Ace,

New Yorkers like yourself might not understand what the plebes see in SUVs, Ace. But I guarantee you that if you live in flyover country like I do, you need a vehicle that can carry cargo and get around in the snow and ice. We can't just hop the crosstown bus or take the subway if the weather is bad.

That said, there is something exquisitely dumb about seeing some languid creature-of-the-idle-hours mom hauling her two designer kids around in some tanklike Escalade that has never seen a road rougher than the country-club driveway.

True enough. (Although you should know that when the snow and ice really hits the city, buses are stuck just as cars.)

It's dicey, because there are folks who really need that sort of powerful ride, but there are a lot more folks who just like having a big, expensive, status-conferring ride.

I think there are some gas-electric SUV hybrids out there, and that really boosts the SUV's mileage, up to the level of a largish car.

I think some expert said that fuel economy would be improved dramatically not be increasing the efficiency of smaller cars -- they're already well-engineered for efficiency -- but by increasing the efficiency of SUV's, whose mileage is woeful. You can really save a lot of gas by improving "woeful" to "a little below average."

You can't get as much change by increasing the efficiency of cars from "good" to "a bit better than good."

Ace,

Wait 'til next year. More stringent fuel standards (mainly lower sulfur, which will reduce soot) for diesel fuel will come online. The new diesels are more powerful and quiet (and less polluting) than their forebears of 25 years ago. Diesels also get 30% better fuel economy.

Already, about half the sales of 3/4 ton trucks in this country are diesels. Jeep is selling a diesel version of the Liberty (called the CRD) now, and there are more things in the works.

THe only thing is, fuel is a bit fungible. If it costs less for people to use, they will use more of it.

Here in Texas, I'd say about 20% or fewer of the SUV owners I know use their carrying/towing/offroad capacity on a frequent basis, and I'd bet half of them never do and never will. Most of the Hummer/Excursion/Sequoia drivers I know are in the second category. It's more fashion than function if you ask me.

THe only thing is, fuel is a bit fungible. If it costs less for people to use, they will use more of it.

I don't think that's completely true. Yes, you will make a few more unnecessary jaunts when gas prices are low, but nobody except teenagers cruising the strip and protagonists in film noir movies simply get into their cars on a regular basis and drive around aimlessly.

Driving, for most, is a part of a chore, a way to get to work or to the grocery story or to a PTA meeting. Few people want to spend more time away from their families -- or, much more importantly, their televisions -- than necessary.

As a resident of Houston, I second Uncle Mikey.

do SUV's need to be so large, heavy, and fuel-inefficient?

Isn't that for the car buyer to decide? I mean, they pay for the gas it uses, and choose to pay the extra expense associated with the extra size and weight.

This decision is entirely voluntary. Why is it anyone else's place to dictate otherwise?

It's also exquisitely dumb when you see someone driving one of these 4WD behemoths take a curb or a speedbump as if they're driving a Geo Metro or something.

I have sort of a love-hate view of SUV's: I like driving them and would like to own one, but can't really afford it right now, but I hate parking next to them, and I'm not sure why so many people think they need them. I have a friend who will only drive SUV's despite the fact that he's single and has no kids, the gas prices are high, and he works an hour away from where he lives. Why he refuses to buy a mid-size sedan is beyond me.

It is frustrating for us small car drivers that SUV's, arguably, raise gas prices by raising demand, the rest of us have to help pay for some peoples' extravagances. However, I don't think that fuel efficiency standards will do much good. If people get better gas mileage, they might just drive more. Put us all in Prius's, and we'll all just be driving more often in cars that are much less safe.

Although, it would be a nice benefit of the high gas prices if people would drive less often, but I haven't seen any evidence of that where I live. Yet.

I don't think that's completely true. Yes, you will make a few more unnecessary jaunts when gas prices are low, but nobody except teenagers cruising the strip and protagonists in film noir movies simply get into their cars on a regular basis and drive around aimlessly.

Oh, I don't know. You'd be surprised. People will take more road trips, drive around town on a nice, sunny summer day, visit relatives more often, etc. The point is that high prices will force consumers to conserve. Despite the complaining, I don't think we've really hit the threshold yet where people will begin to conserve and start buying smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Driving, for most, is a part of a chore, a way to get to work or to the grocery story or to a PTA meeting.

