I’ve preached to you guys about personal responsibility when it comes to your choice of cars. Maybe too much, I’ll admit. But the fact remains if you really don’t need to drive an oversized gas guzzler, you shouldn’t. It’s bad for the earth, bad for the future, selfish and helps fuel wars abroad and other abhorrent international hanky-panky.
In spite of all that, a friend of mine just bought a Porsche Cayenne.
Let’s do the math.
His kids are grown and have moved away; he’s not in the biz of transporting large groups; and he’s about as establishment a guy as you could imagine – Kansas Republican, Mission Hills.
The one thing he isn’t is a to the manner born scofflaw like me.
It’s only 12 grand more than the base Cayenne and gets three to five more MPGs in the city. That’s as much as a third better mileage.
You know, make some sort of token nod or contribution to the good of mankind.
Uh, not a chance.
Now he’s tearing around town in a car that’s way too big, way too fast and gets terrible gas mileage because he thinks it makes him a cool dude.
Meanwhile back at the Kansas City Star – an institution that prides itself on taking meaningful positions on things like the environment and world peace – Tom Strongman is choking out blowjobs for cars like the 2013 Chevy Traverse. An SUV that gets 17 City, 24 Highway and costs $44,000 as tested. There’s something we all could use.
But who really needs to push this 5,066 pound behemoth around town?
So what if it’s “lighter and more fuel efficient than a Tahoe or Suburban,” as Strongman notes. BTW, it only gets 2 MPGs City more than the Suburban, big effing deal.
Strongman used to be a pretend journalist.
Thus the cars he reviewed for the Star were supposed to get the kind of journalistic scrutiny Consumer Reports might render. Even though everybody at the newspaper knew the game was to kiss up to car dealers who were among the newspapers biggest advertisers.
But boy, those Strongman reviews sure look like the real deal still, not advertising. And he’s identified in the section as “contributing editor.”
Which sounds like a real journalist there, too.
Why not give him a title more befitting someone who writes advertising copy? Say, marketing manager.
It’s a charade, people.
It’s like hiring a hooker inLas Vegas and pretending it’s on a higher plane somehow because she agrees to have dinner out with you first.
It’s a joke.
And given the content quality of much of the Star‘s “automotive” section – passing out plaudits to gas guzzlers to please advertisers – the section itself is also bad for the earth. because it doesn’t have a truly critical bone in it’s body.
Am I being too harsh?