Slashdot Mirror
Eco-Terrorism
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?
It's called _terrorism_ for a reason!
isn't that an anacronism:
one us good Kantian folks .
actually, if you read Kant's works, you'll find his doctrines to be the basis of the relativistic, justificational thought that is used by these radicals to permit their acts.
Bullshit.
:-P *
Violence is never justifiable when there are other avenues that can be taken. If you don't like the pollution caused by SUV's
1. Don't buy one. If enough people stop purchasing these the auto companies will stop producing them.
2. Invest your money in promoting cleaner alternatives. They are being developed as we speak and instead of spending the money on the materials to torch the dealership they could have donated the money to a respectable lobby group or scientific reseach (fuel cells anyone?)
3. Write your representatives and lobby for cleaner air laws and tighter restrictions on pollution. If enough people do that the representatives will eventually bow under the pressure (they do want to be re-elected).
4. Don't support companies that have poor environmental track records. And write them with the reasons why you refuse to support them.
Those are just a couple ideas off the top of my head. There are many more things that one can do. True change will come when enough people demand it (and the technology is ready). Promoting violence will only cause you to lose the support of the people you need the most.
*hopfully my ramblings are not too chaotic. I need more sleep
Uh, it's rice, not corn, and it's Vitamin A, not K, and it's not a vitamin, but a pro-vitamin called beta-carotene, which is split in the gut into to two molecules of vitamin A. A large part of this 'golden rice' hype is just that. First, one must eat several pounds of it each day for the level of beta-carotene to be therapeutic. Second, beta-carotene is only convertible in a person who is not deficient in fat and protein, in which case they're most likely not deficient in beta-carotene either. Third, there are other natural sources of beta-carotene that are available, and do not come with cumbersome patents. The propaganda around golden rice is largely designed to make us accepting of GMO's. At present, the benefits do not outweigh the risks, since the the risks are unknown. We are too new to this technology. But our good ol' FDA thinks that a) if you can't prove it's bad, then it's good, and b) you don't even have a right to know if what you're eating is transgenic. I'm totally against GMO's, but I am against corporations shoving them down our throats (hey! a metaphor that's not metaphorical!) with impunity. OK, so no known allergic reactions happened because of the star-link corn mess, but they have happened because of transgenic soy (transplanted brazil nut genes) which constitues 60 percent of the soy grown in the U.S. But is it labeled? No. Why? Because the FDA is populated by ex- and future Monsanto (et. al.) employees, and because congress is funded by current Monsanto (et. al.) employees. (and so on ad infinitum ad naseum)
Just like those american independentist wackos. Dumping tea into boston harbour is counter productive and will only force those people who imported the tea to side with the british government who will simply import more tea and tax them on it AGAIN. What a crazy bunch of idiots they were!
The US earth liberation front should execute actions against the scumbag who run these companies and the doctors who do unspeakable experiments with animals.
The UK Animal Liberation Front once carbombed a vivisectionist, sadly the bastard didn't die but some child playing next to the car did get killed. I hope that doctor is pleased with himself knowing that not only he caused inhumane suffering to animals but he also has the blood of a child on his hands. He should have died in that car.
It may not be right in the eyes who toe the bosses party line but when your backs are against the wall and all your other options are wasted then the only choice you have is to fight or to quit. And nature can't survive letting the scum win.
First of all, nobody is trying to punish you for using a work vehicle in rural conditions. The law was designed for people like you, not the white asshole idling in freeway traffic in his Navigator.
Second, your quant rural saying doesn't work so well when there is lots of shared resources to contend with, such as in urban areas.
I'm tired of all these wackos-with-a-cause that insist on pushing their misguided beliefs on everyone else. My response to any of these tactics is to totally counteract it by making it my mission in life to mess up the environment. Yeah it's stupid, yeah it's childish but I don't care. If I find my tires slashed on my SUV I'll head on down to the local auto shop, buy a few cases of motor oil, then proceed to dump them into the ocean. I'll also take up hunting, just for the hell of it, take out a bunch of deer. Maybe I'll set fire to some old tires I have in my garage. If you want to protest something, fine. Just don't drag me into it or I'll make the environment PAY!
Another refresher, back in the 60's some people thought that blacks shouldn't have rights, they got together and killed a bunch of them and any white "nigger lovers" as well, so what makes them anyless right then your hero? only the fact that you agree with his position.
Now, I'll give you the first half of your message. GMO is misunderstood, and all that. Fine. But... gawd... Start Quote: 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." End Quote. I have, in my life, been a metal artist (sculptor, not guitarist), a programmer for several companies you'd have heard of, a writer (only two things published, but...), and a professional musician. I don't know anything about you. But clearly you are one of those fun people who thinks that anyone who has a different opinion than you have is *obviously* worthless as a person. *I* happen to think that, if one set of people is destroying something irreplacable that does not in fact belong to them, and there is no legal way to force them to stop, then it'd be a damn good idea to explore the illegal ways. Sadly, frankly, so few people in this country have the guts to do so that... Let me give you an example. I lived near a 60 x 20 mile patch of wildnerness. It was owned by the state, and was prime real estate that was supposed to be set aside for a state park in the future. However, there was this loophole, where when parts of the land burned down, that land could be sold off to developers (at an extremely low price, of course). The land was slowly burning down... a few hundred acres a year. Cigarette butts, camp fires, 'mysterious' arsonists (or an 'accident' involving gasoline-soaked rags... in the middle of the forest). Everyone knew who was responsible. The government couldn't be bothered doing anything about it. A group set up camp in strategic places one fire season to see if they could catch anybody, and was kicked off the land for trespassing. An 'anonymous tip' was phoned in. The land will end up completely developed. Irreplacable ecosystems on public lands will be gone forever, as well as a species or two, I'm sure. But, of course, the personal property rights of the business owners who start the fires are ever-so-much more important than the ecosystem anyway. Clearly. As for 'how overrun Slashdot has become' by the people you talk about can be illustrated by looking at the top level of the responses to the post. TWO out of how many? A hundred? TWO said that yes, it was justified. The rest all said either 'No, environmentalism is fine as long as it doesn't bother business' or 'All environmentalists should be jailed' (or eaten by jaguars or radio-collared or whatever). Where's the man with the balls? Him. I'll talk to him. (And if you don't like it that I post AC, well, DON'T READ IT.)
These are the people that are causing millions to starve in Africa *right now*. Through their more respected environmental groups, they put pressure on the Rockefellar and Ford foundations to stop financing the activities of Normal Borlaug. Borlaug is a nobel peace prize winner for his part in the green revolution. Basically he introduced high yield agriculture to India and Pakistan and practically saved hundreds of millions of lives in the 60's (this was in an atmosphere where pop biologists were saying we were all going to starve). He doubled and trippled yields of certain crops in those countries and brought them to self-sufficiency. He wanted to bring the same techniques to Africa, however the foundations that were supporting him (including the 'evil' WTO) bowed to pressure from eco-nazis. The eco-nazis basically made incoherrent arguments about how high-yield agriculture was bad for the environment (compare to slash-and-burn farming, the laternative, it isn't). Luckily, Jimmy Carter and a Japenese entrepenuer have taken up the cause to fund his work. This man is literally the greatest American nobel peace prize winner, and how many people know his name? I'll let you guess why. See http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jan/borlaug/sp eech.htm for more.
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.
I am writing to you today to warn you of a serious ecological threat posed by Microsoft. I have proof that at Microsoft headquarters in Redmond, WA, they are secretly growing genetically altered clones of Jon Katz in their PC's.
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
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)
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
That is a very interesting point. To what extent do multinational corporations resemble colonial powers maintaining commercial operations in your country? Plainly there are some cases where this is not relevant, but I've seen plenty of instances where the resemblance is striking. For instance, McDonalds in France, India etc.
Only on Slashdot would this even be a question...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by Kewlhandtek:
it's refreshing to see that our youth isnt buying in to the whore bag's beliefs , man keep kicking them in the nuts, and kick them again for me
Posted by Kewlhandtek:
technology usely helps out nature. If it werent for technology we would be beating our clothes on rocks in rivers to clean them. And we would be shitting and pissing in those same rivers. And as computer use is more accepted we can use less paper HELL IM SICK OF these damn FAXEs get a freaking computer
Posted by polar_bear:
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.
Posted by polar_bear:
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?
Amen! I was thinking about getting an SUV a couple of years ago until I just sat down and read up on them. Like you said, they're basically just a station wagon on a pickup truck frame. Why the heck would I want to drive around in a station wagon? I'd rather just get a mini-van if I really needed to hall my family around. How many mountains and boulders do you have to climb over on the way from the average suburban home to the mall? ;-) In retrospect I'm glad I decided to just stick with a nice big car. Tons of room and still gets twice as many miles to the gallon that the average SUV does.
Is this suprising? During the Clinton administration we had to worry about those crazy "right wing" militias who wanted to blow up abortion clinics and overthrow the government. Now we have the crazy eco-terrorists running around blowing up SUV's and spray painting mink coats showing up in the news again. The media always concentrates on whatever group stands to raise the most interest with the present administration. All of these morons have always been out there, but Clinton wasn't likely to crack down on environment-nuts anymore than Bush is likely to crack down on gun nuts. So where does that leave the press but to rub a little salt in the wounds to stir up some news? William Randolph Hearst is attributed with saying "You supply the pictures and I'll supply the war." I think it fitting to know that the press hasn't changed much in the last century.
Like the subject says, arson is violence. In fact, asron is one of the most dangerous acts one can perform in an urban area.
Busting a window at a Starbucks or spray painting "ELF Rulz" on logging equipment is vandalism. Mass arson is violence.
Why is it OK for Ford to make those beasts?
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.
Why should it be illegal to make them?
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.
Just don't complain when we put a $10/gallon tax on gas, to reflect the damage you cause to the environment by burning it. Or how about a tax on your massive vehicle for the increased damage it does to the roads you drive on?
This is about paying for the true costs of your actions.
"Ditch the car, commute by bike until you're good at it"
:((
Amen, brother.
Today I came late to work because I used a taxi instead of my bike
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
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.
You're both asking a much deeper question than just "was John Brown right". The real question is, does the end ever justify the means? And to be honest, I don't really have a good answer for or against. Love your neighbor, love the Increate---that's pretty much the only ethical foundation most of us have, and it's not enough to answer this question.
Rev. Dr. Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated, KSC, DEATH, SubGenius, mhm21x16
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
IMHO there's absolutely no reason to buy one.
Well, I have an old one to drive when it's really stormy, there's torrential rain, wind is knocking down tree parts and I don't want to risk my expensive toys - good enough for you? And it's just the thing to tow a boat, if I can ever afford one.
Unquestionably most of the people driving them should be in station-wagons instead, but to say there's no reason at all is sort of silly.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
I don't LIKE pickups. I like to be able to get to the back without going outside and opening the cap. And what's the big diff. between a full-size pickup and an SUV?
What about my '68 Caddy, do I have to get rid of that too because some ****ing eco-terrorist has decided it's evil? What if I don't even drive it, just sit in it drinking beer while listening to the 8-track in the garage? Will they take that into account before torching it?
Is a Porsche OK because it gets good mileage, or evil because you want to take it out on long drives to nowhere? Where does it stop?
Here's the deal: you don't get to destroy other peoples property. Period.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Well, we're getting tired of the "have-nots" dictating to the rest of us what is and isn't fair, and using a government that we finance as an mechanism for preventing us from living the lives we choose.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
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.
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.)
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.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
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.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
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.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
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.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
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.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
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.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
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.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
You have every right to buy as much safety and/or luxury as you can afford, and I would encourage you to do so.
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?
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
They use something else that works just a well, but without killing the ozone.
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.
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"?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I've always like the idea of making bumper stickers that say "SUVs waste more energy than leaving your refrigerator open for 6 years"[1] and going to the mall parking lot and applying them to SUVs.
r ep ort/
[1]:http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/suv
--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
Exactly which -isms is this to be acceptable for and which not?
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
there's plenty of ZPG going on in Africa thanks to AIDS, civil wars, famine and lots of other diseases/problems. Does that make you happy?
---
broadband internet also uses much more energy than regular bandwith. Here's the deal: we'll tax SUV's plus broadband internet connection (or any connections left all the time 24/7) oh I can hear it coming "I don't have an SUV but don't you lay a finger on my internet!" Figures
---
Maybe they were listed right next to each other in the Yellow Pages.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Well said, hobo. Here is a wonderful book that pokes fun (and common sense) at the many "fashionable worries" of our day.
--
1) Actually if you read the studies SUVs are LESS safe for occupants that mid and large size "cars." The ONLY circustance where SUVs do better is when they're involved with a collision with a significantly smaller vehicle. However SUVs have very poor handling, poor stopping power, and tend to roll over very easily. SUV are actually LESS safe.
2) Most SUVs are ironically quite small on the inside compared mini-vans. If you want utility buy a mini-van.
...when the only pollution was dinosaur flatulence
:)
Thank you for that. As silly as it was, that comment caused the first genuine laugh I have had in a long time
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?? :)
The classic image of vigilantes involves ravening hordes of ignorant southerners intent on lynching some poor innocent for the crime of offending local sensibilities. However, history tells us that this is not the case.
Yea, when they do it in the north, it's a bunch of ignorant yankees intent on lynching some poor innocent for the crime of offending local sensibilities.
Just because your north of the Mason-Dixon line dosen't make it right.
--fatboy
Since should you determine what I should drive? Hmm?
Um, hello? One of these right-wing terrorists blew up a building with hundreds of people in it! Have you heard of any eco-terrorists doing that?
Yes, they were a bunch of idiots. Not sure why they bothered dressing up like indians either. I'm flippantly guessing didn't want to get caught and held responsible for their actions, and that it was probably a sort of "screw the man" kind of tactic. Now we think it's patriotic, which is ok; most patriotic things don't make much sense.
In case you didn't notice, their american spawn by and large don't have too much in their heads either. (Not that we're worse than anybody else.) Yes I am an american. Please commence the insulting jokes.
My "rice rocket" has 200 000km on it as of this month. It's a 1991 Nissan NX 1600 t-top.
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...)
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
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.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
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!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Close. I'm not picking on you, but this is funny enough to me to post the complete lyrics:
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!
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).
Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
"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."
George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.
James Ray Kenney mailto:jrkenney@swbell.net
I know what you mean. I had a Toyota Corona that I took EVERYWHERE. :-) , but it IS fun to remember the old days when we actually got out and did thing besides fool around with computers all day!
Drove it into the woods to pull a friend's pickup truck(or Jimmy...it has been over 10 years) out of a ditch.
Raced a Mustang SVO down the local 'mudding' road. You have to AVOID the rutts because they are MUCH deeper than the clearance of a car. I ended up using this ~90HP car to pull a jacked up 3/4 ton pickup truck out of the mud! The driver seemed a bit embarassed. Took a while but finally managed to jerk the truck far enough for the wheels to be usefull(it was down to the axel(a tip: when you get stuck in DEEP wet mud, DO NOT spin you tires and dig in so far that the tires are just pushing aganst a vertical wall of mud, and can not get anywhere,)) and it was able to get traction. Another tip: when in a rear wheel drive car(never drove my 4wd in the mud(irony,) NEVER slow down if it is at all possible(and safe,) and if you see a realy wet part comming up the only thing you can do(short of stopping,) is to speed up so that you can hydrofoil/slide across before you sink. We use to have a lot of fun doing things like this(and running up outrageous compuserve bills playing online games at 300baud(at 300 baud and bps were the same thing, before I get flamed, because I DO know the difference.) I was very sad when they put a BIG metal gate up and blocked the road(it had been abandoned YEARS earler when they stopped running the ferry that the road was built for.
Well...We have got realy offtopic this time
James Ray Kenney mailto:jrkenney@swbell.net
The one thing people seem to forget about haveing solar water heaters is the HUMAN cost.
They are ALMOST always mounted on the roof, and must be kept clean to work their best. They also require mantance.
Working on a roof is one of the most dangerous common thing that most people will ever do.
I saw some estimates of the death rate of having solor collectors on every roof, and the death rate was frightening.
If I remember correctly, it was based on the death rate of PROFESSIONAL roof workers, and you can bet that a lot of people would not hire someone to do something so SIMPLE as to clean their collector.
There are costs assocated with ALMOST everything, they are just not always obvious.
James Ray Kenney mailto:jrkenney@swbell.net
That's got to be the most over used statement in the "green" movement. Used to be nuclear war. Gee, I don't remember anyone saying that we have figured out a way to eliminate nukes, but global warming is the fund raiser du jour.
What will happen if the Earth gets warmer? The oceans may rise some, but not all at once. People are mobile, they can move inland. A warmer Earth also means more precipitation which is a good thing (but I assume you knew that the increase in desert areas was directly related to the cooling of our planet over the past few centuries, right?).
The biggest threats humanity faces are the stupidity and gullibility of the population. Plenty of people would agree with that.
Since I think you're stupid, and therefore a contributor to what I consider the greatest threat facing all of us, do I have the right to burn your property and harass you until you agree with me?
And I'm sure that story (real or not) has been recounted by a million environment killing, seal slashing maven. The reality is that not all environmentalists are reasonable, logical, or rational, but the individual in no way degrades the whole. I respect someone willing to stand up for his beliefs much more than I respect someone who does what will get him $, justifying along the way.
I don't like SUVs in general, but there is ZERO rationale behind torching a dealership. Whoever would do this isn't an "environmentalist" by any measure of the imagination: Instead it's some whackos looking for something to make their life worth something (sort of like a lot of GPL zealots...). These people probably tossed up between suicide or doing something "extreme", and here we have the results.
This SUV is an ULEV (ultra-low emissions vehicle): It uses a large amount of gas (something like 10-14 mpg) compared to a modern sedan which would get from 24-50 mpg, however it's extremely clean in burning it. As such from a truly environmental perspective you'd be doing far more harm (presuming that consumption of a black liquid far below the Earth's surface isn't harmful : I personally don't believe it is) driving an older car with less comprehensive environmental systems. Hell I have debates with people because I think that most city bus systems are far more damaging to the environment than cars are: Often a large percentage of the buses are poorly maintained, black cloud spewing diesel monstrosities (I know this because as a recreational cyclist I avoid these things like the plague: Instant throat irritation) which are, apart from prime time, empty except for one or two individuals. So you have a giant beast spewing astronomically more pollution into the air, sucking huge quantities of fuel (these things are HEAVY), to carry one or two people around the majority of the day.
As I said in another post, I respect people who are truly trying to do good, and I think it's pathetic when people try to shoot them down just out of spite, however it is everyone's responsibility, whether animal rights crusader or environmentalist, to act reasonably and responsibly and to keep themselves informed. Knee-jerk reactions or extremism serve no one but the opposition.
I think you are missing the point entirely. Increases in engine efficiency, which everyone agrees are good, are not the issue here. The issue is that some Americans, to flaunt their wealth, decide to buy huge cars which they really don't need at all.
Oh really? So these SUV torchers are doing it to spite the flaunting of wealth?
If the ten or fifteen people who rode the bus to school every morning with me had to drive cars separately, that would be at least ten times the pollution. Moving things in bulk uses less resources, even if they are people. But I forgot: you probably live in a suburb a half hour or more away from any real urban area, where your car is a status symbol which you would not think of giving up.
At least 10x the pollution for 10 cars (many new ones of which are LEV or ULEV) versus a single monstrous diesel bus? Give me a break. I seriously doubt that 10 cars would produce even 1/2 the pollution of a single diesel bus (again this is based upon observation of nice black clouds coming from most diesel buses, coupled with some numbers I've read, such as that the average diesel city bus gets about 3 MPG. A Saturn SL gets about 50 MPG). Hey I'm all for good bulk carriers and mass transit systems, but the simplistic solution "ride the bus!" is hardly the environmentally correct decision in many cases. If, on the other hand, you live in a fairly smart town they might have natural gas, or hybrid buses, then that changes things considerably. Buses have never and will never be a solution because for most people don't have a bus stop in front of their house with a bus that happens to go directly to their work, so as such cars will remain a part of society. It's fantastic seeing the revolution of ultra low emission cars, and hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles. Hopefully we can get the average vehicle weight down signficantly.
Doubtful.
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 vehicle meets ULEV, and not the bogus super-monstrous vehicle category.
Remember Giordano Bruno as well as Galileo and Copernicus. He was incinerated because he wouldn't back down from the truth.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I'd like to see that evidence.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
How many households can afford the $20,000 to install the solar array? Oh, I forgot- energy use is for the rich. Install some on your house, and cut yourself off from the grid.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
God forbid anyone want to carry something in their car.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
The SUV that I often drive was gifted to my wife from my mother in law. I didn't buy it, yet I still don't have enough for solar panels. Strange. Wait, maybe if I renig on my student loans!
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...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
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...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
Since you seem well-informed, I have a few questions.
(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
----
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, and although it accelerated fine, it was noticably tippy on the corners. And I understand that's one of the better-handling SUVs.
D
----
The American people are pretty radical? We don't accept authority as proof for a claim?
... we consume it on a daily basis, whether we are omnivores or vegitarians, every cell in our bodies is constructed from materials taken from the destruction of other lifeforms.
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.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I'm one of the first (and probably loudest) to complain about the current intellectual property cartels and government enforced monopolies that threaten our free market system and, more importantly, our basic freedoms themselves. And while at some point revolution may be required to set things right, espousing such, much less persuing it in violent fashion, before every other nonviolent, legal means has been exhausted is just plain irresponsible and self-defeating.
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.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Well that's a strange analogy
These reduction of those things would have other added benefits too, like reduced traffic, less suburban sprawl, revitalizing urban areas/cities, etc.
The solution is pretty simple, raise gas prices with gas taxes. Europe's gas prices are not magical, they're entirely the result of taxes. It works remarkably well. For instance, placing various restrictions against SUVs may reduce the number of SUVs on the road, but the fact of the matter is that Americans will still burn a hell of a lot more fuel than they need to for a number of reasons. First, and probably even more significant than SUV consumption, is the fact that most Americans commute further than they need to to work and other places. Second, relatively few Americans use mass transit. Third, most Americans, including most so-called environments drive excessively wasteful cars of various sorts. From sports cars, to cars with more HP than it takes to get the job done, to those 20+ year old cars, to Cadillaces, and others. Fourth, many Americans drive simply because they like to drive, rather than taking the train, for instance, they'll drive. Fifth, American car companies have little incentive to develop and manufature highly efficient cars _today_ because Americans express little demand for it. Fifth, few Americans carpool and share rides.
