What Would Jesus Drive? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-22-2002, 10:09 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
U2SavesTheWorld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sundries and such
Posts: 7,405
Local Time: 10:53 AM
Re: i loved the movie dogma!

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
but what about the fact of using Jesus in an (anti)advertising campaign? Can an organization "copyright" Jesus' image? What if it goes too far or they use it out of context..

what would Jesus wear (the new ultralight Nikes!) or what would Jesus drink (Gatorade to help him through the dry warm desert..).. ?
Yeah....there was a HUGE thing on our local news (St. Louis) about this last night. People here (according the this channel) are outraged about it.....

Has anyone here seen the commercials? They are pretty creepy....probably exactly what you would think they would look like....pastels, clouds, sunrays....and Jesus in the clouds looking down at the road. And then it says, "What would Jesus drive?" and shows the link to the website.

All very odd.
__________________

__________________
U2SavesTheWorld is offline  
Old 11-22-2002, 10:57 AM   #17
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Not everyone's workplaces and residences are close enough together that they can ride their high horse to work every day.
Yeah, but how much of that is laziness? PLENTY of people drive to work or school--alone--because they simply don't want to walk or take mass transit. I attended a neighborhood high school, for example, in which over 90 percent of the students lived within walking distance (meaning they weren't bused). But the school had a huge parking problem because as soon as everyone turned 16, they started driving to school.

It's the same now at my college. Granted, public transit around here is not so great and we do have commuters who live 15-20+ miles from campus. Okay, they need to drive. It takes me about 25 minutes to walk to school--which I do every day, to and from, unless I can carpool with someone. But there are people who live as far from campus as I do--or closer--who drive, every day, alone, regardless of the weather.

I want neither the environmental nor the financial responsibilities of a car, so I do without one. It can be done. It's not some kind of moral "high horse" that I ride because I walk the walk (literally!). I think everyone would do well to ditch their cars for a while. And the hidden benefit of carless existence: I also don't have to go the gym anymore because I probably walk anywhere from 5-10 miles a week! And I eat whatever I want!
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 11-22-2002, 12:12 PM   #18
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Not everyone's workplaces and residences are close enough together that they can ride their high horse to work every day.

lol... so you don't care to acknowledge the fact that um, automobile-generated pollution is a problem? Or is it the economy you're concerned about, i.e., the idea that, above all, we need to keep the auto manufacturers in business?

Anyway, my point is directed more to the situation in L.A. than anywhere else. We need better mass transit here. That should be obvious to anyone who lives here or who has visited. It seems to be a very low priority as far as our local government is concerned.

That said, the problem goes beyond L.A., because people are driving gas-guzzlers everywhere in the country. Many SUV's can carry 6 people and tow a boat on a trailer. One doesn't need that kind of vehicle to take 2 kids to school every morning.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 11-22-2002, 01:33 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler

Many SUV's can carry 6 people and tow a boat on a trailer. One doesn't need that kind of vehicle to take 2 kids to school every morning.
Good point!!
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 11-22-2002, 06:04 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler



lol... so you don't care to acknowledge the fact that um, automobile-generated pollution is a problem? Or is it the economy you're concerned about, i.e., the idea that, above all, we need to keep the auto manufacturers in business?

Anyway, my point is directed more to the situation in L.A. than anywhere else. We need better mass transit here. That should be obvious to anyone who lives here or who has visited. It seems to be a very low priority as far as our local government is concerned.

That said, the problem goes beyond L.A., because people are driving gas-guzzlers everywhere in the country. Many SUV's can carry 6 people and tow a boat on a trailer. One doesn't need that kind of vehicle to take 2 kids to school every morning.
I agree that driving an SUV in most situations (i.e., on a road instead of in the rough) is stoopid. But you're categorically slamming all automobiles and all automobile drivers because of the excesses of subsets of all autos and drivers. Do you know what percentage of auto emissions is produced by people who are just driving to work? Neither do I, but I bet it's pretty high.

And if the fact that most working people in America live a significant distance away from where they work rankles you---well, there are a number of very difficult social problems that you're going to need to solve if you want to eliminate urban sprawl and get everyone to move back into major cities.