Only partially true. Yes, it's a chore in many cases, but some people really love driving, including myself. Although I would more so if it weren't for other drivers on the road, but I digress. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but here in Ohio, it's quite common to see teenagers with their highly modified Honda Civics, and there's been a resurgence in the purchase and restoration of gas guzzling muscle cars and hot rods from the 60's and earlier. Not only that, everyone and their mother has a motorcycle around here these days, mostly Harely-Davidsons, which are probably not the most fuel-efficient of the bunch. Needless to say, people aren't driving these things to pick up groceries.

The SUV issue is resolving itself. As prices climb, people consider their actual automotive needs.

I heard somewhere that the average turnaround time for trading in/buying a new vehicle is about 27 months, so in a couple years anyone who doesn't want to fork out for the gas to power an SUV won't.

SUV sales are off since the price spike, so it's already happening.

I also think that blaming consumer automobiles for things like petroleum shortages and pollution is a little silly. Yes, they contribute, but electricity plants, industrial concerns, and other industry waste far more oil than cars and trucks do. If you really want to conserve fossil fuels, build more nuclear energy plants to replace the old oil-fired and coal-fired plants.

Like Ace, I'm for giving the Saudis as little money as possible. I really think we should be moving to hybrids more to dry up the terror-pertol-dollars than anything else.

If the automakers would start making all-wheel/4WD drive station wagons again, the desire for SUVs would diminsh. Many who own SUVs are haulin' around families, and they need/want the space, and think SUVs are safer.

The SUV is the loophole love child of the statist bastards who wanted everyone driving a Trabant and the car companies who followed the letter of the law for light duty trucks in a creative way. Where I live (New England) most SUVs are driven by retards talking on cell phones who seem to believe that SUV means never having to actually yield at a yield sign. I hate having to gamble in parking lots because of the abundance of "put a fucking sail on it and it can be your own Saramouche" land yachts moored in the spaces around me. Not to mention the SUV "drive like Teddy on a 5 day drunk" super snow and ice tractionator that repels the consequences of tangential velocity.

That said, discussions on the need for SUVs is a lot like discussions on the need for genuine moose hide slippers (manly yet silky soft), viz. None Of Your Fucking Business, Kommrade!

Ace, the Unvisersity that I study at has a large ME-research branch in its Graduate School.

One of those projects is a a hybrid SUV. Which tells me that the hybrid SUV stuff is still partly a research project, and may not be ready for production yet.

But I might be wrong.

I'll second the comments about "fly-over country". I'm living in the Northern Boondocks of Michigan, where half of hte people drive SUV's, and a good deal of those people make use of the Off-Road possibilities.

But I've also seen thousands of the things purring around the streets of Metro Detroit last time I visited, so I know there are many of them that aren't being used for their "Sport" option.

I know this is Heresy to conservatives, but we really have needed a stiff gas tax for decades (as well as an oil tax). Other countries pay far more for gas and use a lot less of it. History has shown that when faced with this challenge in the 1970's and 80's, this country responded rapidly by reducing oil and gas consumption. And if we must pay high prices, we're better off keeping more of that money in this country than feeding, housing, clothing and equipping terrorists. Even though the government will doubtless squander much of it, it will be an alternate source of revenue that can be used to reduce taxes and the deficit; or perhaps even doing the smart thing like building light-rail in congested cities like Houston... Fat chance!

PS - I drive a five speed stick shift car that gets 36 mph.

I've always thought that gas taxes should be earmarked to be used solely for highway/Interstate construction. If there are environmental issues associated with using gas, then add those to the taxes. Then people will decide whether the gas is worth it or not.

"Still-- do SUV's need to be so large, heavy, and fuel-inefficient? If they had 10% less of the size and weight, they'd still be pretty damn big and roomy -- and still very safe, still being the behemoths of the road (excluding actual trucks and semi-trailers) -- and would, presumably, get 10% additional (or a little better) fuel economy."

Do you really think the Trial Lawyers would pass up the chance to go after Ford or GM if a lighter wieght SUV were to have an accident/injury that somehow would have been alleged to have been almost partially prevented had the manufacturere only used 6 more stinking pounds of steel? Hmm?