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
The incident mentioned in the article was an act of vandelism, not terrorism.
I hear all these people saying that overpopulation is the root of all these problems, and they never give any reasons as to why. There's more than enough food to feed everybody. There's more than enough wood, metals, whatever for everybody to have nice houses and nice cars. There can be plenty of production to make all that; obviously! More people means more potential production. So, everybody could be rich. As far as environmental problems, if overpopulation is such a big problem, why is the USA at 270-some million people seen as the bogeyman, whereas China and India each with over a billion people seem to catch attention much less frequently? I simply don't buy it. What we need to make everybody's lives better is more brains and more people working to make it that way, not fewer.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
If you dislike the fact that I own an SUV and therefore slash my tires, that is wrong. If I dislike the fact that you're slashing my tires and rig it so you get a very unpleasant electric shock the next time you do it, that is not wrong. There's nothing circular about it.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
I just wantted to say that you've put it quite well and stated what I think many people believe.
Keep up the good work!
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Actually, the point of an SUV, at least for many people, is that on-road conditions often turn into off-road conditions. SUVs, with 4-wheel drive, handle much better on snow and ice than do 2-wheel drive sub-compact cars. I know, I've drived both and nearly died in the sub-compact many times as I've had to fight for control in conditions that the SUV didn't flinch in.
Oh, and my honda CRV gets between 25 and 30 mpg, which is better than some compact cars that I know. It's just a matter of which SUV you have. They're not all bad by any means, and they can be quite useful. Not to mention actually having cargo space comes in handy an awful lot.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
You are a god damned fucking idiot. My car gets 22 miles or so to the gallon but I still drive alot. I drive all over Southern California. Should I e-commute everywhere using up kilowatt hour after kilowatt hour which is generated using really fucking dirty coal power? Fuck you. It takes less energy (thus less fuel) to maass manufacture something and ship it three thousand miles than it does to have a bunch of small factories NOT running at peak operating efficiency. You've got to remember there is a matter of getting raw materials to places, if I have to get one rare element to a thousand small factories than one large one, I'm going to need alot more power. So shut the fuck up about buying locally produced shit.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
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.
I have often seen this sort of statement from people who consider themselves reasonable and responsible. Funny thing is, I have never seen any of these "responsible" people willing to assume liability for damages in case it is too late. Are you?
If so, sign here:
_______________________
Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. At heart, your argument ("but... but... what if...?") amounts to a demand that we all move back into the caves, just to be safe.
I am merely suggesting that the usual standards of civil liability should apply - if a judge decides there is a preponderance of evidence that your actions have caused damage then you should have to pay.
Terrorism, arson, and vandalism are wrong, no matter how much you believe in your cause. I hate SUVs and deforestation as much as the next guy, but violence is not a helpful or productive way to responsd to them.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Another example of you jumping to conclusions, I think. Just because they chose a (sort of) clever, catchy, media-friendly name for themselves while protesting genetically engineered grasses doesn't mean that they really are out there playing golf between bombing sprees. (duh)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Not really. Sometimes you have no realistic choice but to drive a vehicle; for example, in cities like Los Angeles, where there is no decent public transit, or when you are required to move equipment around that won't fit into the basket on your bicycle. But just because you have to drive doesn't mean you have to drag around 4 tons of dangerous gaz-guzzling dead weight with you every time you commute to the office; that's just mindless consumerism and yuppie stupidity.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Compare California's energy market before and after deregulation. Discuss.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
And here is the real tragedy of eco-terrorism: it makes the common man think that environmentalists are evil whackos, and discount all environmental concerns. It keeps him from lobbying for real environmental policy improvements. In the end, the terrorists may be responsible for more damage to the environment than SUVs ever did.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I'm actually commuting on a bicycle, thank you very much.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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=-
There is a danger of having a few companies controlling the seed market through their sterile seeds I think there would be a greater danger in having genetically engineered foodstuffs that can reproduce uncontrollably. If some new engineered seed doesn't work out (The people who create this stuff are careful but they are also human beings and fallable) then one can just stop making it, but if it can reproduce then we may end up with annother kudzu (Whoops, and that mistake didn't require any special whizzy technology).
People who believe that they know everything there is to know about genetics and can create with impunity are wrong, also people who belive that all genetic engineers are like Dr. Frankenstein are also wrong.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
As I understand it the new coolant is much safer to the environment than Freon. So DuPont's finantial interest and the environmental interest were aligned, explain to me again why this is a bad thing?
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
but the wackjobs who were out there burned up a bunch of logging equipment, effectively releasing all sorts of toxins into the air and spilling diesel and motor oil all over the ground.
So it sounds liek they were successful.
As nasty as the brief pollution may have been, the trees stood a better chance of surviving than if the logging equipment had remained intact, now wouldn't they?
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Hey, I'm not agreeing with their tactics, just pointing out that (despite seeming contradiction by their pollution) they might be successful for their immediate goal (which was to keep the trees from being cut, and perhaps to discourage companies from wasting time and money trying again)...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Well, we're getting tired of the "have-nots" dictating to the rest of us what is and isn't fair, and using a government that we finance as an mechanism for preventing us from living the lives we choose
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...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The problem with the whole safety/snow/off road theories is that they don't hold up in practice.
Safety: SUVs are, as a whole, more unsafe than either cars, minivans or pickup trucks. They are exempt from the safety regulations that cars and minivans must conform to. They roll far more easily than pickup trucks.
Snow: This is hard, because it's a subjective call. But, I have driven three vehicles in heavy snow and ice: a front wheel drive Toyota Tercel, a rear wheel drive Toyota longbed pickup (both unloaded and fully loaded) and a Ford Explorer in 4wd and rear wheel drive mode. By far, in either mode, the explorer was the worst. It handled like a drunk elephant. My choices, based on experience, would be the fully loaded pickup, the tercel, the empty pickup, the ford in four wheel drive. Don't even try to take one of those things out in RWD. It was fishtailing at 5mph (on a road that I took the tercel down, same conditions, at 20mph)
Unfortunetly I don't know of any close-to-objective comparisons of vehicles in snow, but I've found in conversations that a fair number of long haul non-18-wheeler drivers (and more than a few truckers as well) agree with me. Or are too scared to disagree with me, but I"m not that scary.
I also think (again, personal opinion) that SUVs give (some) people a false sense of security. I don't even want to think about how many SUVs I've seen pass me going 55 or 65 on the highway in snow and ice. Or the number I've seen plowed into the side of the road at curves and said highway.
Off-road: this would be a really nice theory, but...
In the bay area, at least, I'd be shocked if 20% of the SUVs I see ever see more mud than that found in your typical grocery store parking lot.
4wd can be found on station wagons, minivans and pickup trucks. Ground clearance is similar on pickup trucks and some station wagons. All of these vehicals are safer than SUVs. For you and for the other drivers.
They also all get better gas milage than an SUV with similar capacity.
The real reasons (though most won't admit it) that (most) SUV drivers get SUVs is because they are "Cool" and because of conspicuous consumption. If you can afford to gas that behemoth (esspecially in California, where gas prices have been two dollars and some cents per gallon for the past several months) for the morning commute, obviously you're fairly well off.
Personally, I'd rather people buy a nice BMW or a brand new volvo if they want to show off their dicksize, erm, I mean wallet size. It would be safer for the rest of us and a hell of a lot more environmentally sound, too.
rark!
Either that, or they're English :)
You wouldn't be assuming that everyone on Slashdot is American, would you?
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I've been driving an 88 Ford Bronco II for a few years. I finally decided to get a different car, and I thought I'd say screw the snow and the bad roads, I'll get a VW beetle. So I did. And two days later I bottomed it out on a gravel road and cracked the oil pan. Damn.
Photos of bits of the past hiding in the present: afiler.com
Burning an SUV dealer to help the environment? The supposed "eco-terrorists" probably caused more pollution during that act than all of the SUV's on that lot would have caused during their operating lifetime. Think burning rubber, think burning seat material (usually has Poly Vynyl Chloride in it), etc. Not to mention that all of those vehicles will just be replaced, so they've done nothing but increase the SUV manufacturer's profits. And it will take more energy and more materials to build the replacement vehicles and rebuild the dealership, which is also counterproductive. The SUV dealer will file an insurance claim, so they won't be out that much. People who want an SUV will just buy one from another dealer until the dealership is back up and running again.
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.
The difference is twofold. First, in terms of function, most sports cars (ignoring the Lamborghinis that get 2 MPG) get better mileage than an SUV, and are actually safer, as well (lower center of gravity, less likely to roll, MUCH better reaction time for acceleration, breaking, steering, and so on). Second, as a status symbol, sports cars are at least up front about being phallus replacements. How many idiots do you know that have SUVs or monster full-size pickups, yet never take them off the highway, or haul anything more than junior's bicycle?
But the main problem I have with SUVs is that the moron manufacturers are screwing with Darwin, keeping the SUV owners from getting what they deserve.
The planet of Long Island. When the private power company went bust, LI municipalities took over electric service. Prices dropped.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Here's an idea -- How about we QUIT WHINING about it?
Bowie J. Poag
Even if you ignore the pollutants released by burning the SUV dealership, the energy required to rebuild the dealership and replace the SUVs is huge. VERY counterproductive.
Terrorism in any form is a cowardly, immoral act.
There are other, nondestructive, ways to express opinions.
If nobody bought SUVs anymore, Detroit would stop making them.
Let the changes begin at home.
'Cause if I saw someone stickering my car, I'd chase them down and tape over their face with the fucking sticker. You don't respect my property? I won't respect yours.
Blar.
Getting a little hot under the helmet? I can dig that.
But keep in mind that 80% (!) of the environmental cost of an automobile (or SUV, etc.) is accounted during it's construction. So, no matter how big the cloud of black smoke is, it represents (about) 20% of the total, lifetime, environmental impact.
Now, that means it makes more sense to:
a). walk.
b). ride a bike (right on brother!)
c). keep your old car running well, and spend your money to refurb it every few years.
Whoever torched these SUV's they were really dumb. After all, the dealership will now order replacements, causing the factory to spit out a few more, causing an increase in the projections for next years production of SUV's, and incurring 80% of the environmental damage of the original cars at least twice over again!
Yech.
Keep on bikin'. And if you don't know about Case 15, you should read it.
Causing me to replace tires every week is not exactly in the best interest of the environment. It's pretty wasteful, actually.
Additionally, if my SUV's tires got slashed every week, I can assure you that the law would be on my side when I caught them in the act, contacted police and handed over the evidence.
Of course, if the police could not or would not help me, I am sure I could think of my own deterrent.
\//
It's interesting - I read that far, and had an entirely different interpretation. I was thinking "if a bio company screwed up, the worst possible consequence would be that bio-engineering would be outlawed". Sure we're going to make mistakes... we'll even wipe out many more species. But we aren't going to come even *close* to wiping out as many species that other species or "natural" events have pushed out through history.
The difference is, an intelligence now has it's hand on the tiller. There are two options - let random chance continue, and roll dice for the future of life, or load the dice as best we can, from the microscopic sequencing of DNA to the macroscopic watching for killer asteroids and seeding life throughout the solar system and galaxy with space travel.
I have just as low an opinion of the mass intelligence of humanity as you - but the difference is, if my species is wiped out, I want it to be due to our action, not our inaction and a random "act of nature".
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
The American people are pretty radical? We don't accept authority as proof for a claim?
Sweet God.
We are, actually, a very reactionary, conservative country, and we tend to do things simply because someone tells us to (see the Milgram study for an example). A land of churches, right?
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.
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 can't think of anything witty to put here. Sorry.
Some Militias certainly *did* engage in a lot of criminal activity. Many of them have as a central tenet of their charters to overthrow the government, which they consider illegal. There are cases of bank robbery, harassing people with bogus liens, supporting anti-abortion terrorists, etc.
As for eco-terrorists being Marxists or anarchists... well, I don't doubt some of them are. But look at the numbers here. I'd be more concerned about the so-called "Captains of Industry," those corporate leaders, who openly show contempt for the people and laws of this Country in their quest for profits. Look at situations and places like Love Canal, Romulus, and countless other places where big companies poisoned an area, and then left without even bothering to inform the local residents of the danger. You want your eyes opened? Look at the TRIS - Toxic Release Inventory System published by the EPA; there's even a nice search by city interface provided by another organization.
bukra fil mish mish
-
Monitor the Web, or Track your site!
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
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.
See subject line.
Too bad THIS cure would apply to all of us...
-StaticLimit
(I'm assuming most of these civilian shootings are self-defense rather than other situations -- as is the case with situations which I've read about.)
Even if it's well intentioned, the problem with vigilante justice is that there is rarely any justice in it. Just emotion. And thus it usually targets the wrong victim through ignorance.
/*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*/
I'm a typical American. I'm also an environmentalist (for all the wrong reasons, as I like to say). I'm not a lefty, I'm actually quite the capitalist. However, no where in any law does it say "You have the right to pour toxic materials into the environment that may affect other humans." Carbon monoxide is a *poison*. Second-hand tobacco smoke causes *cancer*. Dumping pesticides into the groundwater is a bad thing. These are all verifiable. These are all true.
(and for the global warming, humans actually do better in a warmer world. The breadbaskets would shift northward (like, towards Canada), but global warming isn't such a bad thing unless you live in florida)
Basically, I don't want people poisoning me without my knowledge, and vice-versa. If switching to a more "sustainable" agricultural method is more efficient in the long run (rather than the short term gains and losses Corporate America focuses on), then sure, let's give it a shot. It's proven that intensive agriculture of an area, using varied crops produces *more* food, quantitatively and varietally speaking, than typical "factory farming" methods (see Rice crops in Arkansas vs. rice farming in just about any Asian country. Arkansas does not come close to the yields that the intensive, back-breaking, manual labor intensive Asian style. I suppose if Arkansas wanted to pay people to do it, they could, but it'd be very expensive).
I'm not a whacko. I'm just concerned for what could be a self-destructive road that we follow. YEs, more research is needed, but, goddammit, what harm is it to bike to work every once in awhile? What harm is it to turn off the tv and go outside (leave the laptop, too)? Seriously, if everyone would do one of those two once or twice a week, that would be a tremendous help to the environment as a whole, not to mention the *health* benefits to yourself (exercise). And you don't have to be a smelly hippy to do either.
Just something to chew on.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
or at least a constitutional one...
oh wait, that's wrong too...
I completely agree with the premise of using taxes to cut consumption, but unfortunately that isn't the opinion of any of our elected officials. Instead we've got the Republicans who claim we have some sort of "right" to our consumptive lifestyle (at the expense of the rest of the planet) and who claim we can't do anything remotely environmental because it might jeapordize our precious economy. On the other side we've got the Dems who pay lipservice to environmental causes, but in the end don't really have the spine to stand up for what they supposedly believe in.
How in the hell can we complain about $2.00/gallon gas when we gleefully spend $8.00/gallon for CocaCola (0.75c/12oz), or $1.29 for 1/2 liter of fucking water!
--------
I have no point and I know it.
And where are you getting your "Facts"?
scientists....know enough to be given billions and billions of dollars, free reign to do whatever they want, and a massive police force available to beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees?
Where do scientists enlist this "massive police force" you talk about? Is there a 1-800 number I can call to get the crap beat out of some eco-terrrorists?
For instance, in San Diego at the biotech industry conference last week, your tax dollars paid for a huge police presence so that cops could dress up as black bloc and march next to peaceful protesters.
To avoid another disaster like we had in Seattle at the WTO meeting... and I don't agree with the WTO nor the tacticts used by the SPD. Fact remains if you have people who are willing to kill others (ELF), then the police should have the presence to ensure the protest remains peaceful.
Your tax dollars paid for hundreds to be ticketed for holding signs and walking down the sidewalk.
Hundreds? I read there were only hunderds of total protesters. So unless all of them were arrested, then your are probably pulling numbers out of your ass, or your "heard" that there were 100s arrested. Either way, CNN probably got it closer to the truth.
In Oakland, two popular redwood forest activists were bombed in their car. The FBI's involvement in the case is highly suspect...
The FBI's involvement is suspect according to whom? Was this published in the non-biased 'Humbolt Environmental Flyer'? Just because someone says something is suspect, or you read it in print somewhere, doesn't mean it's true.
In the Pacific Northwest, police repression against environmental groups is huge, and is backed by right-wing industry front groups.
Wooooo... those amorphous 'right-wing front groups'. Again where was this published? Or did you "hear" this was the case or read it in some propaganda flyer?
Oh my bad, I just realized that since you got this information from the vererable sf.indymedia.org therefore it must be the "truth".
At least when I read the NYtimes I realize that it is a "liberal" paper and is biased as such.
Clearly, this is a sign that we should burn Honda dealerships.
I thought it was all the cows and pigs farting.
oz
Of course, burning up a bunch of cars is environmentally crazy, but the sad thing is that most americans label people doing it as crazy, and then just goes on with their lives.
Americans are absolute bastards when it comes to the environment. We (I'm swedish but live in the US) are the richest country in the world, and have a president that claims that "High energy consumption is the american way". America has such a responsibility, but we're totally blowing it because of ignorance. Sad, very sad.
There hasn't been any freon in cars for a while. All new cars are freon-free. They use something else that works just a well, but without killing the ozone.
Guess what? Fuel isn't that precious of a resouce -- yet. It still costs less per gallon than Milk -- or coca-cola. All the supply and demand for it is artificial -- produced by OPEC. The day that it is precious, it'll cost a lot more than $1.50 a gallon (50% of which are taxes anyway) and it'll be used for something more productive than driving an SUV down the highway.
So, what about the emissions? Well, that big Excursion has to produce as few emissions as a car sold in California did in 1992 or sold in any of the other 49 states in 1996. And, it hasn't had all those years to deteriorate and produce more emissions. The cars that pollute the most are the 20 year old beaters you see on the highway. Fully 80% of the pollution can be attributed to the bottom 20% of vehicles. Don't let logic stand in your way, though, that 1985 Chevy Citation sure looks enviromentally friendly standing next to that 2001 Surburban -- but it's polluting more just standing still.
Also, don't let me tell you that cars are only the minutest fraction of the total pollution anyway. Riding the bus sure looks eco-friendly, but it's really just a very small drop in a very huge bucket.
I'm all for green, but stop doing things that look eco-friendly, and actually try to do something that has an effect.
-------------------------------------------------
Gas is expensive because of two factors. One, OPEC artificially limits the production of fuel. Two, the government lays heavy taxes on it. Here in the US, about half of the price of your gas is tax. Check the pump the next time you fill up, it should be posted on it. By your argument, if I can go to the dairy to get milk, if I can buy the gas right from the wellhead in Saudi, gas is pretty damn cheap.
-------------------------------------------------
Revised sentance: If I can buy my gasoline right at the refinery in Saudi, I'll bet it's pretty damn cheap.
-------------------------------------------------
It's a nice town, but full of whackos, anarchists, commies, and whatnot...
Anyway, I wonder how much damage the smoke from the fire did to the environment?
People insist on putting the eco- in front of these terrorists, but, they are still terrorists. One day they are going to kill someone. Maybe an "accident", but everything they do is premeditated. I hope I get to sit on the jury when these terrorists are brought to justice. We live in a country ruled by law. SUVs don't break the law. Terrorists acts do. I hope no sympathy is shown for these people. We have a process in this country, and there are other ways to get things changed. Destruction isn't one of them.
The ELF and their sypathizers are just a bunch thugs who don't like what other people have.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
What good is it for? It defines ugly.
Seriously, though, I was at a mall yesterday, and saw the current Escalade... DAMN, that thing's ugly. Another person in the car with me had a quote I wish I could take credit for:
- "You'll never get me in a vehicle where the badges are bigger than my head!"
Heh. Gawd, that thing was pretentious, gaudy, and bombastic! It's so angular, it reminded me of an escapee from the 80s.Well, for anyone who wants a used one... I bet they'll be cheap! That design can't have much life in it, and when it's not new anymore... it's going to look REALLY old!
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
Your exactly right - What we have seen with SUVs is the law of Unintended Consequences.
People will always find a way to get what they want. Ban SUVs? Sure, and the next thing you know, people will drive 2 ton trucks, that until this point have been used for business
Ban those? There is always Tractor Trail cabs
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
The problem with Eco Terrorism is this: It leads to reverse terrorism.
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
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
I said it above, and I'll repeat it here: Start destroying people's stuff, and eventually, you aren't going to live through one of the attempts.
Taxes are just a slower method of destroying people's stuff. The end result is inevitable: a civil war. Hope that's what you had in mind.
"You can bet that the right capitalist will offer these services, with lower real value, at higher prices and with zero certainty."
So governments offer better service at a lower total cost than companies? What planet does this happen on?
If you mean taxing other people so you can get free (or reduced-price) stuff for yourself or your friends, then there's a word for that. Stealing.
Before: The energy market was not a free market, and blackouts were rare, but not unheard of.
After: The energy market was not a free market and blackouts are more common, but still rare.
Conclusion: When there's not a free market for energy, sometimes there are blackouts.
Electricity is not a free market, and even if it were, you have mentioned nothing about the total cost of the service. Does it get subsidies from taxes or tax exemptions? You didn't say.
The world is flat because the people who say it's round are "right wing extremists".
Ah. But you said better service, not worse service. Canada saves money on health care by offering worse service and stealing drug formulas from US companies. Quite an achievement.
The world is flat because the people who say it's round are "insane" and "their funding reads like a "who's who" list of the worst corporate polluters, rights abusers, etc".
When are you people going to figure this out?
Not a troll. Just a guy that knows that stealing is wrong, even when you have the government do it for you. Even when you really want to. Even when you "dont believe their should be health-related IP of any kind". Even when you can rationalize it a hundred different ways. Stealing is wrong.
I also like the fact that I can get whatever medical service I want, exactly when I want it, with no waiting for a government waiting list. I want to see a doctor today, I go. And all I have to do is pay for it. What a simple, wonderful system.
"You cannot 'steal' an idea."
Someone works for years and years to develop a drug. You then steal their formula, and produce the drug yourself, leaving them out in the cold.
You haven't stolen their idea, you've stolen their WORK. Stealing is wrong. Even when you're stealing something "not everyone can afford".
Might want to look up whether you're really correct first. Start by debunking everything you read at 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." :)
OTOH, they probably torched it with ethanol rather than dirty gasoline! It all balances out...
Exactly what about the parent post is insightful? exactly what is interesting or informative? This is simply the right wing rants you see from every republican on the planet from Rush Limbaugh to the cato institute.