Finally, I grew up in Detroit. The auto industry is fairly important to the city's economic health. Not that that matters though.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-22-2002, 11:57 PM   #21
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


I agree that driving an SUV in most situations (i.e., on a road instead of in the rough) is stoopid. But you're categorically slamming all automobiles and all automobile drivers because of the excesses of subsets of all autos and drivers.
I'm slamming the American paradigm with respect to public modes of transportation more than anything. SUV's are an easy target -- though in fact, I have nothing against people who drive them. I have a number of friends who drive SUV's. I borrowed one last spring to take a bunch of kids snowboarding. Heck, I'd love to own one myself if they weren't so wasteful.

The point is, we collectively, as a society, need to change our carefree attitude with respect to using up natural resources and creating harmful auto emissions.

Quote:
Do you know what percentage of auto emissions is produced by people who are just driving to work? Neither do I, but I bet it's pretty high.
I'd agree.

Quote:
And if the fact that most working people in America live a significant distance away from where they work rankles you---well, there are a number of very difficult social problems that you're going to need to solve if you want to eliminate urban sprawl and get everyone to move back into major cities.
I wouldn't even consider "centralizing" industry and office space -- simply because I think it would be unworkable (though for me it has little to do with urban blight and more to do with the fact that there is no need to centralize, in my opinion).

It's really this simple for me: if we Los Angelenos had a bus system that was anywhere close to being efficient, I'd use it. However, it takes me an hour-and-a-half to get to work by bus from where I live, when I can drive there in 20 minutes.

If I lived in Chicago I would use the L train to get around. Unfortunately, we have nothing like that here. The worst part is that nobody is coming up with any significant solutions.

On a national scale, sure, a lot of people have to drive a long way to get to work and in many instances it might not make sense to expect people to use public transportation even if it were available (e.g., if one had to drive to some remote location, you're not going to build a railway to get them there). But if we're this irresponsible in L.A. with respect to public transportation, then I suspect the situation is comparable in other large cities.

We Americans need to fix the problem, and it ain't gonna happen until our attitude toward public transportion (many of us refuse to use it) and an ever-dwindling supply of natural resources (we just don't care because the natural resource issue seems to be so far removed from our daily lives) changes.



*edited to fix tags
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 11-23-2002, 12:05 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 09:53 AM

I thought Jesus drove a mule, made by Hosanna Motor Co.
__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 11-23-2002, 11:18 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:53 AM
pub crawler,

I'm not an urban planner, but it seems to me that most of the population that lives in cities doesn't live in the cities proper, but in the associated metropolitan areas. (Looking up a few figures, the city to suburb population ratio seems to average to about 1:4.) It also seems to me that there's only so far that mass transit systems can extend out of the city before they become inefficient. And since the major routes for such systems (buses, subways, commuter trains) tend to head in or out of the city, they're really not too useful for people who need to travel from suburb to suburb instead from suburb to city.

The better solution, as others have indicated in this thread, is for automobile manufacturers to develop more efficient/less polluting automobiles. (Of course, they need to have economic incentives to do so--i.e. they need to be able to manufacture inexpensive cars, the government needs to promote such R&D, etc.)

And just in case you were curious, I live and work in Cambridge, MA. I walk (15 minutes) or take a bus to work every day. I don't own a car and don't miss it. But if I lived in, say, Lexington, I'd probably drive 5 miles every morning to the Alewife T (subway) station, park my car there, then take the T for the last mile to work.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-23-2002, 11:41 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:53 AM
Allow me to put in my input...

Having grown up near Detroit, MI and now living in Boston, MA now, I can comment on both cities relevant to this discussion. First off, we have little choice now--we have to find a viable alternative to driving, not because of anything to do with pollution, but everything to do with traffic and that we flat out don't have more room to build new and bigger roads. As it stands, the U.S. has enough trouble barely maintaining its existing roads, let alone make new ones.

Why do people live in the associated metropolitan areas of cities? Well, in Boston, for instance, you have zero incentive to! Affordable housing is a fallacy, and, unless you want to live in a condo ($250,000+) or rent the rest of your life, the fact is that you're going to move to the metro areas to buy a house...unless you want a shitty, overpriced house ($600,000+) in the city.

