Thursday, July 19, 2007
Warmies Getting Violent
Via Sister Toldjah
On a narrow, leafy street in Northwest Washington, where Prius hybrid cars and Volvos are the norm, one man bought a flashy gray Hummer that was too massive to fit in his garage.
So he parked the seven-foot-tall behemoth on the street in front of his house and smiled politely when his eco-friendly neighbors looked on in disapproval at his “dream car.”
It lasted five days on the street before two masked men took a bat to every window, a knife to each 38-inch tire and scratched into the body: “FOR THE ENVIRON.”
“The thought of somebody vandalizing it never crossed my mind,” said Gareth Groves, 32, who lives with his mother in a three-story home in the 4300 block of Brandywine Street NW in American University Park. “I’ve kind of been in shock.”
Now, as Groves ponders what to do with the remains of his $38,000 SUV, he has been the target of a number of people who have driven by the crime scene in his upscale neighborhood and glared at him in smug satisfaction.
“I’d say one in five people who come by have that ‘you-got-what-you-deserve’ look,” said his friend Andy Sexton, 27, who is visiting from Arkansas and has been helping Groves deal with fallout from the crime.
Brian at IowaVoice comments...
Not to throw around the word “terrorism” lightly, but this is, basically, what it is: violence in order to further a political agenda. Someone in the article used the word “hate-crime”. Well, in a normal world where all things are equal, it would be. I mean, if they had done this to his truck and wrote some kind of racial or gay slur on it, then liberals everywhere would be howling for justice, no matter what kind of vehicle it was. But since it was an attack on an SUV, and not some minority, and because it was an attack for the environment, then that’s perfectly ok. Don’t forget the fact that to liberals hate-crimes can only be against minorities like gays or blacks, not against anyone else. And it certainly can’t be against any of their pet causes, either. Even though hate was clearly at play here, it is a non-factor to them, because it is something that they, at their core, believe in.
Question....what is " consumer excess "
That is a ridiculous term.
On a narrow, leafy street in Northwest Washington, where Prius hybrid cars and Volvos are the norm, one man bought a flashy gray Hummer that was too massive to fit in his garage.
So he parked the seven-foot-tall behemoth on the street in front of his house and smiled politely when his eco-friendly neighbors looked on in disapproval at his “dream car.”
It lasted five days on the street before two masked men took a bat to every window, a knife to each 38-inch tire and scratched into the body: “FOR THE ENVIRON.”
“The thought of somebody vandalizing it never crossed my mind,” said Gareth Groves, 32, who lives with his mother in a three-story home in the 4300 block of Brandywine Street NW in American University Park. “I’ve kind of been in shock.”
Now, as Groves ponders what to do with the remains of his $38,000 SUV, he has been the target of a number of people who have driven by the crime scene in his upscale neighborhood and glared at him in smug satisfaction.
“I’d say one in five people who come by have that ‘you-got-what-you-deserve’ look,” said his friend Andy Sexton, 27, who is visiting from Arkansas and has been helping Groves deal with fallout from the crime.
Brian at IowaVoice comments...
Not to throw around the word “terrorism” lightly, but this is, basically, what it is: violence in order to further a political agenda. Someone in the article used the word “hate-crime”. Well, in a normal world where all things are equal, it would be. I mean, if they had done this to his truck and wrote some kind of racial or gay slur on it, then liberals everywhere would be howling for justice, no matter what kind of vehicle it was. But since it was an attack on an SUV, and not some minority, and because it was an attack for the environment, then that’s perfectly ok. Don’t forget the fact that to liberals hate-crimes can only be against minorities like gays or blacks, not against anyone else. And it certainly can’t be against any of their pet causes, either. Even though hate was clearly at play here, it is a non-factor to them, because it is something that they, at their core, believe in.
Question....what is " consumer excess "
That is a ridiculous term.
Labels: Global Warming Hoax, Hummer
# posted by Mark Dunn @ 8:15 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Not to throw around the word “terrorism” lightly, but this is, basically, what it is: violence in order to further a political agenda.
If you agree with that definition, then the United States are the number one exporters of terrorism in the world.
You might want to rethink that definition (or refrain from copy-and-pasting such nonsense).
