Gregory Kirk wrote:
> I'm not sure that this kind statement of political sentiment is good
for
> the list. Personally, whether I agree with this point of view or not
I
> don't see how starting a political debate on the issues of how much
> governmental regulation is enough or too much is going to further the
> purpose of this list.
>
No flame war intended, nor any intention to go political on the list.
The
fact however, is that automobile ownership is a highly government
regulated
activity - starting with licencing around the turn of the century. The
owneres and users of cars should be aware of these regulations, as was
nicely demonstrated by the thread on the list of SB42. Here in CA we
have
had some of the most incredible government intrusions on automobile
hobbiests in terms of the cars being worked on in their garages, all the
smog issues, and I recently went round and round with the DMV on getting
a
33 J2 merely titled.
One of the most recent issues has been the use of the chemical methyl
tertiary butyl ether - MTBE to us non-chemists - in the new reformulated
gasoline. This substance, which is going into your MG (got the LBC
content
in there), is not only disasterouns to rubber parts in the car, but
appears
to be higly toxic to life as it gets into the water table. This is
brought
to you by your friendly government "taking care of us". Further, we have
an
organization called the CCCA (CA car club assoc) whose task is to bring
just
such governmental insults to the intention of the hobby.
I respectfully disagree that political commentlary is "bad for the
list" as
it relates to our cars. After all, I for one, enjoyed the cat thread
too,
but it was hard to get the LBC connection! :-)
Bill Harkins
Fallbrook, CA
|