Mr Miles adds nothing interesting or insighful to the thread he simply calls everybody who disagrees with himn a religous nut and vackos. If you think this is a display of intelligence worthy of being moderated up to +5 you are all on crack.
Slashdot ought to simply have +1 I agree or -1 I disagree and stop pretending that the moderation system somehow makes for more intelligent discussion.
The only reason idiotic posts like this which are devoid of any content whatsoever get moderated up to +5 is because there are more people who agree with him then don't.
It's disgusting really.
War is necrophilia.
"Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
This was the most ignorant thing Carl Sagan ever said. It is also against the very fundamental notion of what the truth means. The idea that one set of truths should require a different set of prrof then another is against the scientific method as well as as against common sense. Either something is true or it's not just because the you deem the hypothesis to be "extraordinary" does not mean jack shit.
War is necrophilia.
To sabotage plants and kill people?
War is necrophilia.
You seem to be prfoundly confused.
I have studied meteorology quite a bit and am very much aware how complex of a system it is and how difficult it is to prove anything then you have a billion variables to work with. It's not like proving that the sun is going to come up tommorow I think everybody agrees on that.
Regardless of how easy or difficult something is to prove though your contention that the level of proof needed is somehow dependent on the hypothesis is against the scientific method. I will repeat once again. The level of proof required has nothing to do with wheather or not you think the "claim" is extraordinary.
As for the atmosphere I think I will side with the meteorologists on this one. Sure there will be some disagreement and nitpicking but amongst people who have studied the weather all their lives, actuall do research etc there is remarkable agreement that something really weird is happening. They disagree about the scale, causes about specifics, long term effects etc but there is a concensus nevertheless.
These people will get paid no matter what their research shows and in fact will get paid much more if they claim there is no such thing as global warming (industry is always ready to fund research that says that and the concervative press is always ready to pay scientists who say that). They are not profiting from saying that there is global warming.
You can if you choose take the word of an industrialist or a political talking head over the word of a scientist that is your choice. But don't fool yourself into thinking that your beliefs are somehow based on science or proof. I doubt very much if you could plot a weather chart, analyze the 500 MB winds, or draw conclusions from a skew-T chart. All those tasks are pretty trivial for most amateur weather enthusiasts. Climatology on the other hand is much much more difficult egg to crack.
I know I don't have the scientific background to make predictions or conclusions on the meager press releases that are printed in most media and I doubt that you know more then me about the weather.
So it comes down to who you believe. You must judge the motives, agendas and the qualifications of the people who speak on this issue. I would never let Rush Limbaugh, Bill Oreilly, a politician, or a CEO of a corporation do brain surgery on me and I would never take their advice on meteorological trends. They are equally ignorant in both brain surgery and meterology.
War is necrophilia.
No it is you who seemed to have confused my point.
Here I will try to restate them again.
1) All truths require sufficient evidence to prove. The fact that a hypothesis is deemed "extraordinary" by you or carl sagan or anybody else should never be a foundation for deciding the level of evidence required. If there is enough evidence then it's true no matter what the claim is. What you and sagan want to do is to keep shifting the ground in the debate. When proof is submitted you simply claim the hypothesis to be "extraordinary" and dismiss the evidence as being insufficient. It's not scientific. What you think of the hypothesis has nothing to with anything.
2) On the atmosphere: I am 99.999999% positive that you have not actually done any atmospheric research, that you have not actually read a majority of the research papers on global warming, and that even if you actually attempted to read one or two you would not have the required knowledge to try and understand what was being said. Not having any faculty to actually understand the subject yourself you have chosen to believe a set of people who have the same political belief as you. You delude yourself into thinking that somehow the opinions of those people are informed (even though they have no meteorology degrees) and that those opinions are based on science (even though they are not). You also pull out the "extraordinary" claims card and feel free to disregard any study or evidence which does not fit your political belief.
The only people who are qualified to make judgements on the atmosphere are the people that study it every day. A significant majority of those people believe that global warming is real and that it can do tremendous amount of damage. You can go ahead and take the opionons of talk show hosts above those of the people who actually work in the field and that's your right, but don't go pretending it's based on anything but word of mouth.
War is necrophilia.
No, M$ donates much more to the Republicans:
1 .a sp?txtName=microsoft
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/asp/softcomp
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
True, but revolting against an authoritarian regime that imposes laws and backs them up by force is one thing. But nobody was forcing these guys to buy SUVs. What they were protesting was the SUV driver's refusal to submit to THEIR agenda. This was not a case of wanting a fair say in running their own lives, it was a case of wanting a say (in my view probably an unfair one) in how OTHERS run thier lives.
We have come quite some way since the 1770's. If we are justified in destroying someone else's property just because we think we are right, why shouldn't the people who want to own SUVs go burn down Greenpeace's offices to protest their opposition to SUV ownership?
Suppose I support the use of GMOs. Perhaps I think they will reduce the use of pesticides and make the world a cleaner place. Should I go assault members of the ELF to protect the environment by stopping their opposition to biotech? If the Boston Tea Party (a tax protest) is still justified today, should I burn down the local Democratic Party offices for their support of gasoline taxes? Where does it stop?
I am opposed to the tactics of anti-abortion groups like Operation Rescue (and the goals, incidentally) and I am opposed to the tactics of the ELF (and the goals). And I see NO MORAL DISTINCTION between the two. Both see their cause as being right, and any means as being acceptable to achieve it. They're all a bunch of brown shirt fascists, and their actions are indefensible.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
People hate these things
This is a hate crime. 'People' are pissed off that other people choose to do different things with their lives.
SUV owners, get out while you still can. Get out while you are still able to salvage some self respect.
Get out or we'll beat you out, because we're right, you're wrong, and we are willing to force you to do things our way.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
I doubt even a majority of Democrats are asking that SUVs be banned. The majority of SUV owners and people who want an SUV of their own that I know are liberal. I, on the other hand, when I just got a new car, got a fuel efficient car. I would love to see the artificial distinction between cars and trucks eliminated, for more reasons than just CAFE standards, although that is a good reason in itself.
This is NOT an authoritarian regime. This is a democratically elected government. And there is a VERY large segment of the population that wants SUVs, and that's why they're there. SUVs aren't a product of some corporate conspiracy. They're an outgrowth of shortsightedly complicated regulations (ie, distinguishing between light trucks and cars regardless of use) and the American public's desire for powerful vehicles and thier love of outdoor sports (I won't argue the shortsightedness of the 'typical' American's high-environmental-impact outdoor sports). But the history of SUVs has largely been pushed by consumers, not by automakers. Folks wanted them, and so the automakers made them.
A large number of voters don't like SUVs. A large number of voters do. And if they really don't like it, they can try to convince the rest to vote green. The Boston Tea Party folks had NO SUCH RECOURSE. If they didn't like it, they could convince as many of their peers that the Tea Tax was wrong as they wanted, but it wouldn't change a thing. The folks that torched the SUVs were striking at SUV owners.
Look at some of the other posts to this story. They talk about SUV owners as greedy, vain, arrogant, etc. They have no respect for the wants and desires of those people. They are judging them, and that is part of the motivation for this attack.
In that sense it is as much like a Mississippi cross burning as it is the Boston Tea party, in that it is meant not to protest government action, but to intimidate average people. (clearly it is not on the same scale of evil as a cross burning, but my point is that it isn't like the Tea Party, either.)
And of course, my final point against these guys is that drawing firefighters off to fight unnecessary fires could always result in some other guy getting slower response to a real fire.
In the final analysis, these guys are self-righteous jackasses, not patriots or freedom fighters.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
The problem I have with the most vocal of the environmentalist folks, and the Earth First/ELF/ALF types, is their use of FUD tactics. The term 'frankenfood' is not meant to educate or inform the general public, its meant to SCARE the general public. By generating Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt regarding genetic engineering, they can shut it down, and increase their own influence.
FUD is FUD. I hate when Redmond does it (GPL will ruin the software industry!), I hate when Jerry Falwell does it (Gays will ruin America!), and I hate it when Greenpeace does it (bt Corn will ruin the pretty butterflies!).
The local NPR station (KERA in Dallas) runs a local talk show, and were discussing GMOs and Starlink. Now there's a local guy who calls in on a regular basis, and I had heard some friends talking about how smart the guy was, despite his homespun manner. Well this was the first time I'd heard the guy call in since hearing this discussion, and so I paid special attention. His comment was this. "I had a friend down in Nacogdoches, who ate some of that Starlink Corn from a Taco Bell, and he had an alergic reaction, and he died! That stuff isn't safe!" Unfortunately, this doesn't pass the smell test. If this were even remotely true, it would be all over the internet. But try doing a google search on starlink and death, and you won't find any mention of such an incident. The guy was just making up a story to back up his own gut level emotional reaction, which was fear of change.
This fear is being played upon by people who are opposed to America's technological society for one reason or another, and they're using every trick in the book to stop GMOs before they start, without any real interest in wether they will benefit man, or even to help acheive the environmentalists' stated goals of eliminating pesticide runoff.
This is not to say that there aren't perfectly good scientists urging caution, and that there shouldn't be serious debate. The guy who did the original research on monarch larvae and bt corn was investigating a true potential problem (although subsequent research has indicated that the real impact is negligible). Also, the potential danger of GM salmon entering the general population is worth investigating further. But at this point I have ceased to even listen to anyone using the term 'Frankenfood' because it is increasingly clear that such people will not listen to me. If you want to talk to me, tone down the rhetoric.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
Silly fundies...
------------------------
Co-founder of GerbilMechs
Almost all the high schoolers I know who wrecked badly enough to dammage themselves or others did it in Sports Utility Cars or tree loving Camaros.
No kidding! Reminds me of the time the Animal Liberation Front freed a bunch of cows from a pasture - and then a couple of the very few that wandered far away got hit by cars. Tres productive.
Wow...aren't you so 31337? Here's a clue: not everybody wants to live like you. I lived in an urban area for a while. It seemed like a good idea at the time, as I could walk or bike to classes, but the crime situation eventually got to where I had to move to an outlying area (and this is only Las Vegas, not some stinking, crime-ridden cesspool of a city like Los Angeles, New York, or Washington). Maybe you would be more at home in some country like China or Cuba, where everybody is told what to do all the time under penalty of death or other deprivation.
I don't particularly care much for abortion advocates (the reasons are beyond the scope of this argument), but I'll borrow one of the phrases they like to toss around: If you don't like SUVs, don't buy one.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Actually, in a strict quantitative sense, the replacements don't work as well. Modern A/C systems were redesigned to accomodate larger quantities of R-134a at higher pressures in order to achieve the same results possible with smaller amounts of R-12 at lower pressures. Try retrofitting an older car to take R-134a; either you live with reduced performance or you replace the condenser and evaporator with larger units (and maybe the compressor, if it won't handle the higher pressure) to make up the difference.
(Some people have replaced R-12 with propane or other hydrocarbon mixes. These are supposed to work better than R-12 ever did, but they're also highly flammable. God help you if you stick propane in your A/C system and it develops a leak.)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
There has not been a single case of genetically modified foods causing illness or death in any creature, except in those designed to perish (crop pests, for example); the "StarLink allergy" has been debunked. In the meantime, ignorant and cruel enviro-freaks are preventing high-yield, hyper-nutrient products from reaching those who need it most -- the famished in Third World countries.
Biotech companies are doing great work; it seems that the environmental movement has been hijacked by horribly misguided souls who want to coerce us into reverting to the Stone Age. They are controlling the dialectic, and even the Slashdot editors are falling for their anti-human crap.
*** Proven iconoclast, aspiring epicurean ***
Interesting thought, whether you agree with it or not -- except for the fact that these actions aren't directed at the executives or their families. The low-level joes who carry out the orders are the ones who take the brunt of these actions. The high executives probably don't even get a cut in their bonuses as a result of this.
Don't shoot the messenger -- It doesn't change the message.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
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.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Oh joy. A vivisectionist.
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 assume you're referring to the "eco-terrorism". If so, it's hardly "casual" or "blase". Anything but. That's kind of the point.
People create torture devices (for animals as well as humans, note) and biological weapons, too, but that doesn't mean we should view them with some kind of stupid capitalistic reverence just because someone spent some effort creating them. I think devices designed for the sole purpose of torture are bad, and yes I wouldn't hesitate to destroy one if I came across one, and could do so without being found out.
Of course, that's not being blase, but then... I'm repeating myself.
I'd question how this all fits in with Michael's smarmy "anti-censorship" views
Destroying property != censorship.Female Prison Rape in NY
Most people use utilitarian arguments when debating ethics, without consciously realising it - even many prominent philosophers!
Female Prison Rape in NY
Who said anything about deciding what you should drive? If I see one of those things, I'm perfectly free to think the driver is an idiot. I never advocated banning the things. If a company realizes there is a market for these things and there are people who'd pay $50,000 for one, then God bless them...
What I don't get is, why are a lot of SUV owners so damn sensitive about the fact that a lot of people think they are silly? Did they buy the thing looking to impress others and are now upset that not everyone thinks they are cool or something?
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...
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.... 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... :)
You're not worse - but then why did you bought such an expensive oversized thing for which you have so little use ? Why not just a smaller car or even rent a SUV when you need it ?
And this above post, as well as the moderator puitting it as insightful, is a good example
of why the rest of the world has the opinion
it as about Americans.
There appears to be a complete lack of understanding between the above poster and those
of the opposing argument.
I'm sure that the majority of Americans are more thoughtfull and considerate.
Ever wondered why the rest of the world signed the Kyoto agreement?
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
Yes, you're correct, I should have said almost all of the high-polluting western countries.
I appreciate your response to my post. It is extremely interesting. It appears the way that
both you and I have been informed on the reasons and effects of the Kyoto agreement are very, very,
differently.
Is this how most other Americans see the agreement? Is this the main-stream view put
forward by the major media outlets?
People in Europe are being fed a very different story - that the US, being the world's largest
polluter, is thumbing its nose at the rest of the western world out of their own selfish
self-interest.
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
>and the effects are likely to be smaller where a nation has a smaller population, GDP, etc.) And
>this is why I believe that the European aristocracy is just jealous
I don't feel that this is the case. What you have to appreciate is that Europe and the US people
have very different ways of thinking, and what and American may value highly, Europeans may not.
Take for example Luxemburg. It is one of the smallest countries in Europe, but it also has
the worlds highest per capita gdp. People from there are proud of where they come from, even
though they're small.
Also, Europeans have more of a group mentality. Most govenrments are socalist/left wing.
Europeans generally are not as compeditive as Americans. Being the biggest, most powerfull
doesn't really matter.
I think that the main reason Europeans are in favour of Kyoto is the environmental lobby
is very strong and convinced the average person that a global catastrophy is on its way.
Personally, I believe that global warming is real, but also it's part of a natural process
which man did not start, but man is making at least a slight addition to. What the real long
term effects are, and what, if anything should be
done are questions that haven't yet been properly answered.
Kyoto may not be the best solution, but the Americans are getting alot of bad press for
seeming not to even care.
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
Are you referring to VolksWagen?
I'll bet those self-righteous little pricks didn't even file an environmental impact statement. Burning a vehicle will release lead, sulfuric acid, and quite a few nasty partial combustion products into the air.
I hope that if these children (yes, children, even if they're 50 years old) are caught, that they are forced to pay for cleaning up the site.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Global warming is the most significant threat the human race has ever encountered, yet the media all but ignores the issue.
This is true. If people continue to believe that earth temperature fluctuations are caused by human actions, the resulting backlash against technology could cause a depression, global socialism, and world-wide starvation. I never hear anything about this threat to our lives from the media.
Oh there is evidence that the earth's temperature has inched up a degree or so lately. But there is considerable dispute over what caused it--among scientists, not polititians. Considering that the earth's temperature has fluctuated much higher in the past (when the only pollution was dinosaur flatulence), I'd say there is room for other explainations.
Well, that the Tea Party happened is not dependant on your country of residence; example stands regardless.
Point taken, though.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
"Terrorism" is just another word for "counter-propaganda propaganda."
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Nope, generally it is whites killing whites, and blacks killing blacks. What's ironic is that blacks who kill other blacks tend to use supposed oppression by a white-dominated society as an excuse.
If you are going to get an SUV or another product similar to one produced by a terrorist-targeted industry, buy it from the victims of such tactics.
Or in the case of attempted arson, like the examples given, to be shot and killed by someone defending society against you. Few people have the privilege to be true martyrs...
And "gosh, I didn't mean that to happen" isn't a defense, BTW.
I'm not certain, but I think specific case of arson, proving an "intent to kill" is not always required for it to be a capitol crime, if there are in fact people killed in the offence. And if the building is inhabited, those inside don't necessarily have to die to qualify the arsonist for the death penalty either. I'm not sure what the technicalities are in Texas in particular.
Even where there is no death penalty allowed by state law, a citizen stopping an act of arson using deadly force is usually perfectly legal though, if you have reason to believe there could be someone endangered.
Not to mention that it's hard to carpool in a "ecologically aware" vehicle the size of a tin of Altoids.
Yeah, be a good little worker bee. Otherwise Uncle Sam will have to give you a spanking.
Heh. I was watching THX1138 yesterday... I think I'd rather be one of the guys who gets to drive the dual turbine cars than one of the drones who walks along in lockstep and is too brainwashed to consider using anything but their habitual elevator even when it is announcing it is out of service...
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.
it's hardly new. Remember fur coats getting splashed with paint? this is just more of the same. Hardly anyone wears a fur coat any more, but they're not completely abolished. the same may happen with SUVs. Yes there are legitimate uses, but most are just not very efficient peoplemovers (one or 2 at a time)
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
>True, but revolting against an authoritarian regime that imposes laws and backs them up by force is one thing. But nobody was forcing these guys to buy SUVs.
First off.. I don't condone the action of torching dealerships. That said, it can be argued that this is a revolt against an authoritarian regime refusing to make laws for which a large group of voters are asking, but which (in their eyes?) is frustrated by corporations. quite a close analogy to the boston teaparty..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
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...
Oh, what irony. Didn't we just kill Timothy McVeigh for thinking (and acting upon) these lines of thought?
Of course, another way to stop soccer moms from driving their kids to school in an 18 mpg three tonne land zeppelin would be to shame them out of it. Big-game SUV hunting! Someone should tell George Bush senior and Gen. Schwarzkopf....
Wah!
Can these parents afford to pay the fair market price for this corn? If not then they will never see a single grain of it beyond free samples, and the world will go on as usual. Or they could get sued like South Africa's government did.
The problem with the ideal of solving world problems through genetic engineering is that research is done by corporations that, like Microsoft, can only operate towards one goal: making money. Preventing child blindness and saving lives DON'T MATTER. They do to the individual people comprising this corporation, but the corporate structure of fiscal responsability to shareholders makes it illegal and irresponsable for the management to give anything away out of charity or humanitarian desires.
Wah!
Both sports, however, provide a wonderful opportunity to get drunk on beer with one's friends.
--
This is not my sandwich.
Anarchists that blow shit up really get on my nerves. If you give your opponent the appearance of moral superiority, then your opponent wins the hearts and minds of those who consider themselves morally superior.
--
This is not my sandwich.
Unless you are a troll, I am appalled at your suggestion that violence is an acceptable way of "curing" a non-violent problem. I can't imagine giving dignity to your suggestion that it's okay to kill and injure and vandalize in "self-defense". If you truly believe what you're writing, you are a dangerous and irrational person.
SUVs serve a purpose, but not inside a city. If you want to get the 90% of them that are being used as oversized cars off the roads they don't belong on, set it up so all vehicles registered inside a city/suburb complex must meet very stringent pollution/consumption standards or pay a very heavy tax for the privilege.
--
This is not my sandwich.
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.
--
This is not my sandwich.
How can such a question even be asked? There is no justification for destruction of someone elses property just because you don't like that property. Now, that is an extreme statement. I accept any common, rational disagreement. But the general concept of lighting fires in a dealership is silly. I live in Eugene, Oregon. It's a nice town. It has some bizarre problems, with a city government that occasionally wants to drive away any business or organization that could possibly cause any pollution at all, then send in the police with tear gas and beanbag guns to cut down trees in the middle of town. This is a situation that will breed radicals of all types. For those folks being affected by these people outside of our little commune/bunker, I'm sorry. Now, I work for a software company that, among many other things, provides software for the logging and lumber industry. Are we targets? It's a small portion of our overall business, but it's something we've had to consider. Maybe even posting this here may draw attention to our little company. I hope not. What would it do? People have already commented on the enviromental damage of these fires. The sad part is, that the only people DIRECTLY affected with this kind of thing isn't the 'rich' people who own these businesses, put the average people from Salespeople to janitors who have a few days away from a paycheck, or even loss of their job, all caused in the name of 'Hurting those who contribute' The insurance companies profit from the increases in premiums in the long term. The business owner may even profit, especially a dealership, since the older vehicles are burned and replaced by newer models, without any long-term loss. Recently, the eco-gestapo has begun replacing standard tree spikes with ceramic and other material. Metal detectors, which are becoming standard equipment when logging, won't pick them up. Someone asked if someone mined your front yard and told you, who's more responsible? What if they mined it, told you, then hid the mines where you couldn't find them until it's too late. Now, you KNOW they are there, you KNOW you have to leave your house (Read: do your job so that you can eat and support your family), but can no longer do that without taking a chance with every step. In Oregon, if a survivalist group did something like that, we'd saturate the area with police and National Guard. With the environmentalists, we warn the loggers it's their problem. Full of more mixed thoughts, but I've rambled long enough.
I'm going to burn down the Slashdot Geek Compound if they don't release the Gnu's. Anyone care to help?
Hey, those guys over there are dumping chemicals into the river!!! Let's go burn down that SUV dealership to protest!!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Except that those "wackos" actually have a point that is utterly ingored -- we need to stop doing things just because they're profitable and think about the "big picture".
The Catholic Church persecuted some scientists in history because they were narrow minded. Now the "pro-business" and "pro-progress" people persecute the ecologists and conservationists for being wackos in the same way. You got your comparison backward.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
<P>Yes, because we all have to share the consequences of things like heavy smog build-up and a loss of natural ressources, not just the people who have to drive that far to work. Its not always a case of stupidity either -- the government isn't willing to back high-quality public transit that would allow for fast and fuel-efficient commutes for the working public, so you end up with millions of cars stopped on the road burning fuel in rush-hour.</P>
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
But why not solve the real problem here: Powerty?
