Democrats & Liberals Archives

How YOU Can Reduce Gas Prices

All this bitching, screaming, yelling and whining about gas prices makes me think of a child that has been playing with ever-more expensive toys and suddenly mom and pop don’t buy expensive toys anymore and the child cries mournfully: “I want my toys!” Toys, SUVs, what’s the difference? Regardless of whether you are a conservative or a liberal, stop complaining about how much it costs to fill the tank of a gas-guzzling SUV. YOU can reduce gas prices by getting rid of your SUV. As a conservative, you will be exercising self-reliance; as a liberal, you will contribute to the common good.

Why on earth does anyone buy an SUV?

  • SUVs don't look as good as regular cars.

  • SUVs are not as comfortable as regular cars.

  • SUVs are not as safe as regular cars.

  • SUVs are not as easy to park as regular cars.

  • SUVs are not as affordable as regular cars.

  • SUVs DO make you spend more money on gas and less on other items in your budget.
Yes, some people need SUVs, usually for transporting tools and other work materials. But most people do not need them. Why are SUVs best sellers? The only reason I can think of is that an SUV makes the driver feel superior. Here he is esconced high up above the crowd in his solid tank looking down on the pygmies in their little cars.

Feeling superior is rapidly becoming too expensive. You feel the pain each time you fill up. It's not worth it.

Get rid of your SUV!

If you are in the market for a car, don't buy an SUV. Buy a regular car, preferably one that gets at least 30 miles per gallon. Better still, try a hybrid.

Immediately, you will feel richer after each fillup. Not only will you save money, you will be contributing to the demise of the SUV fad that will save other people gas money. Demand for gas will go down.

YOU will reduce gas prices. Both you and everybody else will benefit.

Posted by Paul Siegel at April 28, 2006 2:39 PM
Comments
Comment #143871

What a ridiculous agrument.

Ok, you don’t need or like SUVs, but how does that qualify you to know what everyone else should like or need.

Sieg Hiel.

Posted by: jwl at April 28, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #143874

Paul:

SUVs became popular after the government instituted fuel efficiency standards on passenger cars. In order to meet the new standards, cars were redesigned to be lighter and were constructed of less dense material. The engines were made less powerful. All of these changes resulted in a smaller cars which are less responsive and less safe in the event of a wreck.

SUVs are not characterized as cars so they don’t have to comply with the new standards. Americans started buying them as the standard family transport because they wanted the safety offered by the sturdier construction and the ability to manueuver in traffic.

Americans still want safe vehicles for their families and many cars are too small to transport children, groceries, animals etc. and most cars are underpowered.

I see by your biography that you are older, you probably don’t have to haul children and their friends around. Before you advocate one solution for everyone, you should consider that others might have different transportation needs.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #143875

Nice to see that we can all be adults about this. It is not a ridiculous suggestion at all. I cannot afford a Hyrbrid but I can afford a Toyota Corolla that gets 33 miles per gallon. I cannot understand why anyone that considers themselves lower to middle class, buys an SUV. I agree with Paul, it makes them feel superior. There is no other explanation.

Posted by: Brandon at April 28, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #143876

Well thats a great post Paul. Did you stay up all night thinking that great post up. Why don’t you have your liberal buddy Teddy Kenndey just pass a law banning them!! A hybrid is not the answer, why wont you stupid liberals let oil compaines build some damn production plants, and lets drill for our own oil.

Posted by: nathan at April 28, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #143877
Americans started buying them as the standard family transport because they wanted the safety offered by the sturdier construction

Yet, ironically, SUVs are less safe than typical passenger cares, both for occupants and for others.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #143879

Yes, I think he’s right.
It is a status/superiority thing for many people.
Interesting that people are still buying them.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 28, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #143881
why wont you stupid liberals let oil compaines build some damn production plants, and lets drill for our own oil.

Because we’re not stupid enough to think that a temporary quick fix with negative consequences will solve the long-term problem.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #143882

Looks like it’s not all doom and gloom. Can’t wait to hear what you all will have to say about 4.8% growth…


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/business/28cnd-econ.html?ex=1303876800&en=fe67da816325442b&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

Posted by: b0mbay at April 28, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #143884

Lawnboy:

SUVs are less safe than typical passenger cares, both for occupants and for others.

That may be true now, but it wasn’t when the first round of light cars were introduced. And you haven’t addressed the fact that cars lack sufficient cargo/passenger space for many families.

I drive a heavy car and I have driven a light car. There is no doubt that my Cadillac is safer than my Dodge Spirit was.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #143885

Is it not amazing that back when average families had 3 or 4 kids, they only had 1 car and that car worked just fine to haul all the kids, groceries, animals, etc. around. How did we ever manage?

Posted by: jackie at April 28, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #143888
That may be true now, but it wasn’t when the first round of light cars were introduced.

That may explain past purchases, but it’s not a good explanation for current purchases.

And you haven’t addressed the fact that cars lack sufficient cargo/passenger space for many families.

Station wagons are cars that are much safer and often have much more cargo capacity than SUVs (particularly when rollover guidelines are observed).

Minivans also have better gas mileage in general with similar cargo capacities to many SUVs.

Of course, there are families large enough that they need more passenger space than a single passenger car can give. I’m not thinking of those cases. I’m thinking of my friends who traded in their cars for a big SUV when they had their first kid, and they live in an inner suburb of a major city. There’s no real logical reason for the choice they made, but it was a choice supported by many ads from Detroit.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #143890

Watching our so called Leaders running around like chickens with their heads cut off is simultanously sad and amusing.

