“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” –C.S. Lewis
Remember that cocktail party game, Who Goes Nazi?
Well, after checking out these links at Instapundit, I think we can make some pretty good guesses.
Content warning on the videos. Both of them, the exploding people and the malevolent kid who seems close to murder.
What a repellent bunch of people, with sick, twisted minds.
Watch the videos–some joke, eh?–and then do what I’m going to do; take a long drive, burn some candles, cook dinner over some coals, and turn on all the lights. I’m sick to death of these liars and freaks.
I know they believe they’re smarter than the rest of us, but they (like some in our own government) are too stupid to realize that all they’re doing is destroying their own credibility and creating backlash.
Big, big, backlash.
Ed Morrissey writes:
What makes this fascinating is that the people who produce this dreck have no clue as to just how far removed they have become from normal human sensibilities, or at least they didn’t until the video began provoking the fully-predictable reaction. They have become so wrapped up in Gaia that they seem to have little connection to humanity.
UPDATES:
Insta-lanch! Thanks, Glenn!
Ed Driscoll: Springtime for Al Gore. He has More here
“Why save the earth if you hate people?”. They don’t hate all people…just the disobedient ones who don’t fall in line, or into goose-step.
“Join us or Die.” The commenters at Hot Air have it down.
One of the most disgusting things about this video is the way it gleefully shows children being murdered. “If you don’t get with the program, kiddies, your teacher, who seems so nice and smiley, will blow you to bits—cuz you don’t deserve to live! SO DO WHAT TEACHER SAYS!”
And Christians are supposedly the intolerant ones.
What I find disgusting is that loads of people participated in this – writers, editors, actors, directors, financiers, sponsors – with many, many decision-points along the way, and yet, it was still produced and released.
Columbine was pulled off with just two guys, believing they were dispensing justice. Most people would say that, had someone become aware of what these two were telling themselves to justify their eventual action, they’d have intervened to see that the two got some serious moral and behavioral help to correct their own lapse in humanity.
Weren’t both examples of dehumanizing others to justify actions taken against them in service of a cause you cannot otherwise persuade them toward?
Bloody bastards. Imagine involving children in this horror. Lowlife Fascist BASTARDS!
What I find disgusting is that loads of people participated in this – writers, editors, actors, directors, financiers, sponsors – with many, many decision-points along the way, and yet, it was still produced and released.
Columbine was pulled off with just two guys, believing they were dispensing justice. Most people would say that, had someone become
aware of what these two were telling themselves to justify their eventual action, they’d have intervened to see that the two got some serious moral and behavioral help to correct their own
lapse in humanity.
Weren’t both examples of dehumanizing others to justify actions taken against them in service of a cause you cannot otherwise persuade them to adopt? Does the cheering on of virtual destruction prepare the morally weak for actual destruction by dulling the soul and the conscience?
Something to share with any remaining True Believers you might know, people:
link
Fight the coming Fascist state any way you can; this is a good start.
The other video – the one with the sullen faced kid who is reaming out adults for despoiling the planet chills me.
Zachriel wrote Any viable solution has to account for providing for children of the modern world, but also for entry of the billions who have been left out. That’s the challenge, but it is not insurmountable.
No, it doesn’t. If the “modern world” has contributed to higher carbon footprints that are killing the planet, then BILLIONS shouldn’t be entering that same deadly path. To say otherwise is to concede that carbon footprints are no scientific matter but merely a sociopolitical one.
I can’t help but notice that you didn’t address my points about eliminating entertainment. Let’s face it: If computer, cellphone, MP3-player, radio and television use was restricted to situations involving education, work and emergencies, there would be no carbon-based crisis to talk about. But the truth is that “children of the modern world” (well into their 40s) are using carbon-powered technology mostly for gossip, inane chatter, and trivial pursuits. The difference is that instead of being restricted to a home-based usage, it’s everywhere and every waking moment.
Like the video of the Orwellian child, I did not want to watch this one either. Even worse is that these videos are so closely timed in their release. Both made me think of something I read a long time ago on breathofthebeast.blogspot.com
“We always get a warning that is clear and unequivocal when evil is stalking us. It is up to us to notice. Warnings are all too easy to dismiss. It is a grave responsibility to pay heed to real warnings. It seems so much easier to convince yourself that the warning is not for you, or that the danger is remote and small.