Of course it is not right to take matters into your own hands and arbitrary destroy property everytime you think some product is bad or potentially dangerous. This is highly criminal and should be punished fully.
There is a big difference between legitimate civil disobediance and destroying property as a punishment or way of forcing one's opinion on others. I don't see why there is even a question here.
Eco-terrorists who do things like torch SUV dealerships are not IMO helping their cause. They are spoiled brats who want to see things happen NOW NOW NOW and will stomp their feet, shout and cry because they can't have what their instant gratification demands. They will continue until a) they get what they want (never worked with my parents) or b) they get put in time-out/jail. Want to help the environment? Help other people do things in a better way.
Wholly crap, you drive a car? Ride a bike, walk, take electric based public transit -- yes, I trust nuclear energy more than fossil fuel. I can't believe you would be such a dick to my air and drive a car. From the rest of your post it looked like you were defending the environment. Not that I care about what I'm around, but I also don't pretend I do. Don't be a hypocrite. BTW.. With the alloys good bikes are made out of, the refined rubber (among other things) in shoes, and where most electricity comes from it really doesn't matter.
Rod Taylor
Hmm... It's nice that you feel safer in an SUV than other vehicals -- and I'm certainly glad you didn't get a Van for that purpose (read the reports) but beware SUVs that roll really really easily. In a car crash cars crunch (they're designed to do so) to prevent you as the driver / passenger from receiving the additional stress but they don't roll. SUVs (and old cars with heavy steel frames) don't crunch which causes more stress to the driver / passengers due to a faster stop. But, most SUVs are top heavy and roll. So, you've not exactly alleviated one problem but have created another. Then again, you may be one of the smarter SUV drivers who knows what they can carry and doesn't overload them. If I remember correctly, most of the Sub 30k SUVs couldn't carry 4 adults with 4 suitcases safely even though it easily fit inside. Discovery channel documentary a few years ago, things may have changed since.
Rod Taylor
What so many people fail to realize is that bio-engineering of foods has been going on for centuries. Ever heard of cross-breeding plants? Or selective breeding of everything from petunias to cows? Why do you think farmers try to get their biggest, strongest bulls to mate with their best milk-producing cows? So they'll get bigger cows that produce more milk.
Genetic manipulation of thousands of species has been going on since before the industrial revoloution. So, if you think it's right or justifiable to burn someone's property because they're doing genetic manipulation, perhaps you should go ahead and burn every farm in the world and drive us all into famine.
--Me
You know, I'm mystified at how usually enlightened slashdotters can blather such myopic hatred at others (without thinking it through).
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).
Sure, we laugh at your silly Cadillac and Mercedes SUVs. Your "Big Bad Dad" yuppie mobiles wouldn't last a winter in our parts, but hey, if it helps you get the stuff back from Home Depot and you're willing to pay the cost, it's your choice.
I'd love to see some slashdotters stand up to this nice sounding but intellectually void SUV bashing. Better stop the inquisition before it comes knocking on your door
*scoove*
(what's that... an Itanium? When the common man can't afford a 486? That doesn't look like the People's Operating System either... How dare you run such an elitist system that consumed scarce resources while your brethern suffer!)
Agreed; mine's a F-250 superduty. But getting the wife to drive a truck is a different matter, and pulling the Escort out of the mud wasn't fun either (though it got good mileage).
*scoove*
p.s. Actually, I've hauled 40 bags of pea gravel at at time in the trunk of a BMW 740. Just pray it doesn't rain as you go down the dirt road. But that was the former city car...
The problem I have with presumably well-intentioned wishes is that there are hidden assumptions that don't resolve. For example:
where is the method to collect money (and given to whom) from the SUVs internal-combustion-engine for the *POLLUTION* it causes.
If the pollution is really a problem, set and mandate the standard - and apply it across the board. Biodiesel is a cleaner alternative than fossil fuel-produced diesel, but doesn't have enough production to get the costs down. Set the standard and encourage the market to come up with cost-effective alternatives.
Taxes, which only create larger governments, which by definition are ineffecient wasters of resources, also result in their own pollution of a sort.
This is another point where capitalism fails as a way to organize our affairs. And your better system is... ? (not that the current system would ever meet the definition of capitalism).
*scoove*
Actually, there's a natural "tax" (or behaviour disincentive) with SUVs already: they consume more fuel and subsequently cost more.
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*
When someone drives 50 miles each way for their commute, alone, in a 3 ton truck, something is not right.
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*
The problem is with the whole notion of what it takes to prove a theory. The climate change theories represent universally quantified sentences in temporal logic. Essentially, "From this time forward, human activity X will have impact Y on the enviornment". The problem is that no amount of positive/confirming evidence can prove that this statement is true (due to the universal quantification - "3, 5, and 7 are prime, thus all odds are prime"). The only thing that experimental evidence can do is disprove a theory ("look, X happened but Y did not happen"). Given this, there are only a few options as to how to handle this statement if you want to accept it:
- Take it as an axiom (article of faith), thereby making it blasphemy to disagree.
- Apply a degree of belief to it based on experiementation
Note that in either case, you have not proved the theory, you have provided yourself with a "warm and fuzzy" justification for your acceptance of it's validity.In the first case, it's dogma, so there's no point in arguing. In the second case, it's up to you to decide how much positive evidence will make you think some theory is probably valid. If it will take one example to make you believe something ("look 3's prime, so all odds are prime"), and if it will take a few more examples to make someone else believe ("look 3 and 5 are prime, so all odds are prime"), it's just a matter of personal preference. So if Sagan wants "extrodinary proof", so be it, that's just his personal price. In the end, you haven't proved anything, you've just decided how much it will take for you to buy into some unproven idea.
I don't think that you understand the point of my post. I am saying that it is a simple fact of predicate logic that positive evidence for a universally quantified sentence is not proof of this sentence. You make my point in the above quote. It is in fact not a truth that the sun is going to rise tommorow. By saying that "everybody agrees that the sun is going to rise tommorow" you are not proving anything about the statement "the sun will rise tommorow", you are just saying that it is some set of peoples beliefs. I seem to recall a time that "everybody agreed" that the earth was flat and that the moon was made out of cheese. "People's" beliefs did not prove these statements, they just defined these same "people's" perspective on the world.
Now back to the point about Sagan. By saying that he required "extrodinary evidence" to believe "extrodinary claims" is no more or less valid than saying that someone requires "giant man eating chickens to run through the streets of New York" before they believe that "the universe is expanding". In both cases, the person is just defining the threshold at which they will change their personal beliefs, they are not saying anything about the validity of the sentence.
So if it will take a few scientists positive opinions to change your opinion on a theory, so be it. If it will take the four horseman to change some other person's opinion, so be it. In either case, it's just your beliefs, it's not necessarily "truth". "Truth" is not something that "everybody agrees on", it exists regardless of people's beliefs.
I never said anything about global warming (including what my stance may be), I merely made a point about logic and what it takes to "prove" that something is true. You somehow take this to be some kind of political stance motivated by the Illuminati. I would recommend that you peruse a few treatise on logic to try to bone up on the concepts you are railing against. The summary of which is that "belief" of truth (as in - the world is flat) and "necessity" of truth (as in - 2+2=4) are 2 different beasts all together. You may really want to read this treatese on modal logic to give you some insight into what positive evidence says of a theories "truth".
12000 miles a year
:-)
So you're driving too agressive OR you're driving too far.
I promise you, I'm getting more than 26 miles to the gallon. But I'm intentionally light-footed for this reason.
This is the point I'm trying to make, but I don't know that anybody actually caught it.
$10 every two weeks (At about $1.50 per gallon in my area). But let's also look at another factor. I've had the car 13 months. It's got just under 8000 miles on it.
Maybe I need to get out more.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Either that or taxing cars/SUVs that get really poor mileage
I drive a Camaro SS. It's considered a sports car for obvious reasons. My gas milage rating is 17 in the city, and 26 on the highway (with a 6 speed transmission). In reality, I get by on $10 every two weeks. Mostly because of the distances I drive, the lack of traffic in the area in which I live, and of course my driving habits which make a lot of use low-end torque (I keep my RPMs on the tach under 2500 because I can't afford to take the needle to 6000!) and I don't speed.
In the end, I could easily say that the gas milage I get in a sports car are as good, or better than most SUVs.
The reason I point this out is that here in Tennessee, I had to pay various "Luxury" taxes on my car. I assume at least a part of those taxes were because of the larger engine.
Unless I am mistaken, this same tax is also applied to the price of SUVs, and if it isn't. It should be.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=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.
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.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
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.
The only good weather is bad weather.
A few years back, some human rights activists broke into an RAF airfield and inflicted serious damage to a number of Bae Hawk aircraft that were on their way to Indonesia. They argued that by destroying thes aircraft, they were ultimately saving the lives of innocent people being killed in Indonesia. The courts found that while what they did was illegal, it was justifiable. The sentence however eludes me so I can't tell you what they got.
When there is well documented, scientifically accepted proof that SUVs are doing irrecoverable damage to our environment, then action against SUV manufacturers and dealers might be justified. Until then, this is nothing more than misguided and destructive activism.
Unfortunately, it seems environmentalists far too often base their activism not on what our "tampering with nature" is actually doing to the environment, but what it might do.
You might walk up to me and rob me. You aren't guilty unless it actually happens. Smashing in a Starbucks window, for example, because Bovine Growth Hormone might be bad for us is ludicrous!
Show me proof, then I'll be sympathetic. Don't feed me unfounded fear mongering or far-fetched theories or that are repudiated by the majority of scientists worldwide.
When environmentalists come to the debate with facts, not FUD, then I'll be more attentive to their position. Until then, I will continue to consider them rebels without a cause.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
And "gosh, I didn't mean that to happen" isn't a defense, BTW.
Exactly. A year or so ago, a group of teenagers here in the Houston area, with the aid of one of the managers (a friend of theirs), robbed a local McDonald's, and ended up torching the place in the process. Two firefighters who were battling the blaze were killed. The suspects were later charged with murder, and found guilty.
The story is available here... of note is this sentence in one article: "Under Texas law, an accident due to the commission of another crime still amounts to murder, but not capital murder."
Just my $.02...
"It is clear from credit reports and demographic databases"
I hardly think that looking up the fake address I used to register my domains allowed you to look up credit reports and demographic databases... If you really wanted to impress me, how about a social security number or credit card number?
If I wanted to keep this stuff anonymous, I would post AC. Pretending to be l33t like you did is just lame.
"how can you justify that when a simple injunction or (at most) arrest would accomplish the same thing?"
Has the CEO of Ford been arrested for putting Explorers on the road with tires known to suffer problems when underinflated, and then telling consumers to prevent rollovers by underinflating those same tires? Was it not insane for the CEO of Ford to allow this to be done, putting the lives of millions of people at risk?
Is it not insane for me to look out for my best interests, and to defend myself from corporate greed and a weak government by any means necessary?
"maybe you should move to afghanistan."
Of course, after all Americans are incapable of terrorism. They would never blow up their own government buildings, or abortion clinics.
Once you get the nano-bomb tech, you can wreack some heavy-duty havoc among whatever nations you haven't dealt with before this time. Though I never found using my eco-terrorists to spread nano-disease among enemy cities to be as fulfilling as you'd think it should be.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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).
Where I'm from (specifically, a rural area), we call those things "trucks". Ever try to haul a tractor or a cord of firewood in an SUV?
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.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
100 years? Do you have any conception of how much will change in just the next 25 as far as how we get our energy and what we use our natural resources for, why... oh nevermind, this is not worth the time
It works pretty simply. Genetics are DNA/RNA. DNA/RNA are blueprints for protiens. No matter how big/small/complex the protien is it will have to be made out of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen. Perhaps a few metals, but these will be non polluting.
So How can I so blatenly assume this? Because what the genitically altered life form is eating is the same thing. The atoms that are the building blocks of life are the same. And these break down to the same things when oxidized: carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen gas. A life form is a system. You put stuff in, you get stuff out. The stuff you get out is made of the same stuff you get out.
Now, I over generalized a bit. In the case of things made to deal with nasties (bacteria for oil spill remediation comes to mind), it's possible that they may turn it into benzine or something like that. But that defeats the purpose of remediation (since benzine is something we try to clean up) so we avoid that situation; keep working until we get carbon dioxide and water (essentially what we would have if the oil would have not spilled and made it to the SUV's of the world...). Howecer in this case we actually _changed_ what the bacteria was eating, so we changed the input to the system. Thus the output must be monitored much mre heavily, and in these cases I think your sekptisim is much more just. But please don't generalize that all GM items are polluting in ways we can't calcualte, because in many ways we can.
- Sig
Thanks for the link.
It is a pity that you did not get moderated up.
Matyas
Not all SUVs are limited to 'primitive part-time 4WD'. There are many models with 'advanced AWD systems', including several which offer shift-on-the-fly between 2WD/4-LO/4-HI/AWD.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
So it's okay to burn down a man's house if the target is rich, you are sure nobody is inside, and you have a political cause to advance?
Lastly, these people are cowards. Just as the animal rights activists never throw red paint on a big biker's leathers, these eco-arsonists go after the easy targets, not anybody who can shoot back- figuratively or literally.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
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.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Another fine example of this principle are the "pro-life" terrorists who don't hesitate to kill, provided that the victims are old enough.
That being said, SUVs combine the worst aspects of any other type of car. IMHO there's absolutely no reason to buy one. ("My neighbor thinks about bying one in my range of hearing" doesn't count.)
Eco-terrorist correctly implies that these people are loons. Terrorism is never an answer to anything.
Pro-life rights activists are not all gun-wielding freaks. Please make the distinction. I support the inalienable right to life that we all have, but I haven't shot people that disagree with me.
Note that the term "anti-abortionist" is often used because of the negative connotation that "anti" anything carries with it, which is why I don't use it. (The media plays on that one real well. Follow the news and count the times "anti-abortion" is used vs "pro-life".) If we're going to head that way, let's use terms like "anti-life rights activists" too.
Violent resistance is a tough one to defend. In cases I believe it's justified. I look at the Revolution of 1776 as a case in point.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
>I view these people much like the majority of
>Muslim's look at Islama Bin Laden,
>terrorist's who do not represent my interests
>and give my cause a bad rap.
Hmm.. Islama Bin Laden.. Is he related to the
infamous terrorist, Osama Bin Laden?
Perhaps terrorism runs in the family after all..
"I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy"
And if I percieve your actions as unacceptable does that give me the right to do physical violence to you? Can I burn down your house if I disagree with you?
The problem with advocating viglante justice to stop something you perceive as "bad" is that the same argument can be turned against you. We, as a society need to find better ways of working out our differances than devolving into mobs with torches and pitchforks.
"The obvious is that which is least understood and most difficult to prove." -- A fortune cookie
Just got to remember that although this kind of activity does interfere with the operation of people's businesses, it has no health risks of it's own and is not violent and chaotic.
I respect someone willing to stand up for his beliefs much more than I respect someone who does what will get him $, justifying along the way.
Logically then, you would respect the person who believes in the relentless pursuit of money. After all, money as an end in itself is his belief and he's standing up for it. Perhaps you meant you respect someone that stands up for your beliefs.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
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?
Of course. To be honest, I don't even care about whether global warming exists; that isn't my main concern. Let me put it this way: in the city where I live, we have daily smog warnings and air quality readings are given with the daily weather. It has been estimated that about 100 people will die due to poor air quality caused by smog(based on the number of people last year and the amount the air qaulity has declined since then, etc.).
Now, when you cannot safely breathe the very air outside your home and people warn you not to do any strenuous work because you may collapse from lack of oxygen, you have a serious problem, regardless of whether global warming exists. Local air quality is not a global threat for sure, but a large percentage of America's population lives and works in urban areas.That means it is a big problem for that majority.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
I'm sorry, who are you arguing with in this comment? I didn't comment on any of this, nor did I produce my own opinion on this matter or anything else. I merely stated some factual observations and came to a logical conclusion which countered a statement made by the previous poster. I don't see any of that in your comment so I'm at a bit of a loss to what you're trying to accomplish. Are you just ranting for the sake of hearing your own voice, or are you actually trying to say I was wrong about something? If the latter, could you be a bit clearer please?
Perhaps you were just trying to make a point that environmentalists' ideas are a bit strange?
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
No prob. :-)
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Try reading The Monkey Wrench Gang, by the late Ed Abbey.
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
more proof that the Canadian is not our friend
They ram fishing boats and leave the innocent crews to drown and the fuel to leak into the ocean (find your own link)
I agree with your signature, though.
- True believers, they have THE answers and know whats best(like quite a few slashdotters).
- Very angry, they usually have a valid beef with with society and have this great need to DO SOMETHING whether or not it's effective, or even whether it causes people to turn away from their declared movement. Part of this is that the people who do this are mostly young and male (angry young men defying established society, how long has that been going on?)
- They're on drugs, as with many other groups smoking weed is seen as this striking out against 'the MAN, WesternCiv, and Industrial Culture', of course it corrodes the judgment, reduces the planning horizon, and makes people who are already angry and confused about right and wrong, stupid and paranoid as well. This may explain a lot (like why some of the attacks don't make much sense from any perspective.
So there, i've said my piece, I should note that if you are an EPD or other law enforcement officer that i know no specific details about any event, person or group that is involved with anything illegal and that you could probably get more solid information by reading the newspapers. (hafta do that, the epd are currently in full civil-rights violation and ave been for the past three years, and haven't shown themselves to be very discriminating when it comes to whom they bother)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.
This is one of those things that I struggle with a lot. Can't you use the same argument to explain any crime at all, even terrorism? Can the law ever be wrong in a democracy? Can we all just go about and break whichever laws we disagree with? If so, what's the point of having laws at all, seems unfair to just punish those who are unlucky enough to get caught.
Bullshit. Things are not good the way they are.
We are eating a cocktail of chemicals; fertilizers, pesticides, hericides, hormones and people are being poisioned at a frightening rate.
Child cancer rates have skyrocketed, as have asthma, allergies, chemical imbalance disorders, the soil and water systems are getting trashed by residual chemicals, the food chain if a fucking mess. What is more, the amount of chemicals being used is increasing as more intensive farming methods are adopted.
Now GE may or may not be a solution but if there is a chance that these chemicals could be largely eleminated it needs to be looked into. Make all seeds infertile for the first 10 years if you want, require 10 year field trails before they get the final assesment of whether they are better or worse.
But do not give me this crap that things are wonderful, pristine, and uncorrupted. Things are a mess, many foods we eat are poisonous and I don't know about you but I want the likelyhood of having to watch my family die from chemical diet induces cancers to be lowered.
GE might help, it might not. It requires careful research, but anyone who wants things to continue on the current tack is deluded.
Ratty
The rodent in the machine.
Maybe another road user who is endangered and inconvenienced by these vehicles. Taller vehicles block visibility. Heavier vehicles increase injuries and fatalities in crashes. Nobody was complaining about SUV's when they were owned by a small minority. The resentment has risen as they totally change the character of the roads. They are imposing costs on other road users and not compensating us.
-Geo. W. Bush
This debate of whether property destruction is a valid (or morally sound) tactic or not is one of the most ancient debates amoung the activist culture. I don't expect most geeks here on slashdot to be familiar with the arguments (since a lot o' the geeks here on slashdot aren't also activists [even though GNU/Linux is inherently tied to the activist community, just read the writings of RMS and ESR]), but most people in the activist community celebrate the diversity of tactics.
"When the rich plunder the poor of his rights, it becomes an example to the poor to plunder the rich of his property; for the rights of the one are as much property to him, as wealth is property to the other, and the little all is as dear as the much. It is only by setting out on just principles that men are trained to be just to each other; and it will always be found, that when the rich protect the rights of the poor, the poor will protect the property of the rich. But the guarantee, to be effectual, must be parliamentarily reciprocal."
-- Thomas Paine
If you're interested in the debate on the justifiablility of property destruction, seek the wisdom of google.
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
I would hope in the future, things like burning down SUV dealerships should be reserved for when there is a "clear and present danger" to the enviornment.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Sure got a lot of people riled.
...in thinking about the environment, they wouldn't have done such a thing. But no, these guys were extremists, who didn't care about what they were doing as long as they made a point. This obvious shortage of brain use then failed to think about:
1) The balasts in the starter engine containing mercury. If it came in contact with the right chemicals (which is possible in the burning of an automobile), it would produce harmful toxins which will polute the environment and kill off some air-borne animals. Even if it didn't burn, loose mercury is always good for killing off those unwanted living organisims, like dumb customers.
2) The oil, rubber tires, and gasoline. All of those produce harmful toxins when they burn, as well as produce carbon monoxide. Perhaps they should have warn shirts as well saying "How 'bout a nice breath of CO? It's to die for!"
3) The freon. Freon doesn't burn well, but easily escapes a burning viechle and floats up into the atmosphere to knock around some ozone molecules that keep this planet alive.
...not to mention the greenhouse gases released from the fire, even more toxins released in the burning of any other of the fluids (transmission, brake, power anything...it's all poisonous), and the pile of junk left over after the barbeque that has to be hauled to the scrap heap.
Brilliant, guys. Protest a polutant-causing viechle by poluting yourself. Bravo.
Umm.... should we really have that problem in the first place?
Maybe not, but if you're right, we'd better stop vandalizing cars and start sterilizing people. That's the only way to deal with the problem in the long run, in the view of all the neo-Malthusians on here.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Well I have yet to see a CEO assasinated by environmentalist wackos.
Not for lack of trying.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Funny thing is, I have never seen any of these "responsible" people willing to assume liability for damages in case it is too late. Are you?
More religiosity.
I could sell you anything on that basis. Are you sure you're willing to assume liability for the state of your own immortal soul if you fail to believe in the Great Pumpkin?
Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. At heart, your argument ("but... but... what if...?") amounts to a demand that we all move back into the caves, just to be safe.
Thanks, but I gave at the airport.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
The big problem I see with current trends (especially in the U.S.) is that nothing we're doing is sustainable. We're using up our natural resources at a frightening fast rate. We're still polluting like mad, we're pumping tremendous amounts of C02 and methane into the atmosphere and eventually we'll kill off the human race or just most of the planet. If every one in the world lived like the US did, we'd need 3 Earths to handle the demand on natural resources.
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.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
She is practically booed every time she tells someone that she works in genetics
:-(
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.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Global warming is the most significant threat the human race has ever encountered...
One half degree in the last hundred years is significant? Especially when the last hundred years were cooler than other hundred year periods in earth history?
