« elvis on repeat | Main | early bird special »

in a huff(ington)

If you drive an SUV, you support terrorists. So says Arianna Huffington. She's on the Sean Hannity radio show right now, basically calling Hannity a terrorist.

Hannity is asking her questions about her lifestyle, how many times she has flown on private jets, what kind of fuel consumption her home needs.

She has avoided every question so far.

Hannity has a point. He said to Huffington, lead by example. Get a smaller house that does not need so much heat.

She keeps talking about inspiring people to change the way they live. Hannity asks her about changing the way she lives.

She answers his questions with questions. She avoids answering. She accuses SUV users of supporting terrorism, she says we should get different cars. When Hannity asks her if she is going to stop taking private jets, she changes her tune and says we should get rid of our SUVs because we put our children in danger when we drive them around in one.

I drive an SUV. I do not support terrorism. The two are not mutually inclusive.

You want us to stop depending on foreign oil? Fine. Oh, but you don't want us to drill in Alaska.

Don't tell me how to live, what kind of lifestyle I should have unless you live naked out in the woods, eating nuts and berries and eschewing every single comfort of modern day life. Oil is not just used to run cars, you know.

I just love when rich people tell us how to live. They sit out there in their humungous houses, get picked up limos, heat their enormous swimming pools and then turn around and tell us to scrap our Explorers. Please.

Put up or shut up.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference in a huff(ington):

» SUV's and Terrorism from Axiomatic Breakfast
A Small Vistory has a couple good rants about Hollywood's latest political campaign. [Read More]


Arianna is an enigma, to put it kindly. She is too clever, too pretty, and much too rich. However, I'm not sure anyone has accused her of being too intelligent, much less too wise. Fortunately, she is harmless.

Going out to buy an SUV right now...

Makes me think of Streisand and her "adjust your thermostats" spiel, all the while having the air conditioning running rampant in her unoccupied apartment in Mathattan.


Matchanthan? Maghaggen? Mantishattan?

Me spell good.

DAMMIT!! If I knew it would piss a hypocritical little bitch like that off, I'd have bought the Hyundai Sante Fe instead of the little 3 door Accent.

AH can take a flying liplock to the my left testicle. I'm not doing anything she says, (well, not intentionally) and if I get the chance, I'll do everything she says not to.

Arianna Huffington: The Zsa Zsa Gabor of politics.

Good God what the hell happened to Arianna??? I knew she was going downhill when she started hangin' with Think-I'm-A-Libertarian-But-I-Supported-Nader Bill Maher. But damn.

These hypocrites irk me to no end. Even if you're not a RICH liberal, chances are you DRIVE A CAR or other vehicle that REQUIRES GAS. Isn't gas the same, no matter what you put it into???? If you put it in a car that RUNS ON IT, regardless of mileage, then aren't you STILL "supporting terrorists"? And besides that, THEY'RE the ones that say that this war is about oil... so what if it is?? Wouldn't it be better for America to control the oil fields?? Wouldn't they be out of terrorists' hands? And wouldn't the countries that now depend on Arab oil (most of Europe... THAT'S why they're not backing us in this war... it's about OIL FOR THEM...) stand to gain from having America-- a MUCH more generous country-- control it?

And then there're all the other things that are made FROM oil/gas that we (INCLUDING LIBERALS) depend on... plastic being just one...

One thing I will say for these ads...they give a well-deserved shot to those god-awful "if you do drugs you're supporting terrorism" commercials that have been airing as of late. For that reason alone I hope they get some play.

That being said, they are incredibly simplistic...although neither side in this debate is particularly realistic or honest about the sacrifices inherent in their point of view. If someone ever steps up and says "hey guys, we can have energy independence, but we're gonna have to kill some caribou, and a few of you are gonna have to trade in the Hummer for a Camry" they've got my vote.

The solution isn't shutting down SUVs, it's getting fuel cells into cars. Removing the dependence on a non-renewable resource controlled by thugs is what's going to make us (and our allies) free of licking the boots of Saudi Arabia and all our other "friends" (i.e., people who have and control oil).