As for Detroit, it is an utter failure, partly because it refused to address public transportation itself. The auto industries recognized very early on in its existence that public transportation was a threat to it and bought up commuter train systems with the explicit purpose of dismantling them. As it stands, it is one of the least visitable cities, coupled with the aftermath of the 1960s race riots, which hollowed out the city completely. But Detroit can no longer sit on its ass either; some of the older suburbs are starting to suffer the same decay as the city.

So what is the real solution ultimately? Like Europe, we are going to have to invest in a real high-speed train and commuter rail system, because--like it or not--pedestrian traffic is vital for the survival of a city. People aren't going to want to drive into all that traffic, so they can just as easily drive into a suburban mall for much of their needs. Do I ultimately expect the end of driving? Hell no. But it is my expectation that we can vastly reduce the number of those driving, because it is apparent that when given viable public transportation, people will stop driving.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-23-2002, 02:23 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia.
Posts: 6,117
Local Time: 02:53 AM
right now

I hope he is sittiing in the back seat of a humble old 4 cylinder Toyota ( my 17 year old borrowed my car for the weekend, St Christopher is in the glove box)
Jesus has appeared in my dreams occassionally. He never even looks at the cars or even wonders what they are!! I don't think he's a petrol-head.
He did say( or was it one of his colleagues?) "the meek shall inherit the earth" So with cars having gained such prestige status here recently, that's a few folk claiming what they think is a prize now. Sorry posers, you've had what you thought was your fun.

Let me visualise...Jesus, son of Mary....he'd either have a fuel-effiecient mini-bus so he could pick up all the poor local kids and take them on outings or he'd suggest we use the collective intelligence his old man had hopes we would put to good use and come up with modes of transport that didn't steal our future.
Some combination of solar and hydro power.However it operates...it would be pink and U2 would be playing on the stereo, a "steering wheel thumper" ( someone used that term here ages ago..I still get a laugh, thanks)
honk if you're jesus.
__________________
cass is offline  
Old 11-23-2002, 02:52 PM   #26
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
pub crawler,

...since the major routes for such systems (buses, subways, commuter trains) tend to head in or out of the city, they're really not too useful for people who need to travel from suburb to suburb instead from suburb to city.

True enough, but I think we ought to look at suburb-to-suburb systems -- particulary in a place like L.A. which is essentially one giant suburb (though one could also effectively argue that L.A. is one giant urban area).

Quote:
The better solution, as others have indicated in this thread, is for automobile manufacturers to develop more efficient/less polluting automobiles.
I agree, though from my perspective the solution would still involve bettering public transportation systems as well.


Quote:
And just in case you were curious, I live and work in Cambridge, MA. I walk (15 minutes) or take a bus to work every day. I don't own a car and don't miss it. But if I lived in, say, Lexington, I'd probably drive 5 miles every morning to the Alewife T (subway) station, park my car there, then take the T for the last mile to work.

You're doing your part. I wish I could say I don't own a car.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 11-23-2002, 02:55 PM   #27
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


So what is the real solution ultimately? Like Europe, we are going to have to invest in a real high-speed train and commuter rail system, because--like it or not--pedestrian traffic is vital for the survival of a city.
That's what I'm sayin'.

Quote:
...it is my expectation that we can vastly reduce the number of those driving, because it is apparent that when given viable public transportation, people will stop driving.
Yes, yes and yes.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 11-23-2002, 02:59 PM   #28
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:53 AM
*sigh* I really think I need to get involved in politics and, specifically, the issue of public transportation because I am the only person in this nation that will make change happen.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 11-24-2002, 03:35 PM   #29
Acrobat
 
Blue_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 488
Local Time: 11:53 AM
Big Grin

haha foray!
__________________
Blue_Angel is offline  
Old 11-25-2002, 09:10 AM   #30
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 11:53 AM
I agree with everyone who said that Jesus wouldn't drive at all. Then again, we don't know.

As for the arugment dealing with miles per gallon: I think it's a joke. There IS tecnology that would allow a 40 m/p/g SUV, but the gas and oil companies wouldn't make as much money off of it, so it's "unmarketable". I think people would be more than glad to drive electric/hybrid cars, but the car manufacturers are the ones who have some qualms.
__________________

__________________
Danospano is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com