I guess I need to run out and by some of that Waterfront Property in Arizona
Stand Fast,
Stand Fast,
tjg.
Actually no, the insurance company re-builds the dealership and the manufacturer sends another shipment of SUV's and those people who were going to buy one will still do so... BTW I drive a big car mainly out of self-preservation. I don't like the way most of my fellow citizens drive...with callous disregard for the life of those who are sharing the road with them. When one of those impatient "me-firsters" slams into my car, I'm DAMN WELL going to make sure that I will be able to get out and walk away from the wreck! What are the chances of your doing that if you're accordioned in a Neon or a Sprint, I ask you?
You're using her as bait, Master!
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Probably not one of his best, but still good for its ability to make you think about things.
By the way, and totally off on a tangent... Are there any Neal Stephenson books that don't involve large boats as a major plot device?
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
He did an unspeakable evil, no doubt about it. But the way his execution was covered by the media played right into his hands, in my opinion. I for one, had no pressing need to know where they stuck the fucking needle!
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Although you're right about the actual reaction being screwy (like it's that easy to get rid of polychlorinated hydrocarbons), but if some genetic engineer spliced up a bug in this fashion, I'd be willing to bet a lot that it'd mutate to take advantage of the energy gain pretty damned quickly. The moral of the story is that if you don't think through the possible consequences before doing something, you're gonna get your ass burned.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
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
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
While eco terrorism deals with property destruction, and in my mind not so bad, people sometimes get killed. I remember the tree spiking fiasco. Instead of it preventing trees getting logged, sawmill employees got creamed when their huge blade shattered from the spike.
The ecology movement doesn't address overpopulation, by far the root cause of our environmental problems. The idea that we can be comfortable with 6 billion people living like paupers doesn't cut the mustard in this world of technology.
ZPG now!
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
The same people who were directly responsible for murder then ran the country.
Why exactly were they justified???? Seems to me, they started a nation on someone else's land and kicked them out. That's justified?
That issue aside, terrorism is NEVER justified, no matter what the cause. It is terrorism specifically because it aims to force people to take action by creating fear in them--fear of loss of property or life.
These so-called eco-terrorists do not even have a valid issue. Slash the tires on my SUV because you do not like what kind of car I drive? Fuck you. Should I destroy your property because I don't like your politics?
This has to be a troll, because no one can be so daft as to claim the validity of land claims dating back thousands of years. By that measure, I am sure everyone has some sort of claim on just about every piece of land in the world.
God help us if the Italians figure out this loophole.
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.
Anybody ever read Thoreau's On the Duty of Civil Disobedience ? As someone else mentioned, remember the Boston Tea Party?
Seattle's Eat the State has a wonderful article about the media's views on eco-terrorists. Mainstream media obfuscate the fact that these groups act only on property, portraying them as dangerous to individuals, while in most cases, they go out of their way to avoid loss of life or harm to living beings.
All your tactics do is turn the majority off of your cause. Since I consider the environment to be one my causes, I consider you a hinderance to my cause no better than a large oil company or the Republican party. At least a person can negotiate with an oil company or a Republican and try to reach a compromise.
When did I ever say that the majority of Muslims are terrorists? Did you read what I wrote? I recall giving this as an example of common misconception that many people suffer. Now go back and read what I wrote again before your next knee-jerk reaction.
There has been a great deal of mention that 'burning the dealerships releases more pollutants than letting people drive the SUVs to begin with' but I think you people are failing to grasp the singular point of the action: This is merely a means to strike at the brazen greed and shameless covetous of a society that would encourage these hoggish vehicles against better judgement and obvious evidence.
This is a wakeup call to the self-obsessed Americans more concerned with their comfort, ego strokings and illusions of rugged safety than a protest of fossil-fuels and emissions. You folks can try and argue your way out of it, but the facts remain: SUV's are horrible in so many ways that no amount of mental footwork is going to save you from the backlash. People hate these things, and for good reason IMHO. SUV owners, get out while you still can. Get out while you are still able to salvage some self respect. These vehicles represent a blight on our national pride, and will be cast in the light of evil throughout our future history. Think for a change. Make the right decision!
The problem with this argument is that you're postulating the continuance of life as an absolute good. Once you do that, any action can be justified by claiming it will further that absolute good.
Still, an okay attempt at playing devil's advocate.
I could list the objections here myself, but instead I'll point you to this informative article about golden rice. A brief excerpt:
The main objection I have is that if the GMO industries suddenly decided to become philanthropists, they could just distribute vitamin A supplements directly rather than push a large-scale switch to a GMO crop. Hmm, I wonder why they didn't go for the simpler solution?
Occam's Razor was originally "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" but in scientific form it is usually stated as "in general, if two theories explain the same phenomena, the simpler one is more correct".
I say "Occam's Razor only cuts one way" because scientists use it to explain natural phenomena but don't apply it to their plans. Of many plans to solve problem X, it is almost certain that the most complex - the most scientifically challenging, the most arrogant - will be selected. Golden rice is but one example. Further examples upon request.
kemokid
PS To give you some idea of my credentials, I have been interested in biochemistry and biotechnology for some time, I studied some in college, and I strongly considered going for a biochemistry PhD. However, I have recently come to the conclusion that most of the applications of biotechnology are, on the whole, harmful, and that simpler solutions should be pursued.
Actually, I haven't owned a car in the past 8 years. I live just over a mile to work, which makes for a plesant walk in the morning and evening. I can take transit everywhere else I need to go.
It is nothing about not being able to afford an SUV -- I simply believe that most people have little justification for owning one. I certainly don't need one. If I needed to move a lot of stuff (a common reason for people owning one), then I could rent a truck for a day, and save a lot of money over an SUV.
I still think that paying more in gas taxes isn't enough. I still support a further tax on vechiles that get poor mileage.
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 . . .
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Ummm.. gee. That's a tough one. Whom to give the money to.
Heath and eduacation? Environment? It's not like there's a lack of good causes that need money or anything.
The consequences here are more likely to affect everyone else who wants to walk out side without special protection or breathing aid in 50 years time. I couldn't give a toss if he's making bad finacial decisions.
Replace the words GM tree with GM deadly virus experiment. And I think you'll see what my point is.
GM can be used for good. But this is still new. S precautions must be taken. Using the naked earth as a test tube is a bad idea. Cause if something stuffs up. There's no way to stop it. Even the silliest little thing, that you may think woudn't cause any problems, can have very big consiquenses. It's just not something to be messing around with in our environment at the moment. It needs to stay in the labs a bit longer.
At the moment...
There can still be long term effects
There might be effects that may not be picked up, or though about
Something in the near future may cause a risk (I assure you, GM is only going to get more radical)
As it becomes more common, more and more people will be able to do it. Not everyone has good intentions.
I think those are enough reasons to take some precautions when it comes to genetic engineering.
First off, the USA is a politically (and morally) corrupt, greed based, corporate society.
Once you truly understand what that means -- that the interests of the people of the USA come behind the interests of the corporations -- then you can understand the violence and hate towards the car makers and the government.
I don't in any way condone these acts, but I understand the frustration that leads to it. Like knowing, without a doubt, that these SUVs are classified as 'utility trucks' when they are nothing of the sort. It's a scam to get past federal sately and economy laws -- laws that keep us safe in our vehicles and extend a non-renewable resource.
Genetically altered food? In a perfect world I would be all for it. But, once again, anyone familiar with corporate drug manufacturers and the FDA knows how many drug manufacturers falsify tests of safety and efficacy to get approval for their drug. This means managers, scientists and researchers all participate in a falsehood, that, without government oversight, could poison you at worst or at a minimum cost money and perform no good. If anyone really thinks the genetic companies would not do the same thing for profit, please raise your hand. We need America's idiots identified.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There was a time when the USA was known as 'the home of the free and the brave'. Scratch a little under the surface nowadays, and it has, in many ways, become a digusting parody of the Constitution, where corporate interests have clearly taken precedence in all three branches of government.
No one wants violence. The courts should be addressing these issues before it comes to that. But as I have said, there is evidence that the government has lost touch with the people. How long does a thinking, feeling person live in a society based on such falsehoods before they lash out? Their entire life? As the songs says '...it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees...'
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
As a history refresher, in 1859 John Brown decided (and knew) in his heart that slavery was wrong, and had to be stopped by any means necessary.
He killed a lot of slavers, then decided to take over a federal armory, arm blacks, and spill blood throughout the south, until slavery was stopped.
He was caught and executed by the federal government. Just months later, the USA broke into one of the bloodiest, deadliest wars in history, with both sides using the name 'John Brown' as an excuse.
If it wasn't for John Brown, and the blood he spilled, maybe you could go buy yourself a black man today. Some of you probably like the idea.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Disclaimer: I'm English...
That's about the size of it. In this case, there was an issue about releasing paedophiles back into society once they had completed their prison sentences. This was whipped up into hysteria by the British tabloid press leading to mobs of people (men and women) going round trying to lynch anybody who's job title began paed-. It wasn't just paediatricians that were in trouble. Anybody who was even suspected of being a paedophile was in danger.
The trouble is that the kind of person who gets involved in these mobs is usually not the sharpest tool in the box and therefore has trouble reading "paediatrician" let alone understanding what it means. Also, with mob hysteria, little details such as actual guilt or innocence tend to get trampled on in the rush to string somebody up.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Furthermore, we have interesting statistics which tells us that in situations where guns are fired, armed citizens are significantly less likely to shoot the wrong person than police officers.
Did you know that over 76% of statistics are made up?
Did I make a point? (Please include the statistical numbers and the source when stating such things.)
...until the winners write the history of it.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
A major goal of the Earth Liberation Front is "to speed up the collapse of industry, to scare the rich".
Even more moderate groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists betray socialist views. In a PBS Frontline story on Genetically Modified foods, Jane Rissler denounced claims that GM foods would help feed the hungry in poor countries by saying: "The biggest problem behind hungry people is lack of money" which, if believed, lays a nice foundation for redistributing wealth. Of course, most people believe that hungry people need food, not money.
The Anarchist Golfing Association (Anarchist being another name for Libertarian Socialists) is nothing more than an attack on what is viewed as the capitalist's favorite pasttime.
Some of the "anti-capitalist" views by environmentalists are likely attributed to the fact that industry does pollute, but some of these groups go beyond reasonable concern.
-bk
It varies from state to state. In my state, the intent of the offender is not an issue. If the offender commits any of a certain list of crimes (robbery, burglary, sexual assault, kidnapping, and arson of an occupied structure, primarily) and the crime causes the death of any person, then the offender is guilty of First-Degree Murder, which can carry the death penalty. However, there is no basis for a murder charge if nobody dies.
FWIW, murder one and kidnapping-for-ransom are the only two crimes which carry the death penalty here. And they don't carry it very often: we have maybe five or eight people on our state's death row, out of a population of about four million.
If you torch an SUV dealership in Colorado, IOW, and the owner has a heart attack while trying to put out the fire, you can easily face Murder One charges.
To all you people saying how can property destruction ever be justified: What about the Boston Tea Party? A bunch of radicals opposed to the system dressed up in disguises and trashed some corporations property and it is one of the most celebrated acts of "terrorism" in history.
The very 1st thing to realize about these enviromental groups is that
THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE ENVIRONMENT
The groups that spike trees, burn research lab tree stands, burn car dealerships, and conspire to keep people out of responsible use of public land are interested in: Being Political (whatever that means) and power. They are using "The Environment" to justify thier actions w/o really thinking about what really makes a difference to the environment.
If one of the companies developing bio-engineered plants/animals messes up, the consequences to the rest of the world could be extreme
If one of the companies developing GMOs gets it right, the effects could help make the world a _noticeably_ better place, in many way.
Given that we have a system which greatly slants the chances away from the former (ever actually READ the GM/GE research restrictions? Didn't think so), any kind of extreme action seems uninformed. My opinion? Watchdogs are good... extreme action is uncalled for in this case.
I can't say that extreme activism is never called for.. there are cases it might be. But this isn't one of them, neither is people driving SUVs.
SharperPs: Just for irony's sake... there's a GM alge under development which consumes greenhouse gasses.
Yea... as much as you'd like to pretend that you're intelligent and insightful - you're not. You act as if there is some sort of grand plan that guides what should and should not exists here on Earth. If that is the case - who are you to say that humans tinkering with something like strawberries isn't part of that plan - part of the evolutionary process. After all - if evolution does select only certain traits that are meant to exists than isn't the existance of humans that possess the intelligence and knowledge to alter genes something that was meant to happen "according to the evolution of life"? If you're not saying there is a plan - then who are you to say that humans shouldn't be tinkering with genetics?
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.
In a world without walls, there is no need for Windows.
My SUV doesn't accelerate slowly. I'm not saying I'm going to win a 1/4 mile against some muscle car or anything, but my acceleration is more than adequate.
I am several times more courteous than pretty much any of the other drivers I see on a daily basis. I always use turn signals and I don't automatically speed up when the guy ahead of me uses his; I allow people to merge even if I have to slow down or change lanes; I don't cut people off. In short I try to be as safe and courteous as possible.
I don't own a SUV because my neighbors do -- I own it because I like it. It allows me to carry things and it allows me to tow things.
I understand that I may not be representative of all SUV drivers. There are always some assholes in every group. In my driving experience SUV drivers are no more or less safe/courteous/annoying than anybody else with the possible exception of mini-van drivers -- those people bug me. ;)
--john
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
Never is physical threats or violence good or reasonable. Anytime any group uses terror, violence or intimedation it shows itself in a poor light. I may not like my boss but slashing tires or harming property is only childish and counterproductive. I may agree with your side however I for one will not agree with those who cannot express themselves without hurting others. Kinda like why I generally find Microsoft annoying. They cannot leave others be. Peacefully coexist and believe in your cause. hippy geek rant ends
Before spouting your moronic bile, you may want to do a reality check. First, check out lawful (and moral) ways to make your voice heard & effect corporate decisions and government policy. Second, check the facts before you jump to conclusions.
"SUVs that fill our environment with toxic fumes at alarming rates" Where do you get this "fact"? Many SUV's are now in the LEV (Low Emmissions Vehicle) category. The whole Ford line of SUV's is in this category, and many from other manufacturers are too. It would do more good to get the OLD cars off the road that really do pollute at an alarming rate.
By the way, it's not that I don't think SUV's are bad for the environment.. they are. They guzzle gas at an alarming rate, which leads to many other issues for our country. But, let's stick to the facts.. Let's push industry and government to raise the bar on fuel efficiency. Or, start with yourself & ride your bike to work a couple times a week.. Take the train or bus once in a while.
Regardless of how you feel ethically about what the Eco-Terrorists are doing, there are two *major* points to consider:
... as did our organization.
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
They have this idea of how the world should be. Then they grab onto any sort of (pseudo)scientific flotsam that wanders by that supports their idea. Any evidence to the contrary is a conspiracy to oppress us, rape the land or make us write bad checks. And from this viewpoint they have the high moral ground to act in any extreme fashion that they deem necessary.
I for one would love to see a bit more "leading with your head, not your heart" in the world today.
--- If stupidity got us into this mess, why can it get us out?
So Michael is probing the crowd for some sympathy for for a load of malcontents who have chosen to work outside the democratic process to get their point (do they have one?) across. There's no doubt it will lead to something productive; it will polarize the popular opinion against their cause (do they have one?). Terrorism is an act of pure cowardice and is best left to the tantrums of a five-year-old child. It is not a foundation for a political movement.
They rant against totalitarianism only to replace it with their own brand of the same thing. 'Their way' is better and anybody who chooses to disagree will be firebombed into submission.
It's a crock of shit and it stinks.
one better than mcleodeight
If they where caught, paying for the clean up of the site would be the least of their concerns. Going to prison for many years would probably far outweigh any monetary awards to the dealership.
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
No kidding,
an enviro guy just got 22 years and 8 month for doing right that, burning some SUVs...
shit is getting crazier by the hour...
Dear Scientists and your stupid pet projects like putting vitamin in the rice of some far-off peoples:
You are selling the earth and food to multinational corporations that will use this power to extort and tyrannically rule. Ever think of that? I doubt it. Time to go cash your paycheck.
bjord.org
news from the revolution
Some of the comments on this board boil down to "i'm a smart masters-degree educated geneticist, and *i* know that GMO's are okay, and eco-terrorists are stupid." it is exactly this kind of attitude that people are protesting against.
the fact is scientists don't KNOW much. many think they know and many know enough to make some useful applications. but do they know enough to be given billions and billions of dollars, free reign to do whatever they want, and a massive police force available to beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees? no.
Do you know your history? For instance, in San Diego at the biotech industry conference last week, your tax dollars paid for a huge police presence so that cops could dress up as black bloc and march next to peaceful protesters. Your tax dollars paid for hundreds to be ticketed for holding signs and walking down the sidewalk.
At UC Berekely, Novartis is paying millions and millions to convert their "academic" research lab in to a corporate research lab.
In Oakland, two popular redwood forest activists were bombed in their car. The FBI's involvement in the case is highly suspect, and the FBI blamed the activists themselves for planting the bomb! The trial against the FBI finally begins this fall, and I highly doubt any "concerned" geneticists will be coming out to support this or even know what it is.
In the Pacific Northwest, police repression against environmental groups is huge, and is backed by right-wing industry front groups. Police in Humboldt County watch as industry thugs come down and physically attack protesters. Police themselves are trained to hold a protesters eye open to apply pepper spray with a cotton swab.
Who are the terrorists again?
Meanwhile, the timber industry is buying off congresspeople left and right. The oil/energy industry just purchased a whole damn presidential election.
Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have realized that people have the power to overthrow the corporate institutions that are ruling our life. And they are doing something about it. Are you still just sitting on your ass reading some website?? For more news see SF Indymedia
If you think that violent repression, misinformation, and terrorism does not occur by the U.S. Government on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens, then you do not understand why eco-terrorism is happening. In fact, you probably don't understand much. Please try to find out what is happening, and don't just rely on CNN and Slashdot as your news source.
bjord.org
news from the revolution
Are these sorts of actions justifiable
The fact that you even ask this question is shocking.
Quite honestly, I'm stammering to even write this. To have to argue against terrorism is difficult, because it is such a preposterous argument to have! I am pleading that before this is modded a "troll" (as all dissenting views) that I am at least read.
I recognize that Slashdot is a home to left-wing extremists, and to try and pursuade you on any matter is silly. (It's like hanging out in a Star Trek chat room and saying how much it sucks. Nobody's mind will change.) Changing your minds is not my goal with this post.
But enough is enough. Violent and willful destruction is always unacceptable. Condoning it, even for what you consider to be a good cause, is dangerous and sad... because, where does it end?
Today, we cheer with the destruction of a car dealership, tomorrow, we celebrate the death of a bioengineer. As borders of "acceptability" are destroyed, the next border always begins to appear both appealing and exciting. How long before somebody posts to slashdot: "An eco-terrorist blew up a bio-engineering firm in Oklahoma City. Hundreds died, but now, they can't potentially harm our food! Is this acceptable?"
Why don't we round up all business executives and put them in concentration camps? After all, they are responsible for everything from SUVs to smoking to keeping Linux difficult for moms to install!
Great men, from King to Gandhi have taught us that the only effective forms of protest and change are non-violent. Did the Los Angeles riots change anything? No. Did Martin Luther King change America? Yes.
Part of having freedom is responsibility. In this day and age, it seems that people are begging to surrender freedoms for "safety." (To this I quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would surrender liberty for security deserve neither freedom nor security!")
We want laws to protect us from cell-phones in cars. We want laws that don't let anybody smoke. We want laws that stop Microsoft from putting a browser in Windows. We want laws that stop SUVs from being driven. We want laws that keep uncooked eggs from being served at restaurants! (Caesar Salad, RIP.)
Why do we consider the public incapable of making these decisions on their own? People are well aware of the dangers of smoking. People are well aware of the dangers of SUVs. (Hell, my Jeep Cherokee from '94 had a gigantic warning label on the visor: "WARNING THIS VEHICLE FLIPS ON SHARP TURNS.")
That's all I need to know. It flips. I am at risk. I bought it anyway.
I don't smoke, but if I started tomorrow, I'd know: I will get cancer.
I know that eating and drinking in my car (far more common for accidents than cell phones) are risky behavior. I take my chances.
I know that sex leads to disease. I still like it.
I know that using Microsoft products may cause me to have a blue screen. Here I am!
The cell-phone issue is especially irritating to me. 1.5% of car accidents are the result of cell-phone usage, so they have been banned in New York. Yet, 8 times that number were caused by car radios! How long before that menace is banned? For our safety...
It is impossible to legislate a safe and happy world. If it were, I can assure you that we would never have had cars in the first place. (High speed deaths.) Say goodbye to swimming pools. (Children drown every day.) No more knives. (Stabbings.) No more guns. (Obviously.) No more biology classes! (Kids might grow up to become bioengineers!!) No more lawnmowers, no more blenders, no more staircases, no more alcohol, no more drive-thru windows, no more roller skates, no more diving boards, no more horses, no more scissors...
I could go on all day. The point is that we accept a certain amount of risk in a free society. With every risk we attempt to eliminate comes the elimination of liberty.
The fact is: if you don't like SUVs, don't drive them. If you don't like bio-engineered foods, don't eat them. If you don't like smoking, don't smoke. (And for every crisis-level alarmist report that is published about these dangers, there is another, equally reputable, that says don't panic.)
Blowing up SUV dealerships won't make SUVs go away. But they do put innocent people at risk.
If you think that SUVs are dangerous and cause too much pollution (or whatever,) educate the public. Don't punish them. And don't sacrifice their rights because "it's good for them."
It's sad that we have to have a discussion on the importance of liberty. Perhaps we should have a "Fascist Week," where for 7 days we experience a totalitarian government that controls our thoughts, actions and activities. (Protecting us from ourselves, of course.)
I think that would end the debate once and for all.
GenChalupa
I applaud you sir, for having the balls to post such a message on Slashdot. I am more suprised that these Slashdot drones actually modded you up to your current level. Bravo!
I too own a SUV but my type and reasons are far different than yours.
First of all, I'm afraid that some of these enviro-hippies will attack my SUV even though it's a Toyota RAV4 (ie, mini-ute). Some things to consider about my reasons to purchase a vehicle that is classified as SUV, but, in reality, is far from it.
1) At the time my wife and I had two cars, a Toyota Camry and Toyota Paseo. We had just purchased a new house.
