30-Something Years of “Progress” . . .

50
2414
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I find myself in an interesting position – personally as well as professionally. I have loved cars long before I was old enough to drive one – and I have been fortunate to have spent most of my working life so far writing about them (and the closely related issues of being free – or not – to buy and drive them).

Over the course of going-on thirty years behind the wheel – professionally – plus all the years prior, personally – I have seen how people who do not like cars and want us to stop driving them have worked toward that goal, one step at a time, with a doggedness and single-mindedness I have to respect, much as I despise them for it.

Their first and arguably most important victory – small as it seemed at the time – was to get a federal regulation enacted that required all new cars to come equipped with seat belts, never mind whether the buyer wanted them. This was in 1968 – per Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208.

Before 1968, if a buyer wanted seat belts in his car, he was free to buy them. Imagine that. Taking away that freedom to choose was the precedent set by FMVSS 208. The latter word is italicized to emphasize the fact that FMVSS 208 was not just about making seatbelts mandatory to buy. It was about making it mandatory to wear them, too. Because it follows – which is what precedents are all about.

Inevitably, people would be forced to wear seat belts, too.

Just not immediately.

The next thing was a regulation mandating car buyers buy what were called “5 MPH bumpers,” which uglified the front and rear ends of the cars they were – literally – bolted to, like braces. The federal regulatory regime was able to mandate these ugly – and heavy – bumpers whether the buyer wanted them or not because it had already established the precedent that it had the rightful authority to mandate the buying of what buyers didn’t want – by asserting it made the car (or driving it) “safer.”

And perhaps so.

But so what?

That is the objection that ought to have been raised half a century ago. It is the job of parents to keep children safe. It is the job of adults to object to being parented by government. It is safer to be highly skilled as a driver. Yet there is essentially no governmental mandate requiring the demonstration of skill behind the wheel. This gives the lie to the “safety” wheedle – which is in fact just that. A pretext – like “equity,” used by the same kinds of people – to wheedle forward their agenda to control what other people are allowed to do, even to the extent of decreeing (via regulations that strangle like Kudzu but without the authority of law, except in the most vaporous and general sense) what they must buy when they buy a car that no one else is paying for.

The next attempted step was a regulation – also in the early ’70s – that required a seatbelt-ignition interlock. The car’s engine would not start unless the driver was “buckled up.” The law did not say he had to – yet – but the seatbelt-ignition interlocks served notice about what was coming.

First, something went – also as a result of “safety” regulations. Convertibles were all-but-disappeared for many years – not because buyers didn’t want to buy them but because the government’s latest “safety” requirements – regarding rollover standards – were regarded as not feasible to comply with. Convertibles and “pillarless” sedans (with the side glass down, there was nothing obstructing the openness of all four windows, allowing for free airflow unimaginable to people who never got to go for a ride in one of these) disappeared.

They were replaced by coupes and sedans with upright “I” beams to support the roof – and comply with the regulations.

Convertibles eventually came back after manufacturers figured out how to integrate rollbars into their design. But pillarless sedans went the way of other beautiful things once common in what was once a free country (evidence that we all understand it no longer is comes in the form of no one ever saying that anymore).

The ’80s brought forth the mandatory idiocy of cars that burn their headlights in bright daylight – thereby creating glare and making it harder to see motorcycles, which isn’t very “safe” for them. And the third brake light, which came with its own idiotic name: Center High Mounted Stop Lamp. These also used to be available – for those who wanted them – in automobile parts catalogs. They became mandatory in 1986. Some of these used several LED lights that cost a small fortune to replace – but who would dare to put a price on “safety”?

Or a limit?

Having established multiple precedents, it was inevitable that people would be forced – by law – to wear the seatbelts they were forced to buy. After that, parents were forced to strap their kids into “safety” seats. They had previously been free to buy them. Can’t have that. Child safety seats have likely served as more effective form of birth control than anything else. And they have served brilliantly to make kids afraid of cars, thereby making them not like them. It is no coincidence that the people who were born after the child safety seat mandate are more likely to not even have a driver’s license than any prior generation.

But even that was not enough.

It is never enough. Next came the Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) mandate. This is how mandatory seat belts morphed into mandatory air bags, which people were once free to buy – or not.

Can’t allow that.

And so it no longer is allowed.

These uglified – and homogenized – the interiors of new cars, which used to boast manufacturer-specific steering wheel designs. They a look the same now. Air bags have also added thousands of dollars to the price of new cars, made them more disposable (due to the high cost of replacing them when they deploy) and more expensive to insure, which we’re forced to do because . . .  “safety!”

