Thomas Friedman’s opinion/editiorial in the NY Times has caused a firestorm within the enthusiats community. In brief, he accuses GM for “addicting” Americans to gas-guzzling SUVs which then fuels our insatiable demand for fuel which more money to oil-producing terrorist nations, yaddayadda.

Please. Spare us your simplistic, delusional thinking.

First off, why is he targeting GM? The last time I looked, Toyota–whom he writes should buy GM–manufactures SUVs and trucks, many of which are “gas-guzzlers”. And where’s Hyundia/Kia and their inefficient engines in Friedman’s rhetoric? (Check out the mpg on the Kia Sorento.) But, worse, Friedman’s piece is as impotent as his opinion.

All automakers are supplying what buyers wanted: vehicles. That includes gas-guzzling Hummers as well as fuel-efficient Insights*. Friedman shouldn’t be targeting the automakers but the public who vote with their dollars. Ah, but that could affect subscriptions to the NY York Times who pays Friedman. He or his publishers can’t have that, can he?

Second, why is he not targeting the plastics industry? They consume just as much, if not more, oil to develop their products than cars. Ah, but they’re not as blatant as symbols such as trucks and SUVs, are they? A milk bottle is less likely to rile up the public than a Hummer. But, worse, far more companies would be affected by a hypothetical increase in prices. Bet the NY Times uses oil somewhere in printing its papers. Bet it would have to raise prices to offset such costs. That, or “let go” a certain writer (or writers!) for cutting into already razor-thin profits.

But getting back to GM. Friedman states we’re losing good men and women to terrorists who are financed by American’s continual purchase of fuel to power GM’s gas-guzzling SUVs. Uh, last I looked, Canada, not the Middle East, is the U.S. biggest supplier of fuel. And if Friedman’s that concerned about our soldiers’ sacrifices, why not petition the government to either ban or tax heavily oil supplies from that part of the world? Ah, but then Friedman would have to face an irate public who likes its plastics and cheap fuel, wouldn’t he?

Friedman’s rhetoric reminds me of Prohibition back in the Twenties, aiming at the suppliers when it’s the buyers who ultimately decide what sells–or doesn’t sell–in the marketplace.

*Honda canned the Insight because of lack of demand. Oops. Apparently fuel-efficiency isn’t a prime requirement to many Americans.