….Evil will almost always inform you of its presence and intentions.”
I just can’t shake the feeling that something is bad going to happen.
I suspect (though it’s only a suspicion) that the creators of this video MAY have envisioned something similar to Monty Python’s “How Not To Be Seen” sketch (link posted below), but went way over the line with the blood and gore and totally ruined whatever joke there was:
link
RE: 10:10 video and PopSci monthly “From the Editor” article.
Editor Mark Jannot’s monthly editorial started with this paragraph:
“During a recent family drive out of town, my 13 year old son, Rex, launched into a diatribe from the backseat, blasting the environmental myopia of every lone driver spewing unnecessary CO2 behind the wheel of a hulking SUV. (He actually wanted me to bump them off the road, thus ensuring that he wouldn’t join their ranks until long after he turns 16.) ‘Don’t they realize that if this keeps up, Manhattan is going to be under water before long?’ he demanded.”
Bump them off the road? I know teenagers can be mean to others, but wanting to bring harm to someone unknown to them because they are driving an “SUV?” That’s brain-washing. Or, Jannot was using his son as a “mask” to communicate his personal opinion about SUV drivers without risking his career. I don’t know which is worse.
After viewing the video last night, I didn’t have the words to express my anger and disgust.
How is it that a movement can take the environment and our impact of it so seriously, and in the same instant laugh at the destruction of human beings so lightly?
The 10:10 made their apology, saying, “Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t.”
Fortunately, I say, some didn’t find it funny at all, but saw it for what it was. The same disregard for the sanctity of life that we find in other pockets of our society. It holds a lesson for us, though, to beware whenever someone’s idea becomes more important than the people and the society the idea promises to help.
JBalconi: No, it doesn’t. If the “modern world” has contributed to higher carbon footprints that are killing the planet, then BILLIONS shouldn’t be entering that same deadly path.
The path to modernity doesn’t have to entail destroying the environment, nor does it have to entail depriving half the world of the benefits of modern technology.
JBalconi: I can’t help but notice that you didn’t address my points about eliminating entertainment.
A dour existence is not a tenable, long term solution, nor is a world of haves and have-nots.
Fortunately, there are a number of viable techological solutions. For instance, it isn’t necessary, such as in much of the U.S., to design cities so that people are widely separated from work and shopping, entailing individual people having to travel twenty miles in a thousand kilos of steel and plastic, taking over an hour due to traffic congestion.
Looking at this video makes me think, just for a moment that England might be better off when the Muslims finally take over.
Well, it’s only in publications like the Daily Fail that this country is talked down on a regular basis (Which is funny given that they boast about how “patriotic” they are, but you get used to contradictions after a bit).
I liked this post by a libertarian blogger on the issue.
Zachariel wrote:A dour existence is not a tenable, long term solution, nor is a world of haves and have-nots.
“Dour” is in the eye of the beholder. Ask the average Canadian or American teen about being “deprived” of the ability to constantly text or listen to MP3s while in school. When did such technology become essential to enjoying life?
As for “haves and have-nots” – I’m certainly not suggesting that only the wealthy or politically-connected be able to frolic on an electronic playground. I’m suggesting that the virtual playground be shut down and the real playgrounds be re-opened.
Everyone wins if carbon-based energy is used for vital areas: educational, medical, etc.
Zachariel wrote: Fortunately, there are a number of viable techological solutions.
Please name ten.
As for the “design cities” comment, the history of North American cities, suburbs and so-called “bedroom communities” shows that nothing goes as planned by municipal heads. Instead, people control how and where they live. Look at how Toronto swallowed up the towns of Mimico and Islington, for example. They were already growing towns before post-war city planning, simply because people wanted to live there. Attempts to control where people live have had mixed results; e.g. high-rise apartments developed in single-family, detached houses work in high-density population areas but tend to turn into subsidized housing/free-market housing in other areas, thus resulting in quasi-segregated neighbourhoods. Or, more recently, Ottawa’s short-lived placement of immigrants in areas that need their skills came off as a ham-handed attempt to control the ethnic make-up of urban areas.