See, the thing is that the Feds forced CAFE standards on us, which meant that cars had to get smaller and lighter. But there were exemptions for trucks and SUVs. So guess which segments of the auto market exploded in popularity.

Of course, the liberal solution to this is to extend CAFE standards to trucks and SUVs instead of letting auto manufacturers MAKE SAFER CARS. Oh, no. We mustn't have that. We must care more for Mother Earth than we do for actual people.

I want to swear a lot right now.

God damn! First Ace, now you, 72?

What's with all the strong-arm statist anti-free-market crap that keeps showing up here? If I wanted people to tell me what kind of car I can drive, or what "stiff taxes" we need to control people's consumer behavior, I'd wander over to the Kossacks.

It's bad enough getting ass-banged by the authoritarian lefties without my sympaticos cheerleading them on!

I lean toward letting the marketplace work this out, but I agree that the incentives are a little out of whack.

The marketplace worked itself out for us. We sold the Expedition last summer and bought a Toyota. Eldest kid has a 4 cylinder Ford. We just didn't need the big SUV anymore (when we did it was nice).

I still drive a pickup (8 cyl, but it's the small block) cause I still haul stuff.

FWIW I'm glad I'm not filling up that Expedition anymore.

Where I live (New England) most SUVs are driven by retards talking on cell phones who seem to believe that SUV means never having to actually yield at a yield sign.

This phenomenon, at least where I live in New England, is definitely NOT limited by type of vehicle.

Change "SUV" to "any old car or truck," and I might just agree.

You beat me to it, Phinn.

Me three for Phinn.

I don't think the issue is what people chose to drive. While I personally hate SUV's for other reasons (they make the small, responsive, 1500 lb cars I preferr more dangerous to drive and seemingly give people who don't know how to drive better odds of walking away unscathed from the havok they unleash on responsible drivers) but really a Porche 911 or even a Mitsu Evo 8 are damn near as inefficient when driven hard, and I want one of those. The real problem is the legislation that already exists to supposedly force the industry to observe higher efficiencies then allows a PT cruiser to be classified as a damn truck. This is why regulation is dumb.

I've never understood the atavistic hostility that some Geo-drivers have towards people who drive real automobiles. If you don't want to die in a car crash, then get a car that is not a thin wrapper of cellophane over a framework of toothpicks.

As they say in the 'hood, homies: don't hate the playa, hate the game!

The SUV issue is resolving itself. As prices climb, people consider their actual automotive needs.

That is exactly right. People aren't going to drive vehicles they can't afford to fill up, especially if they don't NEED to. The government needs to stay out of it because the market will take care of itself.

And me four with Phinn.

I hate SUVs, I'd never own one because they're way too much car for my purposes, and it's a nightmare trying to see past/around them in my 30mpg Impala...BUT if someone else wants to own one and take 60 dollars to fill up their tank each week then it's none of my effin' business. So WHAT if it's a status symbol that doesn't get driven the way it's built for? I don't think everyone who drives a Porche would cruise around town at 100 mph even if it was legal. Owning these things because they're "in" is silly but that justification shouldn't influence our political opinion of them.

SUVs are probably a LOT safer to transport your family in, especially in inclement weather, and making them lighter is going to reduce their ability to stay on the road -- and will probably change their center of gravity, a very bad thing. In other words, the engineering that goes into a re-vamping of a slightly lighter car entails a little more than taking some stuffing out of the seats.

If you don't like the way SUVs impact our dependency on foreign fuel, then let's get INdependent of them in ways that don't impede a consumer's choice to buy what he wants. Free enterprise, baby.

Later,
bbeck

But I guarantee you that if you live in flyover country like I do, you need a vehicle that can carry cargo and get around in the snow and ice.

Monty,

The public has been duped by Madison Avenue. The best handling winter vehicle I've ever driven (and still have stashed in the barn up in NY) was an old 1957 VW bus with a 40hp engine - it will forge ahead when even the plows have given up. Its older than I am but I would choose it in a heartbeat over a 4WD SUV if I truly NEEDED to get through some bad weather.

