Eco-Terrorism 676
shmert writes: "NYTimes has the scoop on some recent eco-terrorist activity. The most titillating being the torching of an SUV dealership. Wonder if this could ever lead to anything productive? Seems like I'd think twice about buying a new SUV if the tires got slashed every week. Although antics like this never really worked in those Carl Hiassen books." Are these sorts of actions justifiable? If one of the companies developing bio-engineered plants/animals messes up, the consequences to the rest of the world could be extreme and it's doubtful the company would be in any position to make restitution. Is it right to destroy property in an effort to prevent this sort of gambling with our quality of life? Is that the most productive way to deal with bio-engineering risks?
Eco-terrorists are no good! (Score:2)
And this is being taught in schools too! (Score:2)
My other favorite is the "global warming" thing. There are three studies on this, and the people that DID the studies say the studies are inconclusive! The planet has gone up by a half a degree in the last 50 years for crying out loud! And this is STILL a lot cooler than the earth was a millenium or two ago.
You know, if people would actually educate themselves as to what's going on, rather than listening to rumors and other environ-kooks as the SOLE place they get their info, there would be a lot less BS floating around.
Should we be doing stuff to help the environment? HELL YES! Should we be having leftist WACKOS teach children in schools that Bush is going to bring about the end of the world because we need a long term solution to the energy problems? HELL NO. It scares the shit out of the kids, and doesn't help the problem.
If that's the level of "information" they have to resort to, in order to get a point across (like burning SUVs, or destroying other property)....well, it just shows what small-minded little idiots they really are.
Nuff said.
Dear Anarchist Golfing Association... (Score:3)
Furthermore, every box of Microsoft products you see on the shelves contains millions of microscopic genetically-altered pollen granules, sarcastically referred to as "bits". They even print on the box how many millions of these bits are in the box!
Please deal with this situation as you see fit.
Sincerely,
A Concerned citizen
Re:Stupidity is Self Curing (Score:2)
One of the main objections people raise is that farmers that grow GM crops, or have their fields inadvertently contaminated by neighbouring farmers, can find themselves with unexpected problems down the line. E.g., they may find themselves beholden to the company they bought the seed from if that company has produced so-called 'terminator' (i.e., sterile) seeds which will not themselves produce seeds that can be resown next year. Assuming farmers want to keep producing crops, they have to keep paying for the privilege.
Note I have no objection to GM foods per se, however the potential for abuse (large multinational company with a fondness for enforcing IP patents on one hand, small farmer/business on the other) is there.
-dair (although going out and destroying test fields is a fairly pointless activity - the people who have done this in the past in the UK have often trampled the wrong field by mistake)
Re:Radical actions ... (Score:3)
I drive one myself. A Cherokee.
Is my 1994 6-cylinder Jeep Cherokee an evil yuppie SUV, or is it a 4X4 I use to tow my sailboat, get to backwoods campgrounds, and (sometimes) to carry lots of stuff?
I bought my Jeep before the acronym "SUV" was in common use, and I plan to keep it until that fad is over. Y'all can debate the merits of your Hondas and Audis or Acuras or whatever. I'm sticking with my old blue box until I either can't get parts for it any more or my eyes get so bad that I can't drive safely.
- Robin
Re:Mess with my SUV and I'll kill 10 deer. (Score:2)
I mean, could you ask for a clearer sign that peaceful protest is useless? If you, personally, cannot be stopped from dumping oil in the ocean etc. by government means, what's left but terrorism? And if you take it as a challenge and begin to 'wage war' dedicatedly on the other side, do you honestly expect that your arrogance and stubbornness alone entitle you to win? I would suggest that this is a dangerous course of action that you should not follow.
Re:Terrorism's place in Politics (Score:2)
Re:Physical Attacks Are Not Good (Score:2)
Well, isn't it special that you have your own unique definitions for words?
To quote Webster's - violence (n): intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force.
So, yes, torching a SUV dealership is violence. It may not be as heinous as torching a SUV dealer, but it's still pretty damn violent. I'm sure if someone threw a few molotov cocktails into your living room window you'd think it was violent, even if you weren't home at the time.
Plus, there's really no way that they could be sure that no one would be hurt directly or indirectly by their action...so even if I agree with the idea that SUV's are wasteful and annoying, I find the idea of torching an SUV dealership pretty abhorent.
They could have just as easily made their point by picketing the dealership, or even chaining themselves to the SUVs to prevent their sale and to gain attention without any danger of hurting an innocent person.
Torching every SUV in the country isn't going to solve the problem anyway - people need to be educated about *why* gas-guzzling monster vehicles might be a Bad Thing(TM). If they're unable to educate people about the "danger" of SUVs or whatever, perhaps the human race should be allowed to pollute the environment to the point that we become extinct.
Re:Vigilantism (Score:2)
The same thing could be accomplished by common people taking action by NOT buying SUVs.
Then we wouldn't have to resort to violence, the shareholders would lynch the bastards for us.
Seriously, though, while it's seductive to think of CEOs as evil bastards who should be shot in the head there's no reason to assume that a violent uprising is necessary when it's completely within the power of the masses to simply stop purchasing products from businesses that do harm to the environment or people in some fashion.
The problem is that 99% of the population are content to be lazy cattle that just consume, consume, consume. The Dead Kennedys put it best "Give Me Convenience or Death." That's about what the US has come down to. Fuck human rights, equal rights, the environment or anything else -- just make sure I get a six-pack and the [insert sport that's in season} game on TV.
Which is worse, the CEOs that take advantage of the mass mentality - or the mentality itself?
Re:No, it's not (Score:2)
Arson is Violence (Score:2)
Busting a window at a Starbucks or spray painting "ELF Rulz" on logging equipment is vandalism. Mass arson is violence.
Re: Why is it OK for Ford to make Excursions? (Score:2)
1. This is the United States, and people and corporations are free to make what they want unless for some reason it's being legislated/outlawed.
2. There is a demand for Excursions and demand drives the market.
3. Consumers have the right to buy what they want, and in the last 10 years consumers have wanted larger and larger SUVs. The Big 3 automakers didn't build them and then advertise to make the market, the consumers started with the Jeep Cherokee and the Chevy/GMC Suburban and then the rest of the makers started to build them.
Unless there is a safety, monopoly or legal issue, I think the burden of responsibility should be on the consumer.
Re: Why is it OK for Ford to make Excursions? (Score:2)
Does the Consitution of the United States or any of the States within the U.S. say that making large vehicles is illegal?
Your comment that someone will die because an Excursion is "only thing that their sedentary, obese family will fit in?" is idiotic.
I drive a large vehicle (1991 Chevy full-size extended cab 350 truck) and safety on the road is a two way street, my observing the laws and other vehicles, and them doing the same.
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes (Score:2)
What's the motivation behind punishing buyers of SUVs? Ever consider that folks living in rural parts may need a four-wheel vehicle to get to and from their homes (next time you eat something, remember us - your food didn't grow at Albertsons).
The problem isn't people who actually need to carry things and go off road, it's the urbanites who would never go off road (might get dirt on the tires!) or carry anything (might scratch the 'cargo area'). Instead, they treat these behemoths exactly the same way they would a passenger car, except that they aren't subject to the same taxation or emissions standards as a passenger car.
In other words, current law proviodes economic incentive to burn more gas and clog more roads in town. Perhaps trucks should be treated eaxctly like cars, but have tax breaks applied in cases where they are being used as trucks such as in rural areas.
