Saturday, May 23, 2009

Hoped-for Change In The Wind?

This appeared today on page 21 of New York Daily News in the editorial section called “In Other Words” written by Adam Sommers. Of the three local papers - the Post, the Times, and the Daily News - the editorial pages of Daily News officially slant most to the left with nary an untoward word written to criticize Our Dear Leader. You would think it would be the Times, but as we all know, the NYT is only fair and above petty political leanings. Well, anyway, this little article caught my eye as I was drinking my morning coffee:

The story: President Obama says new auto-emission rules will make cars cost a lot more, but they are still ‘a winning proposition [because] over the life of a vehicle, the typical driver would save about $2800 by getting better gas mileage.’

In other words: Eventually we’ll make cars so expensive no one can afford them. However they’ll also be so efficient they would cost you nothing to own if you had the money. You come out ahead because you won’t buy a car you can’t afford, plus you also don’t have to pay for any of the gas, which the car doesn’t use any of.”

Maybe the hoped-for change is in the wind and, if we listen carefully, we can hear the clickety-clack of the keyboards in the distance…Obama can be wrong?...Obama could be wrong!?...Obama is wrong!

8 comments:

LawHawkSF said...

Bev: Perfect description of "Catch 22" thinking. Well said. What we save on the cars that we can't buy and the gas we'll save on the gas tanks we won't fill will be offset by the cost of replacing shoe leather and buying feed for the horses. I love it when a plan comes together.

AndrewPrice said...

Great article Bev! I laughed until I cried, and then I laughed again. Maybe a little reality is starting to intrude upon the pipe dreams of our leftist friends?

SQT said...

Oh my goodness! Someone actually "get's it." My husband and I have been talking about this for years. It became really silly when gas hit $4.50 here and everyone sold their SUV's to buy the Prius. Soooo, you spend thousands more to save a few bucks on gas every month? How many years before you make that up? Oh, never.

Captain Soapbox said...

Ah but remember guys, we're not supposed to even want to drive anymore. And why should we, everyone lives in metropolitan areas with a bevy of cheap and environmentally friendly transportation for longer trips through the city, and can walk to a plethora of stores and businesses for most of our needs. Which also helps the health crisis by making people more fit as they go down to their smoke-free bodegas and coffee shacks...

Of course that only works in a Liberal World. They seem to forget that a large chunk of the population live in places where your job can be 20, 40, even 60 miles each way, where there are no passenger trains or buses to make these "commutes" since they don't fit into the cityfolk concept of a "commute" due to the distances involved. I know people who do drive 60 miles each way to get to work every day, I myself have driven 75 miles each way to college for a year, 3 times a week. But the left, especially the left that fixates on the evil of the automobile can't get through their thick heads that there are a lot of people who have to do such things, and many areas of the country don't have taxis, subways and buses to take them to their jobs since such things either don't exist at all, or if they do (and usually just buses) they often have a service radius that doesn't reach where many people work from where they live.

Sorry for the longish rant, but every time I see some media outlet (or now the government even) waxing poetic about how no one should need a car thanks to the miracle of modern public transport I'd just love to have them move to somewhere in "flyover country" where the house they can afford is 40 miles from the job they get and then see how they come up with a way to get there and back.

patti said...

dreamer! the left will never admit they were wrong about their big o (does this have anything to do with elbows?!). but, they will come around if somehow they find a way to pin this on bush...

Captain Soapbox said...

It's easy for them to pin it on Bush Patti, all they have to do is say that it's his fault for not taking over the car companies as the One has so wisely done. If Bush would have done it years ago we'd all be living in a more perfect world...

John Keats said...

And while we're at it, Bush should have taken over the fast food establishment to free the world of trans-fat and reduce consumption of non-renewable resources. He should have taken control of America's farms because the meat industry is wasteful and the cows produce dangerous gases. He should have taken over the music industry since the market is losing profits due to this Internet thing.

George Bush destroyed America. I only hope that Obama assumes the dictatorship that Bush avoided in the name of freedom and personal choice.

Writer X said...

Thank you for the translation, and I couldn't agree with you more, Bev. It will probably make "passing emissions," a fun activity here in AZ (NOT) mostly impossible.

Post a Comment