The next step – and we’re almost there already – is to not allow you to drive, period. This is the true purpose of what is marketed as “advanced driver assistance technology.” It is not about “assisting” you. It is about controlling you. Ultimately, it is about “assisting” you into the passenger’s seat – even if you’re still sitting where the driver used to.

This will be done – again – in the name of “safety.”

And it is happening – right now – because we didn’t see the danger of allowing those people – as Robert E. Lee referred to them – to set the precedent, some 50 years ago, that it was acceptable for the government to force everyone to buy the seat belts anyone had been free to buy, if they wanted them.

Everything since has followed from that – with more to come – assuming we let them proceed.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

If you like items like the Keeeeeeev T shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!

 

50 COMMENTS

  1. A little off topic, but these billionaire psychopaths and many large corporations stand to make BIG BUCKS off this obsessive push for the climate change agenda and “Net Zero”. And there are people who’ve been propagandized into believing this whole climate change thing was about “Saving the planet”……

    https://thehighwire.com/editorial/with-billionaire-climate-change-revenue-stream-set-big-business-pushes-world-leaders-to-phase-out-fossil-fuels/

  2. Currently enjoying working on and driving a 1980 Porsche 911 carrera. No buzzers or bells, only thing power assisited are the windows, and you can engage the starter in gear with your foot off the clutch. Safety is a roll cage and 5 pt harness plus paying attention. Doesn’t even have a radio (or heat).
    Worst thing is keeping it below 100 mph in traffic lol. Lays rubber a bit easier than expected too.

    • ‘Buy death,’ a cynical respondent in an online forum used to urge. Usually he was right.

      But maybe not this time:

      ‘Update (1340ET): Over the last hour there have been widespread reports that communications to Gaza have been externally cut. Minutes ago Israel’s military (IDF) spokesman confirmed that ground forces are expanding their operations tonight. Simultaneously Gazans are being told to immediately evacuate the north and go to the south of the Strip.’

      When you see the moon, hear the sound of the Strip
      Yeah, call out my name, yeah, call out my name
      And if you see the moon, or hear the sound of the Strip
      Yeah, call out my name, and call my friends’ names too

      Whiskeytown, Dancing With the Women at the Bar

  3. The marxist/leftists aren’t really interested in safety….

    Why would they let an automonous EV loose on public roads ….with lithium firebomb batteries…that has defective GM AI software and horrible GM quality control?

    Cruise Halts Robotaxi Operations Nationwide After Collisions With Pedestrians, Permit Suspension In California

    another vehicle struck a pedestrian in San Francisco, launching her into the path of a Cruise self-driving car. According to DMV records obtained by CNBC, the Cruise autonomous vehicle came to a complete stop and NOTE…”subsequently attempted to perform a pullover maneuver while the pedestrian was underneath the vehicle.”….stupid AI….

    from the comments
    I see the problem. It’s a GM. Built by DEI leadership and UAW thugs.

    Who are the sick degenerate regulators who decided to let these death machines on the road in the first place?
    There has been zero public input, but some high-handed paid-off cocksuckers went ahead.

    If I am not mistaken, they were suspended because they lied and hid accident reports….
    None of that was in this article…..like the never reported EV fires….

    https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/cruise-halts-robotaxi-operations-nationwide-after-collisions-pedestrians-permit

  4. Straight out of the move “The princess bride”: “That word you keep using, I don’t think it means what you think it means”.

    Real progress is a Hellcat getting close to the same fuel economy as a bug did in the’60’s.

  5. The old pharaoh king bloodlines are now…..the globalists..the WEF…the Davos crowd/club of rome/aristocracy….The Swiss/davos/templars/freemason/vatican/banksters/ control group at the top….which includes the WEF, the BIS, the U.N., NATO….which are part of their cabal that run all the governments everywhere….including china

    The pharaoh kings built obelisks…it is a phallic symbol…a symbol of pharaonic domination…the pharaoh king’s power……..the top is tapered…circumcised…the pharaohs circumcised the slaves…the mark of the slave…the same is true today….these obelisks are all over the world today…a sign of pharaoh still in power….

    These obelisks are all over the place…nobody understands what they are or what they represent…someone should clue in indigenous….the anti colonizers…to remove these….

    obelisks new york……..

