Boy, the ad hominem arguments are flying around this week. They're all in response to this, John Edwards' speech in which he said that as President, he would ask Americans to switch to more fuel-economical cars. When asked if that meant people "sacrificing" their SUVs, he said "yes".

From right-wind Blogovia's response (and don't miss Marco's well-considered comment!), you'd think he tried to choose Hugo Chavez as a running mate.

There is outrage. People are pointing out how "hypocritical" it is for a guy with a big house to criticize those that drive gas-guzzlers. They're picking on his house, his jet, and, for some very (I'm sure) bizarre reason, his haircut. I've noticed, however, that no one is tackling the actual argument that he makes about fuel consumption. One might think that they aren't able to.

Well, I see some logical problems with their arguments against it, and being the bullshit filter that I am, I'll see if I can strain some of it out for you.

First, his house. Sure, it's big. It's a mansion. I dare say that if any of the conservatives that put him down for living there had worked hard to build a successful law practice (which they will also gladly put down as being based on "frivolous lawsuits" although I'm still waiting to see an actual examples of research on that claim) and made enough money to get a mansion like that, they would. Thus, I suspect a hint of jealous hypocrisy in this particular critique. However, that's not the whole point.

The whole point is that while Edwards' mansion might - I say might -have a larger carbon footprint than one SUV, it will not even come CLOSE to ALL of them. Let's be real here. We should all be allowed to waste gas because the guy suggesting we all try to cut back is living in a big house that cannot, even if filled with styrofoam and lit on fire, come close to polluting as much as millions of vehicles? And the people who argue thus say that they are providing perspective?

Exactly what sacrifice is being asked for here? That everyone walk? No. That everyone carpool? No. Bikes? No. Public transport? No. None of these are new ideas, anyway. People were doing them voluntarily in the 70s when we had that energy crisis, and gas prices shot up.  You know, like they have been for the past three years.

No, Edwards is instead suggesting that we try to drive more fuel-economical vehicles. Then, we'd use less gas and create less pollution. We'd also save money. We'd spend less to get to the places we want to go. Less money in the tank, more in the bank.

Well, how dare that bastard try to make us sacrifice that way?

So while "conservatives" will tell us that we need to sacrifice our right to privacy, they draw the line at suggestions that we spend less on fossil fuels, even if it means traveling just as much as we did before. Or even more, depending on the situation.

Another argument is against the idea that we are the world's bigest polluters. "What about China? What about India? They each pollute about the same as we do! Ever heard of those countries?"

Well, yes, I have. Ever compared our population to theirs? Here's what I just looked up:

U.S.  302,746,657

India  1,129,866,154

China 1,319,175,335  It changed twice just while I was jotting the number down.

Not really equal, is it? This means that if we pollute anywhere near what either of these countries do - and we do- then we are far, far filthier per capita than either of these countries. India has almost a billion more people than we do. China has over a billion people more than us. But we're going to wait for them to clean up their acts first?

Sounds, I don't know, kind of mind-numbingly arrogant and selfish, doesn't it?

But then again, what do you want from people who support a war as long as the tax cuts mean they don't have to pay for it? Let China buy up all of the debt, we'll be okay. Our children wil be fucked, but we're all about us, aren't we? Let them form their own world with whatever we leave behind.

Edwards also said that he'd like to stop the overseas manufacture of the weapons and ammunition that our soldiers are using, saying that anything used to defend America should be made in America by, oh, I don't know, Americans? You'd think that would be something that righties could agree with. And I'm sure they do, which is why they aren't saying anything about it. Zero. Cuts into the ad hominems when he says something like that, it does.

Now, I drive an old Bronco II, not a Prius. I'm not currently in the financial situation to buy a new vehicle, although I certainly wouldn't mind a Prius. I have, however, changed the way I drive.

I moved to a job in an office, instead of outside sales. Leaving the old job was not exactly my choice, but avoiding outside sales when I looked for a new one was.

I rarely "run out" to pick something up or run an errand. I save my errands for the weekend as much as possible, and plan an efficient route. And I don't take unneccessary trips. Sure, I'll go out for fun - I'm not advocating hermitage. But the fact is that last year at this time, I was burning through 1 1/2 tanks of gas every week. Now I might burn that much in a month. While I was spending $300.00 a month on gas, I am now spending about $70.00.

I think I can handle making that kind of sacrifice.

Your milage may vary, of course (you had to know that was coming!) but I doubt that there is anybody who couldn't think a little about their habits, and find sufficient financial motive to make some tweaks.

I just can't, for the life of me, understand why someone would lay down for the reduction of their 4th Amendment rights, allow the Executive branch to claim far more power than they were ever entitled to by law, but take a stand for their right to be utterly wasteful with their own money and everyone's breathing air. Why not just set your money on fire and inhale deeply?

The thing is, some kind of sacrifice is inevitable. A stitch, in time, saves nine after all. A small "sacrifice" for prevention can offset a large sacrifice for solution.

If this report is correct, we'll soon see what we'll have to sacrifice if we don't wise up.