Now we have people praying for cheap Gas… great…

http://goofyblog.net/bible-had-it-wrong-jesus-died-for-our-oil-not-our-sins/

- Patamon

Posted by: Patamon at April 28, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #143891

Don’t you find it ironic that most of the people interviewed on the various news programs about the price of gas are all filling up their giant SUVs as they complain bitterly. This is just ego and selfishness. I work in a large downtown area. Probably a third of all the vehicles going and coming are filled with ONE person. This waste is immoral.

Posted by: jackie at April 28, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #143892

Thank you Jackie! Has something changed in the last 30 years? How could my grandparents take care of 8 children with only one station wagon? It can be done.

No one is willing to sacrifice convience or style anymore for the good of the whole.

Posted by: Brandon at April 28, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #143893

If we could just abolish all SUVs the world would be such a great place.

How incredibly narrow-minded. Blame one type of vehicle for the worlds energy problems.

To say that SUV owners have a superiority complex and at the same time propose to know what is best for everyone else is totally absurd and hypocritical.

Many people bought SUVs because manufactures stopped making station wagons.

Where is all the outrage over mini-vans and pickup trucks.

Maybe we should abolish NASCAR, Formula 1 and all motor-sports. Just a waste of fuel for entertainment purposes.

We can all vacation at home because it would be wasteful to use the fuel to take a plane, drive your car or take a cruise.

We could save billions on A/C if people of Paul’s persuasion would just keep their mouth shut.

Posted by: jwl at April 28, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #143894

Jackie:

Amazing isn’t it?

Posted by: womanmarine at April 28, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #143895

“Many people bought SUVs because manufactures stopped making station wagons.
Where is all the outrage over mini-vans and pickup trucks.”

I don’t have the statistics to prove this, but if I recall correctly, before SUVs were manufactured, there were minivans and fold-down seats for hauling. The Chevy Citation was a great roomy car for people and for hauling stuff.

Minivans and small pickups get better mileage than most suvs.

Posted by: jackie at April 28, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #143896
Where is all the outrage over mini-vans and pickup trucks.

One reason for the difference is that minivans are, in general, more efficient than SUVs. For example, a new Dodge Caravan gets 20/26 mpg, while a new Dodge Durango gets 16/21.

I think another difference is the perception that people get pickups or minivans based on need, whereas many SUVs are purchased as a status symbol.

You might disagree with the perception, but it’s out there.

We could save billions on A/C if people of Paul’s persuasion would just keep their mouth shut.

I guess the same could be said of you and your persuasion, right?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #143897

womanmarine,

This hit a nerve with me. I tale public transportation to work and now, because of rising gas prices, they’re proposing to raise my bus pass by a full 33-1/3%!

Posted by: jackie at April 28, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #143898

Lawnboy and Jackie:

As jwl said, I don’t think they make station wagons anymore. Family size is not only factor leading people to purchase SUVs. People haul children and their friends to many more places than they did when I was a child. Modern moms often haul there children and other people’s children to multiple events a week. For many people a Corolla won’t cut it.

Aside from that, there is a personal choice issue. I don’t like SUVs for many of the reasons Paul stated, so I don’t buy them. That’s my choice. Some people don’t like small cars, so they don’t buy them, that’s there choice.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #143901
As jwl said, I don’t think they make station wagons anymore.

They do, just not that many of them: consumersearch.com

Family size is not only factor leading people to purchase SUVs.

You’re right. For example, there’s my former co-worker, a single guy living in a condominium in a large city who decided to buy an SUV because that’s what the girls at a bar told him was the sexiest car.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #143902

Goodkingned,

No one is arguing that you do not have a choice. Obviously you do.

And as lawnboy stated, minivans and pickup trucks usually do just as much if not more hauling than most SUV’s.

Can anyone deny that a lot of people buy an SUV to feed their ego? Not all people, but a lot.

Posted by: Brandon at April 28, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #143903

Minivans and small pickup do not have the same suspension which enables the transportation of heavy items.

Do you think the guys driving dually pickups bought those trucks because they like buying six tires instead of four.

Not everyone driving an SUV needs one. That is not to say that EVERYONE driving an SUV is some kind of egomaniac. Your tansportation needs are not identical to everyone elses and for Paul to stereotype all SUV owners is as stupid as it gets.

Can you not see the short sightedness of this argument? This is an attempt to blame a catagory of automobile for the current price of gas. This is totally ludicrious. The creation of a scapegoat so that we can focus our anger when we fill up. Forget about China, forget about India, forget about Hurricane Katrina, forget about market speculators, forget about oil companies and tax breaks. Lets just blame the SUV. Its so much easier.


You are all smarter than that.

Posted by: jwl at April 28, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #143904

ned:
“For many people a Corolla won’t cut it.”

It’s true. We’ve got a Toyota Rav4 that gets good gas milage, not for the status of having a little SUV, or to feel superior over people in cars, but because my husband is both a carpenter and a musician. The man absolutely needs his cargo room.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 28, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #143906

JWL,

You cannot deny that gas consumption is a major factor in the fuel prices. There is no one arguing that an SUV is the only reason, but it is a major factor.

Posted by: Brandon at April 28, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #143907

I don’t agree with any of you totally. We all have oppinions, just like we all have As*Ho&^%. What needs to done is just stop buying gas. Sure you need some for the necessities, but other than that?? Boycot! Get as many people as you can to be frugal. The demand will go down, so the price will too. At the current rate of world-wide consumption it’s just a matter of time before the demand will be greater than the supply.

Posted by: fuzzwart at April 28, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #143908

Brandon

What bothers me is when some blow hard idiot claims to know what is best for everyone else and then stereotypes a group of people to blame and direct anger at them. That is what Paul did in this post. That is what Hitler did with the Jews.

Maybe he did this just to push some buttons, I don’t know. But if I blamed all crime on illegal immigration from Mexico or that hip hop music was the cause of all violence against women, I bet he would be the first person to call me out on it.

