I want to make SUV owners (easy target) feel more directly and personally responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. If I had the money, I would similarly memorialize the iraqi dead…but thats over 600000 people, and who knows how many of those names are availible. These stickers will be used for mobile anti war propaganda, and will hit many where it hurts. SUV owners will be forced to link their desire for status and unnesessary consumption with individual deaths.
I should begin by making it clear that I in no way mean to belittle or demean James Johnson and his desire to make a difference. Nonetheless, I have a real problem with this project. My dispute with it is simple: SUVs AND THEIR DRIVERS ARE NOT THE REASON FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. Nor are they responsible for the deaths of American soldiers. Frankly, to blame SUV drivers for American deaths is insulting, inappropriate, and just plain wrong. It takes an arrogance, a willingness to ignore the facts, and a detachment from reality that I find disturbing.
Yes, Johnson means well; I get that. If he’s so concerned about making a statement against the war in Iraq, then how about placing the blame where it actually belongs: on Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader. It was his lies, deception, and skillful employment of the propaganda of fear that convinced the American sheeple to support his Glorious Clusterf—k War in Iraq. It was his using the War on Terror © to justify a bloody invasion of Iraq, diverting troops and materiel from the hunt from Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
The war in Iraq and the resulting carnage are not the creation, nor the responsibility, of SUV owners and drivers. Yes, I suppose you can argue that the war is really all about oil, and even I would grant that there’s something to that argument. Having said that, however, I cannot in good conscience agree that Johnson’s campaign to smear and belittle SUV drivers is either appropriate or well thought out. Honestly, I believe that Johnson is completely missing the point. He’s allowed his hatred for SUVs and those who drive them to so blind him to reality that he’s willing to go off on a unjustifiable tangent.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that I like SUVs. If I could afford one, I would happily drive one, but I can’t, so there you have it. This is America; if you have the financial wherewithal to drive something the size of a road grader, then you should be able to do that without being harrassed by a few out of touch and easily misled zealots.
One thing I fail to understand is why so much vitriol seems to be directed towards SUVs and their owners…and yet nothing seems to be said about those who own and drive full-size trucks, which are every bit as fuel-inefficient as your average SUV. Perhaps it’s that SUVs are generally seen as an obvious sign of self-absorbed affluence, which make them easy targets for unbalanced nutjobs with an agenda.
What I truly don’t understand is Johnson’s self-superior conviction that SUVs are the root of all evil. Instead of placing blame where it truly belongs- on the shoulders of Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader and the American sheeple who voted for him- he’s determined to hold American consumers accountable for their…well, I’m not quite certain what, really.
Its time American consumers took responsability for thier actions. Its time American consumers stopped making ego driven purchases that lead directly to the death of fellow americans and the citizens of other countries….
His poor punctuation and capitalization notwithstanding, Johnson seems perfectly willing to focus his passion and his vitriol in a direction that makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. Johnson’s campaign, while no doubt heartfelt, seems little more than a personal vendetta against vehicles he personally detests. That’s fine; if he hates SUVs, no one is going to require him to purchase or drive one.
If he was truly upset about fuel-inefficient vehicles, Johnson should have the intellectual honesty and the integrity to campaign against SUVs, high-end sports cars, AND full-size trucks. The fact that he’s focusing solely on SUVs indicates to me that he’s only interesting in pursuing his own personal vendetta.
There is one good thing about Johnson’s misguided campaign, though; at least he’s more rational than these nutjobs:
The H2 is the ultimate poseur vehicle. It has the chassis of a Chevy Tahoe and a body that looks like the original Hummer; i.e. it’s a Chevy Tahoe in disguise.
The H2 is a gas guzzler. Because it has a gross vehicle weight rating over 8500 lbs, the US government does not require it to meet federal fuel efficiency regulations. Hummer isn’t even required to publish its fuel economy (owners indicate that they get around 10 mpg for normal use). So while our brothers and sisters are off in the Middle East risking their lives to secure America’s fossil fuel future, H2 drivers are pissing away our “spoils of victory” during each trip to the grocery store.
Repeat after me: SUVs ARE NOT THE REASON AMERICANS ARE DYING IN IRAQ. The sooner y’all begin to get a grip on that reality, the sooner y’all might actually be able to do something that makes an actual difference. Focusing your anger and vitriol on a red herring is silly, wasteful, and just plain stupid.
If you want to blame someone or something, how about having the intellectual honesty to put the blame where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader and the American sheeple who voted for him. Otherwise, you’re simply spinning your ideological wheels- a lot of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing.
Really…don’t y’all think you can do better than this?
There's probably a truckfull of reasons why Environmentalists have been brainwashed to hate SUVs. For a "movement" that's 60% propaganda to be successful, there has to be something to brew hate and jealosy. This inspires the emotion-rich intellegence-poor masses to be demonstrate their concern for the environment by participating in amazing acts of brilliance, such as World Jump Day, or hating SUVs (and their drivers.)