The reason US auto makers are pushing trucks and SUVs so hard now is that their aggregated emissions figures look really good (trucks and SUVs don't count in those figures) but they can still avoid the costs of engineering for emissions controls.
Re:It's easy to be a weekend revolutionary. (Score:2)
If you burn down one mansion on the edge of a nature preserve and then are caught and jailed, everyone's going to forget about you in pretty quick time. If some unknown person keeps burning down mansions on the edge of nature preserves, well, that tends to stay in the headlines and keep people's attention for a bit longer.
Is this a wise approach? Got me, I'm no philosopher. But it's important to understand someone's reasoning before you criticize them on the basis of their conviction.
Re:Tell me what THIS is good for? (Score:2)
Not everything is a God-given right, and it seems to me that people who act as if the freedom to choose a huge fucking truck is some sort of immutable birthright are missing the point. This is a society we're running here, and that means sometimes the greater good simply outweighs your petty desires.
(Kudos for choosing the bike method, by the way.)
Re:SUVs (Score:2)
Someone at CBS MarketWatch determined that in just gasoline and insurance, SUV owners pay on average $250 more a month compared to owning a similarly priced car. Of course they suggested buying a car and putting the $250 saved into retirement funds. I personally wouldn't put that much money into something that's going to depreciate so quickly.
I personally wouldn't call a vehicle that is more likely to rollover, takes longer to stop, and is less manuverable than the average car, safe. Sure, you might be ok if you hit something smaller, but what about another SUV? Their stiff frames are derived from pickups and aren't generally designed to crumple and absorb the energy of the impact. Instead, it goes to the other vehicle and to the occupants. Add to that the observed 'I am invincible' attitude that many SUV drivers have, and it's no wonder the insurance industry actuaries jack up your premiums. I have seen SUVs going down the interstate at 60mph in rainstorms with only about 3 feet between them. Heaven forbid that the guy in front ever had to slam on his brakes. While it's funny to see that a majority of the vehicles in the ditch are SUVs after an ice storm, it's not funny to see one spinning out of control in front of you.
Unless you are a Hutterite, it's nothing more than a status symbol.
Re:SUVs (Score:2)
That is odd. I've always heard SUV owners complaining about how they were being overcharged for insurance. I can also assure you that I do have my eyes open and do see lots of people do stupid things while driving. However, in bad conditions, the SUV drivers seem to be the ones that stick out. Maybe the guys who drive like idiots in sports cars get married and move up to SUVs?
I don't have anything against SUVs if they actually fulfill a day to day need. A couple friends of mine from college have them or have had them in the past usually because their jobs required it. One worked in the data rigs in the oil fields in western North Dakota. The other has to carry a lot of test equipment to building sites which sometimes don't have good roads. When the guy in ND moved to Houston, he parked the Suburban and bought a jeep or a car because it was too expensive to drive to work and he didn't want to risk some idiot w/o insurance hitting such an expensive vehicle. I am certainly not an environmentalist, but I can't help thinking about how much money people are wasting commuting in those things. It would be different if they were car pooling, but 90% of the time, I only see one person, maybe two, in them. Also, you _know_ that the SUV market was to provide status symbols when Cadillac and Lincoln started selling them. No one is going to take their Caddy or Mercedes off road and people in Dallas, LA, Vegas, etc. don't have the excuse of needing it for bad weather. I guess I'm a tightwad more than anything and just hate to see people blatantly waste money.
Re:SUVs (Score:2)
I was also wrong about the CRV. I read CRV but thought CRX. IMHO, a CRV and other mini-SUVs are not much more than a little 4wd station wagon with aggressive styling. In fact, I think pretty much describes Subaru's SUV. While you are still probably wasting money compared to a equivalent car, it's not as bad as a normal SUV.
Re: 4wd advantages (Score:2)
We need a larger vehicle to just fit in all of our stuff when we travel (suitcases, stroller, backpack, diaperbag, diapers, food, toys, presents, etc.). Small children use a LOT of stuff.
Been there, done that with two little kids in a econobox. See the earlier post. Hmm, I wonder how my parents got by with seven kids and a Pontiac?
Hydroplaning is going to be a function of the weight of the vehicle and the width of the tires. At one time a company was producing a dual tire sort of rim for sports cars because a guy in Europe noticed that their tiny cars and their super skinny tires could go faster than he could in his sports car in heavy rain. That evolved into modern rain racing tires. My '59 Oldsmobile didn't hydroplane or slide very much on ice either, but that was due to it being a 4500+ pound car. Your big SUV is not going to be any different because of it's mass. Unfortunately, it has a higher center of gravity, so it's easier to tip, just like many pickups are.
Large parts of the US are sparsely inhabited by urban standards, with low maintainance roads being the rule. ...... Many of the people I know who drive pickups or SUVs live in cities and rural areas that can't afford to take care of their own streets
Again, you are describing where I grew up, learned to drive and where my parents still live. My dad still says that the best thing to come along has been front wheel drive cars. He makes his living driving around on those type of roads all year round in a CAR. He uses a pickup when he needs to haul a lot of stuff or pull a trailer. Many people have the same needs and that's why they use pickups also. If the weather was really bad, the farmers dug out their own roads. Yet another reason to have a tractor (I remember helping do it too). I'm not slamming people who actually have a need for such vehicles. The vast majority of the people that own them don't use them to even a fraction of their capability (sounds a lot like Word doesn't it? big, bloated, expensive, everyone thinks they need it, but barely use them). I read a couple years ago that the average household income for a new car buyer is something like $60K. The average Suburban-class SUV owner is something like $150K. Because they are popular with urban & suburban people with more money than brains, the car companies jack the prices up and make huge profits compared to their other autos. Of course, this pisses off the people you describe because they generally earn less (hence not being able to afford road maintenance) and it's harder for them to afford a vehicle that they might actually need. That is unless they con the banker to include it along with the $200K loan for a new combine. =) [Or are Hutterites...the cash some of those colonies pull in is amazing.].
A lot of this would not be an issue if they were included with all the other cars for the CAFE averages. The auto companies would quickly find a way to make them more efficient, sell them only in appropriate areas, etc. As it is, SUVs and vehicles like the PT Cruiser are classified as light trucks and are exempt from CAFE standards. Like pickups, they don't induce fines due to a low fleet fuel economy average and the car companies can sell them at a higher price to urbanites that don't fully use them.
Re: SUV's on ice (Score:2)
Dude, that's exactly the type of weather I learned to drive in (in one of your neighboring states). I also don't have a problem taking my wife and two kids on a trip in something the size of an Excel either. Either you're taking too much stuff or you don't know how to pack.
4WD doesn't help you that much on ice. As a kid I worked in a gas station and the owner always laughed when he had to take his old 2WD pickup to go pull the guys & their 4WDs out of the ditches because they thought 4WD would be so much better on ice. Of course the knotheads that would usually get stuck also had big fat knobby tires on their trucks too. Once in the ditch, the tires would ride up or push the snow in front of them and before they knew it, they were stuck because they got themselves high centered. Your points are still valid, but they are more excuses why these people don't need them and are even that more of a nuisance to the rest of the public. Being able to afford something doesn't automagically bless you with the knowledge of how to operate it.
Re: SUV's on ice (Score:2)
Tell me, how well does 4WD help when you're trying to stop your massive SUV?
It's not going to help at all. Anti-skid brakes, good tires, and even weight distribution will help much more than 4WD will. He will get better traction due to the vehicle's weight, but so do lots of big old land yaughts(sp). But due to the increased mass, they generally take longer to stop.