Posted by: jwl at April 28, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #143910

Lawnboy:

Most discretionary income is spent on feeding egos. Not just here but everywhere. Feeding your ego is fun and provides temporary relief from an otherwise grinding day to day life. If we didn’t feel the need to boost our egos and reward ourselves with material goods, we would all wear some durable, nondescript uniform and eat people chow.

Don’t you think that many hybrid buyers are motivated by the desire to feel good about themselves? Are you opposed to taking pleasure in spending your resources?

Some people feed their egos by declaring that their choices are more responsible, caring, nuanced … than other people’s choices. In short, some people feed their ego by demanding that other people quit feeding their egos.

SUVs will fall out of favor eventually due in part to fuel prices and the increased availabliity of affordable alternative vehicles. People will then choose to purchase something else.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #143911
That is what Hitler did with the Jews.

Well, that, and try to exterminate the race.

Please keep the rhetoric down, ok? According to Godwin’s Law, you just lost the argument.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #143913

I conceed.

For Sale: 1998 Toyota Land Cruiser. Will trade for any vehicle getting better gas milage than 17 mpg and can pull a 4000 pound trailer, carry 3 adults with luggage and a 175 pound newfoundland.

Posted by: jwl at April 28, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #143914

ned,

You’re right. People have the right to buy what they want. I think you’re right that hybrid buyers are looking to appear as good people and have their egos stroked that way. That’s part of the reason that Priuses are selling very well while other hybrids that are just versions of standard vehicles aren’t doing as well.

I’m not trying to ban SUVs (and I don’t think Paul is either). I’m expressing my annoyance with them as overused in certain environments. Sure, it’s alright to stroke your own ego, but this is a somewhat unusual case in that this means of ego-stroking has geopolitical, economic, and environmental negative effects.

Also, I don’t think SUVs are always bad. Work in construction? Makes sense to me to have an SUV. Haul a drum set everywhere? Makes sense to me to have an SUV. Live in a rural part of almost anywhere in the country and need the 4x4? Makes sense to me to have an SUV.

Live in the middle of a big city, never go off-roading and have a small (or no) family? Doesn’t make sense to me.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #143915

Adrienne:

I’m glad you are happy with your RAV. It’s a cute vehicle. My spouse acquired a small used SUV as a replacement vehicle after Katrina. We selected it because it was affordable, available and we thought it could be used to tow a small trailer.

We found out that U-haul won’t rent trailers to be towed by the smaller SUVs due to rollover issues. There are legitimate needs that can’t be met by small vehicles.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #143917

If you go back and read Paul’s original statement, he understands as do I that sometimes people do need an SUV. The frustrating buyers are the people that lawnboy has mentioned. The couples with only one child and nothing to haul. The city dwellers that like to roll up in an SUV when they go out. No one is denying that there is a need at times.

Posted by: Brandon at April 28, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #143920

Yes Brandon, Paul made the “save his ass” statement”:

Yes, some people need SUVs, usually for transporting tools and other work materials.

This after a diatribe about us being a bunch of spoiled rotten children that lost our toys. How we enjoy looking at the pygmies so far below us and how superior that makes us feel.

Posted by: jwl at April 28, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #143921

Lawnboy:

As I watched Hummers struggle to navigate the narrow streets of uptown New Orleans, I often thought that there was too much vehicle for the available road. When I drove my Spirit and SUV’s would pull up behind me giving me a clear view of their front bumper through my rear window, I was struck by the immensity of SUVs. And back in the eighties when I would be stuck in traffic and be unable to see why nothing was moving due to the total obstruction of my view by a minivan, I wondered at the idiocy of the person’s who drove those bricks on wheels.

Yes, I agree people often drive inappropriate vehicles and often make stupid choices. I will support their right to be stupid until I become smart enough to be sure that I am not in danger of making stupid choices.

By the way, I want to stroke my ego with a convertable.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #143922

WE should all drive a Prius. Then when the battries go bad the liberals will be pissed that they have to spend thousands on replacing battries. Why don’t we suppend all the taxes on a gallon of gas. You think you democrates, you party of the people, in it for the little man , would realise that the majorty of the people buying gas are not rich. We should give all the illegals free gas too! Why not they get free health care.

Posted by: nathan at April 28, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #143925

“Looks like it’s not all doom and gloom. Can’t wait to hear what you all will have to say about 4.8% growth…”

Bombay,

I’ll let the Boston Globe say it for me, they’re much more eloquent:

“……the two liberal think tanks that annually chart the gap between CEOs and workers, currently list the gap at 431-to-1, or $11.8 million to $27,460. That compares with a gap of 107-to-1 in 1990. If salaries of the average worker had kept up with that of a CEO, he or she would be making $110,136. Had the minimum wage risen at the same pace as CEO compensation, it would stand today at $23.01. The federal minimum wage of $5.15 has not risen since 1997.”

“In 1980, the gap was only 42-to-1. Where the spoils go are quite clear. According to 2005 federal data from the Congressional Budget Office, the share of America’s income that went to the highest 20 percent of households increased from 45.5 percent in 1979 to 52.2 percent in 2003. The remaining 80 percent of American households all saw their share of the nation’s income drop.”

“The higher you go in that top 20 percent, the more the rise in their share of the income. The top 1 percent of Americans saw their share of America’s income zoom from 9.3 percent in the last quarter century to 14.3 percent. The top 10 percent saw their share go from 30.5 percent to 37.2 percent.”

“…… 46 of the nation’s 275 largest companies, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, the United for a Fair Economy, and another liberal think-tank, Citizens for Tax Justice, paid no federal income tax in 2003. Eighty-two of the largest 275 companies paid no federal income tax at some point during 2001-2003 as the current President Bush cut taxes for the wealthy.”