Monty, no offense, but I find your comment extremely ironic for this post. For a given engine, the load it is asked to move matters a great deal in terms of its efficiency. That's why Honda's Insight hybrid car has a chasis that was designed to be extrordinarily light. To complain about fuel efficiency and also complain when people point out that we would be more efficient if we got rid of 6000 lb vehicles isn't helping the main argument. Hybrids can be wonderful vehicles, but to truly realize fule savings we also need lighter vehicles.

brainy435:

Tell you what, Hondo -- you bring your little Honda up here to Minnesota in mid-January, and I'll put it up against my 4x4. The second or third time you high-center on a snowdrift or can't make turns because snow-turds have clogged your wheel-wells, you'll be trading in your piece of crap for a real car.

Monty, I don't own a Honda. I was duped into buying a Ford. Tell you what, though: I'll drive my little Focus up there, with the snow tires I need because I live in NE Ohio, and I'll race you around your state in January. We'll stick to the roads and I'll beat you because not only is my little car a champ getting through snow, it handles better in it due to it's lower weight and its being..you know..a car. Add that to the less frequent trips to the gas station and you're pretty much done.

Even better, since you used a car I don't own...I'll drive a 3000 lb Subaru Impreza (which though heavy for what I preferr is still MUCH lighter than an SUV) up there and you wont be able to touch me.

I'll still respect you in the morning, though :)

In all fairness, I got through 6 North Dakota winters in a Hyundai Excel. When we had to take a trip to Oklahoma, we had to get out and clean the snow out of the wheel wells, lol. The only accident we had in that car was when a 4x4 ran into US at a stop sign.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't have owned a 4-wheel drive then -- we couldn't afford it and we own a Jeep Rubicon now (which came in handy for towing people out of the sand on the beach in Guam) -- but A LOT depends on knowing how to drive your car in certain conditions. I will say that it's a lot harder to drive a little car on the ice than one that's built for it.

Later,
bbeck

I'm with Phinn as well.

While I have sort of a love-hate view of SUV's, I'm not into telling people what they can and can't drive.

In a related anecdote, a professor friend of mine bought an H2, and upon seeing this, another more liberal professor commented on him being wasteful, destroying the environment, blah, blah, blah, etc. He then pointed out the fact that he lives 2 miles from campus, while she lives over 30 miles away from campus. So who uses more gas?

Now, why he thinks he needs a $55k, gas-guzzling monstrosity to drive back and forth a couple miles to work everyday is beyond me, but it's always nice to see liberals like this being called out.

brainy435:

Here's a true story -- I have a friend from back east who had the same sad attachment to clown-cars that you do. He and his wife had a Dodge Neon that they swore by, and it's basically the same car as the Focus. They had it one winter in Minnesota and bought a Chevy Suburban before the Winter was over (got a lousy trade-in on the Neon, too).

All I'm saying is: I drive what I want to drive, whether it's a 1947 Buick Roadmaster or a 1971 Mustang Mach II or a 1962 International Scout. I don't want anybody nannying me and telling me I should drive something else. I drive what I want, where I want, how I want, as far as I want, over whom I want. And I will do it using hi-test premium fuel if I choose to.

Monty, I don't care what you drive...you're the one degrading what I like to drive. My point is that while people have the right to drive these vehicles I don't want to hear them gripe when the result is highr gas prices; though I admit that after reviewing your comments you never really griped..so oddly my beef was never with you. Vehicles get larger and heavier every year and as a result we will use more and more gas. Some of this is offset by technology, such as CVT's and controlled timing, but the cars that conserve gas the most are lightweight, low-powered vehicles. I preferr lightweight, overpowered vehicles, like Porches, so I'm not really advocating any gas saving here. Just, you know, rambling I guess.

As a fellow Focus driver, I'll defend it for a moment. First, it does ok in the snow as long as the tires aren't too worn. Second, it's surprisingly roomy inside for a small car. Third, it rides amazingly well for a small car. Better than any other car it's size that I've been in, better than some mid-sized cars, and better than most SUV's. The only thing I really don't like is that it's horsepower is shit.