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/92HqP_5vls8

  6. Also, somewhat related:

    https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2023/10/26/todays-libertarians-are-super-annoying-n2630314

    “Today’s Libertarians Are Super Annoying”

    By one Herr SCHLICHTER! (To be said like Igor shouts BLUCHER! in “Young Frankenstein”.)

    “The fact is that conservatism has absorbed most of libertarianism, at least the useful parts of it.”

    And what, exactly, is “conservatism”? Because it means exactly jack-shit to me these days.

    “…I’ve got no use at all for the self-identified libertarians we see all too often today. They are a bunch of rigid scolds with zero conception of how the world works but no hesitation to explain it to the rest of us.”

    Rigid scolds? Who the fuck does he have in mind? Because it’s not any libertarian I know. And tell me how Ron Paul or Thomas Massie have “zero conception” of how the world works.

    “The joke until about 10 years ago was that libertarians were pretty much only interested in legalizing pot. Well, they got what they wanted…. And now that they’ve managed to achieve their cannabis dreams, they don’t really seem to have much of an agenda other than pestering the rest of us. ”

    Really?! So all of Eric’s articles, for example, are inane “scolds” since he’s achieved his lifelong passion to legalize pot (which still isn’t legal nationally and in half the states, BTW.). Because I haven’t seen ONE “conservative” addressing the erosion of the automotive industry or individual liberty due to the relentless pursuit of “saaaaafety”.

    Then there’s this gem:
    “Do you know how we stopped Nazis from killing? We killed them. But libertarians are notoriously fussy about getting their soft hands dirty. Purity is everything in modern libertarianism, because it’s all a pose anyway. It’s not a functional ideology. It’s a hobby for political geeks to pursue for a while until they grow up and start being Republicans.”

    Yes, grow up and start being Republicans. Again, whatever the hell THAT is. Today, it’s perhaps whatever Orange Man says it is. What some people truly “grow up” and do is to smell money: all of the money stolen from the entirety of the country and aggregated in one cesspool on the East Coast. Then they might dispose of any principles they had and become whatever “Republicans” are for a moment. Or for a lifetime, for that matter.

    What follows is a cloud of chaff about “foreign policy”, punctuated by this:

    “Now, adults understand that what you do about enemies is fight and defeat them. But if you take fighting and defeating off the table when you still have enemies, well, then you get what happened to the 1,400 Israelis when the Hamas savages poured out of Gaza the other week.”

    When the hell did Israel take “fighting and defeating” their enemies off the table? Seem to me, the set up shop right in the middle of their enemies, and have been fighting ever since. And when did libertarians take defending themselves, including fighting and defeating, “off the table”? The point is to not be aggressive. Also to not stick our nose in things that aren’t our business, such as when a group of people decide to start a country in enemy territory…

    Too much here, and I’m not going to waste any more time. Reading Eric made me smile and nod. Reading “SCHLICHTER!” made me shake my head and roll my eyes.

    SCHLICHTER!

    • That jumble of non-sequiters shows how incoherent a philosophy “conservatism” is. It’s worse than conserving nothing except the advances of leftists. It really boils down to a hard on for war and Zionism. That’s all that really animates it. It would be fun to see that douchenozzle come hang around here and pop off like that.

    • Hi BaDnOn,

      This Schlichter column is embarrassing. The man doesn’t even know (and clearly made no effort to find out) what libertarians (serious ones) advocate. Yes, they advocated for ending the “war” on some drugs. Because it was a “war” on the right of the individual to choose for himself – and not just whether to smoke pot. That’s incidental. What’s core is respect for the right of peaceful people to be left in peace; to not take what isn’t yours; to mind your own business. These are core libertarian ideas.

      The most absurd part of this article was when he described libertarianism as “not a functional ideology.”

      As opposed to “conservatism.” Whatever that means. And never mind the fact that all “conservatism” has done is to help Leftism advance – by serially refusing to oppose its core tenets. Indeed, by embracing many of them (e.g., defending Social Security and property/income taxes).

      • Indeed Eric,

        Funk Doctor perhaps has it right that the only think consistent in modern “conservatism” is a support for military interventions, particularly in the Middle East.

        Minding their own business, however, is as alien a concept to “conservatives” as it is to anyone on the “Left”. Oh, the Left seem to leave you alone with your substance of choice these days, as long as you have nothing for them to take. But neither seem to understand that none of my property, be it drugs, money, guns, land, vehicles etc. are any of their business unless I’m harming someone with them.