Re:SUVs (Score:4)
Depending on where you live, how often does that really happen? In moderately deep snow, yes a 4WD vehicle is going to have an advantage. But not on ice. I've seen way too many SUVs and Jeeps whose drivers thought that spinning like tops and ending up in the ditch and/or hitting someone else. For all but the most extreme conditions, a front wheel drive car and an alert driver with a clue is sufficient. I've driven through enough blizzards to know that. My father spends a lot of time on the road (500-1000 miles a week before he retired..probably only 300 now) mainly in rural areas where 'on-road conditions often turn into off-road conditions'. Unless he needed to pull a trailer or haul a bunch of stuff with a pickup, he used a car and has said even he can't understand why anyone would need a SUV.
Look at the demographics of those who are buying SUVs. They are usually upper middle class & up people in urban and suburban areas (again not counting Hutterites =). These people are buying for status and for a perceived need that they _might_ use it for once or twice a year, if ever, instead of what they actually use it for on a day to day basis. Sure, having a 4WD may help you if you're in an area that gets socked with lots of snow. Get a Subaru or an AWD Audi if you don't think a FWD can hack it. But what's the excuse for those in the sunbelt states? I mean, if I bought vehicles on some rare need, I'd buy a Hummer with a .50 cal machine gun on the top so I could mow down rioters and drive over the pieces of shit.
If your CRV is only getting between 25 & 30, something is wrong with it. My parents' big ass Buick Park Avenue gets a consistent 28. My Mitsubishi econobox gets 35. You should be getting at least that if not more. I've hauled a lot of stuff in a similar Hyundai Excel (mattresses, a freezer, 10+ computers & monitors, dressers, a swingset, etc.) and even pulled a U-haul trailer cross country over the Rockies w/o any problems. Renting a small trailer from time to time isn't that big of a hassel.
Every right to luxury? (Score:2)
That might be fine if there wern't real costs to
the environment that are paid by us all. Should
factories be allowed to build as powerful (read:
polluting) chemical treatments as they want? What
happens to the planet when we permit such
atrocities?
Re:If these guys had any sense at all... (Score:2)
Don't worry about the freon or its closely related substitutes escaping freon from a fire, worry about the freon that reacts in the fire which forms a very lethal gas.
Ecoterrism vs. antiabortionists (Score:5)
A sniper kills an abortion provider in Buffalo, NY, because he believes that abortion is murder, and that his single act of murder would prevent hundreds of children from being killed.
Was it justifiable?
An ecoterrorist group torches an SUV dealership because they believe that the increased fuel consumption disproportionately contributes to the destruction of the environment, and that their single act of pollution will prevent many others.
Was it justifiable?
If you can answer 'yes' to either of those questions, then you better damn well feel comfortable supporting the other. Left-wing or right-wing, the goals are irrelevant. You'd better be prepared to defend all uses of violent resistance, or agree that none are acceptable.
As a side question, what the hell did this have to do with "News for Nerds"?
Terrorism is an affront to democracy (Score:2)
Exactly which -isms is this to be acceptable for and which not?
Re:So Englishmen are ignorant? (Score:2)
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes (Score:2)
2) Most SUVs are ironically quite small on the inside compared mini-vans. If you want utility buy a mini-van.
Re:SUV=Pickup truck, Re:SUVs (Score:2)
Really throw them for a loop (Score:2)
But just think of the poor researchers of the next wave, assuming these mutated strawberries survive: It's going to really throw them for a loop and screw up a lot of their theories when they find Frog DNA in a strawberry. Could set them back years or even centuries trying to figure it out, coming to the realization that "Hey, somebody's already been screwing with these berries. Who the..."
Didn't we already see the dangers of mixing frog DNA with other species in Jurassic Park?? :)
Re:Really throw them for a loop (Score:2)
Re:Really throw them for a loop (Score:2)
Hopefully, with our huge output of trash all over the planet they will be aware of a previous civilization before them.
(PS: Fuck I am getting sick of all these delays in Slashdot - two minutes between posts, 20 seconds between hitting reply and submitting my reply - my brain and typing speed is way faster than that...) Typing this to kill time before I can actually post....
What's really wrong with it? (Score:2)
Re:No, it's not (Score:2)
Re:No, it's not (Score:2)
My wife and I are avid backpackers during the summer months. Consequently, this car has been to hell and gone.
Memorable experiences:
- 20km up one logging road, I surfed the car across a massive sandspit created by a flash flood a month earlier. It was only after I crossed over that I started thinking about what I'd do if another flash flood came along while we were oot and aboot.
- some freaking 60km down a logging road loop (we'd just come back from a side-road that lead into 4WD territory to the trailhead. 4WD? Pah! A skilled driver can do anything until the rocks get too big and too numerous to move!). Hit a construction zone. Dunno what the hell they were constructing, but the road became a car-width wide, and at least a foot deep of fine clay silt. *Almost* turned back... but then the guy on the grader waved us on. So I went for it. Once started, couldn't stop...
- Misjudging a heave, and nearly toasting the oil pan. One of the very few times I wanted more clearance.
- Backing the car down a car-width wide logging road that was carved into the side of a mountain. Couldn't see any ground whatsoever out the driver's window. Damn near shit myself.
- Crossed an abandoned wood bridge. Had to reconstruct parts of it using logs and loose boards. Again, didn't really consider the going-back consequences...
Anyway, point is, SUVs are for nancies. If you're a halfway decent driver, damn near any road is passable with a 2WD car.
(Shoulda seen what we could do with the Chevette. We really didn't care what happened to it. The Nissan... well, honestly, we try to be nice to it...)
--
Ready, Fire, Aim! I protest! (Score:4)
Here in Western Australia, we have forest protesters. Nice idea, but the implementation is a little... well, lacking.
For example, they tend to litter. And to track a disease known as ``dieback'' through the forests because they don't take care to clean down their vehicles. And to chop down a lot of little trees in order to build a platform from which to protest about the decimation of big trees. What? Use branches instead? Oooh, we never thought of that... nor did we think that the locals, who depend on the forest products for their own livings as well as the survival of their townships, might be a tad upset by us disrupting their livelihood. Of course, digging out culverts to stop logging trucks is de rigeur, but the environmental damage which this does is not important. And so on.
I firmly believe that we ought to leave some forests - large areas of them - strictly alone, because the fact remains that we don't really know what forests are for or how they work, and messing with mysteries before they're unravelled is generally not a survival tendency. However, a consistent, rational and energetic education and lobbying campaign is going to do a whole heap more towards this aim than the vandalism supposed-short-cut. The real motivation of many eco-terrorists is instant heroism, a ``usefulness high,'' and it shows in their actions.
Re:2001 Excursion, 1997 Accord, which pollutes mor (Score:2)
Maybe that's true if you're talking about carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrous oxide, and so on. It's totally untrue if you're talking about carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas. But, of course, that's all BS some whacked-out pot-smoking European tree-huggin' hippies thought up to threaten the freedom of all patriotic 'mericans to do anything they want, screw the rest of the world . . .
And as for having your life saved, I gotta ask - what if the drunk was driving a Suburban as well, as he should have been by your logic?
Go you big red fire engine!
Re:Like The Simpsons... (Score:2)
Can you name the truck with four-wheel drive?
Smells like a steak and seats thirty-five,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
Well it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
(spoken)
The Federal Highway Comission has ruled the Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.
Canyonero!