2) I was considering selling my wife's car and purchasing a pick-up since I needed some such thing to haul lumber, etc for working on my house.
3) This idea was shot to hell when an inattentive moron in a Neon pulled out in front of me and my wife and totaled out Camry.
4)This left me in a situation. We had lost our "family car" and needed such a car. In addition, I still needed most of the capibility that a truck would provide. I couldn't afford to get a replacement for the Camry and then purchase a truck 6 months later, so i went the SUV route.
5) The RAV4 gets around 23mpg, which is equal to what my Camry was getting at the end of it's life, so I don't see myself as harming the enviroment any more that I used to and definately not as much as the Excursion drivers.
6) My RAV functions as both a sedan and pickup. It gives me AWD for the occasionaly bad days during winter (which happen frequently enough here in KY to be an issue). I feel more confortable towing behind it than I would a van (of course, I can't tow as much as I could with w pick-up or big SUV, but I had to compromise). The RAV handles just slightly "bulkier" than my Camry.
All in all, it sickens me that there are asses out there who will judge a person based on their vehicle. Damaging a person's property in such a way really annoys me. These are the sort of people who cry out about the "Nazi-like oppression of the jackbooted police force of America", resort to these tactics and then wonder why they are being arrested.
I'll pray for you America, because I don't see you lasting 100 years more. I wonder if I can purchase lots down in the wilderness of Antarctica yet just to get away from the nuts.
That's bollocks. While the French may have caused the death of a Greenpeace member, Greenpeace have never caused anyone's death..
Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
"Information wants to be paid"
Yes, a 1997 Honda Accord pollutes more than a 2001 Ford Excursion. The Accord first met LEV requirements in 1998, and the 2001 Exursion is LEV certified. The Excursion may use twice the gas, but it has lower emissions per mile than does the Accord. The Exursion will more quickly deplete us of our fossil fuel supply, but the greenies want that.
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!
--
While torching a dealership may seem a little harsh, it only seems that way from a VERY limited point of view; from the point of view of Western Short-Sighted Capitalism.
However look at the HUGE risks being played to attain the magic $$$, and spread your focus over a couple of million years and many billion lifetimes. From this point of view, the profits of a few fat-arsed capitalists doesn't even register on the scale.
Companies such as these should be SHUT DOWN, and their directors prevented from ever again being in a position of such power - lest they put all life on Earth in jeapardy yet again.
Of course the protestor's actions don't exactly fit into the Western legal system's idea of what is acceptable. But to me, this kind of protest is FAR more acceptable than the actions they are protesting about, and should therefore receive a full pardon, and maybe even a Nobel prize.
But visionaries are often crucified long before the world recognises them.
The abovementioned destructors are one and the same as the moochers of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." Although she had nothing too specific to say about the environment, I dare say that this wanton destruction, and the accompanying sentiment that the ends justify the means, would be condemned by her, as it is by me.
What are you going to do until then? Tool around in an electric golf cart, and hope everyone else follows your lead?
I'll bite: yes, it is entirely unlike that event. If anything, these eco-terrorism events are like the attack on Rearden's metalyard (in Atlas Shrugged; as you note, the Fountainhead is harder material to pick from).
Edward Abbey
Once again, what about the rest of us? I'm sure the guy that stole the tank and went for a joyride in California a few years back felt pretty safe too. In a vehicle that size, if you get into an accident, especially with a small car, you're going to be unscratched, but the other guy may be lucky to survive. When you figure how fast some of the SUV owners drive, then add to that the fact that it takes quite a while for those brakes to bring that huge hunk of iron down to a stop... it's a damn miracle there aren't more wrecks involving them. Perhaps I'm strange, but I would rather drive a pseudo sports car, nimble and quick enough to try to avoid an accident, rather than just trying to survive one.
- Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
Have you see anyone actually post a comment in support of these actions? This one troll, but that's it.
Since I think it's fairly safe to assume most of us here are liberal, I think you'd be more honest with yourself if you realized most of us are very rational indeed.. most of the replies to this article have been about how the poster hardily opposes environmental destruction, and especially SUVs, but how eco-terrorism is digusting a bad choice.
That's how I feel, too.
Sure, I love Carl Hiassen, and Skink is hilarious, but the original eco-terrorists were invented by Edward Abbey -- The Monkey Wrench Gang.
Strange I was thinking he was one of those whacko's that got his brainwashing from Faux Snooze.
Furthermore, we have interesting statistics which tells us that in situations where guns are fired, armed citizens are significantly less likely to shoot the wrong person than police officers.
Do you have a source on this that you can point me to? I would love to be able to add this statistic to my collection, provided it has numbers to back it up.
Because we have become such a disgusting Global communitiy of useless consumers an attack on a SUV auto sales makes a small impact.
What really needs to happen is to attack and critisize and pressure EVERY wasteful auto dealer.
That would cause a change. That is what it takes before it is called a revolution.
We certainly have the technology for plentiful free energy. How many laws are on the books requiring a home to have some sort of solar power? How many corporations do you know who voluntarily save energy even though it will cost them more money? How many billions of dollars are spent bribing politicians in order for a corporation to continue its wasteful practices?
Stop supporting GAS you ignorant people. If you stop buying it. It will stop being important. What if GOD is unreasonably strict? We are all fucked...
Some other things to support
www.greenpeace.org
www.norml.org
www.disclosureproject.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
Are these people starving because they have no GM crops? I didn't think so.
These people are starving because of greedy people. Imagine the few millions of dollars it would cost for a corporation to create an effective farming solution.
The money gets spent on the stupid stuff like SUV's, Guns, Diamonds, the Military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
The reason you were in the accident is because you driving.
Maybe the person who hit you was angry because you were wasting gas in an suv, making the road unsafe for every other driver, and you look like a complete dumbass for buying one in the first place. Regardless of the fact that he was in one too. Where is the sport in driving? Where is the utility in vehicle too expensive and too fragile to be taken off road? (A real utility vehicle does not need a road, and definitely does not need leather seats, and cd changer.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
Tree Farms are bad for more reasons than the fact they use GM trees.
Homogenous forests have been hated by environmentalists (for good reason) for decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
You would have enough for the Solar Arrays.
Is that the only model you can think of? How about the Power Companies work with the contractors to build every house with Solar Panels. The trade will be you get free power from the, but they get any extra you produce.
I mentioned laws. EVERY house should have solar water heat. That is simply too inexpensive NOT to have in place BY LAW.
How hard would it be to require EVERY business to have solar energy use in some form.
And since you have no mind, I'll guess I'll just have to mention the fact that Solar Panels today are an investment, and are a large start up cost, and that should change. But the fact remains, that no matter how much the initial investment they will eventually pay back their cost. There is no way for you to disagree with that.
When was the last time you invested in a company producing panels? No fucking wonder they are expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
That point is obvious. They still did us a favour. Now if only everyone could instantly become enlightened and simply stop buying wasteful products...
./ is the most important thing.)
But, the lot will rebuild. The insurance company will happily pay for it, and so will the millions of complete idiots who continue to buy the pieces of shit SUV.
(Yet another 'funny' post on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_c
Thanks. Best chuckle I've had all weekend.
I don't think it's SUVs that we should be worried about. Why am I not hearing anyone complain about how bad trucks (specifically the ones that haul freight or those old, big pickup trucks) are when it comes to emissions? Whenever I am on the road, I usually see trucks emitting dark brown/black, thick, smoke. I can't say I've seen an SUV emit anything close to that. Yes, I understand that trucks are much bigger, but there's no reason why you should have to breath that smoke in when you are driving behind one.
And remember, some people really do need SUVs. Some need it for the 4 wheel drive. Some need it to carry their sports stuff or some bigger items that wouldn't fit in a sedan. In addition, there are some obese people that just can't fit in one of those more conservative sedans that you want to throw them in. But, I do agree that there are many people that buy them that don't need that big of a car.
Also, would you rather be in an SUV or small two-seater when you're in an accident? People are so bad at driving nowadays that I just don't feel safe at all in a smaller car. Until people can figure out how to drive well, people will continue to buy those SUVs or larger cars.
Btw, my dad's SUV, a Mercedes ML-320, gets an average of 25mpg (it has a computer which tells you this). There are many sedans which get worse mileage. If they really felt there was no better method than to burn an SUV dealership to the ground, they should have burned down a used car dealership. It's the older cars we need to phase out fast.
But there is considerable dispute over what caused it--among scientists
You don't seem to have a good grasp of the problem if you think this is relevant. Global warming is a prediction based on the observed effects of gases, not a retrospective attempt to explain current temperatures. Even if currently observed temperature rises were entirely natural, that's quite possibly BAD news, because a) it doesn't even remotely suggest that global warming won't result from our greenhouse gases, and b) it means any greenhouse warming will be IN ADDITION TO natural warming, which means even deeper shit than artificial warming alone.
Like everyone else I guess, I kinda hope that it will never really eventuate, but day by day, the evidence gets even less contraversial. There may be disagreement among "scientists", but disagreement among reputable scientists of high standing is becoming awfully difficult to find.
No.
No.
No.
Problem solved.
Excuse me?!? I didn't see a single solution in that entire post. All you did was disagree with a bunch of thoughts regarding possible solutions.
"Drugs are Bad, mkay."
There, I've just solved the world's drug problems.
:-)
Quote: "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? "
Is it right to ask a group of people if it is right to perform acts of terrorism?
I have this conversation with people all the time... it usually starts with some comment like "Why dont they just kill and get it over with" -- referring to how they STILL have not finished with his trial. While these things are not the same, their concept is -- we can not just go around breaking the law.
Regardless of what you feel about SUV's, if your aunt/father/mother/etc came to your house in one, how would you feel if your house was torched in an effort to discourage SUV ownership... if these people want to get a message across -- do it legally... or (barring that) lobby the oil cartels to raise gas price.. when it gets to 5 buxors a gallon lets see people CHOOSE suv's.
There's other, worse, examples -- The infamous (Slashdot) PT Crusier which is legally considered a truck even though it's based on a Dodge Neon.
Also, the Honda CRV was previously marketed as a Civic Wagon and now mysteriously has become officially a truck.
I agree with the intent of the original law -- give farmers and other rural road types an exemption. However, I can't help to worry that driving up to your ski lodge in Tahoe will some how be categorized as "rural road" use.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
"'Drugs are Bad, mkay.' There, I've just solved the world's drug problems."
Yup!
He learns FAST!
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
"Are these sorts of actions justifiable?"
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.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
"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.
That being said, here's my dilemma: If I have control over a limited resource, then I charge as much as I can for it. If my resource isn't all that limited, then I have to lower my costs in competition with others, but never below the cost of my resource (unless for strategy reasons, yadda, yadda, yadda).
One of the underlying beliefs of the eco-terrorists is that some group is using up more resources than they should be allowed to use. But if that group is producing more, then why shouldn't they also get to use them?
I could go on with examples, but I should need to. The argument should swing towards, "Is there actual value being produced?" and "Is the world paying too much for too little," or some other tripe like that. Not, "How dare rich people spend money."
Just my 2 cents on a lazy Sunday...
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
Insurance companies don't raise premiums in a blanket fashion, they increasingly target high premiums at high claimants. I'm not saying that's fair, in the sense of social justice - poor people might pay more for vehicle insurance because they live in an area with a high car crime rate. But it's fair in the sense of 'natural' justice.
This takes a while to filter through the system. So, the auto dealer will also lose their no-claims bonus, if they had one.
People who are protesting against environmental destruction consider themselves as the co-victims of violence perpetrated against the planet as a whole, a violence perpetrated by the collusion of certain big corporations, their customers and other allies. Your argument about truly developed countries protecting their citizens' rights to freedom from the attacks of radical groups is very weak given this fact. It is those self-same developed countries and citizens who are perpetrating violence against the planet.
People get violent and zealous when they are frustrated by ignorance, inertia, apathy and plain selfishness. Most of the developed world appears to suffer from these four attributes. You can't be surprised when some people react in a violent, zealous manner.
Negative media attention is at least media attention. There is no such thing as bad publicity, to commit a cliche. Of course that is not the whole truth, but when it's the only way to be heard, so be it. Fix apathy and selfishness, and the violence will go away. Outlaw the violence, and it will just keep on coming.
Violence does not only hurt those lower on the industrial chain. It can affect profit margins.
You suggest legislation and control of corporations is the only way to effect real change. If you are right, this will never happen, particularly in the United States, where the president has shown himself to be a real enemy of the environment. Witness Kyoto.
If nothing is done now, whether by fair means or foul, by the time widespread support for real positive change is attained, it will be too late. Selfishness, ignorance, inertia and apathy will conspire to destroy those basic but essential things everyone takes for granted.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
No.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Well, utilitarianism can be interpreted in many ways, for example John Stuart Mill kind of broke out of the hedonist tradition started by Bentham. He thought that it is the greatest good of the greatest number that counts. And he was a vigorous defender of freedom of opinion.
These are all pretty complex issues. And did you know Kant wasn't too "good" either (depending of course what you mean by the word), being a racist and all?
Against SUVs, that is:
"I'm changing the climate! Ask me how!" bumper stickers.
The SUV Ticket.
The SUV Poseur Page
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A truck is great for transportation in a rural area if you only have a few people, but if you have to move more than a few people, an SUV may be your only option on rough roads.
Everyone posting seems to jump on the "violence is bad under any circumstances" bandwagon. Violence is certainly justified under the right circumstances. I just don't think the so-called environmental threats everyone is crying about have become so dangerous that violence is justified - YET. When Manhatten is underwater from global warming, will violence be justified? Probably not, because it will be too late by then. But would violence be justified sometime between now and then? Maybe. All I'm trying to say is that your response to a threat is appropriate when it is of the same magnitude as the threat. Right now there is still quite a bit of uncertainty in the science, but if we are ever certain that something bad is going to happen, then we are OBLIGATED to stop it, with whatever means necessary. Note: this doesn't advocate violence as a first or even second option, but eventually it may be necessary to rough some people up. Nobody ever gets what they want in history without a little muscle.
Ummm, I guess you weren't paying attention when Bush went to Europe a few weeks ago. One of the major issues (if not THE main issue) to be discussed was global warming and the Kyoto treaty. The media was filled with articles on the debate over global warming. Perhaps complete saturation coverage is what you'd like.
I'm sorry but can't SUVs be given a special case rating? About the only thing they're useful for IS burning, and then only just.
If you're going to be doing enough off road miles that a car can't cope, then you need an offroader, not an inefficient unstable waste of metal that tips at the first sight of a corner, let alone a small rock.
--
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
So do they not expect GM will make more Suburbans and Tahoes to replace the ones that got burned?
Buiding them (smelting and casting the steel, formulating the plastics, powering the factories, etc) is overall worse for the enviroment than driving them is. Same goes for econoboxes too.
Added to the previous posters observation of the toxins released by burning them and I think these "eco-terrorists" are more of a threat to the enviroment than the average SUV driver.
Next time you see one or two people get out of a Suburban, a Yukon, a Durango, or some such thing, look and see if they are actually hauling large quanities of stuff. If the back of that thing isn't completely filled ask them why they felt the urge to drive it. If they fail to provide decent answer beat them bloody, slash all thier tires, and set the vehicle on fire. Anything less than that and you're coward.
Ecology is about people and if you find violence against a person abhorable, you might want to think twice about violence against systems that are composed of people.
hmmm... but systems that are composed of people turn people into objects therefor they are no longer people so destroying them isn't hurting people... hmm seems I've got a bit of a problem here.
Got it! Everytime you get frustrated because your compassion for humanity causes you to want to destroy it, remember that you are human!
Among the evil activites done...
"they stomped on the grass"
Boy those hippies are crazy !!!
Now I really need to get my save the broccoli shirt made.
www.fuckbunny.org ||||| punkrock chicks..
Here Here! I particularily like the idea of the UN collecting taxes, I say we move a portion of our corporate tax collection to the UN - this will help avoid the *race to the bottom* that we will soon enter as we all start begging for corporate-table scraps.... excellent point.
So governments offer better service at a lower total cost than companies? What planet does this happen on
The planet of Canada. Where we pay $2400 per person covered to deliver health care to 100% of our citizens, in the USA you pay $4400 per person covered to deliver health care to 87% of your citizens.
Where do you think this money goes? To the pockets of the Plutocrats who are wrongly involved in delivering a service in a climate where everyone wants it, everyone needs it and we all agree it is vital.... except those who want to make money on suffering. Your dollars spent, as illustrated above, in the US, helps support advertising, accouting, salespeople, payoffs (businesstrips-give-a-ways), repeated administration staffs - at every 'firm' that delivers health care - all this duplication costs MONEY! it is not made up in superficial capitalist 'competition' or 'efficiency' - it is *waste* in the world of delivering health services.
If the pollution is really a problem, set and mandate the standard - and apply it across the board
Agreed. But there is *NO WILL* in the American Plutocracy to rock the boat - where is the economic incentive to 'do the right thing'??? this is *exactly* the point. No one will make the right legislative choices, across the board, simply shifting the playing field in the wise way (a chosen direction vs. free market direction). This is "un-American" thinking - it will not happen. The oil/auto companies will take 200 years to transition their piles of investment and profit making ventures (dont rock a profitable boat) and in the meantime we continue to live under a regime of *bad choices* and *unhealthy living*.
Democracies that are impotent to setting their own course, and setting the base-line and environment in which their businesses operate are useless. As is proving true in the USA. Free-Market self-directed, self-regulating, 'corporation-as-citizen' capitalism is a death sentence.
Taxes, which only create larger governments, which by definition are inefficient wasters of resources, also result in their own pollution of a sort.
That is untrue. When a firm (private or public) is given task to deliver a service (say health or electricity) the private (capitalist) firm will have to pay for bribes (aka lobbying), advertising, sales people (with their fat lifestyles (wine-ing and dine-ing people), marketing - and these costs occur ACROSS the INDUSTRY over and over and over and over. In the public held company these things are unnecessary, and the entire country has a consolidated administration expense. These basic differences are REAL and significant. Such that Canadians pay $2400 per person covered to deliver *PUBLICLY OWNED* health care services to 100% of the population - in America you pay $4400 per person covered to deliver *PRIVATE FOR PROFIT* health care services to 87% of the population. This scenario is true for every industry where a community agrees said service is essential. If everyone is paying for it, why make it a profit-seeking business? 100% of the population dosnt need to make a profit for 0.00001% of the Bourgeois.
Americans are still suffering from McCarthyism. Anti-Communist confusion has polluted your communities to the point where you trust your futures to capitalists, versus agreeing, using democratic mechanics, on what is important, reaching a consensus and delivering this basic need. Im not saying everything should be coded and controlled by a central force, but 50% of the economy are basic everyday needs and these should not be put into the hands of a few who by definition intend to exploit.
ha!
Not only is the service *BETTER* (no HMOs making $boardroom$ decisions with my life) but we do not "steal" anything. Might negotiate blanket prices from Big Pharm suppliers - but we dont break the law in doing so (although, frankly I dont believe their should be health-related IP of any kind, its inhuman).
Your either a troll or simply grossly ignorant.... the former automagically makes you the latter.
I also like the fact that I can get whatever medical service I want, exactly when I want it, with no waiting for a government waiting list. I want to see a doctor today, I go. And all I have to do is pay for it. What a simple, wonderful system.
Two points:
"you" might like the "fact you can get whatever medial service *you* want" but not everyone can afford that financially. Your community is made of a variety of people. All of them equally valuable. The idea that they should be arranged parallel to their financial worth is a distinctly American ideal. One that is born of the Natioanl-Jingoism that tells you about the supremacy of self and the individual (really devices to lull you into becoming a mindless, want-based consumer of As Much As Possible - this is the false American Dream).
Please read this article. Then see this.
from getting people to agree with them, drive people away
I wonder why their media-coverage has shot up recently... maybe The Man would like the moderate support to begin associating radical (non-violent type) environmentalists with the image of The Terrorist that they have been cleverly cultivating in American Media.. This will keep the masses from joining the pro-sustainability advocates. This is nott a conspiracy it is self-motivated, self-directing self-interest from all members of the American Plutocracy. If the masses stop buying needless crap - what happens to all their made-up-economics
I always hate hearing shallow vapid arugments like of logging equipment, effectively releasing all sorts of toxins into the air and spilling diesel and motor oil all over the ground
You shouldnt off-handedly dismiss this action. I do not think spilling chemicals in the forest (buring the equipment) is a *good* thing either - BUT - I understand their motivation, i never the less also support their action. The damage that that equipment could cause is a greater tragedy than the smaller chemical spill. Is this rationalizing - yes. But what you fail to admit is that calling someone a hypocrite and dismissing their arguments is cheap and lazy - it becomes easier for you to use this escape hatch (the hypocrite-arugment you used above) than dealing with the real issues.
Taxes are the things you pay, in concert with your neighbour, to commit to SHARING the common costs of supporting your community. Stop paying taxes and the capitalists will be happy to reap a profit off of all your essential community services (think: phone, water, gas, elec... then think roads, police, courts, elections, schools). You can bet that the right capitalist will offer these services, with lower real value, at higher prices and with zero certainty. If you havnt got the money, you havnt got the service. Now, this everything-in-the-free-market idea might appeal to a fiercly-individual-self-centered-myopic-egotist but the rest of the world (everyone outside the USA) like the idea of sharing a fuck of alot. Taxes == sharing the costs of maintaining your community for the good of all. !Taxes == entrenching capitalist control of your life && fueling the race to the bottom as everything gets sucked into the free-market.
I know its tough - but please choose wisely.
consume more fuel and subsequently cost more.
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.
i don't want to hear your "peaceful protest" bullshit, cuz it doesn't work, not a bit. a few carefully placed bombs can do far more than having some goddamn sit-in and carrying signs around. remember the boston tea party? do you remember John Browns raid on Harper's Ferry? the civil war resulted, and good came from it. (this is us-centric, sorry).
i'm not saying this is always true, but don't ever tell me that good never eventually comes from violent acts, and these aren't even violent against people - if you knew even a speck of what you think you do about this, you'd know that.
--
You're missing something very fundamental here: Production costs. The production costs for producing a car, in terms of pollution, you should drive it a long time before this becomes a relevant problem. I don't know how long, but the math should be done.
Of course it isn't. Eco-terrorists are not enviromentalists, it's as simple as that. There's nothing left-wing about that.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I remember this clearly: It was many, many years ago, it was September, I was a newbie, and went onto the USENET, and subscribed to all the groups that I had an interest in. I have always regarded myself an environmentalist, and besides, I'm pretty left-wing too. So, I got subscribed to a bunch of environmentalism groups, such as talk.environmentalism.