      • My libertarian view of drug use has become a lot more nuanced over the years. The idea that drug use for pleasure should not be regulated isn’t exactly correct. But it shouldn’t be regulated by the state, which has no moral authority, and will therefore be selective in enforcing prohibition -or through sin tax, perversely endorse use (Pennsylvania’s “State Store” liquor system comes to mind). Of course vineyards were commonly a source of income for monasteries, so the church might not be all that great either.

        Seems the best answer is, as always, yourself, family and friends. People who are deeply concerned for your welfare for no reason other than they like you. You can’t buy love, and you can’t pay for salvation, any more than someone can claim your taxes in exchange for keeping you sober.

        • Hi RK,

          I’m as opposed to criminalization of drugs as I am to criminals forcing people to take drugs! My position is: You have every right to do with your own body as you see fit – and I have no right to demand you be punished for it, however much I may dislike what you’re doing. Drugs – which includes alcohol – are just things and things have no volition. Only people do. Let people regulate themselves. Let them be responsible for the consequences – and enjoy the benefits (if any).

          There is something beyond obnoxious about a cop “busting” someone for possessing “drugs” . . . and then going home to have a beer.

  7. A nice write up Eric that shows how compromise is an antonym to freedom, how it’s used and its amazing success that eliminated the constitution as the supreme law of the land.

  8. Excellent work Eric…..even tho the whole thing makes me sick. Been a gear head all my life…used to love looking at new cars….Now I cringe at them.

  9. Great article, Eric. Thank you for mentioning FMVSS 208. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards were the door that the camel put it’s nose through to get into motorists business.

    Seatbelts save lives. Airbags save lives. Steel Door Beams. Large side pillars, high beltlines, the list goes on. All of these are post crash protection. As you mention, they pretty much give away licenses and you are not required to learn to drive properly.

    In addition, pre crash, comes predictable steering response and suspension enhancements we take forgranted today. The adoption of radial tires, anti-sway bars, disc brakes, and rack and pinion steering did more to reduce the fatality rate than any of the mandated post crash protection that these government assholes brag about. My contention is the federal government hadn’t made manufacturers spend outsized sums on ppost crash saaaaaafety and eeeeeemissions, we would have had safer, less “polluting” cars much earlier than the mid to late 1980s. Why? The 1973 Arab oil embargo was the catalyst for us sgetting much better designed Japanese and European cars into the states.

    I have driven 1960’s vintage automobiles with none of those and they were ill handling beasts. Excessive suspension sway, unpredictable response, poor steering and bias tires made these a death trap in anything but a 70 mph straightline interstate run. I never saw the fascination with oversized American cars besides in the styling department. Looking to Europe, they were building cars like the Mercedes 280, the Jaguar Mark2/S-type/420 and then the XJ6. Anyone could get in one of these 1960’s cars and drive them on today’s roads, with today’s traffic at today’s even higher speeds and not feel unsafe. The european manufactures weren’t required to meet specific safety standards, yet they were safer pre and post crash than the American counterparts. Their lower line Fords, Vauxhalls, Fiat’s and VW were also better in the handling and braking departments than the American counterparts. Cars like Volvo, who emphasized safety at a price, were also much better performing vehicles.

    The bottom line is that yes, none of the safety and emissions standards of teh last 50 years were needed or desired by a large segment of the population. And better vehicles were being built somewhere else.

    • ‘I have driven 1960’s vintage automobiles with excessive suspension sway, unpredictable response, poor steering and bias tires.’

      As a kid, I sat in front of my dad and took the wheel of our Chevy station wagon on a divided highway.

      Owing to about six inches of slop in the steering (measured at the top of the wheel), one had to constantly saw the wheel back and forth every few seconds to keep the ‘ill-handling beast’ in its lane.

      I thought that was normal [!]. So it was a revelation to drive an early Honda Accord, with hardly a millimeter of slop in its tight, precise steering.

    • In the 1960s, radial tires, disc brakes, anti sway bars, 4 wheel independent suspension, and rack and pinion steering were hardly exotic technologies. Numerous European and Japanese cars had them—and not just exotic sports cars, but economy cars too.

      On the one hand, I’m surprised that the Big Three failed to adopt these technologies. On the other hand, I’m not.

      There are many reasons why, but one reason I suspect is labor and management.