I bought it because that's what I could afford at the time. While I could now afford something bigger, I've kept it in part because of gas prices, but mostly because I've gotten so many dings, scratches, and dents from the idiots that park in the lot at my place of employment that I didn't want to spend the money on getting a new car only to see it abused on a daily basis.

Another point: couldn't we just lower gas prices by taking driver's licenses away from the large number of people who really shouldn't have them anyway?

I would unscientifically estimate that to include somewhere between 10 and 20% of current drivers, although perhaps I'm being generous.

brainy435:

I shoulda put a smiley on my post :), except I frigging hate emoticons. I'm just bustin' on ya -- don't take it personal. I don't!

Always with the love, as Ace says. Always with the love.

bbeck:

I spent 7 winters of my youth in ND (4 at Minot AFB and 3 at Grand Forks AFB), and all I can say is that if you are forced to get through those winters, you should be pampered with the nicest, most comfortable, ride available.

My daughter and her '97 Sunfire are currently attending UND in Grand Forks. The little Sunfire never missed a beat last winter. Even at -40!

When the price of oil jumped high enough in the 70's and 80's this country acheived great results in energy conservation. Since the price dove in the 90's we have not, instead we are more wasteful and dependent than we were. And the fact that our money is going to pay for the international shopping, whoring, gambling, and gluttony trips of a few sheiks, (and the tribute they pay to terrorists to leave them to their squandering of our money) should give us all pause for thought. The least amount that we must send them the better off we shall be. If we can raise the price of gas and oil through taxes it: 1) encourages conservation which means at a minimum that the amount of oil we consume will not rise as fast and 2) all that tax money will stay in this country instead of going to make a few sheiks even fatter and a lot of terrorists better able to kill us. And though I can hardly force my fingers to type this: Liberals really are right (ouch!) about this. We need a stiff gas tax and have for decades. If we'd had one we wouldn't be wasting as much or be as dependent as we are right now.

"This phenomenon, at least where I live in New England, is definitely NOT limited by typ e of vehicle. Change "SUV" to "any old car or truck," and I might just agree."

Yes, of course. Understood. Retards rolling in any and all manner of vehicles, it's the New England way.

But please, a retard wrapped in 6 tons of Ford Excursion is fearless and there's nothing more dangerous than a fearless retard. Except of course for a fearless retard piloting 6 tons of deathmobile. And ice covered roads often lead to fearless retards piloting 6 tones of spinning deathmobile.

Besides the point though. Retardism and SUV ownership (differences of opinion on correlation aside) are the God given right of all Americans.

The only thing I hate more than SUV driving retards are people who ponder the needs of others regarding vehicle choice.

And Andrew "Zils for me, Trabants for thee" Sullivan.

72,

I agree with much of what you say, but it doesn't really matter how we get there. A high tax on gas just artificially inflates the price. Allowing the price to climb naturally will produce the same results, although perhaps a few months later. People are going to be encouraged to consume less one way or another. And as far as the liberals being right, maybe to a point, but they're also the ones who inhibit any oil exploration inside the US and stop us from building nuclear powerplants, so I won't give them too much credit.

Besides, isn't gas already taxed fairly highly? I'm not sure the exact amount, but I thought it was fairly substantial.

I can't stand the word "dependent" when used with any commodity that we voluntarily choose to buy. It's absurd. There are about 25,000 places around the world that produce oil, and we have the right to buy from any one of them depending on the price.

If people really have a problem with buying from Saudi Arabia or wherever, the let's at least be honest about it and advocate for a total ban on buying oil from there, the way we do with Cuba. (I'm against that, but at least that's better than all these sneaky, back-door micromanaging regulations.)

Or, better yet, if you are so outraged at the idea of buying cheap oil and gas from these places, then do the world a favor and start a gas station company that only buys domestic, like those investment companies that only buy enviro-friendly stocks.

Then, ask your customers to pay the higher price at the pump. The people who agree with you will gladly pay their $3.95 per gallon to rest their consciences, and maybe a few will pick up a pack of Galoises and a pair of hemp sandals in the mini-mart while they're there.

At least that way, it's all voluntary.

Don't like my suv, how about my house, TV, Harley....
Any thing else I work 50 hrs. a week for, you want to tell me about?
How about I just sign over my paycheck every two weeks and let you decide what it is you think I should and shouldn't have.
Better yet, you buy it for me and I'll let you tell me how much better your choice is than mine.

