Other than the fact that I basically found this whole e-mail overly aggressive and offensive I just want to point out a few things.

Decius wrote:
] Jello Biafra is personally responsible for all this non-sense.

That's a large claim to make. One I don't think you can back up. And the "evidence" you give is shakey at best.

] There are two problems with arguments about fuel efficiency,
] safety, and cost:
]
] 1. The left was pissed off about SUVs long before it really
] had any data on crash safety. The crash safety issue, in fact,
] has only really been understood recently. Anti-SUV rage has
] been going on for a while. So this cannot, in fact, be the
] real reason for all of this. The same is also really true of
] the other two arguments. The angst existed before the
] rationalization.

OK, here is the first major point, Dude. You use the terms "the left" as an epithet. From here on out "the left this," "the left that," and it's all basically assertions that A) aren't supported and B) I can disprove most of them by saying as someone who is in "the left" that they are incorrect for me. Which blows your whole categorical allegations out of the water. In fact, I can say that I even know other people in "the left" who can dispute your claims.

So starting here I would like to say that A) I'm not pissed off about SUVs, B) I wasn't pissed off about SUVs, and C) recent data seems to make it clear that there is cause for concern.

] 2. The arguments aren't objectively applied. The left isn't
] opposed to unsafe cars in general. Only SUVs. The left isn't
] opposed to gas guzzling cars in general. Only SUVs. The left
] isn't opposed to expensive cars in general, only SUVs.
] Furthermore, the left opposes SUVs even when they aren't
] expensive, or unsafe, or particularly inefficient.

This is another thing that burns me. Clearly "the left" isn't able to be "objective." "The left" that isn't opposed to unsafe cars in general is "the left" that pushed for laws enforcing seat belts, air bags, and better mileage. Oh gee, look, your argument just fell apart. Proving it here is the earlier transcript from the Frontline PBS special that specifically shows Ford, Iacocca, and Nixon bitching about "the left" (Nader specifically) pushing them on seat belts and airbags:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/nixon/

In 1972! And we *still* didn't see airbags for another 10 years. So "the left" appears to be opposed to unsafe cars in general. Actually, I'm sure it can be proven that this is true throughout the history of "the left." There might be more bitching going on about it now, but my guess is that it's because for a while in the 80s "the left" had actually succeeded in improving mileage, safety, and many other items.

I am also personally annoyed that you see fit to imply above that "the left" (meaning ALL the left) is making these selective arguments. It's ridiculous and provably untrue. Organizations like Public Citizen (Nader) have been working actively to protect consumers for years and while I won't claim they don't have bias at times you certainly can't make an assertion like the above.

] I recently had someone on the left try to explain to me that a
] late model Corvette gets better mileage then a Ford Explorer.
] According to the left, driving a Jeep Liberty says "I'm
] willing to damage you for my own comfort and convenience," but
] driving a much more dangerous car with much worse gas mileage
] which costs a lot more money, like a highly customized street
] drag honda, says "I like to drive fast and its my hobby."

Actually, I am pretty sure I know people who are in "the left" who would have a problem with the drag honda.

] ] The difference is they're not macho.
]
] This is the crux. The left doesn't like SUVs because they are
] macho. The left doesn't like macho. The left also basically
] hates successful people, but throwing macho in with the
] success is what took things over the top for them. SUVs are a
] focal point for this resentment because they combine success
] and macho (even when they aren't expensive, as they have
] become a symbol of what the left hates).

Where are you getting this kind of drivel from? Do you really believe this shite? I'm more macho than you are and I'm in "the left." So what? I'm not against success. And neither are most people in "the left." Perhaps clueless success, success at the expense of other people, or similar, but not success per se.

] The difference is that the Christian Right knows that it is
] moralizing. The left doesn't. That makes them about 1000 times
] worse.

I don't think this is true at all. I think many people in the left are well aware of it and do talk about it in terms of morality.

Oh, and BTW, thanks for telling me I'm 1000 times worse than the Christian Right. I appreciate that.

] This is, still, kind of, a free society. My freedom is a
] function of how much of my life is defined by my
] will/decisions versus the circumstances that I am in or the
] decisions society makes for me.
]
] This anti-SUV thing is not about how "I choose to drive a Geo
] Metro because it is frugal and fuel efficient." Its about
] "Fuck you for driving your big truck. I don't like big trucks
] and therefore you're an asshole for driving one. You are no
] better then a terrorist. I hope you die in an accident."

Your histrionics are getting old. And you clearly have a huge chip on your shoulder against "the left." Get over it.

] By deciding that I am not to own an SUV because YOU don't like
] them, you are making me less free. In doing so, you are doing
] real actual damage to me personally, rather then this vague
] statistical probability of damage you claim that you might be
] the victim of. You are taking away my will.

1. Nobody decided you can't own an SUV.
2. Statistical probably of damage is provable and hence measurable.
3. Your will wasn't taken away in your example, your ability to buy
a dangerous weapon was. Should everyone own a tank now?

] And thats my problem with this anti-SUV business. Its an
] attempt to make me less free.

Bullshit. This conclusion is ridiculous. By the same arguments your whining about the "anti-SUV business" could be seen as an attempt to make "the left" less free by muzzling their right to free speech or using the political system to create laws that they like. Stop whining. If you are really concerned about your freedom to own an SUV why don't you start a pro-SUV political movement?

RE: WSJ.com - The Scarlet SUV