      First, all the obscene salaries that the Big Three paid out to both labor and management was money not used to develop better products. Next, it was more profitable to re-skin ancient designs than create new designs. Also, customers were resigned to driving poorly handling cars as daily drivers—even so called “enthusiasts” who had experience with better handling imported cars.

      If the Big Three had adopted those technologies then, they’d likely be in a far better position than they otherwise would have been.

      • Without a doubt. My dad was not a car buff by any stretch. He never really maintained his vehicles and got rid of them about every 5 years or so after they were “worn out,” but he detested the large American cars for a variety of reasons.

        In 63, he bought a Corvair. In 66 it was a mustang. In 68, he got a 67 Jaguar sedan. The Jag stood out. It was a short car by the standards back then. At 187 inches, it was about the same size as a modern day Honda Accord. It had a good greenhouse, it cornered with little body roll. The steering was a little sloppy being recirculating ball, but Jaguar would put in rack and pinion in the XJ6. You could run 80 mph all day long in it and the 4 wheel disc brakes could stop the car straight.

        It was the opposite of the Mustang, which had a squirrly rear, excess body roll, and horrendously bad brakes.

        His next smaller car purchase was a 73 AMC Hornet Sportabout. AMC made an extremely drivable vehicle which could corner very well. It was equipped with Front Wheel Disc brakes. Constant steering input wasn’t needed to keep that car in its lane. The ride was not floaty and the 360V8 engine was eager. Looking back, I’m surprised that it was an American car. The American public apparently didn’t demand much from their cars at the time.

        Perhaps it is telling that AMC was the first of the big 4 companies to go out of business. They built drivable cars, but that’s not what the public seemed to want.

    • Amen

      SVO stiffened 87 mustang gt or stock 2000 mercury cougar v6 on dry twisty mountain 2 lane sans guardrail.

      Go Auto Alliance/Mazda ! x2 if wet.

      Thats improvement. We can do so much better without wasting so much on thaaaafty.

  10. Totally 100% off-topic, but does anyone have a recommendation for a car mounted holster?

    I drive a BMW X3 and it’s pretty tight between the seats so I think I’d prefer under the steering wheel but I am open to suggestions. Definitely do not want to drill into the plastic dashboard or anything.

  11. I believe most of the people behind the safety cult truly believe they are being compassionate and doing the right thing. These midwits are unfortunately not intelligent enough to see that they are doing actual harm in the process. By being overprotective, they make people weaker.

    • Hi Philo,

      People who are members of the Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety Cult are probably also the same people who thought that vaccinating every last human on the planet with an experimental jab would “End the pandemic”, and that shoving EVs down everyone’s throats would “Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaave the planet from cliiiiiiiiimate change”. If anyone tried to tell them otherwise, the “heretics” were instantly smeared as “Misinformation super spreaders”, even if the “heretics” were proven RIGHT. Not only is there a Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety Cult, there’s also a cult of Fauciism, COVID, and cliiiiiiiiimate change.

    • They aren’t. They are dogmatic ideologues and should be treated for what they are. Their feigned cries ring hollow with me. They have done incalculable harm to a people and an industry that used to employ 1/6 people in the United States.

      There is no doubt at all that these same people are double and triple vaxxed despite the fact that the vaccine does not work except in the tiniest of populations.

      It all started at the auto safety hearings held in the 1960’s and orchestrated by a Ralph Nader who stated that the automobile has been a source of deprivation and sorrow or some such rabble.

      I don’t take their crap with a grain of salt, but as a direct threat to my rights. I no longer accommodate their arguments. In the least bit. The only way to correct this is to yank the wheel and go back to the 1960s in terms of regulations, just before they stuck their nose in our tent.

      • My mom got her first DL at 38 yo back in 68. Her first car was two Corvairs, red 66 monza, blue 67. Both 4 spd manuals. My grand uncle was a retired GM engineer who insisted on giving up his hot rod monza cuz he was so embarrased by her 67.

        The blue 4 door was a leaky lemon grocery and dog hauler.

        The red monza was a blast to ride in, sometimes used to scare me into listening. Im have only slept thru automatics when rentals or shared with my spouse. Manual only since 93. I musta listened after all.

        Thaaaaaaaaafty be damned. I wish I still had that cool red car. She traded it in for a 72 Dart 225 slant 6.