Jason

If the price were higher we'd find ways to conserve more and at least our consumption would not continue to rise as rapidly, and though high oil prices do have the same effect, shouldn't we seek to keep as much of that money as we can in this country rather than sending it to that group of midevil barbarians who believe that if they die in the service of Islam they can have sex with 72 vaginas in heaven, just so they can use it against us?

Phinn on the genius of the market:

Isn't that for the car buyer to decide? I mean, they pay for the gas it uses, and choose to pay the extra expense associated with the extra size and weight. This decision is entirely voluntary. Why is it anyone else's place to dictate otherwise?

The place of others? Besides the fact that SUV drivers who have adapted to a lifestlye of commuting from suburban sprawl sometimes 60-70 miles a day, in 10-12 MPG Lincoln Navigator and Caddy Escalante behemouths insisting that soldiers of less privileged classes fight and die for foreign oil? The idea that the ANWAR and other "magic 10 billion barrel" solutions to drill our way out of energy dependency is Bush crap?

50 million SUV owners X 8 gallons a day times 365 days divided by 42 gallons of gas per 42 gallon barrel of oil? 3.51 billion barrels of oil a year. Enough for just SUV owners to consume ANWAR in 2.5 years.

Also, Phinn has to concede that the consumer is utterly ignorant, doesn't care at all as long as the juice is at the station at pricing that doesn't inconvenience them or be written off as a CEO/business expense - and such people will only change behaviors as cost and supply force change in a major 3rd energy crisis. (and when lesser Americans refuse to fight and die to keep foreign energy sources coming in).

America needs to impose energy efficiency on the ownership classes in America (if their kids are too precious well-off and powerful to deign to fight for the foreign oil needed for refueling their parents SUVs).

Besides vehicle efficiency standards and a independent energy policy - 2 things absolutely abhorrent to Bush's big bucks oilman corporate "Pioneers and Ranger" campaign contributors - we unfortunately need a a gas tax to push another dollar on gas at the pump price that will force shifts in consumer energy conservation and be used to get Saudi oil substitutes coming on line rather than wait for a crisis to put us at 200 a gallon oil.

And we need to do something the Bush Administration hates with a passion - start asking our people to embrace programs of energy conservation.

We also need to guarantee that oil companies will get a minimum price of 50 dollars for every barrel of oil. And with such legislation, require "windfall profits" if any, be reinvested in non-foreign energy alternate petro resources. (Oil shales, coal to diesel, etc)

A dollar of energy purchased made in America has a 6-7 dollar economic multiplier and sure beats pissing 70 cents of each dollar of gas purchased by Americans going into Wahabbi Madrassahs.

And for those worried about China swooping in to get a small price differential between Iranian oil and future American oil produced from coal and thus further "out-competing us" - the answer is easy - energy tariffs on goods made by non-energy independent countries.

I haven't bothered to acknowledge the presence of this shit-sack, much less pretend to debate him, and so I am sure I'll regret this as much as I would wrestling with a pig, but here goes:

insisting that soldiers of less privileged classes fight and die for foreign oil

Our military is all-voluntary, as it should be. I oppose a conscripted army as much as I oppose price controls and slavery. There's no "insisting" going on here.

Strike One.

America needs to impose energy efficiency on the ownership classes in America

There are no classes in America. That's a socialist lie.

Strike Two.

We also need to guarantee that oil companies will get a minimum price of 50 dollars for every barrel of oil. And with such legislation, require "windfall profits" if any, be reinvested in non-foreign energy alternate petro resources. (Oil shales, coal to diesel, etc)

Go all out, comrade: assume government control over the entire industry. We have only seen with every single socialist government in history that doing so leads inexorably to long-term economic decline, skyrocketing costs, surplusses brought on by artificial price supports, and other incidents of malinvestment. But, hey, ignore all economic history, why don't you? It's worked out so well for Cuba, the Eastern bloc and the former Soviet Union. (But, hey, these are just immutable economic laws, and as we know, more than a few of the people who discovered them were ... you know ...)