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/19/income_gap_mentality/

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 28, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #143927

nation:

You capitalist pig! What do you mean suggesting that the we drive at all? We should walk everywhere carrying our belongings with us.

Next we will go after that newfangled horse technology. I’m formulating a plan to redistribute our national horse resources so that the public good will be best served.

(Just kidding)

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #143928

HORSES!!!

WOULD THAT NOT CREATE AN ENVIROMENTAL HAZARD?

Posted by: jwl at April 28, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #143930

WAIT A MINUTE. METHANE GAS. YOU MAY BE ON TO SOMETHING!

Posted by: jwl at April 28, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #143932

“Next we will go after that newfangled horse technology”

Can’t. Horses fart and pollute the air.
Besides, people would then just start complaining about those who ride oat guzzling clydesdales and try to legislate that too.
Oh, and riding an animal is inhumane.

Posted by: kctim at April 28, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #143933

Excellent article Paul. My wife commutes 45 miles to work. She joined a car pool, saving us bundles. She has a cell phone. I used to take my pickup truck 15 miles to the hardware when I needed something for building my house. Now, I call her to pick it up on her way home from where the car pool van drops her off at her car. I check our tires pressure twice a month. And we are going to forego a driving vacation this year for a couple of mini vacations of a day each in the city (we live in a rural area).

There are many ways to compensate. But, in the end, we need to eliminate our dependency on oil. There is no time like the present to begin such a task that will take decades to complete.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 28, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #143935

“SUVs are not as affordable as regular cars”

Paul,

You’re overlooking “SUV tax incentives”:
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/business/13906435.htm

I know personally of two businesses effected by these incentives. One is a floral business owned by a friend that owns several floral shops within a 75 mile radius. He’s replaced his entire fleet of Caravans and Vogayers with Suburbans because of the $aving$!

The other is a hardware store owner who used to deliver lawn rental equipment with either an S-10 or one of those Cushman scooters but he was financially compelled to buy a Suburban.

In both of these cases you can hardly blame the business owners. They must consider “the bottom line”. They both explained that over a period of time the Suburbans will basically be “free” assets paid for by, yep you guessed it, you & me.

Well, at least it helped out the American auto makers. It would be a shame if they had to close any plants or lay anybody off. Thank goodness the GOP prevented that.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 28, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #143941

I’d like to comment on all this. The original argument is an intersting one.
However, I’d like to say that we are a very spoiled country. Europe for years has had higher gas prices. What this resulted in, was companies creating fuel effecient cars. In germany for example, they have fewer accidents per 1000 people than the US does. Does this mean that just because we have more accidents we need bigger cars so that when we do get in an accident cause its inevitably going to happen we will be safer?
For those who say that SUV’s are safer than cars. Smaller cars would be safer if SUV’s and larger cars weren’t on the road. Its a matter of physics, if an accident occurs, the larger car will generally inflict more damage on the smaller. So smaller cars are not as safe if they collide with a larger car. The problem is that the roads are more and more populated with SUVS so therefore the chance of an accident with them has risen.
SUV’s are more prone to flipping, cost more to own, cost more to insure, cost more to maintain.

For those that argue that the SUV is purchased to accomodate the running around the town with all their kids and stuff. In general the number kids per household is going down in the US. Therfore it should be easier to haul those kids around. And besides if you have 2 kids why can’t you carry them around in a civic. Kids aren’t big people, they don’t take up a lot of space.
SUV’s are great for certain things, but I just don’t get the reason the average person needs a Suburban or an Expedition.
The government should be ashamed of themselves for not providing more incentives to american car companies to focus on building safer, more efficient mid-size cars. Too much is focused on making the super compact efficient car, but this neglects the larger population that needs the mid sized sedan.
SUV’s are certainly not the cause for the higher gas prices. They do not help, simple supply and demand. All that the government is doing right now is a bunch of short term quick fixes to appease the up roar that the US is experiencing right now. We have just been spoiled for too long with cheap gas and as a result, have less effecient cars and as a result people are feeling the burn right now.

Posted by: Gutz at April 28, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #143942

Just recently found this bumper sticker: “HURRY! Exxon needs the money!” Just waiting to put it on my truck, when all the SUVs finish passing me, going 80+ mph…!

Posted by: McKay at April 28, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #143943

Gutz,

Have you ever driven in Germany? I doubt it.

First of all they know how to drive. The roads are superior in construction and are not full of pot holes. Secondly, ALL automobiles are in excellent condition. NO RUST BUCKETS.

When is the last time you ever heard of someone getting a ticket for failing to get out of the left lane and yeild to faster traffic. Never happens here. Try that in Germany and you will be busted.

Thirdly, they don’t just give out driving licenses to anybody who can execute a “K” turn. Most European countries require extensive driver training.

You got the physics thing down pat. Much rather be in the Land Cruiser than the Civic.

Posted by: jwl at April 28, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #143944
Have you ever driven in Germany? I doubt it.

I don’t know if Gutz has, but I have. I lived in Germany for 6 months last year, and we rented cars a few times to get to places in the rare situations where public transportation wouldn’t work.

You’re right that there’s not reason to assume a link between higher fuel efficiency and lower accident rates, except perhaps that higher fuel costs implies fewer drivers.

However, I’d love to move to more of a German model for our car culture. Not only would that mean smaller, more efficient cars, it would also mean much more intelligent drivers. In Germany, it costs 1000 Euros to get a license, and it’s very hard to get one. So, the drivers are much better than the drivers here.