(reprise)
Twelve yards long, two lanes wide,
Sixty-five tons of American pride,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
She blinds everybody with them super-high beams,
She's a squirrel-squashing, deer-smacking driving machine,
Canyonero, Canyonero!
Re:2001 Excursion, 1997 Accord, which pollutes mor (Score:2)
Doubtful. [ai-online.com]
Of course torching a dealership is RIDICULOUS, and the fact that this is portrayed as the approach that regular environmentalists (rather than whacko extremists) is taking is absurd. Every belief/movement has psychos that take things a little too far.
BTW: For your heart wrenching story about the SUV saving your life, there are thousands who are killed when their reasonable sized sedan is crushed by mammoth SUVs (which is usually coupled by grossly inflated egos and sense of immortality of the driver. How many of us have had SUVs riding our bumper despite the SUV having twice the braking distance). The idea that we should all get SUVs because there ARE SUVs out there is ridiculous. Personally I think there should be weight restrictions on vehicles allowed on most public roads unless it is for commercial (and thereby more necessary than soccer mom commuting for groceries) reasons.
BTW: This [acuracanada.ca] vehicle meets ULEV, and not the bogus super-monstrous vehicle category.
Re:Stupidity is Self Curing (Score:2)
Re:Really throw them for a loop (Score:2)
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Re:Torched SUV Dealership (Score:2)
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Re:If you didn't buy the SUV (Score:2)
Too inexpensive not to have in place by law? Cloudy winter days => cold showers? Cough. Should go over real well in Wisconsin.
How hard would it be to have every business to have solar energy? Well, it'd put me right out of business. The small business I worked for for the past five years- it'd put them out of business too. Humm, how hard would it be to consolidate all commererce into big multinational corporations? All we have to do is put you in charge.
The claim that 'no matter how much the initial investment they will eventually pay back their cost' is absurd, yet you have the gall to lecture me about investment.
I don't tend to invest in anything. I won't need it, since I'm helping to bring upon the end of the world.
How long do we have, now, anyway? It so depresses me to look at the greenpeace website. It makes me want to cry. *sniff*. Those poor whales. *sniff*. Wait, no, sorry, I can't detect any emotional response. You'll have to resort to reason. Be careful, it could be dangerous to your cause.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Re:Vigilantes aren't all bad. (Score:3)
I was looking for a specific essay on this subject, that I've read before, but alas, I can't find it tonight.
See William Barhill, Focus: Early Warnings; Identifying Violence-Prone Police Officers, WASH. POST, Aug. 11, 1992,
at B5 ("The prolonged, unremitted stress associated with law enforcement often results in a build-up of undischarged anger
for a chance to explode").
In 1993 'only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.
Newsweek, November 15, 1993
Surfing the net and other cliches...
The "Roundup Ready" Seeds (Score:2)
(1) Aren't seeds cheap to the point of absurdity? I seem to remember a few hundred seeds cost, say, under a dollar, a puny percentage of the price of sowing and reaping the crops. I would think paying that dollar every year and in return getting seeds more resistant to pesticides and therefore easier to care for makes a lot of sense, and isn't anything like the indentured servitude anti-GM folks claim.
(2) In what possible way could these seeds harm the environment? Have there been any actual cases of this happening? Why are people so emotional about this issue?
People have been breeding seeds for various characteristics for centuries. I don't see this as being such a big deal. I think that if we could alter genes and come up with better results, we should do it. Heck, if anyone would offer to alter my genetic makeup so I could lose weight without much loathed diet and exercise changes, I'd be the first person in line. That's the sort of thing this promises - technology that can bring more happiness to the world.
D
----
Re:SUVs (Score:2)
I can't stand SUVs because they're ugly. My Mercedes has just as many luxury gadgets, but rides and handles a lot better. I drove a Mercedes ML SUV during a Mercedes road-test event [amazing.com], and although it accelerated fine, it was noticably tippy on the corners. And I understand that's one of the better-handling SUVs.
D
----
Can you read? (Score:2)
What I actually said was "[...] as a whole the American people are pretty practical [...]" I said nothing at all about the American people being radical, liberal, conservative, or reactionary. Indeed, you can't justifiably say any such thing, since the land is composed of numerous radicals, liberals, conservatives, and reactionaries, with none of those groups having a majority (as evidenced by the results of the last election).
It sounds like you need to talk to some Europeans, or at the very least see what other countries are like before assuming we're a bunch of progressive radicals with the human race's best interests at heart. Seriously.
It seems you need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension, and stop putting words into my mouth which I never said (nor typed). I not only have spoken with Europeans, I have lived many years in various places all over the world, including Europe. I too find the United States to be annoyingly conservative, even reactionary, but that does not change what I said one bit. Americans as a whole, be they liberal or conservative, radical or ractionary, are generally a fairly practical people and need some convincing before they will simply accept something at face value. Once convinced of something they may be less inclined to change their views than others...then again, they may not.
And fetishization of property only suits those with property, which may explain why I'm not as enchanted with the notion of sacred property as you seem to be.
I never called property sacred. It isn't, any more than anything else in this world is. Life isn't sacred either
What I did say was that I would defend my property if some clown like you tries to steal or vandalize it. And that if some clown such as you were to attack my fundamental freedoms then you'd better be prepared to kill me, because that is the only way I would willingly submit to the kind of authoritarian autocracy the sort of "eco-terrorism" being espoused by these imbecils implies.
You can accuse me of fetishizing my freedom, and perhaps even be correct, but of property, merely because I deny you the privelege of taking or destroying what is mine? Please.
And that is the final morsel I shall feed you, troll.
Oh please (Score:3)
Say what you like about Americans because they don't fawn all over your particular radical agenda, but as a whole the American people are pretty practical, and if you are to convince them of your views you must, in turn, provide practical proof, or at least strong evidence, of what you espouse. And no, appealing to authority isn't enough -- American's are notoriously unwilling to believe authorities for authority's sake -- you must provide cold, hard facts.
When the Boston Tea Party took place a majority (not all, but a majority) of the people were already convinced that they were being taxed into bankrupcy without representation, and with no means within the system to do anything about it. They were left with only two options: revolt, or be taxed into starvation. They chose revolt.
You, and those who espouse your, shall we say, questionable views, have many choices. You can speak out (freedom of speech is under attack, but not yet dead), you can protest, you can lobby government, you can raise consumer awareness.
But if you ever try to torch one molecule of my property I will do everything in my power to destroy you financially, physically, and mentally. As a citizen of a nominally free country there is nothing that compells me to adopt your point of view, and if you are thinking of using violence to coerce me into adopting your point of view you'd better be prepared to use deadly force, because that is exactly what I will use to defend my freedom against such an attack.
What is sad, really, are the people who can't be bothered to vote, can't be bothered to educate themselves on how our (still nominally) democratic system works and how to be effective in it, who choose instead to escalate every little cause to violent revolution before having even bothered trying any more peaceful and reasonable approaches in getting their views heard. Or, having had their views rejected, feel somehow that this gives them the right to undemocratically coerce the unbelieveing majority to adhere to their notions anyway through force of violence.
In a democratic system, even a nominally democratic system such as exists in much of the world today, the majority sets policy. If that majority happens to be wrong about a particular policy (e.g. the War on Drugs, allowing obscene copyright terms, allowing patents, etc.) then that is indeed a problem. However, I will take our dysfunctional democracy over your terrorism and autocracy any day, no matter how stupid the resulting policies are.
