Americans saying things like: "I helped hijack an airplane"; "I gave money to a terrorist training camp in a foreign country"; "What if I need to go off-road?"
At the close, the screen is filled with the words: "What is your S.U.V. doing to our national security?"
The two 30-second commercials are the brainchild of the author and columnist Arianna Huffington. Her target audience, she said, is Detroit and Congress, especially the Republicans and Democrats who last year voted against a bill, sponsored by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, that would have raised fuel-efficiency standards.
Spokesmen for the automakers dismissed the commercials.
Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said of Ms. Huffington, "Her opinion is out-voted every year by Americans who buy S.U.V.'s for their safety, comfort and versatility." He said that S.U.V.'s now account for 21 percent of the market.
In an interview, Senator Kerry distanced himself from the commercials. He said that rather than oppose S.U.V.'s outright, he believed they should be more efficient.
"I haven't seen these commercials," he said, "but anybody can drive as large an S.U.V. as they want, though it can be more efficient than it is today."
Ms. Huffington's group, which calls itself the Detroit Project, has bought almost $200,000 of air time for the commercials, to run from Sunday to Thursday. While the group may lose some viewers if stations refuse to run the advertisements, the message is attracting attention through news coverage.
The advertisements are to be broadcast on "Meet The Press," "Face the Nation" and "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" in Detroit, Los Angeles, New York and Washington.
But some local affiliates say they will not run them. At the ABC affiliate in New York, Art Moore, director of programming, said, "There were a lot of statements being made that were not backed up, and they're talking about hot-button issues."
Ms. Huffington said she got the idea for the commercials while watching the antidrug commercials, sponsored by the Bush administration. In her syndicated column, she asked readers if they would be willing to pay for "a people's ad campaign to jolt our leaders into reality."
She said she received 5,000 e-mail messages and eventually raised $50,000 from the public. Bigger contributors included Steve Bing, the film producer; Larry David, the comedian and "Seinfeld" co-creator; and Norman Lear, the television producer.
Your penchant for pulling irrational, extreme conclusions out of your ear is what's truly "amazing."
I'm honored. Too bad for you though.
Bite me.
100 years * 25 million bpd * 365 = almost 1.1 trillion barrels. You must be privy to some info about reserves in Mexico, Alaska and Texas that I'm not. Oh and now it's Canada too. Yes they do have a lot of oilsand and the price is going down to produce it. How is Mexican and Canadian Oil making us self sufficient?
There you go again. Everything is black or white with you; there is no spectrum. It has to be one extreme or the other. If someone thinks the gov't ought to discourage oil consumption for the sake of national security, he's a communist. If said "communist" doesn't boycott oil completely, he's a hypocrite.
I refuse to engage in a battle of logic with an unarmed, emotionally-overwrought FRetard.
If Arianna Huffington had a brainchild, it would be an orphan.
I would disagree. I believe that Islam is indeed a threat to us because it is a religion that preaches conversion by the sword and death to anyone who insults their prophet. And, because the moderates can't control the radicals
You may be correct that the Islamic terrorists could still be funded even without oil money, but they'd be far, far less a risk.
Ending their oil money is just one step, however, in ending terrorism here. The other steps are: refusing entry to all people from Islamic countries, sending home all non-diplomatic resident aliens from those countries, and round- the-clock-survellience of and inflitration of all Islamic institutions, businesses and communities here.
Your solution of military action overseas will just create more martyres for their cause and great loss of American lives. Plus, it won't eliminate the enemy within. And, you didn't answer the question: where and who is the enemy?
Ahhh! The stupidity trifecta!
Attractive? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!
Correct.
The world is awash with oil. And lots of it is under ground that is owned by people in this country. Furthermore, it will never run out. If you know anything about economics and the pricing mechanism, you know that.
Here, and people like you.
Oh, you mean those other enemies?
As my kids would say,,EEEUUUUU.
No matter how many times you make a false assumption it will never become true. Your whole argument is based on a false assumption.
How is my statement above based on a false assumption?Here, I'll make it very simple: How are bad guys armed with nothing but rocks and living in a faraway place a threat to American office workers?
And taking away my freedoms to try your childish experiments is the same thing as terrorists taking away my freedoms for their purposes.
Show me where in the US Constitution it says that you have the *right* to drive a big car and the *right* to cheap petrol? (I use the Euro word to annoy you)
Yes both are true and I have tried to explain the latter point to a genuine liberal enviro wacko friend of mine. The debate was that since the US in not awash with it, how much soverignty to we lose by allowing ourselves to become so dependent on other peoples oil. As a side effect, how many psychos are we financing by not keeping a bit more of that energy money here.
You are delusional. The guys who sell the oil, the Sultans and the Emirs and the Saudi royalty, are helping us. WE prop them up or else the rocks would be thrown at them.
The vast amount of the money used to finance terrorism comes from so called "charitable" enterprises in the developed countries. Irish terrorists don't have oil. Enviro-terrorists (which you seem to have a soft spot for) don't have oil.
Show me where in the US Constitution it says that you have the *right* to drive a big car and the *right* to cheap petrol? (I use the Euro word to annoy you)
And now for the really moronic part of your post.
Rights are not granted by the constitution. Read it some time.
Also I never mentioned cheap oil or any kind of car. I have the right to do anything I want as long as it doesn't violate your rights. And that isn't granted by any government either.
Market prices are what I desire. Not government control of business.
Did you go to a government school?
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.