And they don’t think sitting in the passing lane is a birthright.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #143959

I, myself, drive a Toyota Camry and appreciate the good mileage I get. But my daughter and son-in-law and their kids love to go camping and have a pop-up trailer. They need their large SUV in order to pull the darn thing. I don’t know how they’re going to afford any trips this year with the cost of gas skyrocketing. But I’m sure they won’t dream of “sacrifcing” and camp closer to home this summer.I think everyone has to use common sense regarding their use of gas and stop trying to “have it all” all of the time.

Posted by: Julie at April 28, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #143963

LawnBoy,

I’m concerned about how familar you seem to be with Nazi practices. I thought the world rejected those ideas decades ago.

LKB

Posted by: lkb at April 28, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #143967
I’m concerned about how familar you seem to be with Nazi practices.

Huh???

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #143974

Lawnboy:

I’m uncertain. Are nazis for or against SUVs?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #143990

I’m on the highway 5 days a week 62 miles a day. From personal experience the gas hogs have to be the SUVs - this includes the big pick ups. They drive faster than everyone else, they come up on the guy in the smaller car and ride their bumper till the driver gives up his 80 mph in the passing lane and moves over before the jerk behind him in the SUV/pickup causes an accident. I have not seen one SUV this week going less than 80 and I have been watching. These drivers have no right to complain about the price of gas.

Posted by: Barb at April 28, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #143997

Your comments are spot on. The truth sometimes is hard to swallow. The view that these monsters are more safe than a car leaves me scratching my head. In my car,I can swerve to avoid a immediate problem in my lane ahead without tipping over. The same is not true of many SUV’s.

If we all used 3-5% less gas than we do now, prices here would plummet, so I’ve been told. The easiest way to do that is drive a more fuel efficient vehicle. Doesn’t have to be a high priced hybrid either. Last I looked many SUV’s are well over 30,000 new. Many gas sippers are in the 15,000 to 20,000 bracket.

Lest we lull ourselves into a false state of well being here, even this type of conservation will only delay the inevitable for so long. Peak oil is real. It is upon us. The sooner we begin to adjust to that reality, the better for all of us. Time to bite the bullet folks!

Posted by: Ken Juakkuri at April 28, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #143998

Paul, I have downgraded from a V8 pickup truck to a honda civic, but gas prices have continued dto climb? I don’t think your argument holds water.

Posted by: Chris in Los Angeles at April 28, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #143999

The biggest problem with fuel efficiency is the weight of the vehicle. Americans have a mistaken idea that they are safer if they are riding in a larger or heavier vehicle. Most of the possible efficiency increase that we could get, would come from decreased the vehicle weight. The Rocky Mountain Institute has some information available here:


http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid18.php

Posted by: ohrealy at April 28, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #144001

Just for the record my GMC truck IMPROVED a whopping 8 mpg win driving 80+ miles per hour than 55. This is because the engine is running much hotter so more of the fuel is being used.

The current high gas prices are NOT a result of supply & demand (becuase we have more in reserve than ever before). It is greed on the part of the market traders.

Posted by: John at April 28, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #144011

One point about SUVs and trucks - they are not regulated like cars… and create much more air pollution.

Anyone who needs an affordable hybrid car - wait until next spring. (And I am not a Honda salesman, btw) Honda is coming out with a hybrid FIT - new smaller car. It will get 82 mpg and cost under $13k.

Now that’s getting somewhere!

Posted by: tony at April 28, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #144016

John,

No car or truck on the road today gets better gas mileage at 80mph than it does at 55mph. Physics on the engine just does not work that way.

I agree that the cost is not completely supply and demand although much of it is with the increased consumption by China and other countries as well as reduced supply due to Iran and the effect of hurricanes on our refineries. Market traders also have their effect on the futures price of a barrel of oil.

Tony,

I was under the impression that SUV’s and pickups were governed by the same regulations as cars when it comes to emmissions. Do you have a link where they are not?

Mike P

Posted by: Mike P at April 28, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #144018

Most trucks and SUVs are considered work/farm vehicles, and so thing like the cadilledic (sp?) converter, things like that are not required. No link yet, but let me look around…

(I found it odd that anyone would consider an SUV a farm or work vehicle with it’s use, but… read it in an article 5 years or so ago.)

Posted by: tony at April 28, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #144019

“SUV’s have a significant environmental impact even beyond the problem of global warming. Federal law gives heavy sport utility vehicles permission to emit higher levels of toxic and noxious pollution - carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Sport utility vehicles can spew 30 percent more carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and 75 percent more nitrogen oxides than passenger cars. (13) These combustion pollutants contribute to eye and throat irritation, coughing, nausea, dizziness, fatigue, confusion and headaches. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are precursors to ground level ozone, which causes asthma and lung damage. (14)”

http://www.suv.org/environ.html

Posted by: tony at April 28, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #144025
The current high gas prices are NOT a result of supply & demand (becuase we have more in reserve than ever before).

What reserves do you mean? Do you mean the strategic reserve? If so, it’s locked up and unavailable to help the supply equation. Or do you mean reserves in the ground? If so, it’s locked up in the ground and unavailable to be processed or pumped much faster than it is now (only Saudia Arabia of the major producers has excess capacity, and not much).

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #144027

Tony,

Looking at the government standards it appears that their is little difference between SUV’s and autos. The fact is that they are classifed in the same tier.

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html

Posted by: Mike P at April 28, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #144037

john that’s impossible that you get 8 mpg more milage whole driving 85 vs 55. what your talking about is thermodynamics, that works only in NASCAR and drag racing. not the street! think about it your pushing a 5000 lbs load at 85 mph, consider the extra wind drag and the extra rpms your engine is turning! if you slow down to 60 mph you will get better milage, and your truck will last longer. Rodney Brown

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 29, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #144051

tony,
FYI, SUVs are classified as trucks and are therefor exempt from the safety and fuel efficiency requirements for passenger cars. SUVs and pickups do have catalytic converters. The emissions requirements are the same as for cars.

