Message text written by "BP - \"It's a bit disgusting,              but a
great experience....\" -- Squirrel"
>
So, following the logic of the sociology students, can we assume that the
charging of a fee for riding on a subway is intended to keep the rich rich
and the poor poor?
<


Probably not as evidenced by the concern shown them last week.   At the
hearings on Firestone tread separation, one of the Michigan congressmen
remarked that the fact that Firestone was taking so long to replace tires
was having an adverse affect on the poor.  Especially those poor on fixed
incomes who drive Ford Explorers with Wilderness AT tires on them.  There's
no way those folks could afford new tires while they await replacements so
said the congressman.  It was tantamount to murder.

The government is clearly concerned about the helping the poor (that drive
late model SUVs).  It's Firestone who's trying to keep the poor poor.

This reminds me of  what an NPR commentator said about 10 year ago that
80's Camaros, whose combination of speed and lack of safety were a
Darwinian tool eliminating a certain demographic of the population. 
Survival of the Fittest and all.  


Bode  (Explorer driver with the death tires, underinflated in Alabama.)