Public transportation has often contributed to the sprawl. The trolley system along Woodward Avenue enabled Detroit workers to live northward in less-expensive, less-crowded rural areas. Or, for a modern-day case of expansion, the SmartBus enables Detroiters to flee poor schools and scary neighborhoods for little towns like Chesterfield and New Baltimore on the I-94 corridor between Detroit and Port Huron. I fully expect new sprawl when the new train system from (expensive) Ann Arbor to Detroit Metro becomes operational.
And they’re cheaper. As one of my acquaintances pointed out, her mortgage on a 3-bedroom house in a small town is less than the rent of 2-bedroom apartment in Detroit Metro. Plus, their children have a yard to play in, a garden to plant vegetables in, and a school small enough that the children know the majority of their schoolmates. Any attempt to control this migration is seen (rightly) as xenophobic at best and racism at worst.
As far as shopping goes, Detroit Metro and Sarnia, Ontario are terrific examples of how individual decisions interfere with municipal planning. Detroit has relatively few, if any, large grocery stores and chain stores, and prices at mom-and-pop’s tend to be higher. Previous mayors cited racism, but the truth is that owners have to compensate for high insurance and theft. Detroiters use public transportation to shopping centres in outlying areas.
The shops and mall in Sarnia ON are small, although it’s twice the size of its American neighbour. Many Ontarians cross the Bluewater Bridge weekly for better prices on food (tax-free in Michigan), clothes, and textbooks. That’s not counting visits to the Port Huron hospitals for tests and treatments. Despite the economic downturn, the town north of Port Huron has been going gangbusters, with an expanded 24-hour Meijer (a big-box store) and the addition of a “super” Walmart. No provincial politician is clueless enough to suggest interfering in such commerce, as it’s two-way traffic.
So how do you propose convincing Canadians to stop their carbon-credit-depleting trips to the US for shopping sprees?
JBalconi: I’m suggesting that the virtual playground be shut down and the real playgrounds be re-opened.
There is no reason why people can’t have both.
JBalconi: Please name ten.
It only takes one. Make people begin the process of paying for the cost of cleaning up their pollution. All the other problems, including urban sprawl, will be addressed as people attempt to limit their costs.
JBalconi, will you condemn the green belt or national parks? I for one wouldn’t be without them, & in practice nor would right-wing bloggers, however much you know you “should” oppose them.
I will fault, for example, the architechts whose woeful design of public housing has caused so many social problems. No one comes out well but some kind of free for all is not a way forward.
Zachriel
I currently live in a society that, as of today, embraces “markets”.
One of these markets is a heavily government regulated industry which produces electricity.
I am charged by the kilowatt per hour…
I receive a bill from them once a month…
I freely choose to pay this industry more of the money I have earned, to power a light-bulb in an empty and unoccupied room, as a symbolic gesture…a rallying call to “Freedom”…freedom from know-it all omnipotent moral busybodies.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” –C.S. Lewis
To the barricades!
Repeating myself—but, yes, the spectacle of blowing up children, because they won’t mindlessly obey their teacher is. . . nauseating.
As is the supposedly humorous spectacle of an employer blowing up workers, because they won’t get with the program! (And I thought all those liberal, progressive, green types were champions of the working man!)
I think the enemy is something more than a f”ool, and a coxcomb” here.
(By the way, I wonder who the “many people” were who found that video amusing? The Marquis de Sade society? Osama bin Ladin?—I hear he’s gone green!)
The killing isn’t the most chilling part
The Authoritarian, Anti-Democratic, Fascist, and casually inhuman regime that enforces the global warming purity in this film is the chilling part
I’m hoping somebody does a satire video of this, where the kids rush the evil teacher, and the employees rush the evil boss, pushing them out a convenient window—then dance down the street to Janelle Monae’s song, “Tightrope.”
Zachriel, please explain how you “make people begin the process of paying for the cost of cleaning up their pollution.” (And by “pollution” do you mean CO2?) I await an explanation, not merely a statement as if the answer was self-evident. As you can see from my previous comment, I am interested in how policies are implemented and how they affect people.
That’s why I originally listed my seemingly bizarre proposals: They would help reduce carbon footprints without threatening lives. However, people wouldn’t want to do them AND they would be painful to the very actors, directors, etc. who made the 10:10 film.