Re:But I have a God Given Right to cheap gas!! (Score:2)
Well that's a strange analogy
Re:But I have a God Given Right to cheap gas!! (Score:2)
These reduction of those things would have other added benefits too, like reduced traffic, less suburban sprawl, revitalizing urban areas/cities, etc.
SUVs aren't the problem, gas prices are. (Score:3)
Raising gas prices by means of levying a significant tax on gas would make great strides to solve these problems, and do it in a far more equitable and reasonable manner than burdensome regulations. This way, those who really really do need or enjoy a more intensive vehicle, can still have it, for the most part, they'll just have to pay for it. This is the way everything else in our society works; the right to burn cheap fuel at cost to our highways, health, and the evironment is not written a right at all. It may hurt some people, namely the "poor", but not as much as you might expect. Many people can and would move, finding the costs of living somewhere else exceed the costs. What's more, the demand for mass-transit would rise, making it more accessible, cheaper, and easier for all.
What I would suggest is gradually scaling in taxes over a period of 10 years or so. Enough so that the various parties (e.g., transit authorities, builders, consumers, employers, etc) can plan around it.
/BEGIN RANT
Of course, most Americans would disagree, they would rather blame someone else than admit that they themselves are very much of the problem. They're all for the environment, until it comes to having to make sacrifice more significant than lip service; as long as (they think) someone else has to do the sacrificing it is fine with them.
Me, I drive an SUV (97' Pathfinder), albeit a fairly low-impact one, so I'm hardly a saint. But then again, I'm not running around throwing stones at SUVs that happen to be twice as large and gas consuming as mine. Your car (whomever flames me) may be 60% more efficient than mine, but I'd be willing to bet that you fall into almost every one of my earlier points (hell, you may even waste more fuel than me when all is said and done). Nonetheless, I would support any politician that was honestly willing to tax gas, because it makes sense and it is ultimately necessary. Whereas bitching and whining about how I, or any other SUV driver, my car is 60% worse than yours, ignoring that you personally consume 5000% more energy than almost every other person on this earth is just plain silly, not to mention the fact that it misses the bigger picture.
/END RANT
Re:Ready, Fire, Aim! I protest! (Score:2)
--
Re:Ready, Fire, Aim! I protest! (Score:2)
Better ones than you did, apparently. To recap: in both the Roman and the Greek cultures infanticide (of unwanted or crippled offspring) was commonplace; bloody sacrifice (of animals) was the norm in their religious cults, and sometimes it could include a virgin or two. Amongst the surrounding barbarians in Northern Europe the situation was, of course, much worse, unless you consider having a pint of beer on your slain enemy's skull a refined and civilized habit.
And in exchange for the "Ok-ing" of a specific, unpopular version of Christianity
Excuse me, but what in heavens are you talking about? Remember, no schisms and no established heresies at that time...
, we got... The Dark Ages!
Of course, the Middle Ages, a historical period many ignoramuses like to vent their ignorance about, but few go to the trouble of actually getting educated about...
Filled with book burning,
Oops, sorry, that'd be Hitler's III Reich and/or a mixture of Indiana Jones and a ...
infanticide,
Nope, that'd be Classical Greece...
war
Nope, that'd be the whole human history...
, and bloody sports.
Well, OK, I'll give you that one, but on a gore scale of 1 to 10, I think jousting is much closer to ice hockey on the bottom than to gladiator fights at the top.
--
Re:2001 Excursion, 1997 Accord, which pollutes mor (Score:2)
Sounds reasonable enough, but what are you going to do when all the drunk drivers are careening around in enormous SUVs? Maybe buy a tank?
Re:Tell me what THIS is good for? (Score:2)
Re:2001 Excursion, 1997 Accord, which pollutes mor (Score:2)
I was trying to point out that this logic leads to a pointless and wasteful arms race. But now, just to be a smartass: What are you going to do when all the drunk drivers are careening around in tanks?
Re:Physical Attacks Are Not Good (Score:2)
I take issue with calling torching a car dealership "violence". Unless you feel SUVs have some inner spirit which is hurt by the attack. Violence to me is physically hurting a human being.
Calling vandalism terrorism cheapens the term, much as calling Bill Gates a Nazi cheapens the word nazi.
-=Julian=-
Re:SUVs (Score:3)
History would dictate that self-preservation alone should motivate the upper classes to temper the conspicuousness of their consumption (and the obnoxiousness of their contempt).
There's a lot more poor people than rich people, and the poor people have little to lose.
When the poor people are convinced that the rich are depriving them of living the lives THEY choose, there's usually big trouble...
---------------------------------------------
Stupid anti-productive acts (Score:3)
Eco-moronism is more an accurate term to describe this kind of stupidity than eco-terrorism. In order to be terrorism it would have to frighten people into changing their behavior. This kind of arson is more along the lines of senseless vandalism. It is not going to convince anyone to change their behavior. It is more likely to damage this kind of cause, because people will not be sympathetic to it if this kind of behavior is associated with it.
No, it's not (Score:5)
The problem (Score:3)
If Ecoterroists burned the SUV of some of the folks I know, their "Innocent Media Spokesman" would have to watch his butt for a LONG time. When you play outside the "rules" don't be surprised of other folks come out to play too
People tend to shoot back (Score:3)
Might want to look up whether you're really correct first. Start by debunking everything you read at junkscience.com [junkscience.com]. And saying "they're all liars funded by evil corporate interests" doesn't count. (E.g. The world is flat because the people who say it's round "are all liars and funded by evil corporate interests". "It's just common-sense." :)
acting out of fear (Score:3)
I have a friend, who I have a lot of respect for. He and his wife (a lawyer) have looked at the path that this world set on and have decided to not have children. They feel that it would be quite unfair to bring children into the future that they see coming. They are living for themselves and leaving the world to whatever it comes to.
I see this as an act of desperation. I'm sure that if they thought that there was a real possibility of changing our course such that the future would be livible for their (would-be) children, they would do so, and have children.
Likewise, the eco-vandalism is an act of desperation. I, like many other environmentalists, feel that it is counter - productive. It is also against my own personal ethics. Unfortunately, these people seem to see no other course of action open to them. My own thought is that -- if that is the best that is possible, then they might as well give up and go home. Do like my friend, and just don't have children.
--
Re:Tell me what THIS is good for? (Score:4)
It breaks down to the right tool for the right job. Some people spend a helluva lot of time in their vehicles so I'm not about to claim they should not enjoy some luxury. And the soccer moms out there don't want to buy a mini-van because of the image of it being a soccer-mom vehicle, so they need a SUV with equal human cargo capacity. OK, fine (but it's still a soccer-mom vehicle!). But by golly, a Cadillac pick-up truck? Why? It's just ridiculous. You take a truck chassis, then over engineer the shit out of it to make it drive like a car. Just buy a friggin luxury car and if you really need to go to Home Depot to haul some goods once in a while, rent a real pick-up truck...
Tell me what THIS is good for? (Score:5)
It costs $50,000. I'm at a loss. A pick-up truck is supposed to be a REAL utility vehicle, not some super-luxurious penis-enlarging toy. Just look at this thing... [cadillac.com]. Is someone going to haul a load of manure in this thing? Or throw a bunch of lumber in the back? What good is it for?
Oh, and for our foreign readers, you can't imagine how big that really is from the pictures. Here's a hint. The wheels are 17 inchers and they look tiny compared to the rest of that vehicle.... It's 221" long, 91.5" wide, and 75.6" tall.
(On second thought, you probably STILL can't imagine how big it is since the measurements aren't metric... :)
Forgetting something? (Score:3)
"Terrorism" is just another word for "counter-propaganda propaganda."
