One of the my biggest pet peeves is being blamed for someone's actions by association, by a weak link that really has no bearing on another's decisions.

Last week, a columnist appeared on CNN to talk about an advertising campaign that simultaneously mocks the government's anti-drug ads and the United States' dependence on foreign oil.

The commercials resemble the drug ads that insist that buying illegal drugs supports terrorism. You know, the ones with teens saying they helped blow up buildings by buying marijuana.

Instead, the ads Salon.com columnist Arianna Huffington are promoting criticize those who drive SUVs. By driving your gas-guzzling SUV, you promote terrorism by buying gasoline, which is purchased from a country that is known to support terrorism and/or build weapons of mass destruction, according to one of the ads.

In a column she wrote about this topic in October, Huffington lists Saudi Arabia, America's second-largest supplier of oil, and Kuwait, the 11th largest, as examples of countries that have indirectly supported terrorism through the riches they've made from oil.

She also lists Iraq, who doesn't supply the U.S. with oil, but receives money made from oil.

She doesn't even mention that our largest supplier of oil is not any of our neighbors to the east, but our neighbor to the north -- Canada. As far as I know, the Canadian government is not sending money to terror groups from the riches it garnered from a soccer mom gassing up her SUV.

On CNN, Huffington suggested that everyone should drive electric or hybrid cars, which are much more energy efficient.

And there's the rub. Huffington is concerned with conservation, not necessarily how oil benefits terrorism. Hybrid cars, although they do not require as much gasoline as SUVs, still require gasoline.

So apparently, it's OK to buy less of the oil that funds terrorism. Until Huffington and the producers and supporters of this ad campaign announce they will be riding their bike everywhere they go, I can't believe they actually care where oil money goes or who uses it.

After reading Huffington's October column, it's clear her real concern it that the United States government isn't doing enough to promote or support energy-saving vehicles.

That is a legitimate concern.

Perhaps the government should encourage states to enact stricter environmental requirements for vehicles. Maybe the government could offer an incentive program for people who buy or make energy-efficient cars.

Many local utility companies are doing the same thing to encourage customers to buy energy-efficient appliances.

If more options were out there for people to choose from, maybe they would choose cars that not only save energy, but save them money on gasoline.

But right now, that's not what most of the American public wants. Those who sell energy-efficient vehicles are reporting slow sales. Part of the reluctance to buy them is the cost and the small size.

And that's where Huffington and others need to look past their conspiracy theories and look at the practical reasons why people own gas-guzzling cars, why car pooling isn't always an option or why some people need to commute long distances to support their families.

Families need larger cars. The hybrid and electronic models aren't completely there yet.

People need affordable cars. No matter how much they'll save in gasoline, it's a lot easier to pay for gasoline in small amounts over a period of time than to fork out monthly car payments you can't afford.

Yes, the government can be doing more to advance energy-efficient vehicle technology. But using an illogical ad campaign that insults the leaders making those decisions and the American public that drive those vehicles isn't the way to go about doing it.

The ads come off as extreme and irrational -- two unappealing characteristics that seldom create meaningful change.

Cari Quam can be reached at 434-2235 or by e-mail at :mailto:cari.quam@austindailyherald.com