Too often people demand “DO something” without thinking about the best ways to implement change or the unintended consequences of new policies. It’s like putting out a fire: Throwing water on it seems a reasonable solution – unless it’s a grease or an electrical fire.
If you want to see an interesting case study in change, I suggest keeping abreast of Detroit’s tremendous challenges. Its situation illustrates both how policy creates population shift and how difficult it is to enact change even if it’s literally to save one’s city. The current proposal is to shut down services to areas with few residents. Proponents tout the savings in energy, manpower, and actual dollars. They also plan green zones, urban farming, and other land-use that would promote better stewardship of what is very fecund soil with a ready source of freshwater irrigation. On the other hand, opponents raise concerns about the adverse effect on the most poverty-stricken residents, land-grabs by political or business groups, and forced re-location.
I can’t help but wonder how you would determine which people will pay the dearest for the cost of CO2. How would we avoid the high-status people being able to do as they like because they CAN pay, either with their own or taxpayer-provided funds? Will it be like technology incentives that subsidized Internet access for the poor but has left middle-income families paying for long-distance dial-up service?
Or like the US’s “cash for clunkers” programme’s unintended consequences. It was designed to take gas-guzzlers off the road, and convinced many middle- to high-income individuals to trade in their old cars and buy new. However, it reduced the number of used cars that low-income people could afford. It also put the squeeze on rural areas, where public transportation is more expensive and limited in hours of operation. (And, to add injury to injury, where small medical clinics were closed due to funding issues – forcing daytrips to urban areas.) Previously they could borrow cars which people had donated to charities, but now they’re forced to rent a car as needed – a very expensive option.
There is no reason why people can’t have both.
In my old neighbourhood, playgrounds were closed due to neglect and crime.
Dry Valleys, what are you talking about? And what does “however much you know you ‘should’ oppose them” mean? How do you get from my comments on the challenges of instituting CO2 policy to supposing I wish to ban national parks?
We don’t need no education.
We don’t need no thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Teacher leave the kids alone.
Hey, teacher leave the kids alone!
I guess leftists are not so much into the whole “Question Authority” thing any more.
I do find it interesting that those who delight in equating climate change skeptics with Holocaust Deniers seem all too keen on starting a Holocaust of their own.
Nope, Leftists only support “Question authority” when they’re NOT the authority in question.
Matteo
October 3rd, 2010 | 9:00 pm | #74
We don’t need no education.
We don’t need no thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Teacher leave the kids alone.
Hey, teacher leave the kids alone!
***
That is the PERFECT response to that gruesome video!
Another Brick in the Wall – Pink Floyd
(B #47—I felt quite shamed for watching the classroom children explode and immediately thinking: “They blow’d up real good!” Some things just stick in your brain forever.)
The apology by 10:10 sounds a bit like “Sorry you complainers don’t have a sense a humor.”
The other vid, with the creepy kid—what kind of mindset produces rubbish like this? Is the intention to make people feel squeamish and fearful, and thus immediately embark upon planetary de-warming in order to ease the
wrath of malignant hooded children?
Dark. But, since neither of these chillers will further the militant green agenda, I’m fine with it.
I linked (though it seems to be in the spam filter or something) to a post by a British libertarian who isn’t troubled by this. He says that we’ve all fantasised about blowing up our adversaries at some time! It’s not as if no conservative has ever dreamt of going Pinochet, although admittedly the wing of the movement who comment on blogs like this would probably do that less.
As for your comments, Rhinestone Suderman, I don’t know what you’d call the Blair/Brown governments in Britain (I don’t think they were genuinely left-wing but they belonged to a party that has historically been of the left) & their incursions into civil liberties were opposed by a coalition, foremost in which were liberals, with some conservatives joining in, but the official right-wing party generally had little to say on the issue. No one, looking at that situation, would call leftists more authoritarian.
In fact, their policies were followed because of their fear of their defeats at Thatcher’s hands recurring & fear of alienating right-wing “newspapers”, so it was driven, in short, by fear of making conservatives think they weren’t punitive enough.
Whereas in fact, the opposition to Thatcher in the 80s were right all along.