Re:Vigilantes aren't all bad. (Score:3)
BTW, some of the first gun control legislation in the USA was designed specifically to prevent blacks freed from slavery from owning guns with which they could defend themselves against such attacks.
"Anarchist Golfing Association"? (Score:5)
I mean, what the hell kind of anarchist golfs? "Say, Moonchild, what say we get in a quick nine before we torch that Land Rover dealership?" I guess you have to have a hobby outside of blowing stuff up.
But I've got to agree that grass is a bad idea. There are dozens of better ways to fight erosion, that don't require you to use massive quantities of poison and fertilizer. In the town I grew up in, there was a pond at the bottom of a large hill. The hill was covered with nice houses with nice beautifully manicured lawns. One spring a lengthy rainstorm sent runoff from all these lawns downhill into the pond. A day later, all the fish were dead--poisoned by all that fertilizer and insecticide. Eventually fishing in the pond was banned; what fish remained were incredibly toxic.
The moral of the story is that just because one or two people doing a thing is harmless doesn't mean the thing remains harmless when done by a hundred thousand people.
--
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes (Score:3)
Ever think to question why people are buying these vehicles - especially when the sticker is $10K+ over a midsized auto, the fuel costs are 50% to 100% more, and insurance isn't any cheaper? If these values proposed are so critical, why aren't we all driving Metros?
I think you'll find a good amount of buyer behavior associated with:
- safety: the lack of enforcement of drunk driving laws (especially violations across state lines which keeps 15+ incident repeat offenders driving), irresponsible drivers with irresponsible cures (ban cell phones while permitting applying makeup or eating burger king in the car) and other factors encourage folks to adopt other means to protect their family.
- utility: SUVs not only get the family around in comfort, but allow for folks to pick up home improvement supplies, load up gardening materials, etc.
We've already got enough taxes on behavior and laws on intent. Take responsibility for your life and let others be responsible for theirs.
*scoove*
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes (Score:3)
So steal their money from them via taxes (and give the money to whom)? Afraid to allow them to be stupid and suffer their own natural consequences?
I drive a large diesel truck since its required for operating my orchard, as well as being used on the job building rural telecom networks (yea, it's my truck and I bought it. Bite me). You may see me driving 50 miles alone to the city to a meeting, or perhaps a run for orchard supplies. You'd better believe I'm aware of the cost (why do you think I bought the Diesel? 21 MPG highway vs. 10 on the gas engine, and compatibility with biodiesel which I can't wait to run), but then again, it's apparent I'm more aware of the situation than you are.
Per family incomes being too high, god bless them wherever they are at. If they're being foolish with their money, the next (or potentially current) recession will cure that stupidity.
Since these folks are already accountable for their higher costs, potential economic risks, loss of money that could be used for other things, etc., and that doesn't satisfy you, it's apparent that there are more fundamental reactions at work (e.g. class/income jealousy, relativistic justification of theft, etc.).
As we say in our parts, "Mind your own damn business."
*scoove*
Re:No, it's not (Score:3)
Now that we've disposed of that hoary straw man, you might just want to examine the fact that the working journalists routinely vote 90%+ for the Democrat. Organizations like the Animal Liberation Front have been on the terrorist group list for years and you don't hear about their acts except once in a blue moon.
Re:Environmentalist wackos ... (Score:3)
Environmentalists --
They destroy the environment by burning vehicles (and the fuels contained within) to help the environment. The logic is this -- if nobody can drive any of those SUVs, then the potential savings of 10 (or more) years of pollution has been saved x (Times) the number of vehicles destroyed.
The logic is sound, but it's a good thing they're all a bunch of pussies. A really good environementalist plot, if they TRUELY believed in it, would be applied more librally to other facets of life.
A TRUE environmental ploy should be all inclusive! Why stop at SUVs? Go for the sport cars, luxury vehicles, and anything not absolutely essential for daily activities. With that being said, there would only be a good market for small, efficient cars, and medium sized, useful trucks. Nothing else should be allowed.
They should then move on to other wastes. Such as pregnant women, since each baby born generates hundreds of thousands of pounds of waste material per year (in the form of both natural, and un-natural wastes such as post-consumer product and secondary polution). Children should only be manufactured for the purposes of racial procreation, and of course to increase the manual labor workforce. Children can be used as effective workers.
They could then of course destroy all domesticated animals, since the sheltering and caring for such animals produces extra waste (both economic and ecological) as it creates a very large pet care produt industry, one that surely generates extra garbage and other waste matrials each year. Only animals with actual value producing attributed shall be allowed to consume resources.
After they have eliminated all non-critical vehicular transport, children, and domesticated pets, they should turn to their own yards, where they are putting precious land to waste by growing grass instead of produce. This must be rectified by using every square foot of land to it's fullest potential.
Since maintaining the home-grown produce would become a full time job, not to mention one that provides self sufficience, there would be no need for jobs other than things such as paying utility bills, which an Environmentalist wouldn't wish to continue doing anyway since Power and Water utilities tend to be rooted in environmental damage. Instead, everyone should just dig a well and learn to live without central heat and air. Television is dying anyway, and without radio, the RIAA would be a problem that just vanished on it's own. As for the rest of the media, nobody would miss them. And the internet? Who uses it anyway?
...
Thank god the environmentalists are too narrow visioned to see the RIGHT way to make the rest of us miserable! Their uncreativity is a good thing.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Arson is a violent crime (Score:5)
What, you say? Arson is not an act of violence? Tell that to the firemen who risk their lives trying to put it out! One of these days, one of these arson fires IS going to kill someone... I wonder what these twits will say then?
In Arizona, it is legal to shoot to kill to stop arson of an occupied building. Maybe these clowns should come to Phoenix. We would show them a good time!
Of course, one of these loons was here. He was showing his love of the environment by burning houses under construction next to our mountain preserves. Never you mind that he himself had a house on the preserve! Never you mind that burning these houses added pollution to the environment, and used up water and wood - which these environmentalists are supposedly so much in love with.
There is no excuse for destroying private property in a democratic society. If this were a dictatorship, then the destruction of the dictator's property would be OK. But these days, people seem to believe that just because they don't like something, they can violate the law and peoples' rights with acts of violence! They seem to think that because a "corporation" is an owner, it must be evil - so go ahead and destroy its property. Well, how many of these people have pension funds invested in corporations? How many other people lose some of their savings as these corporations lose money and opportunity.
These ecofreaks are nothing more than misfits. They are poorly informed about environmental issues, and are rather narcissistally pretending to be heroes and heorins... but really they are just scum.
Before you jump to conspiracy theories (Score:3)
I'm sure it's more like these are isolated instances, and may not be tied to some conspiracy. Maybe these are disgruntled workers or plain accidents. The fact that the police have no leads is very suspicious. Maybe blaming eco-terrorists is a way to explain it away; kind of like blaming space ships for "crop circles". So while I wouldn't suggest that the stories are being made up completely, I wouldn't be surprised if there were pressure from the white house or their lobbying interests to blame the incidents on a huge environmental terrorist group, just for the sympathy.
In fact, before I start chasing "eco-terrorists", I'd investigate those incidents at SUV dealerships a bit more. I keep hearing that large, gas-guzzling SUVs are cheap these days: Lincoln is selling their Navigator at 0% financing, and you can buy a Chevy Suburban for $6-8k off. Typically you don't discount a "hot" car, even it it is at the end of a model year. From what I've heard, with gas prices where they are, it costs about $80 to fill up the tank on one of those behemoths. Maybe they're torching their own inventory. I mean, car dealerships are always saying how crazy they are.