If you agree with that definition, then the United States are the number one exporters of terrorism in the world.
You might want to rethink that definition (or refrain from copy-and-pasting such nonsense).
Mark,
Have you ever read David Quammen? He is an expert on extinctions. Try "Planet of Weeds." It's 20pp long and available on line.
I disagree Doug. Whereas consumerism drives the economy, consmer excess does not necessarily do so, unless you define excess and consumerism beyond that required to purchase bare bones necessities.
Have you ever read David Quammen? He is an expert on extinctions. Try "Planet of Weeds." It's 20pp long and available on line.
I disagree Doug. Whereas consumerism drives the economy, consmer excess does not necessarily do so, unless you define excess and consumerism beyond that required to purchase bare bones necessities.
# posted by 
: 9:47 AM
: 9:47 AM
Mike, part of the definition of terrorism is it's used by a non-governmental organization. Governments don't use terrorism--they wage war through a variety of methods. You were not making a moral equivalence, were you?
No, no moral judgments here whatsoever. I was just going after the definition.
So what you are saying is that if individuals use violence (or damage property.. is it violence if no one gets hurt? I thought that was called vandalism. I guess when I spray painted the school with "F**k the police, that made me a terrorist. Who knew?) to further a political agenda they are terrorists. When militias do the same, they are "freedom fighters" and when governments do it they are "humanitarians".
Ok, got it now. Mark should be more clear about these things. Some of us aren't as intelligent and need to be pointed carefully to these truths.
So what you are saying is that if individuals use violence (or damage property.. is it violence if no one gets hurt? I thought that was called vandalism. I guess when I spray painted the school with "F**k the police, that made me a terrorist. Who knew?) to further a political agenda they are terrorists. When militias do the same, they are "freedom fighters" and when governments do it they are "humanitarians".
Ok, got it now. Mark should be more clear about these things. Some of us aren't as intelligent and need to be pointed carefully to these truths.
Mike ( Prag )...to the letter of the definition of terrorism is correct, that IOWA voice used. One could glean this as a terrorist act, but it most CERTAINLY is vandalism, and thankfully that's all it is / was. Good thing he doesn't live on the same block with members of ELF....or does he ?......but I think that's why Iowa voice gave the disclaimer. "Not to throw around the word “terrorism” lightly, " As far as you being not intelligent enough....that's different than being obtuse.
Enviro assholes vandalized his Hummer......did he just need to be in it, for you to consider it to be at least a little "terrorist like " ?
Tony, thanks for the heads up.....you wanna email me a link ?
Enviro assholes vandalized his Hummer......did he just need to be in it, for you to consider it to be at least a little "terrorist like " ?
Tony, thanks for the heads up.....you wanna email me a link ?
Mike, what was your political agenda when you got out your spray paint? Not your normal teen desire to act out, a political agenda. I'd stick with vandal for you. Tough to imagine that as a terrorist act.
Mark: ".......I meant the usage of it as a derisive term, in a capitalist economy."
So did I, though in an ironic way.
Mark: "Got your iphone yet ?"
Apple is brilliant at making things that are very good at tasks I don't actually want done, for a price I'm unwilling to pay. (That's to say, "Nope.")
Tony: "I disagree Doug. Whereas consumerism drives the economy, consmer excess does not necessarily do so, unless you define excess and consumerism beyond that required to purchase bare bones necessities."
Any other definition is both arbitrary and stupid (rather than just stupid). Although, if you could point me to the manual that defines the line between consumer excess and consumerism, I suppose I might be persuaded to change my mind -- nah.
The fact that I think a purchase is a bad idea (see also: iPhone) says nothing about its value to the person who spends the money. Presumably that person values the (whatever) more than he does the money, which makes the purchase rational for him.
Am I convinced that I could do a better job of being a member of the idle rich than (arbitrarily chosen wastrel)? Of course; who among us isn't?
Should that give me the right to make decisions for said wastrel, even when I really find him a distasteful jerk? Not just no, but hell no.
So did I, though in an ironic way.
Mark: "Got your iphone yet ?"
Apple is brilliant at making things that are very good at tasks I don't actually want done, for a price I'm unwilling to pay. (That's to say, "Nope.")