Unbelievable. These are the same sort of people who get outraged when a pro lifer uses pictures of dead fetuses.
Well, actually, Valleys, I wasn’t talking about the Blair/Brown government at all. Nor was I discussing Margaret Thatcher! (How’d you get them in here?), or any of their policies. As an American, it’s not really my place to do so, or to tell the British how to vote.
If you meant my comment about “neoliberals”, “Imperialists”, etc.—well, I don’t like buzzwords used against one’s opponents! “Neoconservative! Colonialst! Antidisestablishmentariansim!” blah, blah, blah. Doesn’t really communicate anything. (If you were talking about Blair, Brown, Thatcher, with those comments, I didn’t know—see what I mean about buzzwords?)
And you say some unamed British libertarian isn’t bothered by this video, because we all fantasize about blowing up our enemies—-well, rooty-toot-toot, and woot, woot for him! Also, congrats on his telepathic powers!
A lot of people are bothered by it. Strange as it may seem, the spectacle of people—including children—being blown to bloody rags just doesn’t amuse some; nor does the message that, “You will obey your teachers and employers UNQUESTIONINGLY on carbon footprints—and anything else they tell you to do—or you will DIE!” Speaking of imperialism, that’s pretty imperialist, if you ask me!
I suspect this British libertarian would not have been at all amused if, say, someone did a video showing Christians blowing up unbelievers, or Marxists going KA-BOOM when they spout off about socialism—or Libertarians, when the spout off about Ayn Rand. Nor do I suspect he’d be mollified if someone told him, “Don’t worry, we all fantasize about blowing up our enemies!”
Again, getting back to the original point—this is a disgusting, gruesome video, that all too clearly reveals the anti-human mindset of far too many in the green movement. If this is how they really see us, then they’ve lost whatever moral high ground they originally had; saving the planet isn’t worth it, if it means killing people.
(This comment has nothing to do with Blair, Brown, Thatcher or England in the 80′s. I do think it’s too bad that British taxpayer money was probably used to finance this thing.)
OOh, Newton, yes, that is the PERFECT response to that teacher!
I think what bothers me most about the nasty, totaltarian prigs who create this sort of video is their blatant double standard. The examples are endless–Al Gore maintaining a whole list of giant homes while shuttling around the globe in private jets; Barbra Streisand telling her inferiors to air-dry their laundry while spending $20,000 a year on watering her lawn.
I have seen it personally as well. I lived in Seattle for two years, working for the US Government’s premier conservation service. My office was filled with ex-hippies who delighted in baiting me on my conservatism. I liked to point out that the root of that word is “conserve”, and I lived it every day. All I had to do to shut up the worst offender was to ask him how he got to work each morning. He knew that I walked 3 miles each way each day. He, however, drove a 1960 pick-up truck, belching smoke and burning gas at a tremendous rate.
I don’t know where he is now, but he should be doing lawncare for Barbara Streisand.
“Lawn are care for Barbara Streisand”—good one!
Yes, the double-standard really is something. As the Anchoress pointed out, just consider all the energy that got wasted making this horrid video! Kleig lights, electricity, transportation, etc.
And, of course, you can just imagine the fury if, say, someone had made a video about, oh—blowing up people who parade around in Che T-shirts, or support Castro! (And, no, I don’t want to see videos like THAT, either; but the double-standard is incredible. In this case, we’re supposed to simply laugh at all off, or admire the supposedly noble motive behind it.)
>>I’m hoping somebody does a satire video of this, where the kids rush the evil teacher, and the employees rush the evil boss, pushing them out a convenient window—then dance down the street to Janelle Monae’s song, “Tightrope.”<<
Forgive me Rhinestone, but I would have to laugh that one off also otherwise I might go crazy thinking "IT" to be really evil!
I hear ya! "IT" is too late for you sinner vic but maybe we can save Victor? Go Figure!
Peace
JBalconi: please explain how you “make people begin the process of paying for the cost of cleaning up their pollution.”
The most direct way is to make people not pollute, whether noxious fumes, dumping in watersheds, or CO2. However, because the infrastructure depends on carbon for the near future, changes will have to be implemented over time. Taxing emissions is a market-based solution that was effective in limiting ozone-depleting emissions.