The real reason people buy SUVs. (Score:3)
Even the full size domestic 'sports coupe' designs are either being discontinued, or re-introduced as little tin cans with tiny little minimal displacement engines.
Sure, some people are swayed by marketing, but many people buy SUVs because they are the modern equivalent of the full-sized passenger car, a breed killed off by mandated mileage requirements and emissions laws.
Re:Stupidity is Self Curing (Score:4)
Unfortunately, from the extent of your hyperbole above, it sounds like you've adopted the opinion of a very few, largely-self-styled experts as if they were handed down to Moses on stone tablets. (Sorry -- it really is tough to avoid the "religion" metaphor when discussing these things.)
Are you aware that as recently as the 1970s we were supposedly heading for another ice age? At least, we were according to the same clique of "environmental scientists" who are now telling us we're heading for imminent global heat death.
The effects you're talking about constitute, in the words of Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims." Do you really think it's unreasonable for us to demand "extraordinary proof" to go along with them?
In short, read what you're writing, for Pete's sake, and understand what you're asking of the rest of us. If you successfully convince me to buy that happy neo-Malthusian crap you're selling, you'll have compelled me to rearrange my lifestyle more drastically than anything short of a severe car crash, life-threatening disease, or limited nuclear war could have done. I'd have to destroy my own car (of course, we ran out of fossil fuels about 10 years ago according to the prevailing environmental opinions^h^h^h^h^hscience of the 70s era, so no great loss there), stop washing my clothes, and swear not to reproduce (of course, not washing my clothes should take care of that problem nicely).
No, I'm not going to take decisions like this lightly... and no, you're not going to win me, or any other typical American I know, over to your cause by resorting to violence and vandalism. At a minimum, it's going to take irrefutable proof of anthropogenic contributions to global warming and undeniable evidence of consequential harm. We don't have that right now, and we won't for a long time, if ever. Will it be too late then? Maybe.
But then, I'm willing to bet that somehow, things aren't quite as bad as you're making them sound.
Re:Stupidity is Self Curing (Score:5)
That really sucks. It's no different from the Catholic Church's persecution of Galileo and Copernicus, if you think about it. When a gang of ignorant religious wackos (which is what this tree-spiking, library-burning, SUV-vandalizing thing is: a religion) disagrees with you, it's unlikely that your differences will be resoved in any civil forum.
Unfortunately, the enviro-wackos won't be happy until we're all living in trees and caves. They simply aren't interested in solving the problems of how to clothe, feed, and house six billion+ healthy homo sapiens at anything beyond a subsistence level.
Make no mistake: today it's the "rich" who are their targets of convenience. Tomorrow, it will be you.
Re:Vigilantes aren't all bad. (Score:3)
Doesn't surprise me. The number of individual armed citizens with a whole station worth of police oficers to back them up if they kill somebody wrongly is rather low. The average armed citizen has far more liability to worry about than the average LEO does. Behavior follows suit.
--Fesh
Re:Of course you can justify terrorism (Score:3)
Those acts were acts of war against non-civilian, combatant targets in the context of a declared war. That is not terrorism, it is called guerrila warfare.
SUVs (Score:5)
Burning the dealerships is not the way to combat this problem. I was hoping that gasoline prices would stay high this summer (they are much cheaper in the US than other countries). But they seem to be heading back down now as well.
I would love to see SUVs included in the federal bill that mandates a fleet average for gasoline mileage from a car company. Either that or taxing cars/SUVs that get really poor mileage (some sort of environment destruction tax) would help flip this recent trend.
Let's not even get into the problems SUVs cause on the road by decreasing the visibility of those around them . . .
Re:If these guys had any sense at all... (Score:3)
2. See #1
3. Freon (R12) hasn't really been used in cars since 1994... meaning these SUVs did not have it.
Sure, the hell with the rule of law... (Score:3)
If it is, be prepared for more and more of it to exist behind walls. Gated communities are already multiplying--get ready for that trend to super-accelerate. The more intelligent and reasonable won't fight back through counter-terrorism, they'll start to leave. Be prepared to have these bio-terrorists auditing YOUR lifestyle, and trashing elements of it when they don't approve. Your silent approval of this sort of activity will mean that eventually you'll find these folks on your doorstep. You reap what you sow.
For example, how many Slashdot readers work with computers? Really? That many? Well, did you know that computer research will eventually lead to artificial intelligence, and with that the end of the human race? So of course you won't mind if I break into your house with a crowbar to rectify the situation. Or maybe I'll just wander by Slashdot headquarters one of these days with a few gallons of gasoline. Think I'm wrong about my macabre predictions? Prove it!
The fact is that this kind of unilateral action is simply NOT right. You want to protest? Get a bunch of friends together and burn your own damn SUVs. Support scientific efforts to determine whether or not the risks outweight the benefits when it comes to GE crops and plants. But DON'T talk to me only about risks with no mention of benefits. I consider the prospect of the continued disease and death in the developing world to be a risk. I consider the notion of ploughing under every arable acre of North America (to make up for the lower yields we see with chemical-free, GE-free farming) to be a risk. You want me to respect your opinion? Then do the F*CKING work, or shut the F*CK up.
One last note: do think that these actions are reasonable because the police sometimes seem to sympathize with these activists and condone their crimes by botching the investigations of these crimes? Then consider the company you're keeping. The police who wouldn't investigate crimes against blacks in the South. The state that wouldn't protect the rights of Jews in Nazi Germany. The right to security of person and property goes both ways. You don't give it, you don't get it.
Next Steps (Score:3)
How about:
ALL gasoline, diesel, coal, and ethanol powered vehicles of any sort? They aren't as bad as those terrible SUVs but they do pollute the environment!
Why stop at vehicles? We certainly can't use any fossil fuels for generating electricity! Think of the pollution!
After that we'll take on nuclear power: musn't forget the eco-lessons of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl!
Next I nominate commercial farming. Who needs food, anyway?
Last, but certainly not least, we have to stop the spread of entropy! If we don't, the universe will certainly die of it!!! Sure, this means completely obliterating life as we know it -- as well as most of the rest of the contents of the universe -- but the end certainly justifies the means, right?
--john
Terrorism's place in Politics (Score:5)
1. Terrorism has one, and only one effective place in revolutionary history. Terrorism is a very effective way to dissuade a colonial pover from maintaining its commercial operations in your country. However, all attempts to use terrorism against domestic authority result instead in a backlash against the terrorists; there has been no occasion, historically, where this has not been true. In fact, this principle is so effective that from 1970-72 the FBI's COINTELPRO branch used it to destroy the Black Panthers, simply by having undercover agents urge them on to more and more outrageous acts (more about this later).
Thus, whatever you feel about the goals of the "eco-terrorists", their methods will, if anything, cause the opposite of the desired reaction. Non-violence is not just ethical; it's essential for survival.
2. In all probablity, some of the "eco-terrorists" are CIA operatives *posing* as radical environmentalists in order to inspire a counter-reaction. Think about whose father remains the de-facto "old man" of the CIA, and which U.S. executive officer is currently have a lot of trouble with environmentalists in Congress.
