All those in favor of Jeff Boatright for car czar say aye!
>From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>
>Reply-To: Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>
>To: paul m <pmetzger@top.monad.net>
>CC: spridgets@autox.team.net
>Subject: A real spridget solution; WAS: Great American Gas Out
>Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 08:24:44 -0500
>
>I doubt that the organizers (if such exist) have any delusions that a
>drop in consumption resulting from a gas out would have any effect,
>even at the very local level. My assumption is that the goal is press
>coverage. This would have some effect, though an unpredictable one
>once the affair became political.
>
>Given that my Sprite returns a fairly steady 33 mpg, I think that our
>best bet at effecting true change is to call for a constitutional
>amendment requiring all auto manufacturers to build, market, and sell
>spridgets. They would be allowed to sell other vehicles, but only
>under penalty. The penalties will be linked to the size and fuel
>consumption of the non-spridget products and other indexes that I
>choose (since I will be the car czar). Thus, in the US, Ford would be
>forced to sell 123 Sprites for every Incursion (I mean Excursion)
>sold. However, they would gain points for every Euro-spec Focus sold
>in the States. DaimlerChrysler would be forced to sell 138 Midgets
>for every Mercedes-Benz sold in the States. The extra 15 spridget
>penalty is because we're already tired of Daimler's 'Uber All'
>attitude. GM sucks so badly that they will not be allowed to make or
>sell spridgets. Instead, they will have to take a financial penalty
>for every boring, rainy-day-in-dreary-old-Pimlico car they sell.
>Since this is all they make anyway, these penalties will force the
>demise of GM, and none too soon. Happily, the extra effort that it
>takes to hand-build the spridgets means that all those GM workers
>will have jobs waiting for them in the Ford and Chrysler plants. All
>auto workers would then have interesting jobs that require thinking
>and craftsmanship. Accident rates would drop as people would be
>driving cars that (1) they can handle and (2) they know will not
>protect them if they do hit something. Additionally, injury rates
>would plummet. We'd all be driving little cars that make going the
>speed limit fun, so the few accidents that do occur will be
>fender-benders. Finally, our dependence on foreign oil would truly
>plummet, greenhouse gases production would drop, the hole in the
>ozone would fill again, and spotted owls would roam the earth looking
>to kick butt on snail darters.
>
>Now, if we'd all just do as I say...
>
>---
>On 2/26/00, paul m wrote:
> >mike,
> > this kind of activity is a futile effort and probably would result
> >in a false impression. just consider the stability of oil/fuel prices
> >that
> >is created by the futures markets in crude oil in 3 and 6 month
> >increments.
> >a 3 day boycott at the retail level would be about as significant as a
> >pimple would be on the north end of a south-bound elephant.
> >
> >lbc content: adult elephants usually weigh more than a "stock"
> >spridget!
> >(your tonnage may vary)
> >
> >paul m
>
>Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
>Senior Editor, Molecular Vision
>http://www.molvis.org/molvis
>"Seeing the Future in a Very Tiny Way"
|