Oh, and I'd buy an SUV just to spite Huffington if I didn't hate SUVs. :)

I agree with Aaron in his comparison to the 'drugs/terrorists' ads. Unfortunately, there is very little real interchange of ideas in America.

Someone runs an ad that says Yes and another says No. There are Positive blog rants versus Negative blog rants. Everything is simplified and spoon-fed as Black or White, Up or Down, Right or Wrong, without any willingness to look at issues beyond the very narrow confines of partisan reasoning.

Nothing is as simple as that, and the relative truth (or at least a consensual 'truth') is often somewhere in a compromised middle of the argument.

Oil reserves are limited, and vehicles that don't burn them efficiently deplete those reserves at a wastefully fast rate. SUV's are an easy target as generally inefficient vehicles, but not all SUV's are gas hogs, and not all gas hogs are SUV's.

Some terrorists are from, and receive financial support from, countries and families that make their fortunes from the sale of oil, so the more gas you buy, the more likely it is that some of what you pay ends up in terrorist hands.

Will outlawing SUV's end terrorism? No, but neither will bombing the hell out of small Arab countries. The solution just isn't as simple as the good guys and the bad guys, as much as people want to believe that.

Unfortunately, to get people to tune in to their show or read their writing, it seems the crazier the statements, the more attention they get.

Hey Hey Hey, let's not lump all rich people together. Rich people are as different from each other as anyone else in any situation. I plan to be driving an SUV very soon, as soon as I get my license in fact. Got my eye on a nice new Jeep Grand Cherokee. hehehe. OH and by the way, I never had a limo, I had a driver with a Suburban.

Hannity continued. Aaron Spelling and Norman Lear are funding this campaign.

Spelling apparently has a 21 car garage at one of his houses.

Yeah, I'm listening.

limosine liberals are the worst.
i prefer my rich people to be more glamorous and less preachy.
when it comes to suv's i'm not a big fan only because i can't afford the gas..

See, the human shield guy wasn't going to be a human shield, he was actually supporting terrorism, in his Chevy Suburban.

Nodding wisely.

I get how it works now...........lol, isn't it ironic, doncha think? The two stories together, damn good timing.

That settles it, my next car will be the biggest SUV I can afford. Either that or a 1976 Ford Ltd. Guess what, the more gas we burn, the sooner theirs runs out.

Rich, condescending people are dimtwits, generally.

I own a four-cylinder Ford Ranger that tends to get me form point a to point b without costing me an arm and a leg for gas.

I try to use a little energy as possible. I plan to invent a generator that runs on farts (methane gas). Hehe... Seriously, this chick should stop telling me what to do, 'cause chances are, I'm already friggen doing it.

Even if we got rid of all cars in the US, we would still be oil dependent. Vehichles consume 45% of the oil used in this country each year. Get rid of cars, we still have a problem. We're stuck on oil for thirty or fourty years, since a production fuel cell cars is at least a decade away, and we'll have a long period of adoption of the technology, and a few more decadres as old internal combustion vehicles end up in the scrapyard. And that's assuming fuel cells will end up having a monopoly of the fuel technology. That's assuming roughly comparable performance and a reasonable price for the fuel cell cars, which will probably take another decade for the technology to fall to the levels of combustion cars. Not to mention the problem of fueling the cars... which might slow the adoption of fuel cell cars even further.


The United States consumes roughly 20 million barrels of oil each day, almost 9 million in the form of gasoline.

Hehehe. Dan Quayle!
Hey, Hannity, that Chunp, talked about Bush's economic plan, but neglected to mention this:
Bush, Cheney would get tax-cut windfall.
"George W. Bush and Dick Cheney each stand to reap thousands of dollars in savings from Bush's proposal on Tuesday to eliminate taxes on stock dividends."

Yes, and so would all of the very rich Democrats in Congress.

Fuell cells don't solve the energy problem. They just shift it. Where do you get the hydrogen for the fuel cells?

