RE: Junker Law was: 99 Dakota R/T

From: Mike Crumley (mcrumley@airmail.net)
Date: Fri Jul 31 1998 - 14:39:56 EDT


At 01:57 PM 7/30/98 , you wrote:

>Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think pollution was the point, Mike.

I think pollution was the point. The post I responded to was complaining
about all the people lined up to pay their $60 fine for having cars that
polluted. Apparently, in the mind of the poster, this is a bad thing
because most of these people looked like they couldn't afford it. I guess,
by that same logic, they should not have to buy insurance either. And if
they cause a wreck and damage property they shouldn't have to pay for it
since that money is needed for other things. (This kind of thinking usually
comes to a screeching halt the day you get hit by someone with no
insurance). I just don't think that being low on funds should give you a
free pass to pollute. Neither do I think that we should oppose laws setting
emission standards just because we are not all as rich as Bill Gates. Hey,
I dread the day that that "mant req" light comes on as much as the next
guy. I'd much rather spend the money on ME ME ME. Unfortunately, that's
just the kind of thinking that has helped get us in the mess we are in today.

>Meanwhile, although it has
>gotten much better, corporate America still gets away with murder in
>some cases as far as the environment goes.

Corporate America owns the government through our system of legalized
bribery that is campaign finance. When the companies that are doing the
polluting pay millions of dollars to the politicians then get invited into
congressional conference committee meetings to re wright the laws on
pollution, the corporations are the only ones who are getting things "much
better". If you really want to do something about the environment, forget
about cars (even junkers) and clamp down on corporations (good luck on that).

>But the answer is not snowballing
>emissions regulations aimed at killing large displacement V8's - and
>that's precisely where we are heading.

Sorry, dude, but your theory about "emissions regulations aimed at killing
large displacement V8's" is a little too paranoid for my taste. The end
result might make it harder for big V8's to meet the regs, but I doubt that
the people making the regs are sitting around a table going "What can we do
to kill off big V8's today?" On the other hand, did you ever see the movie
"Strange Days"? "The issue isn't whether you're paranoid. The issue is
whether you're paranoid *enough*" At any rate, never fear. Corporate
America comes to the rescue again.(see above) After all, the automotive
industry did pay off the politicians into exempting SUVs from the CAFE
standards so that the could produce those high profit margin vehicles in
whatever numbers they could sell. And how many of them have dinky little
four cylinder engines under the hood? (Japanese "SUVs" don't count.) As
long as there is profit to be made, big V8's will be among us. Of course
that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Sorry folks. I know this was long with little if any Dak content. But at
least it's more entertaining than posts with three screens full of previous
posts and two screens full of headers (aren't those fun to scroll through)
only to find a response of "I'm in" at the bottom.

Mike (Go Cowboys) Crumley

--
I can please only one person per day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow isn't looking so good either.

Mike Crumley mcrumley@airmail.net 97 Dakota RC 3.9L V6 3.55 Auto Rhino Liner Bug Shield Mud Flaps DDBC



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:09:17 EDT