So, I got an email today. It was a forward, which of course, usually goes straight to my trash, however, whenever I think the forward is full of misinformation, I usually read it over quick and if I find that I was right, I usually try to kindly correct the misinformation. Often, I probably don't come off as kind, but I hope everyone would realize that my intentions are.
So, I got this one today:
Subject: Fwd: Please take the time to look at this story about Cars.com (Stay away)
Be sure and watch this. Very frightening.
Subject: Cars.gov (Stay away)
Please watch this. You will not believe what can happen to you.
This is a must see... some really amazing things the government has pulled of
And Pres. Bush got criticized for the FISA wiretaps???

The video is from the Glenn Beck program. If you have ever looked at that program with a level head, you'll admit that he vies for his audience on pure sensationalism. Given his recent embarrassment, I'm surprised even FOX keeps him around.
Focusing on the email again, I want to address a few things. First of all--just to get it out of the way--FISA wiretaps were done illegally and without consent. Period. There is no comparison.
Now, Glenn takes us on a Willy Wonka tour of CARS.gov. For those unaware, CARS.gov is the interweb's portal for information about the so-called "Cash for Clunkers" deal that you may have heard of. However, Glenn starts misleading right from the start. First of all, he doesn't even show you the consumer side of the website: the side that you will reach by going to www.CARS.gov, but rather, he takes you to the dealer website. Second of all, the link he claims to click (isn't it interesting that they don't give a clean shot of the site so you can read it?) doesn't exist. Heck, Glenn can't even get the rumored warning to come up on screen!
Huh? The entire argument that the government forces you (the consumer) to agree to anything is moot if the consumer (you) never sees the alleged agreement. Seriously, Glenn? I do have to give him props though: he did cover his back by saying "the dealer has to go to the website," then went on to twist that into making people believe that the consumers must go.
So, this leads to two possible conclusions: either the website he was on is dealer specific and has to do with a system of receiving rebates directly from the government (which would technically make it a federal computer, bound to the same rules and regulation that all other federal computers are bound to, namely controlled surveillance), or Glenn Beck elaborately created a look alike website and completely lied to his audience--an easy task that was old in High School.
Which is it?
In the end, CARS is a great program for getting our gas guzzlers off the road and helping the auto industry get back on their feet with the added benefit of diverting the money to consumers/citizens instead of corporations. If you can, use it!


  1. I'm with you on Glen Beck, he is a sensational-izer and frankly, drives me nuts. But I am not all for this Cash for Clunkers Deal. It takes off the market used cars that low-income people purchase, reducing the number of second-hand cars available for those who can't afford new ones.

    It's bailing out (again) exactly who congress just finished bailing out... Frankly I think the government should stick to running itself and keep its nose out of private industry

  2. I think Glenn Beck is a friggin idiot and an embarrassment to the LDS religion, which he loves to exploit and capitalize off of even though he is the worst example of an LDS member. I'm shocked that they sell his lousy books at Deseret Books. And the worst part is, tons of conservatives eat this stuff up! Without ever checking or researching the facts for themselves. It really hurts my heart! Lemmings!

  3. I have to state my tendency to agree with Sierra's conclusion that Cash for Clunkers wasn't a good investment. I don't think it is clear that C4C will have all that many environmental benefits - especially considering the extra auto manufacturing it will encourage. The number I've seen is that it will reduce gasoline demand by .15% assuming the expanded program passes and is fully utilized.

    Better to pay people to weatherproof, put up more bike racks, or invest in ways to make it easier to decrease electrical consumption (smart meters that tell you in real time how much you're spending on electricity), or whatever. Or just add a federal gasoline tax of $1 a gallon and an honest cap-and-trade program. But I digress.

  4. On the bright side, the Fox News bimbo he's with on the program is pretty cute.