This quote reveals the true intent of the SUV haters:
As Jack has pointed out, the last part is pure BS. Anyone with a room temperature IQ can see that. (I'm jumping to no conclusions about the IQ of the author.)
Their real goal is in the first part of the quote, that says consumers should not excersise free choice in selecting the size of their vehicle. What usually follows is advocacy of more government influence and control of the market, and the free choice on which it depends.
The Ford Excursion was heavier than the H2, and it's ten cylinder engine got about 8 MPG. I say was because the Excursion is no longer on the market. It's gone not because of government regulations or restrictions, but because of a free market system that works!
But logic like that is lost on people who have been taught to believe at an emotional level, that the biggest threat to mankind is the internal combustion engine.
But of course, the larger reason that greenies love to hate SUVs is the well known facts that women who drive their kids around in super-safe and comfortable SUVs or pick-ups have larger breasts than those who don't, and the men who drive them have penises 20% larger than the average. (Add another 8% if your pickup truck has a gun-rack...)
bob:
I drive a four-door full size pick-up. You just know I'm packin' a load.
bob:
How much do you add if your truck has an auxiliary fuel tank?? :o)
Wow, I'm glad this blog is so reactionary! Its great to see someone post such a seething rebutal without doing any further homework or research. Very well done. Someone had similar sentiments, which I will resubmit here, to which I responded at length. I bet there are some typos. You'll get the gist though. Here it is, in its entirety:
I had a woman, a photographer, apparently liberal, and obviously pissed off, write a comment in response to our proposed project. I accidentally hit submit before I could sign my name and wish her a happy thanksgiving. Here, reprinted for your enjoyment, is her comment, and my response. Go to her website to confirm one of my parting shots.
Moogirl November 21st, 2006 9:28 pm
I don’t own an SUV.Having said that, you are a giant asshat. SUV’s are not the cause of this war. A maniacal, sociopathic, power hungry administration is. Do you really think that if, by some magical wand waving, there were no more SUV’s, then this war would end? Grow up! Soccer moms are not the cause for the war or the continuation thereof.This war was waged for control and power and money. Control over the oil, power over the land that produces the oil, and the money that comes from owning the oil. This entire country is run on oil. Do you really think that an SUV is the source of all the need? You are pitifully uninformed.
Soldiers are not dying so people can drive SUV’s. Soldiers are dying because we have self-centered, greedy, evil men running our country. How dare you lay the responsibility of this outrageous war at the feet of people because of the kind of car they drive. Stop wasting your time and resources on such worthless banalities. Put the blames where it belongs. Perhaps then you will actually accomplish something worthwhile.
Moogirl,
I’m sorry you misinterpreted my intentions. I think you missed the underlying subtext of this proposed guerilla action. I would like to employ text from your argument, in defense of mine.
You wrote: “Soldiers are dying because we have self-centered, greedy, evil men running our country.”
I would counter and say soldiers are dying because of the complicit agreement/belief between power and consumer that consumption is beneficial,ie consumption drives the economy, with no side effects, environmental, social, or political. This neoeconomic structure is based on a world where there are no static reserves of any material, water, oil, steel, space. Therefor it only makes sense to encourage growth, at least on paper.
However it must be remembered that neoclassical economics got its foothold in the late 1800s, a time when the industrial revolution had a certain romance and thus a public support system that propagated and encouraged rapid growth. It goes without saying that this rapid growth was a result of unbridled consumption. Before the industrial revolution, only the upper classes could afford to consume beyond thier immediate needs. But, now, all but the poorest of the poor could afford that little extra something; extra shoes, new pants, labour saving devices that ultimately helped lead to women being liberated from glorified (sometimes) domestic servants.
Conspicuous consumption connotated your pecuniary status. With the development of the middle class, this lead to the average consumer (if we deem the middle class average) consuming beyond their needs. Of course, this was great for the economy, and economists noted that.
By the 50s, neoeconomics (and thus widespread conspicuous consumption) was becoming synonymous with Democracy. This implied need for yearly growth lead to a number of things: after the war, American big interests got together with the Whitehouse, and called for a constant state of war, in order to justify continued high capacity manufacturing (it was after all, not the New Deal that pulled us out of the Great Depression, but the act of gearing up for war), and in what should have been a massive anti trust case, Detriot motor companies bought out almost every public transport system (not buses, but street cars, subways, ect), and quietly disbanded them, forcing the American city dweller to go buy a pink Chevrolet. Still with me?
The mid 50s to early 60s saw cars grow to unsurpassed sizes. The biggest car of all, it should come as no suprize, was a Cadillac. Again: consumption as status signifier. The American public’s thirst for status (and in my argument, status through oil consumption) lead to 1971’s peak oil prodcution in American. Need we be reminded that, among other things, (of course SUVs and Mustangs, ect arnt the only things to blame, but to say they arnt to blame as well would be foolish) the late 60s was the period of the biggest engines ever put in a car, the time of the muscle car. Manufacturing capabilities became refined to the point that even lower middle class buyers could afford to purchase the most inefficent status symbol on the road.
