(Now how’s that for a nice provocative thread title?)
Please see the following: http://www.detroitproject.com/ and view the ads there. For those without RealPlayer, transcripts are available at the “the ads” link up at the top.
These ads are basically retreads of the recent anti-drug ads which equated pot-smoking with supporting terrorists. This time though, its “driving fuel-inefficient SUVs” that supports the terrorists.
Like the anti-pot ads, these are heavy handed and take a grand chain of events and condense it into a sound bite.
Now, do you think these ads are effective? Silly? Any other comments?
This seems pretty damn stupid to me. I wonder, does Arianna ever fly? Does she eat food? How in the hell does she think food gets to the supermarket or a restaurant? Al Gore’s electric car? No, it probably got there on a truck, which–GASP–uses gasoline, lots and lots of gasoline.
I’m all for energy conservation and reducing our dependency on Middle Eastern oil but I’ve never understood why SUV fuel inefficiency drives people so crazy. We all use or benefit from fossil fuels on a daily basis so going after SUVs strikes me as a bit pointless and kooky but what do I know? I drive a Jeep Wrangler so I guess that makes me an honorary member of al Qaeda. I haven’t received a newsletter yet, though.
I wonder if the people behind those ads would support an expansion of domestic oil production? (open up ANWAR, remove restrictions on off-shore drilling, etc).
No? Oh, I guess this wasn’t about terrorism after all…
Heavy-handed and overplayed, but not without some truth.
Break it into the bits.
Are those who are against wasteful gas consumption only, or even primarily, motivated by not wanting to indirectly contribute to our problems with terrorism? Nah. But it is a contributing factor. One of several.
Does the increasing US gas consumption versus limited domestic production indirectly support terror? Yep. Albeit indirectly.
Saudis fund terror, you make the Saudis rich, you fund terror laundered through the Saudis.
The US continues to support an oppressive Saudi government (which not so covertly works to keep hostilities against the US and her allies very active as a means to distract her people from her own oppression of them) because the US needs the Saudi oil. You contribute excessively to our dependence, then you help foster that situation.
Are SUVs excessive gas guzzlers? Well some people really need these light truck vehicles. Some people just think that they some how advertise status.
Is truck transport gas guzzling? No.
Is flying gas guzzling? No.
Do we all waste some? Sure. But some are more wasteful than others.
Brutus: If you want more domestic oil production, what is wrong with slapping a protective tariff on imported oil so we can exploit more wells in places like Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania?
Do you favor the use of more nuclear power so we don’t have to burn oil in power plants?
This is just silly, unless you want to say that anyone who uses any petroleum product is supporting terrorism. If SUV owners support terrorism, than everyone else does, too. It’s only a matter of degree. If I’m funding 2 terrorists with my 20 mpg SUV are you only funding 1 with your 40 mpg Geo Metro?
This kind of crap reminds me so much of the kids in junior high who always volunteered to be the hall monitor so they could boss people around. Or the joyless slob who resents anyone else having fun.
I do not support protectionist tariffs for any industry, much less the oil industry. Welfare is welfare, IMO, be it to a person or a corporation.
But I do support expanding our nuclear power production. I am no nuclearpowerologist, but I recall reading in Scientific American that there are now fission reactor designs that are virtually (if not actually) melt-down proof, safe, etc.
Granted, I don’t know where we get our nuclear fuel from.(Uranium? Pultonium? Dunno.) I think that we have some domestic sources. If not, maybe we can buy some from North Korea?
DSeid, that was a very balanced view, in my opinion.
Is there anyone here who doesn’t actually support the idea of conserving fuel? Of course we all benefit from the use of fuel. But we need to cut back where we can. And I don’t understand why the President of the United States hasn’t asked the American people to conserve so that we are not as dependent on foreign oil. He should have taken advantage of the country’s unity after 9/11.
Meanwhile, the Rev. Jerry Falwell says that his next vechicle will be a Hummer. What kind of stewardship is that?
I drive a 2000 Chrysler but I have put only 10,000 miles in three years. My next car will be more efficient. (I used to drive a Jeep Wrangler Sahara – and loved it.)
I don’t understand the logic that says “We all have to use fuel anyway; we might as well use all we want.”
I think the people who get all worked up about these ads are missing the point! Yes, sure, it is not only SUV owners who are contributing to our addictions. Yes, the direct equation is a bit simplistic.
But, the point is to get people to think about the choices they make and that externalized costs are not free just because the market doesn’t correctly account for them.