Posted by: traveller at April 29, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #144053

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1034808&page=3

Buy a Toyato Prius - & convert it :)
Brand new = $25,000 (with cool options)
Get a used one - once they are old enough used ones will be affordable.

“Monrovia-based Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion batteries. It is forming a new company, EDrive Systems, that will convert hybrids to plug-ins for about $12,000 starting next year, company vice president Greg Hanssen said.”

2006 Brand new Prius $25,000 + $12,000 mod to get 230mpg - that means you would only have to fill it’s 10gal gas tank once every 2,300 miles!!!
Total price $37,000

Top two SUVs:
2006 Ford Escape $18,120 - $24,763
2006 Toyota 4Runner $24,677 - $34,275

So hey instead of the SUV why not spend $37,000 or less if bought used for a 230MPG car :)

Posted by: Rassam1999 at April 29, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #144070

I think it is safe to say the major reason most (not all) americans want SUVs is because of the superiority complex. They might say saying like “I have a big dog” or “I need to take my kids to soccer games” but of course these are just rationalizations.

If it’s literally physically impossible to go about most of your day-to-day activities without an SUV, then maybe you have a case. Then again, most people don’t have 8 kids they need to drive around at once. And even then, vans are better than SUVs.

In lots of places in Europe, almost no one has an SUV. Now I don’t live in Europe, but they do have a high standard of living and it’s reasonable to assume they do have kids, dogs, soccer games, and they do have to carry groceries from the store.

Posted by: mark at April 29, 2006 2:11 AM
Comment #144073

Of course I realize that to many conservatives Europe is a dark, alien place. Full of evil, anti-American things like tolerance, and liberals :)

Posted by: mark at April 29, 2006 2:13 AM
Comment #144076

Mark, if you would take off your partisan blinders for a minute. and open those eyeballs you would see about a dead even split on who drives big suvs try it, MEATHEAD.

Posted by: jim c at April 29, 2006 2:50 AM
Comment #144077

- 2006 Brand new Prius $25,000 + $12,000 mod to get 230mpg - that means you would only have to fill it’s 10gal gas tank once every 2,300 miles!!!
Total price $37,000
- 2006 Ford Escape $18,120 - $24,763
Posted by Rassam1999

Wow for only twice the money I can have access to relatively untested first generation technology! Boy, what an honor to be included in that group of people who learn what is wrong with our approach to a new technology or design modification. To be part of that brave group that includes those who learned that Pinto’s burst into flames when tapped on the rear, or those who found out that proper tire inflation is really important for SUVs or those pioneers who verified for us all that you shouldn’t count pennies when selecting your lasik surgeon.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 29, 2006 3:06 AM
Comment #144082

good point goodkingned, don’t go cheap on LASIK. here is a good one, a lasik doctor advertises lasik in the paper for $500 for both eyes, there is fine print. note this procedure is performed by practicing interns!!!! also someday we will talk about. Radial keratotomy ,bet you can’t wait!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 29, 2006 3:37 AM
Comment #144106

“FYI, SUVs are classified as trucks and are therefor exempt from the safety and fuel efficiency requirements for passenger cars. SUVs and pickups do have catalytic converters. The emissions requirements are the same as for cars.”

Thanks for the info - they do have catalytic coverters - but at least here in NC, since they are classified as work vehicles, they are allowed to produce higher amounts of pollutants.

I can’t remember the last time I saw some poor farmer driving and SUV on his farm.

Posted by: tony at April 29, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #144123

Many people are fearful of driving smaller vehicles, because of all the large trucks on the road. This one looks interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/britain_green_car

,but I am not sure about using natural gas. We seem to be heading into an era where different fuels will be used locally, instead of a national standard available everywhere.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 29, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #144184

I’ll add a couple things here from the perspective of someone in the car business.
SUV’s are minivan/station wagon surrogates.
They are made for people that really need a minivan but can’t stand the thought of being seen in one. So, instead of 24grand and 26mpg, they spend 38grand and get 16mpg. Human nature.
If they cant afford a newer one, they’ll buy 100k beaters just to get that big ass rig.
The funniest rationalizations for buying something against your best interest come from SUV buyers.
My favorite? “well, were having a kid, so our 5 passenger car just isn’t big enough anymore”.
Or, they’ll rationalize that they need to seat 7 passengers for that trip to grandma’s at Christmas. Or that one week vacation a year where they tow their travel trailer to Yosemite Never mind that they could rent one for that weekend and save 10grand.
Most good size passenger cars will easily tow 4-5000 lbs.
Wagons are making a comeback. Yes, I drive one (04 Audi A4 Avant, All wheel drive, 60cuft cargo, 28mpg on hiway)
Hybrids are stupid. You will not realize a net savings for 4-5 years. Diesel cars get better mileage than Prius’.
The choice is not between Hummers and Hybrids. There are a lot of good mpg, full size cars inbetween.
BTW, the new Corvette gets 28 hiway.

Posted by: Norby at April 29, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #144201

ALL this B.S. about SUVs.

We in the US should do as Brazil is doing. They are very close to Energy independence.

With autos that operate on, Gasoline, Diesel, Vegetable oil, Ethanol, Alcohol. With some of them that can run on an either / or combination.

Prior to WW2 automobiles in the US, with minor adjustments) could run on alcohol. After WW2 the oil companies sold artificially low priced gasoline and run the Alcohol producing companies out of business. It is logical to assume if the alcohol producers were still in business, consumption would have increased, there would be less pollution, an the supply of materials to produce alcohol would have kept pace.

