Reknamorken wrote:
] 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.

I'm obviously referring to the anti-SUV brigade. The anti-SUV brigade is obviously left. This does not mean that I am talking about you personally, or about everyone who expresses left wing views. I was making a generalization. And as most of the left does buy into the anti-SUV campaign, I think its a reasonable one. Similarily, you and yours often discuss the opinions of "the right" in a generalized way. I hope you don't beleive that your generalizations are universal.

Quoting you, "Chill Pill..."

] 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.

OK, its the absolute earliest reference that I have found, and a large number of people heard it because it does get fairly wide distribution. The CDs are basically a collection of political rantings which have a left perspective while also being humerous, and they typically appeal to left leaning people. (I quite enjoyed them personally, although there were a few perspectives offered that I do not agree with.) After the CDs were out for a few months, I started hearing people parrot them. Things seemed to snowball from there. I can't PROVE that this is the source by elminating all other possibilities. I'm making a fairly reasonable observation based on what I've seen. Do you beleive this stuff has a different origin? When did YOU first hear people express a problem with SUVs?

] 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.

Yes, I was making a generalization. Sorry if I offended you.

] 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.

Taken out of context, my comments are obviously wrong. I apologize for any confusion. The left obviously has waged several important campaigns for automotive safety and for fuel economy over the years.

What I'm specifically talking about here is this campaign over SUVs. This campaign is not looking at the most dangerous cars or the most expensive cars or the least economic cars. It is looking at SUVs.
On a monthly basis I deal with someone who has a problem with my mother's SUV, and often they own a car which is either more expensive, or uses more gasoline, or is more dangerous. They usually insist that this is not the case.... the emperor is not naked. Furthermore, they insist that we own it because its macho, or because we think its safe, and they feel like its important to tell us why we are wrong. (The reason we own the car was a completely financial decision created by unusual circumstances. We didn't really pick it out. My father's employer did.) Yes, I am getting fairly sick of all of this.

] 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?

hehehe.... I'm sure you have noticed several papers floating around which discuss the aggressive personalities of SUV owners in a negative light. This is, in fact, the oldest peice of the anti-SUV puzzle that I am aware of (RE the biafra rant). This is clearly an important element of the campaign, and as it seemed to preceed other elements, I am arguing that it is the key stone.

You don't have a problem with macho, but then again, you don't have a problem with SUVs... At least thats what you said above... You seem to indicate something different below. I'll get to that in a minute.

] 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.

This could be an involved tangent. I would like you to explain this more clearly. I really don't agree with you. It seems like the left, in general, beleives that any success must, in fact, come on the backs of other people. People don't get anywhere in life by thinking, working, and creating. They get where they want to go by taking advantage of. So anyone who might be considered successful must, in fact, be evil. And the goal of socialist politics is to create a situation where we are all equal, not with respect to opportunity but with respect to outcome, so there cannot, in fact, be success. In general, people on the left seem to assume that successful people are evil.

] I think many people in the left are well aware of it and do talk
] about it in terms of morality.

There is a big difference between morality and moralizing.

moralizing n: the exposition (often superficially) of a particular moral code

The "often superficially" part is what is important here, with respect to the way I used the word. Morality is superficial when it doesn't have anything to do with how people treat eachother.... When it has to do with "offensive" musical lyrics, or "offensive" automobiles, as opposed to something like racism, for example.

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

You accuse me of "histrionics" and then not 1 paragraph later you call my mother's truck a "dangerous weapon" and you compare it to a tank. Am I really doing the exageration here?

But, you are correct. I do have a "chip on my shoulder" about the left, if you want to call it that. This is another tangent but I'll explore it a little. The reason is that I lived in the south for long time. The south is permiated by the radical right in the same way that the bay area is permiated by the radical left. I got pretty sick of this, in particular the racism, and in moving to San Francisco I thought I was escaping it. I was wrong. I was actually more inundated with the same sort of stuff in California then I had ever been in Altanta. It just had a different flavor.

One day I went to a clinic and the nurse there asked me what I do. I explained that I'm a computer engineer. She said "You're one of the people we're supposed to hate." At that moment a lot of the things that I had been reading and dealing with in San Francisco made sense. I was definately not in "the most tolerant place on earth." I had simply replaced one form of prejudice for another.

The radical left and the radical right are exactly the same in the ways that matter. The differences are superficial.

Both groups largely conceive of themselves as being poor and/or oppressed.

Both groups beleive that the people in power consist of members of the "other side." (IE the right thinks the mass media is liberal and the left thinks its "right wing.")

Both groups beleive that the people in power engage in cruel conspiracies to oppress them. They are apt to beleive in wild conspiracy theories as long as those theories jive with their preceptions of the world. (For example, the radical right thinks that Buchanan would have won the 1996 election if not for wide spread voter fraud. The radical left thinks George Bush willfully allowed September 11th to happen.)

Both groups define their superiority to the power centers in terms of morality. For the radical right this is Christian morality. For the radical left this is humanist morality.

Both groups are totally emotionally convicted in their perspectives. You can't win an arguement, even if all the facts are on your side.
They WANT to beleive what they beleive. They will not think critically about commentary coming from leaders on "their side."

Both groups have a violent fringe. Both groups have members that commit acts of political violence. You'll find individuals in both groups who realize that this is wrong, but on the whole it is tolerated. It is often argued that the ends justify the means.

Both groups beleive that all good people agree with them, and that people who don't agree with them are evil, corrupt, or simply stupid.

Essentially, what I'm sick of is the acceptance of political ideas based on their conclusions instead of their reasoning, and the assumption that people are evil because they aren't like you. I'm not sure I can go anywhere on this planet and escape this.

If I seem anti-left, its because I've had to deal with it so much over the past few years, and my natural state is to challenge the assumptions that the people around me are making. If I stay in the south too long, I will appear anti-right again. Its already started, but you won't see it on this site because there aren't many on this site who are on the right.

I don't really know if I have my own political opinions anymore.

] 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.

Earlier you're not opposed to SUVs, now you are.

First you say that nobody decided that I can't own an SUV, now you think there should be laws against it.

You don't understand the difference between an SUV and a tank. (How about the gun? And while we're on the subject...)

You don't understand the difference between an automobile and a weapon. (One is specifically designed and soley intended for killing. The other is specifically designed and soley intended for transportation.)

Finally, you accuse me of attempting to muzzle someones free speech rights.

When the ACLU went down to Pollaski to defend the KKK's free speech right to march through the city, I'm absolutely positive that they did not agree with the people they defended. Please do not confuse my telling you I'm sick of having a group shoving its asthetic preferences down my throat at every given opportunity as being the same as a desire to censor them. And yes, I do think being constantly harrased about having an SUV is the same as being told not to have one. I've been told as much many times. And my response is, basically, mind your own damn business.

RE: WSJ.com - The Scarlet SUV