Hmm… inefficent status symbol, whats that sound like? Now the claim could be made that individuals are controlled by the marketing that reaches them most effectively. And they will buy where that marketing leads them, like a sheep to slaughter. This absolves the individual from blame, much like German officers (or American soldiers in more recent news) claiming they were only following orders. Of course, that argument never holds water in war crimes tribunals: why should it hold water where the consumer is concerned?
Are American consumers symptomatic of a continued denial of the unfeasible nature inherient in neo-economics? Or did neo-economics merely position a theoretical ground work to facilitate the lust of the consumer?
You wrote: “How dare you lay the responsibility of this outrageous war at the feet of people because of the kind of car they drive.”
Who does the responability ultimately lie with? If American consumers acted with prudence and thought, unbridled consumption wouldnt lead to unprecidented drains on natural resources, and the constant campaign to exploit new ones. You see, at heart I am a stanch environmentalist. I believe all of our actions affect us ten fold down the road. I think we need to start somewhere. If people start to think like power figures, (perhaps you should read Jean Lyotard’s The Post Modern Condition) which is to say, if they start thinking in terms of abstract units or numbers, rather than in pronouns, they lose sight of the impacts of thier actions. If the consumer ignores that which it is convient to ignore, or thinks of actions only in terms of convience or status, then they become one step closer to unfeeling automatons, only looking forward, never side to side or backward, much less into the future.
You wrote: “Put the blame where it belongs.”
I ask you: if the American consumer cant be held accountable who can? It is after all, the American consumer who elects our leaders. How can they be absolved of that? Blame it on marketing?
You wrote: “Do you really think that an SUV is the largest source of all the need?”
Did I ever posit that claim? No. In fact, in the first sentance of my post, I wrote: SUVs (easy target). You do have to start somewhere. It would be pretty impractical to put stickers on a power plant. This is about oil consumption, but its also about consumers taking personal responsability for thier actions. Oil consumption is a result of a consumer action. If we didnt drive as much, or as needlessly, or as inefficently, our reliance on oil would go down. If we lowered our even further, bought local produce, and didnt eat meat, it would again go down. If we lived in closer to work, again. Its about choice, and the choices people make, and the consequences therein. I feel that I am putting “the blame where it belongs.”
I think I have herein negated your first paragraphs arguments. Also: what is an asshat? Also: you kind of look like Ann Coulter. Read Thorstien Veblen’s Theories of the Leisure Class, which is all about conspicuous consumption and its affects.
Check out neoeconomics. Subscribe to adbusters.
Now of course, this doesnt directly address your exact questions, but I think it answers most of them. I explain why SUVs. I explain that conspicuous consumption requires growth, and raw materials. The free market isnt really free. We have to pay for everything we do, every action we take. We might not have to pay for it immediately... If we didnt go to Iraq to steal their oil, what did we go for? Enduring Freedom? WMDs? I'm kinda burnt out on this argument, but you can keep plugging away if you'd like.
I'm not sure Jack... I'll fill my second tank, grab a yardstick, and let you know.
Wow James, How much oil have we stolen so far? It really should be a lot by now.
James...if your goal is to work for the creation of more fuel-efficient vehicles, I'm 100% behind you. My problem is with your methods and argument, neither of which are convincing. In the case of your stickers, it's just plain vandalism.
It would be nice to see you devote your admirable commitment and energy to a cause that actually made sense.
James
You ask "I ask you: if the American consumer cant be held accountable who can? It is after all, the American consumer who elects our leaders. How can they be absolved of that? Blame it on marketing?"
Seriously, you cannot be this naive. You know entirely too many $25.00 words to be so simplistic. Who can be held accountable? OUR PRESIDENT and his cabinet, that's who. I'm pretty sure the American electorate cannot declare war. I agree that oil is the reason we are in Iraq and GWB exaggerated intellignce to get us into war there. But to say that the American consumer elected George W and is now responsible is absurd. First, roughly 55% of registered voters even bothered to vote. Many American consumers never bothered to register. Then, there were all of the election anomolies. Using your logic, we have gone to war due to the lackluster participation in the democraric process. How about putting scarlet letters on unregistered voters and registered voters who didn't vote?
True, it's not exactly *American SUV drivers* who are responsible for the deaths of American servicement.
It's *Republican SUV drivers* who sent them to their deaths...equally with Republicans who drive other-than-SUVs, and who drive nothing at all. Equally with Democrats like Hilary and other such bloodthirsty party-traitors.
To the extent that these hyperlobotomized cretins deserve any notice at all, I offer this Christmas wish: *God damn them, every one.*