Tony: "I disagree Doug. Whereas consumerism drives the economy, consmer excess does not necessarily do so, unless you define excess and consumerism beyond that required to purchase bare bones necessities."
Any other definition is both arbitrary and stupid (rather than just stupid). Although, if you could point me to the manual that defines the line between consumer excess and consumerism, I suppose I might be persuaded to change my mind -- nah.
The fact that I think a purchase is a bad idea (see also: iPhone) says nothing about its value to the person who spends the money. Presumably that person values the (whatever) more than he does the money, which makes the purchase rational for him.
Am I convinced that I could do a better job of being a member of the idle rich than (arbitrarily chosen wastrel)? Of course; who among us isn't?
Should that give me the right to make decisions for said wastrel, even when I really find him a distasteful jerk? Not just no, but hell no.
Mark,
I think it is a bit strange to say, "not to throw around the term lightly..." and then follow that with a light throwing around of the definition. It reminds me of people who say, "I'm not a racist, but...." which is invariably followed by a racist comment.
It sounds like these misguided people are very much like ELF. Had they been neighbors, I suppose he would have had more property destroyed. Had the guy been in the car, he would have been the victim of violent crime. But terrorism is just going too far. You cheapen the word by using it this way.
If that is terrorism, then the kids who smash McDonalds' windows during G8 summits are terrorists. I just don't think they should be put in the same category as people who blow themselves up so as to kill innocent people. Apples and oranges.
Roger,
My political agenda was to transform my small town away from being a semi-fascist enclave. My actions were about as effective to that end as these misguided folks who think smashing up a Hummer is going to prevent global warming.
I think it is a bit strange to say, "not to throw around the term lightly..." and then follow that with a light throwing around of the definition. It reminds me of people who say, "I'm not a racist, but...." which is invariably followed by a racist comment.
It sounds like these misguided people are very much like ELF. Had they been neighbors, I suppose he would have had more property destroyed. Had the guy been in the car, he would have been the victim of violent crime. But terrorism is just going too far. You cheapen the word by using it this way.
If that is terrorism, then the kids who smash McDonalds' windows during G8 summits are terrorists. I just don't think they should be put in the same category as people who blow themselves up so as to kill innocent people. Apples and oranges.
Roger,
My political agenda was to transform my small town away from being a semi-fascist enclave. My actions were about as effective to that end as these misguided folks who think smashing up a Hummer is going to prevent global warming.
I live in Virginia and caught this on the local news show the other night. Either there was a pre-existing case of bad blood between this guy and his neighbors, or his neighborhood is seriously infested with moonbats (not outside the realm of possibility in No. VA).
One "lady" the newsie interviewed basically said it served him right...he should have bought a smaller, less ostentatious vehicle.
One "lady" the newsie interviewed basically said it served him right...he should have bought a smaller, less ostentatious vehicle.
Doug you were the one who said consumer excess is the engine thst drives the economy. just so long as you were speaking in economic rather than moral terms. Oh yeah, I can't recall you making an moral judgments. That way leads to secular humanism.
Mark: The article appeared in Harper's Magazine in 1998 but the easiest site from which to download it is www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/weedplan/html
Mark: The article appeared in Harper's Magazine in 1998 but the easiest site from which to download it is www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/weedplan/html
# posted by : 10:50 AM
: 10:50 AM
Tony: Sorry, I should have used sneer quotes in my initial comment. My point was to explicitly claim ethical (moral?) equivalence between "consumerism" and "consumer excess". Perhaps that didn't come across. (Lest I be misunderstood, I consider both to be broadly good things.)
"Oh yeah, I can't recall you making an moral judgments. That way leads to secular humanism."
You lost me completely there. Was that intended as sarcasm? Also, the first sentence seems in quite a bit of tension with the second sentence. I'm afraid I'm not willing to attempt to respond to every possible interpretation of that, but if you wish to make your point more directly, I'll probably take a swing.
Post a Comment
"Oh yeah, I can't recall you making an moral judgments. That way leads to secular humanism."
You lost me completely there. Was that intended as sarcasm? Also, the first sentence seems in quite a bit of tension with the second sentence. I'm afraid I'm not willing to attempt to respond to every possible interpretation of that, but if you wish to make your point more directly, I'll probably take a swing.
<< Home