Now about electric cars. In the 20s there were quite a few manufactures of electric cars, The oil companies run them out of business. Again it is logical to assume that IF the electric car manufactures had continued from the 20s right up to today, they would have achieved much in their research, and the battery manufactures would have achieved Smaller, More Powerfull, Cheap long lasting, quick recharging, thus we would now probably have fast, powerfull, , more efficient, and cheap electric cars and trucks.

Now about the Gas and coal fired electric generating plants.
IF heavy funded research was put in to Solar Power, I would guess that we could be petroleum need free, or really close to it, in a few short years. and WE WOULD NOT be at the mercy of the oil companies.

Hydrogen cars sound nice, but it takes an EXTREME amount of energy to produce, and it is volatile, more votatile than gasoline.

The Government should fund the production, then produce and distribut it to the citizens at no charge, the commercial users could be billed to pick up the difference


Renewable energy IS the future.

Speaking of oil companies

Posted by: Charlie at April 29, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #144205

ALL this B.S. about SUVs.

We in the US should do as Brazil is doing. They are very close to Energy independence.

With autos that operate on, Gasoline, Diesel, Vegetable oil, Ethanol, Alcohol. With some of them that can run on an either / or combination.

Prior to WW2 automobiles in the US, with minor adjustments) could run on alcohol. After WW2 the oil companies sold artificially low priced gasoline and run the Alcohol producing companies out of business. It is logical to assume if the alcohol producers were still in business, consumption would have increased, there would be less pollution, an the supply of materials to produce alcohol would have kept pace.

Now about electric cars. In the 20s there were quite a few manufactures of electric cars, The oil companies run them out of business. Again it is logical to assume that IF the electric car manufactures had continued from the 20s right up to today, they would have achieved much in their research, and the battery manufactures would have achieved Smaller, More Powerfull, Cheap long lasting, quick recharging, thus we would now probably have fast, powerfull, , more efficient, and cheap electric cars and trucks.

Now about the Gas and coal fired electric generating plants.
IF heavy funded research was put in to Solar Power, I would guess that we could be petroleum need free, or really close to it, in a few short years. and WE WOULD NOT be at the mercy of the oil companies.

Hydrogen cars sound nice, but it takes an EXTREME amount of energy to produce, and it is volatile, more votatile than gasoline.

The Government should fund the production, then produce and distribut it to the citizens at no charge, the commercial users could be billed to pick up the difference


Renewable energy IS the future.

Speaking of oil companies

Posted by: Charlie at April 29, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #144207

jim c., another comment like your meathead name calling above, and you won’t be leaving any comments here at all. Please observe our Critique the Message, NOT the Messenger policy. This will be your only warning.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at April 29, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #144208

Nathan,

You sound so terribly juvenile. Stupid mommy won’t let me have the stupid toy so I asked my stupid daddy and he said no, too.

Liberals are not the problem here. You may be too young to remember but many years ago, our great white fathers in the D.C. promised America that if they would just go along with their plan to build an Alaskan pipeline, America would never want for cheap oil again. NEVER. Billions of dollars later, we’re still waiting for that inexpensive, never-ending supply of oil from that pipeline.

Except for a miniscule number of politicians, there are no true liberals or conservatives left. The pulse of the loudest voting voice determines their thinking. Politicians are so versatile. They can be born-again Christians, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-guest worker, anti-guest worker, just whatever the political climate dictates. Although I fear that the 80% of Americans who think illegal still means illegal are being sold out to the illegal protest marchers. So shouting stupid liberal or ignorant conservative does nothing but demean you personally. Best witness to this fact is the “conservative” Republicans and that balanced budget. Let’s don’t forget the massive increase in pork barreling under this administration. Enforcement of laws has become a joke. How many violations were written up at the Sago mine prior to the 12 deaths. 417 citations were issued for illegal alien employment in 2000; three (yes 3) in 2004.

SUVs and kindred vehicles are the problem because they give big oil and politicians one more scapegoat for high prices. Whether you think Paul Siegel has a valid argument or not, the fact still remains that the fingers get pointed at SUVs as the criminals by the “addicted to oil” groupies. The rich and upper middle class would rather fight than join the battle on gas guzzlers. If they would, the oil thugs would have one less excuse for blaming everyone else for the oil prices. But the rich give up nothing for the cause. GW and sidekick Dickie are still jetsetting around the world consuming mega gallons of fuel for their planes and entourage of official vehicles. How necessary was it really for GW to run to Crawford because another incompetent staff person failed to get an absentee ballot? Who’s addicted to oil?

Take a trip to most any private or upper class neighborhood school and be prepared to be shocked by the number of SUVs sitting in long, long lines waiting for the kiddies with their engines idling. Perish thinking of having to do without air conditioning or heat for a few minutes. Most, guaranteed, have only 1 or 2 kiddies to pick up, and they can leave the dam… dog at home.

The common American, which is 90% of us, have to tighten up when big business puts the screws to people. The rich have less and less social conscience daily and are prepared to make few, if any, sacrifices for the cause. How many rich kids did you say are in Iraq?

SUVs are a big part of the problem because they do suck up a dwindling supply of fossil fuel, but for now, their problem is the excuse they give big oil to chastise us for “being addicted to oil” and thus driving the prices up, up, up. Hearing the CEO of Exxon say he’s really sorry that Americans are suffering because of the high gas prices makes one really want to puke. He’s sorry alright.

Posted by: Kathy at April 29, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #144230

If one wants a SUV, by all means, buy one. However, I’d appreciate if these SUVers would pay the full cost of their ownership. I would suggest a yearly property surtax of $2,500 per SUV. $2,500/SUV won’t begin to pay the expense of the Iraqi war being fought for SUV owners or the expenses of those maimed and/or killed by SUVs on the roads.

