I understand when people say they don't see the connection between the events of 9/11 and the liberation of Iraq. I do. I'd bet the mortgage that money flowed freely between that country and Al Qaeda, but I know there are some people who don't agree. And that's cool.
But for the life of me, I don't understand when people say that ownership ownership of an SUV is somehow tantamount to endorsing or even promoting war. As if a couple extra gallons of consumption is the equivalent of putting a bullet in a rifle or a shell in a mortar.
A point of personal disclosure: I just traded in a Jeep Grand Cherokee and bought a Volkswagon Jetta Wagon.
Smaller car, better fuel efficiency, right?
Yes and no.
On the highway, I get a whopping 34 miles per gallon. Not bad. At least on paper.
But my tse-tse sized four-speed engine gets only roughly 20 or so miles to the gallon in the city. Compare that to my Ford Explorer's 17 miles per gallon in the city and, well, you can see that the difference ain't much. And since I do most of my driving in the city and not on the wide open spaces of Florida's highways (yeah, right), then the mileage comparison is negligible.
To draw out the example further and show the ludicrousness of switching to a midsize car from an SUV, understand that it now takes two smaller cars - yes, TWICE the gas consumption - to get the same number of people to an event that an SUV used to take in one trip.
How stupid is that?
So what I'm saying is that to attack and deface privately owned vehicles in a simplistically symbolic gesture - not a government SUV or a military SUV or even an SUV owned by an oil company executive - well, that's just beyond moronic.
Especially when the original goal was to drive home a message of non-violence and peace.
