Arrogance. Plain and simple arrogance. No one dares asks us to conserve because they are afraid of losing votes - many people, if asked to conserve, would (and have) interpret that as putting the blame on the citizens/consumers, when they would feel more happy and comfortable blaming the "powers that be," the oil companies, the terrorists, etc. How dare you ask me to carpool! You're saying it's my fault we're running out of oil! No one who introduces those thoughts is going to get reelected so they keep their mouths shut and stick to fighting the "evildoers."
I hadn't thought about it before, but it does seem to be in poor taste to have auto races consuming oil for unnecessary purposes. But if you ban that unnecessary activity, it could start a slippery slope of banning all sorts of other things that might also be seen as "for fun" or unnecessary -- driving to a vacation spot, driving to a grocery store when there's a convenience store a block away, driving to a friend's house for fun, etc.
At this point in our nation's history, I would be very wary of any more forced government intervention, including banning a sport, because I just know it would lead to more steps toward facsism. They have used the oil shortages and the wars to justify all sorts of illegal actions, and if we give them any more room to do so, they will continue to do so.
2006-08-10 07:05:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by LisaT 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
Well, all sports involve the use of excessive amounts of gas. Getting players to and from the various arenas, getting the tens of thousands of spectators to and from the arenas (not to mention idling time), plus the transit of all the goods sold during games and the electricity used while people are at home watching these games. Not only does this all use gas but it creates additional and unnecessary emissions into the environment.
Should we ban these things? Not yet. Oil isn't really at a "crisis" level -- meaning it isn't going to run out tomorrow or even in 5 or 10 years.
As for why we aren't asked to cut back... we sort of are being asked to do so wtih these high gas prices. The simple fact is that we are all spoiled and demanding and aren't willing to give up something as seemingly simple as gas and driving for a war that doesn't actually affect us on a daily basis.
2006-08-10 09:30:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Goose&Tonic 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Leilani, you're humorous. you're in simple terms like Al Gore. You adult men tell unquestionably everyone else approximately how they might desire to stay, yet you and AL do not prepare what you carry forth. He has a extensive ability draining mansion in Tennessee, and you stress a race vehicle that even you declare is killing an acre of rain woodland for each race it runs. look, in case you somewhat cared, the 1st factor you may do is get out of that vehicle! next is take all of that ability going to Capitol Hill and all those conventions and summits, and build your man or woman sanctioning physique. Make your man or woman classification rules with the vehicles which you think of could be environmentally friendly. I propose, you have have been on condition that Biology degree, superb suited? will not be able to you come back up with some thing without asking us dumb race followers in Yahoo solutions? you're an outstanding race vehicle driving force. Please, discover another "motor vehicle" to tout your self for exposure and sponsorship.
2016-10-01 21:58:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by ammon 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The amount of oil used by Auto sports is a drop in the bucket compared to what we use as a nation. It would make no difference on oil prices if we stopped all motor sports. As for WW2 posters. They said a lot back then. What does Hitler have to do with today. He is dead. The Nazi's are gone. Carpooling has nothing to do with Hitler. What we really need to do is to actively push for alternative fuels such as Ethanol, Hydrogen, or battery powered vehicles.
2006-08-10 07:02:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by chris42050 4
·
3⤊
2⤋
In all honesty, you are correct that using oil for fun may be a bit of a waste in our current situation, but I feel that racing is something that serves as a distraction from current events.
Don't misread me, I feel that all citizens should be well informed to their surroundings, but the media bombards the senses to the point you feel numb.
The American people need distractions, and with the growing amount of people enthralled into the wild world of motor sports in general, would it be fair to take that distraction away from them?
Though racing isn't my personal escape, it is to many other Americans who deserve the right to sit back, have a few beers, and pray their driver doesn't need directions to get around the track.
2006-08-11 04:32:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Slipshade 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I've been saying for over a year how nascar needs to be cancelled until we can find some kind of alternative of nascar. Honestly, most nascar fans wouldn't mind if nascar converted to an alternative fuel like ethanol. Also, when you consider the high level of training that the mechanical crews have it wouldnt be hard for them to convert every car to ethanol fuels. It would probably be good if they closed the events to the public and put them on pay per view to make up the ticket sales. This in itself would reduce strain on the towns that are host to these tracks and save fuel that the fans and support staff use to get to the races.
2006-08-10 07:15:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
WWII was a war declared by Congress. This allowed restrictions such a fuel, food, precious metals and many other items.
Sports such a Baseball, Football, auto racing etc. was suspended (history says voluntarily) because is was obvious the athletes were going to volunteer or be drafted for military service. If you noticed that baseball continued to be played during the war by women.
Although there were many hardships during the war it was not as bad as we think. Entertainment, Dining out, Clubs and bars remained open for business. For continued support of war efforts the people must have life remain as normal as possible. Making life difficult for the home front is the fastest way to turn the people against the war. By the end of WWII the anti-war movement had become very large and was demanding that the U.S. sue Japan for peace.
By the way, Charles Lindburg ( labeled by historians as isolationist, anti-war, pro facist and Nazi) was anti-war in general. Once it started, he was a great patriot and served his country well. As a civilian test pilot for P-38 Lightning he went to the pacific theater to teach the Air Corps pilots how to fly them properly. He taught them how to increase their flying time from 2-3 hrs to 8-10 hrs by adjusting fuel and engine settings. This allowed them to make the long flight to shoot down Yamamoto. Lindburg also went on several combat mission and shot down several Japanese planes. Being a civilian, he was never granted the title of ACE. His combat missions were never officially approved, so they didn't count. All this is documented by the pilots of the units.
Although much money is being spent on this war, it is not the war spending that is causing the spending problems. It is the hugh amount of money wasted (spent) by Congress causing the defecit. When Congress is spending the equivalent of the entire Military budget, every year, on pork projects and other useless and needless causes, the defecit climbs drasticly. Then the Media and the Dems in Congress blame the Administration for it.
Why does Bush sign these hugh pork spending parts of the budget? Because the Supreme Court said that a Line Item Veto is unconstitutional. Line Item Veto was granted to Clinton and immediately shot down the Supreme Court. So Bush either signs the entire budget or, shuts down the Government by not signing it. One of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations.
As long as people keep paying attention to the main stream (Drive-by) media they will continue to believe we are losing the war on terror. Go to MilBlog.com and read the truth, as told, by the men and women fighting it. Then you will know the truth.
2006-08-10 08:02:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
It's a good question, and though I love NASCAR, I am willing to see shorter races or to see fewer, definitely.
But if NASCAR could switch to E85 or another ethanol blend, they'd attract a lot of other potential users.
And NASCAR uses far less fuel, with far fewer emissions, than your average highway full of commuters.
2006-08-10 08:25:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by GreenEyedLilo 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
sure it is.
It is not "tasteful" to see a big Hollywood type fly in their private plane to a speech to blast the country and waste, then get back in their private plane to go home and be picked up in their stretch limo.
NASCAR is for the regular guy. When the rich give up all their perks and waste then I would say you have a point.
2006-08-10 07:01:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
If we conserve, the oil companies make less money.
We can't have that! ;)
I for one, am thinking of trying that whole "walking" thing. My mom tells me they used to do that when she was a kid...
2006-08-10 09:38:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by kermit 6
·
1⤊
0⤋