Someone that assumes the best of everyone -- assumes that everyone they meet is a decent person -- would have read the onion article with a very skeptical eye. And being skeptical they would have researched it carefully. That is, of course, they assumed that humanity was basically good and decent to begin with. Or at least assumed most WOMEN were good and decent to begin with.

But this person, like many foaming at the mouth raving moralists, does not assume people are basically "good." And assumes women in particular are basically "sluts" waiting to be revealed.

That's why whenever they hear ANYTHING negative they just assume it's true.

If you begin with the idea that women (and sexual intercourse in general) is "sick" and "evil" then of course you'll instantly believe every single negative remark you hear no matter how obviously false it seems to more resonable people.

Remember John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans?

Every word, every single accusation they made against John Kerry's service in Vietnam was decisivly proven to be un-true -- but for all those people that already assumed John Kerry was Satan himself they instantly accepted all negative remarks about him without any need for "proof" and rejected all positive remarks about him no matter how overwhelmingly "true" they were. All "evil" is automatically accepted as self-evident regardless of "prof" or 'reality" and all positive aspects are rejected as "lies."

Women are "evil" according to the viewpoints of almost all pro-lifers. So of course they thought the Onion article was real!

One writer insisted this was a lousy product with a huge price tag and almost no range. Basically stating as a matter of fact that the vehicle cost – what?- $90,000 and that it only had a range of 40 miles at most! And then after stating these indisputable facts (that don’t actually hold up on closer scrutiny) he explains why no one in America would ever buy such a product except a few movie stars or environmental lunatics.

One must bow before the masterful use of the classic Fox news style commentary.

The truth is the cars had an average range of 60-80 miles before then needed to be recharged – and if marketed as a SECOND car for a family it would have found a huge audience. Retired persons, students, home office professionals and stay at home parents make up a huge, huge, huge section of America.

So the whole “range” issue which the electric car critics keep pointing to is a red herring. I would like at least one electric car-hater to point to some kind of hard data that illustrates what the AVERAGE drive of the majority of Americans actually is. Do the vast majority of Americans actually drive over 80 miles a day every single day? Let’s be real: they don’t. And even if they did here’s a dirty little secret: the EV1 was never going to replace every single automobile in American instantly overnight! So if your driving needs required a vehicle that had at least 200 miles then, gosh, I guess you’d buy a different car, right? So why exactly was it necessary to crush and burn the electric car? Why was it necessary to remove the option from consumers, burn it, salt the earth and scatter the ashes so the electric car would never rise again? They didn’t shelf it or retool it or continue to work out the bugs. Nope. They salted the earth. Why?

Next there is the cost issue. How much do top of the line Hummers and BMW cost? Gosh, seems like the vast majority of American drivers wouldn’t find it practical to pay $50,000 for a Hummer – and yet the car makers keep pumping them out. How can the anti-electric car crowd point to cost as a deterrent when it’s overwhelmingly obvious that cost doesn’t matter to a lot of people? The Hummer manufacturers haven’t declared bankruptcy yet despite having both a high cost and very, very low range (you’re constantly re-fueling and at $3 a gallon). High cost, low driving range, niche market – everything the anti-electric car critics said doomed the EV1 and yet the Hummers and Escaldes are everywhere.

Do the anti-electric car people even take their own arguments seriously?