Strike Three.

and sure beats pissing 70 cents of each dollar of gas purchased by Americans going into Wahabbi Madrassahs

You're all out of strikes, shit sack, but I'll play anway -- get off your sorry, worthless ass and start that All-American gas station company. Cedarford's All-American Gas: No Saudi oil products sold here!

Do you have what it takes to do that? Or are you all mouth and bluster?

I spent 7 winters of my youth in ND (4 at Minot AFB and 3 at Grand Forks AFB), and all I can say is that if you are forced to get through those winters, you should be pampered with the nicest, most comfortable, ride available.

Heh, all six of our years were at Minot AFB. :) Hubby was a LT at first and we could barely afford the Excel and the Hyundai Scoupe at the time. When he pinned on Captain we moved into town (across from the Fortune Cookie -- remember that restaurant?) and got a Chevy minivan. But, the Hyundais did surprisingly well all that time, and we even bought another Hyundai in Guam as a "boonie" car (and that thing made it through all the typhoons). We don't own one anymore, but Hyundais are good cars.

Were you a SAC guy?

Later,
bbeck

LOL@Phinn.

I know I'm on the right side when Cedarford comes along and takes the opposite POV. You really shouldn't bother with him, Phinn, he's beneath you.

Later,
bbeck

bbeck:

My dad was in SAC - a missile launch officer in Minot, and a missile squadron commander in Grand Forks (talk about poor career management). Now when *I* went in, I went straight to Southern California, albeit stinky San Bernardino (doing ICBM R&D at Norton AFB). But at least I was warm.

(talk about poor career management).

Hey, you gotta go where the job is. And ND wasn't a bad place to grow up, was it?

My hubby's a bomber pilot, hence the Minot stay. Thankfully we never had to go BACK.

Later,
bbeck

Wow, small world. I came THIS close to signing up for Air Force OTC, but balked when they told me I was going to be a Missile Command Officer. That was back in 1986.

(talk about poor career management)

Yeah, well in between the two stints in ND he was treated to a tour in Vietnam (he was also a navigator). Poor guy. Fortunately he also had a nice 4-year stint as an ROTC instructor at Univ. of Texas before we went back to ND. I just shake my head at how privileged and comfortable my life has been by comparison - primarily due to his efforts.

And you're right - the nice thing about ND is that the people are united against the elements, making for a very close community.

Bbeck, I wouldn't bother commenting on this if I were you. If oil goes above 100 a barrel, I'm sure you already know which gas attendents you are planning to blow for a discount. So costs don't bother you. Perhaps your old man, but not you. Bon appetite, Bbeck!

Phinn on the other hand is another free market ideologue who masks his stupidity and general ignorance of the oil/gas market - with arrogance. Phinn likely thinks "the miracle of the market" (read more money in the hands of wealthy Big Oil investors and execs) will lead to Saudis and others drilling for more oil once 100 a barrel is passed. Then prices will go down and we will all be in cheap energyland bliss again. And if the Saudis balk, then our volunteers from the South and rural America will go in guns blazing and blood spurting and assure the cheap good oil comes our way - just like cheap gas will one day pay for our Iraq Occupation.

In his Hayek moron acolyte mode, he offers to call balls and strikes the like retarded clutz you don't select for either sides team, but let him umpire out of pity. Phinn surely must have had some practice.

Phinn also neglects we have no real oil alternative infrastructure built yet and it is long past time we start building and taxing to fund it. Switching costs and the oil shale/coal cracking plant construction will cost several hundred billion dollars and take a minimum of 5-7 years to put in place even if a national energy emergency exists.

As for class existing or not, go to an Ivy league school and note their proud fallen classmate rolls at the war memorial most premiere colleges have. they dry up around 1968. Because about then the upper class determined that national service was a thing the lower classes were best suited for. And it is still easy to determine class in America by homeownership, neighborhood, and even dental cosmetics (working poor, unlike the very poor and the middle class & upwards to not have the finances to see dentists).

Cedarford:

Your comment was callow and incommensurate with bbeck's earlier comments.