JBalconi: They would help reduce carbon footprints without threatening lives.
Voluntary measures can only be so effective. If your competition doesn’t have to pay the costs of his pollution, then they can manufacture at lower costs.
More importantly, it isn’t necessary to restrict the use of technology. It took a century to build the current infrastructure, and it will take years to revamp it. But technology is the very key to the redesign.
JBalconi: Its situation illustrates both how policy creates population shift and how difficult it is to enact change even if it’s literally to save one’s city.
That’s a good example. Detroit made lots of money producing SUV’s, long after it was clear that the world was changing. Industry is myopic.
Decades ago, U.S. was warned that energy was not just a matter of economics, but national defense. Yet, America chose the easy path of “Morning in America” and the use of military power to ensure cheap supplies of oil, meanwhile enriching unstable dictatorial governments. Simple conservation and modernization would have given the U.S. more strategic flexibility.
JBalconi: … unintended consequences …
Yes, there will be unintended consequences. That doesn’t mean you should be paralyzed. It does mean balancing long-term and short-term pressures, and harnessing market, industry, technology and scientific means.
Unbeliever: I freely choose to pay this industry more of the money I have earned, to power a light-bulb in an empty and unoccupied room, as a symbolic gesture…a rallying call to “Freedom”…freedom from know-it all omnipotent moral busybodies.
Most energy comes with a cost in pollution, much of which is borne by others. What you are doing is making others pay for your excess. That’s not a rallying call to “Freedom.”
If they REALLY wanted people to cut carbon emissions by 10%, they would endorse the following:
What they would do is endorse nuclear energy. But that would be too clean and potentially efficient, and then there would be no need to reduce populations, so they can’t have that.
cmatt, can’t you just imagine all the indignation if somebody did a video like this, showing people who refuse to support nuclear power being blown up?
This guys don’t care about the earth; they care about domination.
Zachriel, I appreciate your reply. Just two points:
First, “Detroit made lots of money producing SUV’s, long after it was clear that the world was changing.” Detroit didn’t do that. The automakers had long been gone to the suburbs and even formerly rural areas, such as Auburn Hills, because of such things as lower taxes and closer proximity to universities and community colleges. Ironically, after the US government acquired GM, they closed the Saturn division – producers of high-mileage cars that got over 30 mpg in the early ’90s when no one seemed to care about the price of gas.
2) I understand the limitations of voluntary measures, but involuntary ones are never equitable. The 10% reduction in my neighbourhood will look far different from the 10% reduction in the suburbs where my co-workers live. Taxing pollutants accounts only for fuel the government already regulates to some degree. In my neighbourhood, higher fuel oil prices and natural gas rates mean that 90% of the homes will uncap their chimneys and switch to wood again, as they did in the ’70s. (Regulating wood sales from private properties is nearly impossible.) Those without wood-burners will hope to qualify for subsidies, not refunds. (We sometimes are refunded part of the cost of adding newer furnaces and the like.)
Any subsidies will have unexpected consequences. (Look up “papermill subsidies” and see the government program that convinced papermills to switch from a low-pollutant, nearly energy self-sufficient process to using fossil fuels. You’ll want to vomit.).
JBalconi: Detroit made lots of money producing SUV’s, long after it was clear that the world was changing.
Was using “Detroit” to refer to U.S. automakers.
You missed the point. There were ample warnings. But business is not normally capable of working on very long time lines. That’s why it often takes national and international cooperation to meet the greatest challenges.
JBalconi: The 10% reduction in my neighbourhood will look far different from the 10% reduction in the suburbs where my co-workers live.
Yes, and it looks even more different in China where emissions of carbon are 1/3 per capita as in the U.S., and they are attempting to industrialize their society. Nevertheless, these problems are soluable. Western Europe sustains a modern lifestyle with 1/2 the per capita emissions of the U.S.
Again, you missed the point. Yes, there will be unintended consequences, but that is no excuse for paralysis. Anthropomorphic climate change is a real phenomena, and the cost later will be much greater than the cost now, and much damage will be irreparable.
The first quote in the previous comment is misattributed. It should be as follows:
Zachriel: Detroit made lots of money producing SUV’s, long after it was clear that the world was changing.
JBalconi: Detroit didn’t do that.