"The problem here is that hydrogen is a fuel but not an energy source. Gasoline is both." More... I recommend you read the whole thing, and the follow up article. Puts to rest any 'alternative energy will solve everything' delusions you may be having (like I had!).

You didn't happen to catch Cavuto on FN earlier today, by chance? The H-wood limolib that's helping Arianna run her campaign to restrict our choice of what to drive was just on, and Neil wholly eviscerated him. Best part? When Cavuto asked him, "so what do you drive?" and the dweeb sheepishly answered, "a Mercedes..." Too damned funny. I'm definitely going to blog it tomorrow when they get today's transcripts up.

Quite right, Aussie Elvis, on the fuel-cell boondoggle. They're great on space ships and satellites, where nothing else is available, but really inefficient here on Earth, when you consider the energy consumed to separate the hydrogen from oxygen.

I'm not a fan of trucks, but would never be so arrogant as those who would tell the rest of us not to drive them. After all, a 15mpg truck with two aboard is just as efficient as a 30mpg Saturn piloted solo. I'm also not a big fan of hunting, but instead of telling hunters to stop, I just don't hunt. There's an idea. Hate trucks? Then don't buy one.

The limousine liberal mind-set wants the rest of us crammed into buses and trains, so they're not inconvenienced by sharing the road with us. Kind of like the party bigwigs in the Soviet Union.

And regarding the article that the Prez. and VP will reap "Thousands" from ending the double-taxation of dividends: Gee, to millionaire businessmen, that must be quite a fortune. Kind of like me finding a dollar on the sidewalk.

Not only am I an arrogant self-absorbed road hog since I do drive a SUV, but apparently I am also supporting terrorists. Do you think SUV's would still be legal if Al Gore had been elected? I think we would have had something like a SUV prohibition era. 

"Will outlawing SUV's end terrorism? No, but neither will bombing the hell out of small Arab countries."

Maybe not, but guess which method will produce the most results the quickest, given the stated objective to "End terrorism."

More bang for the buck, so to speak.

The limousine liberal mind-set wants the rest of us crammed into buses and trains, so they're not inconvenienced by sharing the road with us.

Animal. Farm.

Anytime I hear the simplistic bleets of the Ariana, Barbra, Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, et al ilk I don't know whether to laugh or through my tv/radio out the 2nd story window. As has been pointed out...even banning cars outright will not stop our dependency on oil.

I wanted to say to Ariana...

"dear, that computer you write your screeds on? Is it made out of pine or teak?"

You want to get people out of their SUV's? I know a perfect way...anyone been to Europe? Where all, and I mean ALL the cars on the road are no bigger than a Ford Focus?

Make gas $7/gal.

Maybe that's another reason the Euro-weenies hate us. Their masters..er..governments keep gas prices insanely high, and they watch as we drive everything from 1970 muscle cars to Hummers.

Speaking as a Euro-weenie who drives a '67 Mustang, Darleen...


With that said, you Yanks better get your war on soon, this car's expensive to run.

You're supposed to dump your SUV and use a limo instead. That's what SHE would do.


Nothing irks me more than a rich conservative, who refuses to believe his or her actions have an impact on the rest of us. You know, like the drooling idiots at FOX news, et al.

Arianna makes a lot of good points in recent times. I'm not surprised folks here resort to name-calling when it comes to her.

Arianna is pretty - but I learned a long time ago that "pretty" doesn't always equate with "intelligent", "compassionate", "knowledgeable", decent", "honest" or "trustworthy".

In this case, it looks to be a definite mismatch...


Leave it to Michele to have two sets of comments debating the same issue at once. Get organized in here, missy! Sheesh!!

Will outlawing SUV's end terrorism? No, but neither will bombing the hell out of small Arab countries.

Right, we'll have to get some of the big ones, too.

The solution just isn't as simple as the good guys and the bad guys, as much as people want to believe that.

Actually, it is.

No, it isn't, blaster. Otherwise, we'd be bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea.... and certain parts of Idaho...

They are all on the list.

Ceptin Idaho, of course.