You might also note that 1968 was the year of peak US casualties in Vietnam, and that they dropped precipitously thereafter. I'd say that casualties across the economic spectrum enjoyed the same reduction in attrition that you carelessly attribute to class advantage. There may be evidence to support your hypothesis, but you haven't presented it here.

we unfortunately need a a gas tax to push another dollar on gas at the pump price

The sincerity of your liberal compassion for the plight of the working poor just brings tears to my eyes.

You're all out of strikes, shit sack, but I'll play anway -- get off your sorry, worthless ass and start that All-American gas station company

I like this idea. We could confiscate by eminint domain...the Kennedy bunker/compound in MA...and drill for oil there. After all - its for the "public good".

Would you rather have cheap gas, or Teddy ensconced in a phat crib?

"Oh, sorry Ted, dry holes the whole lot - you can have your place back now. We won't charge you for all those valuable drilling rigs we left scattered all over the place. We're real sorry about that rig in the middle of the living room too. The Ouija board swore it would be a gusher, but all we hit was your wine celler."

Geoff, I take it from your response that Cedarford is still trying to get my attention. Poor token Nazi.

Cedarford, as always, I don't READ your drivel, remember, Wanker? You're beneath ME, too, in every sense but a literal sexual way, so stop drooling and dreaming.

That Cedarford Sucks site is far more entertaining than you'll EVER be.

Later,
bbeck

72, don't take this the wirng way but screw you very much. We, especially us in California, pay substantial taxes of gas already. The state portion of that was supposed to provide all of the funds we'd need to maintain our highways and keep California working. For many years that money has been consistently looted and spent on the latest idiot entitlements the legislature comes up with to troll for votes from the poor rather than do those things that would offer those poor the best chance to make a decent livng.

No more, not one friggin' penny. It's pure theft by politicians that will do absolutely nothing to solve anybody's problems except those politicians. Taxes should only ever be drawn for the purpose of paying for well defined public services and infrastructure. Taxation for social engineering is merely an extension of the failed concept of social engineering itself. It doesn't work it just pisses people off.

I've driven in Europe and experienced the dubious pleasure of paying as much to fill up the tank of a small sedan as I would at home to tank up a Winnebago. No Euro I ever asked about this thought they were particularly benefitting from the high cost imposed by the massive taxes. They knew it was a money grab plain and simple but weren't inclined to complain if most of their life was spent in area well served by public transportation. Those who didn't were philosophical and said they liked how it kept the peslky urbanites away but they had no delusion that this side effect was an intentional benefit.

Ace, I think your perception of driving as a chore is brought on by your strange environs. If I lived in urban New York I'd find car ownership questionable, too. Expensive and lacking ing the pleasures known to those of us accustomed to more open spaces.

Long after my teens were behind me, I'd indulge in long weekend drives to nowhere in particular thanks to cheap gas and car that were economical by budgetary default. Often I'd just pick a direction where I'd never delved before and see how much I could take in before it got to be time to turn back. Sometimes I'd be alone and sometimes I'd have a friend along to spend a whole day seeing unfamiliar places while talking about nothing in general. The open road was a stimulus for conversation that sitting around the house couldn't match. It was aimless but enriching at the same time.

I can't imagine going through life without ever seeing what lies beyond the narrow corridor one travels in day to day life.

Hybrid SUVs are already here and more are on the way. The mileage may not seem very good compared to the hamster powered roller skates out there but compares very favorbly to other vehicles in the class while still offering much of the real functionality.

What remains is for companies to convince people to buy them. Actually putting the product on the market and giving the consumers a chance to make their own decisions has far more power than any government edict. The attempts to impose higher mileage on the Big Three car companies in the 70's were a joke. What made the real difference was the increasing competition from Japanese brands. The market spoke far louder than the EPA.

They are close to becoming, if not already, the predominate vehicle in LA. And you can't get much more lefty than this town, so lefties can't hate them all that much.

We, especially us in California, pay substantial taxes of gas already. The state portion of that was supposed to provide all of the funds we'd need to maintain our highways and keep California working. For many years that money has been consistently looted and spent on the latest idiot entitlements the legislature comes up with to troll for votes . . . .

Don't forget all these phony bond measures passed to improve the highway infrastructure that get raided, too. But, then again, you have to give the voters a lot of the blame for continuing to pass them.

Oh, I get it. Hayek's cousin on his mother's side was three-quarters jewish.