You may be ready to dismiss this as "conspiracy theories", but it's not far-feteched at all. When I was a member of a certian radical environmental organization ('scuse the vagueness, this could still lead to legal trouble for me) we decided the best way to stop a certain factory operation was to unionize the factory workers. Two undercover FBI agents in our organization (as it turned out) used the organizing effort to sneak into the factory and sabotage the equipment, against organizational policy. The result nearly killed some of the workers and the unionization effort broke up
-Josh
2001 Excursion, 1997 Accord, which pollutes more? (Score:4)
I'm somewhat biased, as my life was saved by our suburban when a drunk driver smashed into the back of us at 55mph (It also saved the lives of the five teenagers in the Hyundai Excel in front of us). Personally I prefer full-size pickups myself, but I can entirely understand the reasons people buy SUVs. No I don't need one, but I also don't "need" a 15k RPM hard drive and a gig of RAM.
Is torching an SUV dealership justifiable? Michael, are you a complete moron? Could someone please add a checkbox to slashcode to filter out articles that are complete RADICAL left-wing bullshit? Some of us here are just programmers who want to hear about the latest technology... and I can't readily filter out articles related to "Science" to obtain this!
--
"Are these sorts of actions justifiable?" (Score:4)
No.
"Is it right to destroy property in an effort to prevent this sort of gambling with our quality of life?"
No.
"Is that the most productive way to deal with bio-engineering risks?"
No.
Problem solved.
Re: Overly broad accusations (Score:3)
"environmentalists are ... nihilists" environmentalists are the furthest thing from nihilists. We believe that mankind has a future, and the best way to assure that is to moderate our consumption to stay in line with our ability to produce. We're working to provide for our children. Who are you working for?
"Environmentalism is *not* a science." Of course it isn't. It is a political movement, backed by *everything* science has told us over the last 50 years about sustaining humanity's future.
I won't even get into your absurd attempts at psychoanalysis. Please put down the Ayn Rand (a religion if ever there was one) and grow up.
Re:No, it's not (Score:3)
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes (Score:3)
where is the method to collect money from the SUVs internal-combustion-engine for the *POLLUTION* it causes.
The problem with free-market economics vs. Environment is that the capitalists are *NOT* paying for the destruction, there should be a mechanism where the economic system takes these into account. Until there is - your argument is moot, becaues you adovate the needless, selfless destruction of something that you do not own, and argue that the economics are the only relevant issue. Frankly, the economics are broken and unhealthy. This is another point where capitalism fails as a way to organize our affairs.
Necessity is in the eye of the beholder... (Score:3)
Yeah, I drive a big SUV. A 3/4 ton, 4x4, 1985 Chevy Suburban, to be precise. Big honkin' truck... and I live in an urban area, so I guess I'm scum, right, michael?
Of course, you might want to know why I own such a truck, before you set fire to it or slash my tires.
When I bought the truck (used; think of it as recycling), I was living in Colorado's San Juan mountains. My wife was an EMT and Red Cross manager in a small mountain town 50 miles from the nearest hospital; I helped out search & rescue when some urban nitwit got lost in the wilderness. A big truck was a necessity, not an ego trip...
Now I live in the Tampa-St. Pete area of Florida -- quite a change, from mountain wilderness to seaside retirement mecca. A good job brought me down here -- and I'm still driving the big truck. Why?
Well, my wife continues her Red Cross work -- we often have supplies to move, or people to haul. And in the event of a hurricane, my fully-loaded medical kit, big winch, and four-wheel drive might just save someone's butt or property.
As for the environment -- well, let's just say I've got plenty of scars to prove my devotion to mother earth. Who set you (or the Earth Liberation Front) up as gods to determine who is being morally correct or not? Maybe the owners of that SUV dealership are scum -- or maybe they're damned fine citizens who work hard to make the world better.
We have a society of law, michael. I'm sure you appreciate such laws when they keep numb-nut right wingers from slaughtering gays, or when copyright protects some precious piece of "free" software. But you're perfectly willing to break the laws that protected you when a moral high horse takes you for a ride...
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Re:Stupidity is Self Curing (Score:5)
I am extremely disappointed with how environmental groups have handled the whole "GMO" (a term I hate as it encourages the notion that a Holstein cow or a iceberg lettuce is a naturally occurring, "unmodified" creature) thing. Sure, care needs to be taken. Arguably a lot more care needs to be taken. But environmentalists have jumped on this bandwagon because it's an easy way to frighten donors and activists, without the slightest regard for the facts. Even responsible groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have gone for emotion over reason.
I'm a long-time Sierra Club member and put in some time trying to correct some basic misunderstanding on the part of the anti-GMO project leader. She wrote me some courteous responses but ultimately had nothing to say beyond some nonsense about how everyone should eat "natural" foods.
The real tragedy is that the alternative to insect-resistant potatoes isn't that people are going to start eating acorns and grass. They're going to keep eating food that's been drenched in pesticides, fertilizers and hormones, much of which winds in rivers and oceans. We'll have missed the chance to make the world cleaner and safer and the guilt will be on the heads of the activists who couldn't be troubled to educate themselves and their leaders who knew better but decided to attack a convenient boogeyman instead of addressing the real problem.
By the way, the appeal of casually destroying other people's work is indicative of how overrun Slashdot has become by people who have never created anything useful in their lives, but base their self-esteem on how much they can claim other people owe them. No one who has genuinely invested his or her life in creating -- art, software, a business, knowledge -- could be so blase about saying "Well, I think this is bad so I'm going to destroy it."
I'd question how this all fits in with Michael's smarmy "anti-censorship" views but, at this point, the utter hypocracy of Slashdot editors is so self-evident it hardly bears mention.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Hmmm... (Score:4)
Hmmm... No.
Anything else I can help clear up?
---
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes (Score:5)
Re:Well... (Score:4)
Your parents didn't get approval to have you share the planet with me. May I kill you? Why should I care what they, or you, think of my "personal actions".
Environmentalist wackos ... (Score:5)
The environmental damage from the burning of the dealership is just the thing they are trying to prevent. Funny that they don't seem to recognize that.
The only thing that helps is taxes (Score:3)
These actions are justifyable from a moral standpoint. When the established government is commiting crimes, the only way to respond to that is overthrowing the government (something that could take 100's of years through democracy, and even then it's not guarenteed success. If lets say the green party got the next president, I find it very likely that the armed forces in cohort with the corporations would arrange a coup d'etat.)
The other way is civil disobedience. That's how the civil rights movement won in the 60's. Now, 40 years after, I am sure most people agree that the civil rights movement did the right thing. If they had obeyed the government, U.S would still have been an apartheid state.
Getting rid of the SUV's could be done really easily: Introduce extra taxes for vehicles with bas gas milage. And on top of that, have taxes on gasoline. We know from experience that increasing the proce of gas will steer consumers towards more efficient cars. That's how the U.S. car industry almost died in the 70s and 80s. Many countries have extreme gas taxation. The consumers complain, but it works. Fewer cars are on the road, and the cars are smaller. The only way to speak to consumers, is through the wallet.
Unfortunately there is absolutely NO political will to get these taxes in place. I'd alomst be tempted to have U.N. collect these taxes, because the environmental damages are not constrained to the habitat of the perpetrators. If you want to play environmental pig, you have to pay the price.
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes (Score:3)
Of course I've thought of that, otherwise I wouldn't bother mention taxes. Family incomes are so high that current price of SUVs and gas is not a deterrent. By adding taxes on top of that, people would think twice before they signed up for an S.U.V. Gas prices in U.S are shamefully low compared to people's income. When someone drives 50 miles each way for their commute, alone, in a 3 ton truck, something is not right.
Torched SUV Dealership (Score:4)
Stupidity is Self Curing (Score:5)