  12. As a matter of fact, I’ve seen safety and emissions gizmos on cars built before 1968. I once saw a 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 from California with a smog “AIR” pump, an intake heat riser, and a thermostatic vacuum advance control. That last item was a heat sensitive valve that opened when the engine reached a certain temperature to send vacuum to the distributor’s vacuum advance. Not sure what the point of doing so was, except maybe to keep the engine running at a certain temperature to reduce smog. But we’re talking about California…

    • Yeah, like that crap did anything. I thnk that CA introduced smog rules as early as 1963. The PCV valve and possibly the dreaded air pump were the first devices to infect car engines.

  13. A few months ago I had dinner with a couple, the wife was a lawer who specialized in automotive liability law, on the side of the manufactures, so of course that’s where the conversation went. She said that the courts have ruled that even installing non-factory spec tires on a vehicle can make any liability case basically rule in favor of the manufacturer. That’s not how it left the factory, you altered the vehicle. Even if the tires are arguably superior product. Nope, the engineers said Firestone destination A/T, so those Yokohama’s aren’t factory spec.

    Now apply that to Takata airbags and an “aftermarket” beaded seat cover (that might interfere with said airbags). My Cherokee and F-150 have airbags in the seatback. If those airbags fail to perform in a side impact will the lawyers find that the WeatherTech rain deflectors I installed were the cause of the failure?

  14. ‘We didn’t see the danger of allowing those people – as Robert E. Lee referred to them – to set the precedent’ — eric

    Now those people are publishing triumphalist hate porn, celebrating his erasure:

    ‘Last Saturday in a small foundry, a man in heat-resistant attire pulled down his gold-plated visor, turned on his plasma torch and sliced into the face of Robert E. Lee.

    ‘It took most of the morning for the foundry workers to cut the monument into pieces small enough to fit into the furnace. Acrid fumes penetrated the respirators we had been issued. When the foundryman finally turned off his torch and tapped at the head with a mallet, Lee’s face fell clattering to the floor. “It feels like witnessing a public execution,” Dr. Andrea Douglas projected.

    ‘Douglas and Jalane Schmidt had invited me to witness the last moments of the figure that had gazed down on Charlottesville, Virginia.’ — New York Slimes

    https://archive.ph/TCpTg#selection-459.23-459.156

    Sickening. Those people would quite literally declare war if the marble monument to Ape Lincoln’s war crimes in DeeCee were similarly toppled and sliced to bits.

    It coulda been different, says Dikipedia: ‘Many thought architect Henry Bacon’s Greek temple design was far too ostentatious for a man of Lincoln’s humble character. Instead, they proposed a simple log cabin shrine.’ [Shrine!]

    Ape Lincoln, Log Cabin Republican: Bwa ha ha ha …

    • Make no mistake, the chicoms are at war with us. And a major percentage of the population is on their side. Let’s just hope it isn’t the majority, but unfortunately I think that might be the case.

      Hope you like pangolin, because it’s what’s for dinner. I guess if you boil it in gutter oil and add enough chili sauce you can choke it down. I will miss the birds, but there’ll be plenty of tasty crickets and cheap grain alcohol for everyone!

      • It’s not the chiComs but a certain “supremacist” people…the “chosen”. Their parasitical attitudes about the “rest of us” goyim is the problem…

      • National Geographic thought this image of Saint George’s face projected onto the vandalized Robert E Lee monument in Richmond [demolished in 2021-2022] was brilliant and utopian.

        https://tinyurl.com/5f8pxvz6

        I canceled my subscription to the yellow-bordered commie rag, which has laid off all its staff writers, leaving the venerable magazine to be pieced together by editors, freelancers and Antifa volunteers. :-0

    • ‘the next wave of buyers focus on cost, infrastructure challenges, and lifestyle barriers to adopting.’ — Business Insider

      Successful new products overcome ‘infrastructure challenges and lifestyle barriers’ — not impose new ones.

      Auto maker CEOs are conventional thinkers. Now their delusional Groupthink has come a cropper. Tick tock, bitchez.

  15. One of the more severe punishments described in the Old Testament is to “have women rule over you.” We’ve given Karen in HR the keys to the car.

  16. Speaking of bumpers, I recall NYC taxis around 1971, Chevy Impalas to be precise, as test beds for the coming 5MPH bumpers. They were huge, black water-filled affairs with about 6 plugs on top. Along with providing holes in order to fill them, it was mentioned that they would also pop off and allow the water to escape, thus providing some sort of controlled “deformation to soften the impact.”

  17. If I had not taken responsibility for my own safety, I would not now be writing this. Since I am, I assume I’m fully capable of doing so.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here