NO TRUTH IN ADVERTISING, PART II: We've also got a new ad claiming that those who drive SUVs are guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. And while this ad isn't quite as off the mark as the ones last year that claimed small-time pot users were standing foursquare with Osama Bin Laden, it's still a bit of a stretch, and as someone who covers the energy market for a living, I feel qualified to retort.
The argument is that it's "gas-guzzling SUVs" that eat up so much oil that it makes the OPEC countries rich, they give money to the terrorists, and therefore we've got a hole in the ground where the World Trade Center used to be. But my question is, why just SUVs? They may use more gas than the average car, but what percentage of American cars are SUVs? I don't have the stats in front of me, but I'm guessing it's less than 10. After all, most people can't afford them.
But clearly, while SUVs use up gas, so does every other car on the road. So how about, starting tomorrow, everybody America stops driving cars, period! That'll show those Saudi bastards!
Of course, this reasoning is faulty, because if no one drove cars no one could get to work, America's economy would grind to a halt, and we'd be hurt just as bad economically as we would if the terrorists did in fact hit us again. The answer then, rather than to ban or otherwise stigmatize SUVs or other cars, is to introduce other sources of energy, and reduce our dependence on oil from the despots of the Middle East. And as I'm sure the "no blood for oil" people know, drawing more oil from a democratic, post-Saddam Iraq will only help move us towards that goal.
One more question: the people who designed this ad- how'd they get to work that day? Just curious...