Surely, there is a better way for American SUVers to address their feelings of phallic inadequacy.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at April 29, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #144237

kathy, pure partisan class warfare on your part! i don’t really care for big fat ugly suvs. but like i said to mark, open your eyes most everyone has one. drive through a wal-mart parking lot, would you say that was a reflection of lower and mid america? i would. l will bet a fifty dollar bill you will see % 65 of big suvs and big trucks. sorry about the meathead thing watchblog manager, but at least i was not talking the person down like a little child like kathy did. let’s be fair with all posters

Posted by: jim c at April 29, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #144243
I’m uncertain. Are nazis for or against SUVs?

Volkswagens. Nazis are for Volkswagens.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 29, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #144256

ONLY WARNING

Posted by: Charlie at April 29, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #144263

Forget SUVs. No matter what we drive, if we all slowed down our driving we would save billions each year. I drive the speed limit, pace myself and enjoy the drive while most others that I see stomp on the gas to go, hold it all the way down until they get there, and then slam on the brakes at the very edge of the stop. Stupid. Wasting gas, brake pads, and scaring the hell out of anyone in the way. Usually they drive faster on the way to work than on the way home. 80 miles an hour, reckless as hell to get somewhere they hate being. Go figure.

Posted by: Scott Burgoyne at April 30, 2006 1:19 AM
Comment #144268

Scott b. good post and right to the point! why is it you never see a chp on the freeway, when your out there in that madhouse? only time you see them is when it is to late!

Posted by: jim c at April 30, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #144339

Take a trip to most any private or upper class neighborhood school and be prepared to be shocked by the number of SUVs sitting in long, long lines waiting for the kiddies with their engines idling, Posted by: Kathy at April 29, 2006 06:15 Pm

From my own experience, I would disagree completely with this part of your post, although I agree with almost everything else you have to say. Maybe prosperous people in Illinois are more liberal, health concious, and environment-friendly than elsewhere.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 30, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #144357

Scott.
80mpg is not reckless.
And GET OUT OF THE FAST LANE!

Posted by: Norby at April 30, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #144361

Adjusted to inflation, gas is still pretty cheap.
That’s more than I can say about a lot of other things that I buy.

Just a thought.

Posted by: big Tom at April 30, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #144446

For reducing gas prices, we may have a way. Try this, see below.

GAS WAR - an idea that WILL work

This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola
executive It came from one of his engineer buddies
who retired from Halliburton. It’s worth your
consideration.

Join the resistance!!!! I hear we are going to
hit close to $ 4.00 a gallon by next summer and it might
go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down? We
need to take some intelligent, united action.

Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea. This makes
MUCH MORE SENSE than the “don’t buy gas on a certain
day” campaign that was going around last April or May!
The oil companies just laughed at that because they
knew we wouldn’t continue to “hurt” ourselves by
refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience
to us than it was a problem for them. BUT, whoever
thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can
really work. Please read on and join with us!

By now you’re probably thinking gasoline priced at
about $1.50 is

super cheap. Me too! It is currently
$2.79 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the
oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us
to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at
$1.50 - $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to
teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace..not
sellers. With the price of gasoline going up more each
day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we
are going to see the price of gas come down is if we
hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their
gas! And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves.
How?

Since we all rely on our cars, we can’t just stop
buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if
we all act together to force a price war.

Here’s the idea: For the rest of this year, DON’T
purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies
(which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not
selling any gas, they will be inclined to

reduce their
prices. If they reduce their prices, the other
companies will have to follow suit. But to have an
impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon
and Mobil gas buyers. It’s really simple to do! Now,
don’t wimp out on me at this point…keep reading and
I’ll explain how simple it is to reach millions of
people!!

I am sending this note to over 30 people. If each of us
send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) … and
those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 =
3,000)…and so on, by the time the message reaches
the sixth group of people, we will have reached over
THREE MILLION consumers.

If those three million get excited and pass this on to
ten friends each, then 30 million people will have
been contacted! If it goes one level further, you
guessed it….. THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!!

Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people.
That’s all!
(If you don’t understand

how we can reach 300 million
and all you have to do is send this to 10 people….
Well, let’s face it, you just aren’t a mathematician.
But I am . so trust me on this one.) :-)

How long would all that take? If each of us sends
this e-mail out to ten more people within one day of
receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be
contacted within the next 8 days!!! I’ll bet you
didn’t think you and I had that much potential, did
you! Acting together we can make a difference.

If this makes sense to you, please pass this message
on. I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL
THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP
THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK.

Posted by: Keith at May 1, 2006 2:01 AM
Comment #144521

Ooo!!!

We can all email each other and just hope that the rules of economics will change if enough people spam each other!

Let’s do it!

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 1, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #146836

It’s at a point now that even seeing prices at $2.79 is cheap. I took my wife’s van to fill up with regular and it was $2.97 / gallon. Diesel for my truck is $2.87 / gallon. I started using a product called Ethos FR http://www.gasclubusa.net/go/bcohen and have increased my wife’s mileage from 19 to 22 mpg (average) and my truck is seeing 31 mpg from 22 (hwy). Shoot me an email for more information. fightfuelprices@gmail.com

Posted by: Fuel Saver at May 10, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #251844

Well, I haul kids, sometimes a trailer.
I can’t use a car, I can’t see over the other SUV’s when I drive :)
BTW: I own a Trailblazer (SS), it is easily 10 times easier to park than my wife’s Grand Prix (turning radius is exceptional)

Gas prices are now $3.69 a gal (May 2008), you people were whining about this in 2006. You suck.

Posted by: SUV Lover at May 1, 2008 8:14 AM
Comment #314209

I’m really liking Kieth’s idea of a gas war. It sounds crazy but it just might work.

Posted by: Food Storage Reviews at November 29, 2010 6:22 PM
Post a comment