To my huge surprise, I found myself arguing against most of the folks there almost all the time. What a bunch of wackos.
I wrote some stuff, among those, this thing I put on my web site titled "Environmental terrorism is just terrorism!"
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Considering that gas is taxed by the gallon, SUVs and other inefficient vehicles are already taxed more.
Just wondering, I know companies test and make sure that their plants are safe(I hope anyway) and that if a genetically engeneered plant did MATE with a normal plant their should be no real danger. However, what if too seperate types of genetically engeneered crop MATED? Example: A Lot of companies are really into genetically engineered corn. What if company A. was creating a breed of corn that was creating calcium and other vitamins that doesn't happen naturally, While company B. was creating a Genetically Engineered breed of corn that creates a natural insecticide and repels insects. If theese two different types of genes mated somehow (seeds fall off from trucks,carried by birds,etc) wouldn't this increase the chance for a HARMFULL and possibly dangerous mutation?
ohh, the almighty Kyoto treaty. Wasn't Romania the only country in the WORLD to ratify and sign it?
Sanchi
"They said we couldn't do it [Athlon]... but we built it, we shipped it... and we didn't have to recall it." Rich Heye
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
All about me
Reminds me of the environmentalists who spray painted baby seals, in the belief that this would ruin the aesthetic value of the fur, and the hunters would leave them alone. Turns out the paint also ruined the insulating value of the fur, and the seals froze to death!
Suppose that [Your Favorite Totalitarian Regime] is perpetrating [some awful atrocity]. Would extremist tactics in order to bring attention to such abuses be justified? What is the difference, then, between the hypothetical situation and this one? Keep in mind that "environmentalist wackos" do in fact believe that an atrocity is being committed here.
Regarding the burning of the dealership, the relatively benign emissions from such a blaze are insignificant compared to the environmental damage caused by supplying those SUVs with enough gas to move them a few hundred miles.
Finally, I think you should brush up on virtue ethics, as it seems to me that this ethical system can justify violent acts of this nature.
FreeBSD - the power to serve.
So, what climates would justify an SUV? My parents and inlaws live 5 hours away, here in Minnesota. While it is cold, winter only lasts from October through April. Should we have to fork out even more money to buy a summer vehicle for the 6 months in the year when we can be pretty confident? Keep in mind that you have a lot of stuff for a week+ visit with two active adults and a 1 1/2 year old.
In moderately deep snow, yes a 4WD vehicle is going to have an advantage. But not on ice.
A 4WD truck or SUV is good on ice and snow. A 4WD truck or SUV in 2WD mode is bad in both. Many accidents you see on icy days are from people that:
1. Are not used to driving a taller, larger vehicle and forget that it doesn't handle like a car.
2. Don't try 4WD until it's too late.
3. Need to change their tires.
4. Are in too much of a hurry and would likely end up in the ditch, no matter what they are driving.
science is a religion
My "massive" Grand Cherokee stops very well, thank you. You should always leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front of you, anyway. Of course, I learned how to drive behind the wheel of a 1978 Dodge Maxivan (think of the stretched, full-size vans you see with 5 rows of seats).
What exactly is the benefit of having 4WD?
First of all, for some people you should be making a comparison between a minivan or van and an SUV. 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.
Have you ever noticed the number of cars that hydroplane in standing water or heavy downpours vs larger 4WDs? Offhand, I can't think of anybody I know who has with a truck or SUV, but I can with FWD cars. I don't know the capabilities of the person who was driving the 4Runner. I do know that a lot of people don't know how to drive in winter conditions, even if they are good with their own vehicle under good weather. Also, front-wheel drive vehicles act quite differently than rear-wheel drive vehicles. If the person didn't have the 4WD engaged, I'd say they didn't have much of a chance.
4WD vehicles are good for large amounts of snow muddy roads, and potholes. If you are in conditions that require chains, a 4WD would usually be a good match (BTW, they make chains for SUVs too-I used to have a set for my Bronco II). If you are using chains because of glare ice, you might want to rethink your travel plans anyway, unless you want to go slow (chains are not designed for extended driving at highway speeds). Snow tires don't work well on ice-they tend to have too big of a foot print. But, IANATE (I Am Not A Tire Expert).
Large parts of the US are sparsely inhabited by urban standards, with low maintainance roads being the rule. Result: several days until a snowplow comes through, muddy lanes from spring run-off and heavy rain, and potholes big enough to break tie rods and bottom out smaller vehicles. Shovel it out? Not if you live a half mile from the nearest main road. Drive around? Sometimes miles out of the way, if one exists. Go around the potholes? Not to smart to try dodging in heavy traffic, and sometimes they go all the way across the street.
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.
science is a religion
Some people do not think man should change the environment. But the obvious point is that biosphere has changed the planet quite a bit! That is what it does in order to exist. It fails in some places like the Sahara desert. If we assume some teleology, we can say that man, if he used his reason, could make the deserts bloom, to benefit man and the teleology of the biosphere. But doing it right requires some knowledge. So the best thing to prevent environmental problems, for ourselves and the biosphere, is develop some good science and apply it.
And the last I looked, I was a natural being in some sense, so I guess food I "make" is natural food.
While I agree with many of your points, I think this is a bad example. If there is any type of genetically modified organism that needs to be strictly controlled, it is bacteria. See, bacteria have a couple of very nice abilities which while at first could be beneficial to the example of cleaning up toxic waste, could very quickly turn the other way:
1. In order to be useful in cleaning up a toxic waste spill or contaminated environment, you probably want the bacteria to reproduce very quickly to attack the toxins very quickly right? So...what happens when the toxins are cleaned up? Many types of bacteria don't just up and die when resources are scarce. They tend to do one of two things: form a spore (is that the word I want?) that can be resucitated when conditions become favorable, or adapt and use something else as a resouce...and with bacteria, adaptations can happen very quickly because bacteria can evolve very quickly because of such short generation times.
2. One reason bacteria would be useful in this type of bioremediation is because they are easy to modify. But this is a blade that cuts both ways. This ease of modification makes them quite prone to mutations that could have undesirable effects. For example, how about this hypothetical situation: Big oil spill. Marine bacteria are modified to have an affinity for hydrocarbons like those in oil. They are dumped on the spill, where they grow very rapidly and consume the oil spill...however, in the process of all of this reproducing, slightly different strains of bacteria form, including one that causes an affinity to the same oils found in human sweat. Now these bacteria have an affinity for human skin...hopefully the ocean currents won't bring them near any beaches, because with bacteria, it just takes a single cell to get everything started. Or, how about the idea of what happens to the toxins? Sure, they are taken up and processed by the bacteria, but who is to say that something won't occur to make the by-products even more toxic? Then what? produce more bacteria to try and clean up that toxin? Eventually create an entire ecosystem with a specific purpose? An ecosystem with a goal is about as far from nature as you can get.
I'm sure that I am greatly over-simplifying things,but my point is, a "harmless" bacteria doesn't have to remain harmless. There is no law of nature that says these organisms must act the way we desire them to simply because we designed them. So, IMHO, introducing a foreign organism that has been specifically modified for a purpose rather than evolving into that purpose, an organism that has the potential to change and adapt very quickly and unpredicably into any environment is not a particularly good idea.
Just my 2.4 yen. Cheers. :)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
I've found a chronology of the Earth Liberation Front's actions. It seems as though much of the activities in 2000 were dedicated to torching new oversized houses being built in sprawling neighborhoods.
I'm sorry, but no matter how crappy SUVs are (and I'm the first to admit I deplore the things), no matter WHAT, violence and destruction are not the solutions. Extreme leftists are always going on about how evil and brutal "the system" is, and how "property is violence," etc. Well... how does throwing bricks at cops or busting up a Starbucks or burning Romania Chevrolet compare to that? Is that any less violent and brutal? Not on your life. It's certainly more juvenile.
I'm tired of the Socratic moral superiority always claimed by radical Leftists, and how they always seem to think they're on the inside track, that somehow, they're better than "the common people," who are reluctant to "rise up and take action." Maybe the common people are happy the way they are... ever thought of that?
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
Yeah, be a good little worker bee. Otherwise Uncle Sam will have to give you a spanking.
Its the stereotypical extreme-leftist retort: "If you dont agree with me, you must be a TV-made media clone controlled by the government!!!"
Listen, buddy, spouting nonsense about how evil SUV's are and the evils of the corporate 'system' and the flaws of the 'common man' who is controlled by Uncle Sam isnt thinking outside the box any more than your so-called 'worker bee'. I live in Eugene, OR, where alot of this radical left BS is going down, and i can tell you, its not original at all. When you've heard 100 people who look all alike throwing around the same rhetoric, it beings to lose its sparkle and sheen, and starts to look more and more like hackneyed phraseology and cliche sloganism.
And torching SUV dealerships is pretty damn harmful to the environment too. Fumes from paint and oil and plastic and any number of other things go billowing into the atmosphere in quantities that can be quite damaging, esp. if theres a large number of the things burning. And to what end? So youve torched 50 SUVs... Ford can make that many more in an hour. Youve accomplished exactly nothing. Any sort of justification for this is pure arrogance and just putting on the blinders to what is really going on, which is simple criminality. If you really want to change the system, try doing it in a way that will garner real support, rather than Socratic, self-important extremist support. Whether you like it or not, your cause will succeed or fail on the shoulders of 'the common man.'
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
All this does nothing but reinforce the general perception that these guys, regardless of their cause, are nothing but a bunch of braindead violent miscreants... I think that's somewhat wrong... There *IS* a voice of reason in there.. but i think it gets effectively drowned out by the fools.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
Why is it okay for Ford to make Excursions? Why isn't it okay? There are a million things that are worse than SUV's. I'm no friend of massive Lexus SUV's, I assure you, but people should have a choice. We live in a capitalist system, whether you like it or not, and there is a market for large SUV-type cars. Clearly, you and I both differ in our opinions, but I don't feel 'enslaved' by corporations. I dont feel that Nike is my master. I have a brain. If i like a nike product, and its the right price, i'll buy it. such a thing has yet to happen, but *shrug*. Basing your whole life and ideology around mistrust and paranoia isnt the way i, or many people choose to live. Questioning the media isnt elitism, but to out and out brand it the tool of evil, or to do the same with the government, or to think that somehow YOU have the inside track, *IS* elitism and pretty arrogant.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
I take offense at how you seem to think that people who drive SUVs are pure evil, or fat and lazy. I dislike the way many SUV drivers act, as if they were in impregnable tanks, sure. But *shrug* if they want to blow the money on something that, as oil prices climb, will become even more of a burden, thats just fine with me. We live in a society where we have to put up with what we view as other peoples' wrongs (neo-Nazism, etc.) so that we can preserve our own freedom of choice. I think it would be pretty sucky if i lived in a place where everyone had to drive Geos, by federal mandate, or where i couldnt express my opinion about how lame neo-Nazis are. and of course, everyone has the right to diss on SUV drivers, corporations, etc... but they DONT have the right to start destroying things based on their views.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
That is pure hogwash. I live in the middle of oregon, and i used to live on the south coast, and ive been all around the state... and to say 'most of the forests' in oregon have been destroyed' is a lie. Sorry.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
Then because all the salespeople of the dealership lose their jobs, they have to vacate their nice expensive homes (clean them first with phosphate-based products) move their belongings to their new appartments (diesel particles from the moving trucks), find new jobs in the local newspaper (discarded newspapers with non-biodegradable ink), ...
Wouldn't it have been more environmentally-friendly to just leave the car dealership alone ?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
In brief, please don't denigrate vigilantes simply because they don't belong to the formal law enforcement community.
Another way of looking at the situation is that this group is at least doing something, however misguided. Personally I take a much more constructive approach to environmentalism: riding my bike instead of driving, minimizing waste by choosing products with minimal packaging, etc.
"To blow recursion, you must first blow recus
Unfortunately, a moment's thought makes clear that such "logic" is utterly specious. The problem is that the notion of what's right and wrong is entirely in the mind of the person or people deciding to commit the act, and thus it's possible to justify essentially any action using this premise. For example, someone could argue that abortion clinics are bad because they kill unborn babies, and use that as justification to bomb an abortion clinic. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates could argue that pro-lifers are impinging on women's fundamental reproductive rights, and use that as justification to bomb the headquarters of a pro-life group. Genetically modified foods are bad for the ecosystem? Destroy the tractors used to plow the fields in which they'll be planted! But wait: GM foods are more productive per acre (say, for the sake of argument), meaning organic farms occupy more land per calorie produced -- and agriculture is already using too much of our land, so we'd better destroy the tractors used by the organic farmers!
The problem with this kind of vigilante "justice" (for lack of a better term) is that there are two or more sides to every argument, and in many cases all the participants will be able to claim that they are acting in a morally responsible fashion, simply because their value systems or premises differ. And if you condone violence or destruction of property as a means of enacting social change, you're basically saying that the rule of law is moot and that, simply speaking, might makes right. I don't know about you, but that's not a world I want to live in.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
As another poster mentioned, the point of raising gasoline taxes would be to encourage consumers to make more environmentally-conscious decisions about their vehicle-buying and driving habits, and not to increase government revenue. I propose that gasoline taxes should be raised, and other taxes (perhaps income taxes) should be lowered to achieve a zero net change in government revenue. Thus, if you drive economically, you'll end up saving money over the current tax structure, and if you drive in an average manner there won't be much difference.
You obviously don't know much about race cars, or cars in general. Roll cages do NOT make economy cars weigh as much as SUVs. They might add 100-200 lbs, not 2000. If they actually made all cars with tube frames like race cars, they'd be lighter and stronger. The problem with tube frames is they're labor-intensive to build and the material costs more than stamped steel. Also, economy cars are far safer than SUVs due to stricter government crash standards. The problem is when the economy car gets hit by a 6000 lb. SUV instead of a normal 3000 lb. car.
Yes, but note that the same thing happens if you buy a mule. More relevant, most corn seed sold in the US is from hybrids that are sterile but much more productive than viable strains. At the same time, there is no reason why strains produced by recombinant DNA need to be sterile. On the contrary -- that could provide a way out of the sterile hybrid trap created by conventional breeding.
None of which is to say the issue of non-viable seeds isn't a concern -- it is. But it's a concern that overlaps somewhat with genetic modification issues but is largely irrelevant to them.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
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.
The argument is that if you allow one change to be made against something that is unacceptable then you will get itterative changes until nothing is left.
The reality is that any democracy is an equilibrium. Sure, it's not a totally stable one, but it'll still form an equilibrium. Start prohibiting a given right and you'll get support, maybe even go passed the reasonable point but then the counter movement will start getting support and it'll start to swing back towards the 'acceptable' balance point. It won't carry on swinging until it falls off the far end of the scale. Sure, not everyone will get what they want but it will vary roughly around the average acceptable point.
Take a look at smoking which people tried making the same claims for. Smoking isn't illegal. Yes, it's now largely illegal to do the things that make others suffer. Yes, there are some people pushing for it to be completely illegal. There are also growing numbers pushing back against it going any further because it's generally felt that it has gone far enough. California, probably the most anti-smoking state, has commercials all over the radio whinging on about smoking and the end result is that people are so sick of holier than thou anti smokers that their support is dwindling and the pace of change has all but slowed to a halt. That's the point - you reach an equilibrium.
If you try add a tax to SUVs, you'll probably get it supported (though there're so many SUV drivers around I wouldn't guarantee it). If you subsequently tried to ban them, yeah, you may even get that through (especially as the issue may have gained public support by that point). Next you'd try banning cars, only you'd find you've lost public support as they're judged way too useful a concept. Sure you'd end up with them controlled more but not banned. Take a look at the most environmentally active nations on earth - have any of them banned cars? Of course not. So, now we're going to ban power generation of any type, farming and all the rest of it? Don't be ridiculous.
I'm sorry, it's a nice emotive argument to make, and it convinces a lot of people with even relatively reasonable intellects, but it's also just not true. Mind you, everyone has the right to spout crap and try and get people to believe them. That's part of the equilibrium that's democracy too - you may even get support for a while until people start to realise and it too swings back against you.
Of course not! How can you possibly think that there is any reasonable debate to this? Okay, we are all used to the fact that you're a radical left winger and everything michael, but get real! How can you reasonably advocate the destruction of someone elses property for the sole purpose of making a scene to try and advance a loaded political agenda?
Oh wait, I'm starting to get it - It's okay to break any law or violate anyone's rights if it's for the proper (liberal) cause. Do I have it correct now?
--
Daniel J. Kelly
Whoops, I spilled a heaping bowl of sarcasm all over my keyboard
--
Daniel J. Kelly
Ok it's homework time. The rest of the world did not sign the Kyoto agreement. China, Brazil, and damn near all of Africa aren't required to sign it, but they pollute far more than the United States. The Kyoto protocol is simply a method of crippling the US economy to level the playing field, because the European governments don't want to admit that the free market economy works, and that any form of socialism doesn't (unless you have a decent amount of tourism and a big capitalist country like the US to rely on) European governments are disgustingly rich, but their citizens mostly aren't. They want to do everything they can to keep it that way, so they must result to tactics like Kyoto that cripple the economies of successful countries so that the masses don't think "Hey, that system works alot better. Why can't we have that?" It is rather unfortunate that the world is largely being run by children.
--
Daniel J. Kelly
Sorry, I wasn't really trying to argue. I was trying to make a point, but it seems now that I went off on many tangents. I apologize for the confusion.
--
Daniel J. Kelly
My viewpoint is actually in the minority. However, I think that the European media feeds a slightly different angle. From the little I have seen, they try to paint the picture that the U.S. is almost entirely right-wing, and of the same philosophy as myself. I would say that this country is almost exactly half right-wing and half left-wing, (discounting moderates and those who don't pay any attention to politics) and moving to the left. Our mainstream press is for the most part left-wing. They support things like Kyoto, and they criticize president Bush at almost every opportunity. (I will say that in some cases they haven't been as vindictive as I would expect.) I support the president's decision to not sign Kyoto, since I feel that there are serious problems with it (as I pointed out previously). Our media unfortunately has the people seriously believing that this decision was entirely based on the president's tie with oil companies and other corporate interests, and that he doesn't want to cut down on emissions. He's really just watching out for the good of the entire country. I'm certain he would sign a resolution to reduce emissions if it were more reasonable. Kyoto would have certainly had adverse effects on an already ailing economy. Energy costs would skyrocket (thereby increasing the costs of everything else, sending inflation through the roof), loads of jobs would inevitably be lost, and it would basically be a giant mess over a negligible (but costly) reduction in emissions, which would likely have occured anyway through the course of time in a strong economy, from the development of more efficient (and therefore less pollitng) everything. Most of the nations that signed the Kyoto agreement already meet (or almost meet) the outlined standards, and their economies have already adjusted, or are in the process of adjusting to whatever effects it has. (and the effects are likely to be smaller where a nation has a smaller population, GDP, etc.) And this is why I believe that the European aristocracy is just jealous, and wants to level the playing field so they can "feel good" about their environment and have a healthy economy (by comparison) at the same time. I also see it as a vehicle for Socialism to infiltrate the U.S., but that is purely my cynical libertarian point of view.
So to summarize, I don't think that "the U.S. is thumbing its nose at the rest of the western world out of their own selfish self-interest." I'm sure most of the world - including a large portion of this country - believes this, but I don't. I think we're taking a prudent approach, as opposed to a knee-jerk approach to a situation that could potentially screw up a whole lot of things if not clearly thought through.
Thanks for replying, and especially in such a civilized manner. (I was expecting flames.) I apologize for the fact that this post was grammatically cumbersome and difficult to read. Have a good one.
--
Daniel J. Kelly
Hmmm... No.
Anything else I can help clear up?
---
Based on what research? You want to compare and entire history of evolution, with all its checks and balances, to human controled evolution, which seems to have little outside a few years of "studies". You can NOT say at all there is no effect on the enviroment. You don't know what kind of subtle changes in how genes mututate in the enviroment of the grown corn (as its natural pedators eat it). Too little time has passed to see its impact on evolution both in the corn plant and in the its predators (including us).
I'm not some eco-terrorist and quite frankly I most likely eat genetic engineer corn all the time, but to say sometime like it has no envriomental impact, is just hogwash.
Burn Hollywood Burn
"the torching of an SUV dealership"
Good to see nothing of value was lost.
end communication
The kicker here is a crappy gas mpg tax already exists - for cars - SUV's are exempt. Adding insult to injury, they are exempt from lux tax as well...
Unless you count the $0.184 federal gas tax and the $0.23 state gas tax (WA) we pay on every gallon of gas at ~14.5 mpg in our Durango. Easily consuming twice the fuel and paying twice the taxes of your typical sub-compact.
These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
Nothing like getting hit to give you a new outlook on buying cars.... Don't look at the domestics for a full sized auto. My BMW 740i is smaller than most SUV's, gets low 20's driven hard, 30's on roadtrips, can actually fit five adults (or a couple kiddie seats), and has a bit of steel in it. With the economy like it is, you can get them cheap these days. Mine is going camping next week!
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
The kicker here is a crappy gas mpg tax already exists - for cars - SUV's are exempt. Adding insult to injury, they are exempt from lux tax as well... no wonder abominations like the lincon navigator exist.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
but your argument the "the greenies" WANT to use up fossil fuel is bullshit too. You are a flamebait boy, and should be modded DOWN as such....
Just because you think something is "bullshit" doesn't mean it qualifies as flamebait. If that's your understanding of the moderation guidelines, I sure hope your chances to moderate are few and far between.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Although I do not support the activities of these people, calling them "terrorists" only feeds into mainstream media paranoia. Most of these supposed terrorist groups take great pains to inflict their mayhem only on unmanned, unoccupied, inanimate objects. Irritating? Sure, but terrifying? Hardly.
I HATE SUV's and their drivers. They (obviously) accelerate slowly and for some strange reason the drivers are on average are more apt to act like assholes. Upper middle class, lower- upper class...they all have to have one, you know because the neighbors have one.
heh...true
You must be one of the people who think 4WD solves everybody's problems with driving in ice and snow.
I was driving home from Tahoe in near blizzard conditions, lots of snow on the ground, very slippery. I was in my Honda Accord with chains much like every other sane car driver. The Toyota 4Runner in front of me had snow tires. Care to guess which one of us lost control and ended up being t-boned by an oncoming car? By the way, this occured as the driver started braking.