The ads are also great as parody. The drug ads were the first to be over the top with this so it is important to make people realize that they are also indirectly contributing to terrorism even if they don’t use illegal drugs.
While I support Nuclear power, increasing the number of nuclear power plants wouldn’t decrease oil consumption by any significant amount in the US; IIRC, oil powered plants only produce ~1% of US electrical power. Most of the oil is used for transportation. Of course, the power from a nuclear plant could be used to seperate hydrogen from water to power fuel cells or even to convert coal or any other hydrocarbon source(the cleanest being pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere, and hyrdogen from water, but this one would probablity be the most impractical) into gasoline and other fuels, but I doubt it would be economical or practical to do this anytime in the near future.
No. What this says is that it is not only about terrorism.
Here is the logic: We think that if there are large external costs associated with the use of both domestic and foreign oil but that those associated with foreign oil are perhaps even higher because of the terrorism (and other) aspects, then the best solution is not to further subsidize domestic oil production but rather, instead, to subsidize them both less and do things to actually conserve rather than waste the resource.
Excuse me, but SUV owners do support terrorism. It’s as simple as SUV’s and large trucks not having to meet the standard milage and fuel efficiency that all “cars” do. Until they do- SUV owners will be supporting terrorism. And their pot smoking kids will be paying for U.S. farmers and/or Mexican families.
Doesn’t the US get approx. 10% of it’s oil form the Middle East? What about the fuel oil for heating? Maybe we should say people with no fuel efficient furnaces are also supporting terrorists. Please!:rolleyes:
Yeah, and the pot smoking=terrorism ads are all about fighting terrorism. They are in no way a crass exploitation of a national tragedy to further a political agenda. No, not a bit. Well, maybe a bit. Perhaps more than a bit. OK, a lot. OK, completely. Completely and unabashedly. A bit.
arianna is a self absorbed nitwit, and those ads are assinine.
I guess the tried and true method to riches will always be scamming dumb people out of their money.
this clip from her site says it all:
“one of those outrageous drug war ads the Bush administration has flooded the airwaves with. You know, the ones that try and link using drugs to financing terrorism. Instead of shaking my head in disgust and reaching for the Mute button like I usually do when I see these ads, I decided to channel my indignation. …”
…by flooding the airwaves with my own outrageous and disgusting ads.
please send me money.
I’d like to stack her oil consumption up against the average suv owner that she’s trying to demonize.
I can only hope that the only reason these ads are aired is satire, but sadly, this is probably not the case.
although, since this IS great debates, if anybody wants to convince me that this is anything other than a transparent and despicable publicity stunt by a self righteous asshole — bring on the numbers.
See http://pdf.wri.org/middle_east_2000_oilprofile.pdf
The US uses 25% of the world’s oil and imports 60% of it. Of imports Saudi Arabia alone suppiles 17.9% and Arab altogether is about 29% … of all oil (domestic and imported) consumed the figure is that 17-18% is Arab oil and about 10% Saudi alone.
As to furnaces, that is a nonsequiter. The differences between energy efficiency of new furnaces is not on the same scale as the differences between transportation choices and is not the cause of an increase in oil consumption over the last decade despite better fuel standards for cars (and the gradual replacement of old furnaces with fuel effficient new ones). And most furnaces don’t use fuel oil … natural gas is much more common. Talk about rolleyes.
Who said we would have to subsidize the expansion of domestic energy sources? Heck, we simply need to allow it. Private companies are more then plenty eager to drill off the coast of Florida and get oil of ANWAR (I doubt the moose will miss it!),
The reason SUVs support terror is that SUVs are major league gas guzzlers and EVERYBODY KNOW IT! You COULDA bought a cheaper, more fuel efficient sedan to commute to work with, but you hadda have a big honkin’ SUV, thus proving yourself a lard-brained spendthrift. Don’t like being called that? Don’t behave like that!
The “drugs support terror” ads have been TOTALLY offensive, as they are all full of crap. All the evidence indicates that the bulk of Al-Quaeda’s money and support come from Saudi Arabia. They are NOT our friends. It’s not the Medellin’s who finance Al-Quaeda, it’s the fuckin’ Arabs, and EVERYBODY KNOW THAT, too.
Jeebus. I shouldn’t have to explain simple stuff like this to you.
I’m sure you’d like to let big oil do for Alaska and Florida what they’ve done for Louisiana environmentally speaking, but you’ll pardon the rest of us if we don’t like the idea of poisoning our country wholesale.