Tell me, how well does 4WD help when you're trying to stop your massive SUV? What exactly is the benefit of having 4WD? Do you even know?
I would like to understand how my original post (above) could have possibly been moderated down. It was on topic, sincere, not troll, not flamebait, nothing.
JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH A POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT'S A BAD POST.
This is really starting to piss me off.
Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention: There is comprehensive, undisputable, sound, scientific EVIDENCE that global warming is quite real and human activity caused it. You can choose to believe otherwise but then you'd be wrong.
That's what I've been saying all along, the left wing is using environmentalism to prop up a bigger agenda- class warfare, and what usually springs up as a result of class warfare? Socialism, Communism, and all the other political views that attempt to make everybody equal by micro-managing, telling you how to live your life, etc., which in reality is nothing more than a sham, a few corrupted elite controlling the masses.
You have every right to buy as much safety and/or luxury as you can afford, and I would encourage you to do so.
One way to increase the safety of small economy cars is to build in NASCAR grade roll cages. So then the car weighs as much as an SUV because of the roll cage. What to do then? Make the roll cage out of space-age carbon fibers. So now you have a lightweight small car that is safe, and can even be made to go far on electricity, especially with lightweight lithium-ion batteries. But all that space age technology would make the car cost as much, or even more than a top of the line luxury SUV. Oh well, you have the money, you're a geek that loves high-tech stuff, so you splurge and get the electric car instead of the SUV. And you enjoy the savings on fuel, therefore you have more money to waste on something else, e.g. Bang & Oulfsen stereo, a 68" widescreen HDTV, and a new computer every six months. This means that the old Sony 25" Wega, the Panasonic stereo, and the 700 MHz P-III get passed on down, and eventually pitched onto the scrap heap. Along with the electric car you bought that has been totalled by the insurance company because of the splintered carbon fiber roll cage that can't be beat back into shape and filled with Bondo the way an SUV fender can.
that we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. if i want to own an suv, that's my business, not yours. if you don't like it, then go ahead and lobby for laws that prevent me from driving it, but i can own it, and everyone should respect that.
are you insane? how can you justify that when a simple injunction or (at most) arrest would accomplish the same thing? maybe you should move to afghanistan.
Anyone ever see the "That's my Bush" with the alaskan oil drilling and the Eco-Tauge where they Eco-Tauged the whitehouse sewage system?
(Score:0, Interesting)
Alas, given a few more years of this, I fear that the folk misconception will have become true. It's hard to communicate to people that you're in favor of peaceful cooperation when the self-proclaimed "anarchist" next door is randomly breaking stuff....
Maybe we ought to trademark Anarchism (TM). Then we could get government enforcement for correct usage of the term. ;-)
-Carter
Everyone on the side of genetic modification forgets that things are just fine the way they are, it's the way humans USE them that's the problem. not getting enough vitamins in your food? maybe because your oppressive government isn't making the right provisions for your health!
It's so ridiculous. We have the gall to think that we are fixing things when we are only making them worse. Solve the problems with humans before you start messing with everything else, or we'll ALL be sorry.
--- it's pelvis to be cube
Ah, I see we have a Master of Subtlety here.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
We'll all be fascinated to see (though not necessarily to smell!) your car that runs on crude oil.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Nonetheless, it's not priced in accordance with its scarcity, because of the nature of competition (and level of economic development) among its producers. If the oil were all in the hands of a bunch of Norways (instead of economically schizophrenic Saudi Arabias and Venezuelas), you can bet it'd last longer and cost a whole lot more, because Norway doesn't have the cash flow issues that preclude other countries from rationally extracting the most income (taking into account time value of money). As it is, however, they are dragged into the race to the bottom (unless they wanted to just put off all production until everyone else ran out).
Rarely. Every once in a while MPM Ali Al-Naimi will work up a lather and get someone at an OPEC meeting to suggest that countries should start adhering to the production quotas they'd agreed to, and they all mutter assent, and then just keep on selling all they can. OPEC ain't what it used to be.
Good luck. The Saudis have been trying for some time to develop their refinery business (the apparent culmination of their strategy to guarantee long-term economic viability by diversifying away from petrochemicals and into "services") but it's still not particularly competitive.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
I understand their frustration with the current state of the planet, I can feel their need to speak out against it's abuse, and I can identify with their cause, but my support stops short of violence. Torching SUVs is a lot easier than changing the world and the perceptions of those around you. As an environmentalist, I have to condemn this.
Fuck, even in the future nothin' works!
You are thinking of "Golden Rice", which has been modified to produce beta-carotene which the body can use to make Vitamin A. Of course, it takes literally 27 bowls a day of this rice to provide the minimum daily allowance to offset blindness, but don't let that affect the publicity value.
A similar bit of propoganda demonstrating the safety GMO products did involve corn. For years, Monsanto bragged about their study showing the no detectable level of pollen was found more than five feet from the perimeter of the GMO field of corn. Sounded pretty good until one of the researchers rolled over and admitted that no measurements were taken beyond five feet.
This is a dangerous genie. I am not opposed to GMO on principal, I am however opposed to making a stupid mistake by rushing to make a profit.
You were convinced of the safety of genetically modifying food crops and putting them into the environment by someone you care about who has good reason to be blind to the potential dangers. I do not mean that she is being purposefully dishonest, but I do mean that most of us have an innate ability to ignore those things that make us uncomfortable.
Try reading some of the literature from other geneticists, who are screaming at the top of their lungs that companies are acting dangerously. I really am not meaning to be personal, but consider if someone came into this forum and said that their girlfriend was a core developer at Microsoft and she was certain that Microsoft was acting in all of our best interest.
Dave
seems to me that slashing tires only leads to more pollution being generated to make more tires to replace the ones being slashed
LABTYD
So there's a difference between vigilante justice and corporate decisions? Wake the fuck up. Our country has a system in place that gives corporations all the rights of individuals but not all the responsibilities. What would happen to you if you built 100 engines that spewed the equibvalent of 100 Ford Excursions? Nothing nice. But we reward Ford for it.
Personally, I would never kill anyone unless I had to. But torching an SUV dealership does far less damage than SUV's themselves cause.
Carnivore are in operation on the Internet, you just moved way up on a couple of watch lists.
Yeah, be a good little worker bee. Otherwise Uncle Sam will have to give you a spanking.
Art At Home
I'm from Oregon, too by the way. I feel your pain about bicycle protests and tree-ins. I had to move to NYC to get away from that crap. But this doesn't change what I said about corporate responsibility. Typically this issue is countered with the "red-tape" boogy man. To question the way our media presents issues to us is not elitism. Try reading a foreign paper about US issues in parallel with a local one. Ra Ra America!
Answer me this. Why is it OK for Ford to make Excursions?
Art At Home
2. There is a demand for Excursions and demand drives the market.
3. Consumers have the right to buy what they want.
Why is it legal to make them? Your concept of your rights and freedoms fails to take into account the right of others to a clean environment. This is indeed the United States, and all of your rights are balanced with the rights of others, unless of course you happen to be a large corporation. You could take a broader view of safety, like the safety of other drivers. Would you want to die because an Excursion is the only thing that their sedentary, obese family will fit in?
Art At Home
I don't see where you're getting this information on my personal life and attitude. I'm not a paranoid conspiracy freak. If you got that impression from visiting my page, you missed the joke. My favorite humor has to do with black helicopters and UFOs.
I don't believe the media is a tool of evil, but I don't harbor the illusion that the NY Times, Reuters, or CNN are any different from MSNBC. The value system they reflect is inseparable from their ownership. There's a great article over on plastic about the Stalin-esque propaganda vocabulary that our government uses today, on the right and left. Terms like "pro-life", "faith-based", "affirmative action", etc. Terms that the mainstream media repeat like parrots. And what's with the 'elitism' thing? So it's OK to question the media, but voicing your opinion when you disagree isn't? Does pointing out their glaring conflicts of interest imply that I have some sort of 'inside-track'?
I'm no friend of massive Lexus SUV's, I assure you, but people should have a choice. We live in a capitalist system, whether you like it or not, and there is a market for large SUV-type cars ...I don't feel 'enslaved' by corporations. I dont feel that Nike is my master. I have a brain. If i like a nike product, and its the right price, i'll buy it.
I think you're equating consumer choice with freedom. People want SUVs and the companies are building them, but that doesn't mean that the consumers are running the show. You're not allowed to sell anything you want in America, and there's nothing inherently anti-capitalist about adding to that list. Maybe anti-libertarian, but that's different. The right wing in America has created a false dichotomy between near total laissez-faire economics and socialism, which is ridiculous. Even Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) advocated fairly extensive market regulation.
It's not that I feel enslaved, people do have to work somewhere, right? Corporations have the same rights as individuals under US law, which is OK. But when it comes to responsibility, they revert to amorphous entities with no one responsible. You can't send a corporation to jail, or do anything remotely near to it. I think (some) people feel that the legal system is an ineffective way to deal with Corporate America. That won't change until they're made more accountable. When I wrote "wake the fuck up", I should have followed it with "this is not a level playing field."
Art At Home
I think these acts of eco-vandalism are caused by people who are trying to fill a void in their life. They are looking for something to live/die for to give their life meaning. They choose to live outside the boundries created by society, so they don't feel guilty about their actions.
"I see. The fact that you . . . can't explain . . . explains everything."
Did you see ABC's special report with John Stossel about how the Environmentalists are usually wrong and how they indoctrinate our children with bullshit? Its a good show try to order it if you can. After seeing it you'll see how YOU are wrong. :)
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Oh yeah. A website named "tompaine.com" is a REAL credible source. Real mainstream as well pal. I'm a liberal myself but that website is so left wing its on a whole other bird entirely. If anything the site just proves John is doing his job very well. What environmentalists say and proclaim MUST be questioned for it effects our economy.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
It's a bit awkward to get around this country with computer equipment, camping and paintball equipment and golf clubs on public transport.
;(
I drive from North to South at least once a month, to and from work, and a 120 mile round trip to see family every two weeks.
I don't have much of a choice really
-------------- Russ
Conscience? Is that *still* in the dictionary?
Are these sorts of actions justifiable?
Depends on who you ask. As long as some people think they are, things like this will continue to happen.
International conglomerates routinely engage in disinformation campaigns, gross exaggeration of reality and outright lies to push their points of view, in addition spending millions to influence politics. Excuse me if I don't feel like getting up in arms about Greenpeace or the Sierra Club stretching the facts to make people aware of issues that the industries responsible for them very much hoped would fly right under the radar of public scrutiny.
I am a degreed chemist, a reasonably well-educated person who follows biotech news fairly closely. I think GMO technology (who cares if you like the term? It's accurate) holds massive potential for benefitting humanity but like any powerful tool, it's clear that it could cause significant harm. I would like to see GMO projects receiving some kind of regulated oversight, I would like to see significantly more safety testing of GMO foods, and I certainly feel I have the right to know if what I'm consuming contains GMO products. The agritech/biotech industries are blocking all of these moderate requests.
The Starlink corn issue is instructive. A company produces a seed that results in a food product that is not approved for human consumption due to proven allergenic potential. The company fails to take any significant action to keep this food product segregated from human food products, or even to properly inform farmers that this is a necessity. The corn shows up in taco shells and the company gets crucified. Their response? They try to get their product an emergency exemption - with no justification except that dealing with the situation they created is going to cost them. Whether this corn is a true health danger is irrelevant. What is relevant is the incredible short-sightedness, failure to create appropriate safegaurds, and arrogance in the face of legitimate public concerns.
Companies that are staking their businesses on developing GMO technologies bear as much responsibility if not more for public backlash and potential slowdowns and interruptions of research as ecological organizations. When they start handling GMO responsibly they will find it much easier to reap its benefits.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
OH PLEASE! Let's tax what we don't like in the name of "mother earth" or somesuch nonsense. Let's tax those "rich bastards" who can afford a $50,000 SUV. Yeah, they deserve it. Here's a nice news flash for you. What if they decided to tax your power consumption at home in the name of the environment? What if you were limited to a certain amount of power per day or per month, and if you exceed that, you're taxed heavily because you just "don't care" about the rest of the planet's needs?
That sort of knee-jerk "we'll tax the will out of the people" mentality has got to stop. Get over your self-righteous honda-driving smugness and realize that once you let the monsters out of the box, they can never be put back in.
One day, something you like will be taxed because it violates some "Earth rule", and you will be the FIRST one to cry "revolution!" to overthrow the very system YOU proposed to stop a bunch of people from burning too much gasoline in their cars.
This sort of high & mighty B.S. does NOTHING to help the environment. It just tries to resurrect the class envy of the early industrial revolution so that we can have a nice socialist system where everyone is treated "fairly and equally." Yes, they will be treated fairly and equally: Fairly and equally shitty.
So get over yourself and think before you propose such garbage.
---- James
It is amazing to me how history repeats itself and we fail to learn it's lessons.
Lest we forget, the Nazi's were quite popular, and were supported by all right-thinking people up until the point where they started executing people in concentration camps.
They all marched around together in unison shouting slogans and demanding change in the polticial system. The kind of change that they liked anyhow. Funny how similar the "anti-globalization" protestors, with their vacuous chants and army boots now seem.
They used to smash windows too. Only they were the windows of stores owned by Jews, instead of the windows of stores owned by Capitalists, or "corporations".
I know people in the radical enivronmentalist and radical left movements. I know they truly believe that what they are doing is right. I know they really have themsleves convinced that "the system" is against them, designed to brainwahs the population into supporting it. That violence is the only way. That their ideals are truly and obviously the right ones, and that anyone who fails to see it is a tool of the corporate system. Funny how all encompassing and self-conclusive such a thought system is. It justifies itself. People don't agree with you? Still more evidence that the corporate media control their minds! Amazing isn't it. It's like the old saying 'Of coarse the Bible is true, it says so, right there in the Bible.'
The Nazi's were equally convinced of the righteousness of their own cause. The felt just as strongly that violence was justified in it's name.
So did the Bolsheviks, who instituted a totalitarian system based upon their ideals. When you are so convinced that your ideals are the correct ones, of coarse any action is justified to bring them to reality.
It is amazing to me, how blind the environmentalist are to this obvious glaring similarity. To them, the environment is the only value, superior to all others, and whatever is deemed best for the environment is what must be done, at any cost. They even rail against cost-benefit analysis for regulations, on the grounds that the value of the environment is immesurable.
Immesuarable value. Infinite value. Priceless. No wonder they think it justifies any action in it's name.
The only question is whether their ideal government should be called theocracy or facism.
Do they not understand that torching an entire dealership would probably harm the environment more than if every one of those vehicles were being used normally?
Punch out yer 'cats! Richen up yer fuel mixture! There's no replacement for displacement. All that good stuff. I'm proud of my 14mpg, the smell of my exhaust, and the way I can total a small car with my truck.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
> McDonald's is destroying the rainforest and killing innocent cows!
Somebody got me with a very similar statement just the other day.
Poor guy, lacking critical thinking ability, didn't realize that massive destruction of the environment, especially when done for farmland, has been an incalculable boon for humanity. Europe's forests have been mowed down for a thousand years and they haven't exactly died out yet.
As for killing an innocent animal (or "executing something that doesn't want to be killed"), well, it tastes really good!
It's time for all those "truth lovers" out there to learn the real truth. A problem isn't a "problem" if, when you come out the other end, humanity is better off than without the "problem."
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Let me preface this post by saying that I do not consider myself an environmentalist
I've seen a lot of posts that are state that eco-terroristic acts such as these simply "put people off" of the issue; that's 100% bull.
Environmentalism has fallen out of the mainstream consciousness in the last few years - coincidentally during a period of "unparalleled economic growth" in North America. Ecoterrorism brings the issue back to the forefront by forcing people to take notice.
If you don't agree with their tactics, fine. But at least you're thinking of it now, aren't you? And that is the true goal. Everyone knows that destroying a few SUV's at a dealership isn't going to make a noticeable impact in the Grand Scheme.
And let's face it: as far as targets go, SUV's are an easy one. People hate them for various reasons, not just environmental ones.
I dunno... What do you wanna do?
Or words to that effect...
I dunno... What do you wanna do?
A quick visit to Dictionary.com yields the following:
terrorism n
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Vandalism n
Willful or malicious destruction of public or private property.
While both are techically correct, terrorism seems to be the more precise term for what happened, wouldn't you say?
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
How in the heck is global warming "the most significant threat"? Seems to me that the Earth does more polluting than man ever can, remember mount pinatubo (sp?) remember mount st. helens? didnt these eruptions produce more greenhouse gases in a few minutes than mankind can in a few years? My opinion is that outside of nuclear war theres not to much that we, as humnas can do to really fsck up this ole blue marble, but then again I'm just and old hillbilly and not very sophisticated about all these new fangled political positions.
This is a Sig, there are many like it but this one is mine! I wish I had more than 120 chars... whats a char?
Ahh, the true cry of a hypocrit. You are willing to protest something, but not to take responsibility for your protest. Hate to tell you but if you REALLY care in your cause, you need to be willing to go to jail for it. It makes you look weak and afraid if you hide from your own actions.
Destroying property != censorship.
Ok, fine, so what would you call it if Monsanto sent in representitives and burned down your offices?
Are these sorts of actions justifiable? Um...no. Based on the majority of posts I see here on Slashdot, I'm more liberal than most /. readers and more inclined to side with nature vs. technology. But vandalism, especially that releases gobs of toxins into the air, or might release untested GMOs into the environment is not helping the cause. One of the big concerns about GMOs is that they aren't fully tested. So how is ripping a bunch of GMO peas that are being tested supposed to help either side of the discussion?
As the article said:
"I loathe S.U.V.'s; I have deep concerns about genetic engineering," said Chip Giller, editor of www.gristmagazine.com, the online journal of the Earth Day Network, based in Seattle. "I understand the anger." "But these attacks aren't constructive," Mr. Giller said. "They're not winning any converts to the cause. They're not environmentalism. They're vandalism."
Yes, a 1997 Honda Accord pollutes more than a 2001 Ford Excursion. The Accord first met LEV requirements in 1998, and the 2001 Exursion is LEV certified. The Excursion may use twice the gas, but it has lower emissions per mile than does the Accord. The Exursion will more quickly deplete us of our fossil fuel supply, but the greenies want that. Correct only if you look solely at hyrdocarbon emissions, and at the smaller, lighter Explorer. I can't find emissions data for the Excursion, but being generous and using the 2WD Explorer (also LEV certified in 2001), it still doesn't add up if you look at all emissions:
/. to accept it, as it doesn't take <pre> tags, and it doesn't take American Express®.
Now imagine you'd gotten a 2001 Accord instead of the 2001 Excursion or Explorer. Or a Beetle. Or (heavens!) a Toyota Prius!
But for fun, let's assume your original statement was 100% correct. Do you think that the extra metal, plastic, rubber, etc. that go into an Excursion beyond what goes into the Accord is free? That there's no environmental impact of that? That tires from a heavy vehicle somehow wear more slowly and contribute less to water pollution than a smaller vehicle? Or that the refining, distribution and sales of more gasoline are without cost or environmental impact?
Somebody should invent a "actual cost-o-meter"® that shows what our actions and choices actually cost, both in terms of real money and impact on the environment. Of course, then I'd log off Slashdot, power down my computer, and (gasp!) go outside. Which I'll be doing shortly to take the clothes off the line...
values are driving 12,500 miles per year
year/make/model MPG Fuel Fuel $ CO2 CO N oxides Hydrocarbons
2001 EXPLORER 2WD 17.1 mpg 733 gal $1172 14655 lb 223.1 lb 25.0 lb 6.6 lb
1997 ACCORD 25.0 mpg 500 gal $800 10000 lb 193.0 lb 24.1 lb 9.0 lb
2001 EXPEDITION 4WD 14.7 mpg 851 gal $1361 17015 lb 223.1 lb 25.0 lb 6.6 lb
2001 ACCORD 26.1 mpg 479 gal $766 9581 lb 175.7 lb 18.0 lb 4.7 lb
2001 Toyota Prius 48.6 mpg 257 gal $412 5144 lb 103.3 lb 1.8 lb 1.2 lb
2001 Ford Focus 28.7 mpg 436 gal $698 8725 lb 193.0 lb 18.0 lb 5.7 lb
source: EDF's 'tailpipe tally'
Sorry about the lack of coulmns; that's the only way I could get
I'm sick of these fucking eco-terrorists fuck heads. First of all, they're actually all a bunch of fucken pussies. They make the average slashdot reader look like superman. Secondly, for some reason I don't see how destroying labs full of years of cancer research as being anything but really fucking stupid. These shitbrains put animal life _ABOVE_ human life. Burn them all and shove a fucking 22 ounce rare steak down their throats.
Casual Games/Downloads
I prefer violent action that has victims. Preferably human over animal. Why? Because then people take it seriously. One way or another.
Our governments are owned by corporate interests.
Yes, many governments in this world are heavily influenced by corporate interests. This is sad, but not because of the influence by Big Companies. It is sad because of the influence of Big Government on its citizens. Citizens go to their governments demanding that every one of their stupid problems be solved. And almost all these problems stem from a lack of personal self-responsibility and complete ignorance of the values of rugged individualism.
If people would start taking responsibility and stop their reliance and addiction to Big Government, it follows that Big Corporations could not have as much influence on the people.
Wind the clock forward a couple of hundred years.
A bunch of people take direct action against what they feel is an unjust system; they destroy some property by setting fire to it. A bunch rich geeks see the threat to their lifestyle and denounce the crime calling for the full force of law to be brought to bear on the criminals.
Sad really.
Oh and anyone who thinks that destroying property is the morally the same as taking human life is a dangerously long way down the slippery slope to having no moral understanding at all.
Cheers.
Kant would argue that it not right do these things BECAUSE of the implicit wrongness of those actions.
Ethics class was one of those classes in college that those of us that loved to argue actually looked forward to in the day.
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.
I have no problem with the engineered 'gold rice' and such that prevents blindness; I am very much for it in fact.
:P
;>
However, engineered bacteria disturbs me. Here is why: off the Oregon coast they used to dump a special type of bacteria called mycopasma on oil slicks because the bacteria could metabolise the chrud. It didnt have lethal effects on humans either. Well, that sounds pretty good so far. Unfortunately, since the chrud is basically immortal it is impossible for the human immune system to kill off, and even most of the extreme antibiotics cant even slow it down.
In an otherwise healty person it taxes your immune system, causing frequent illness, weakness etc. If it is combined with something else, like another major illness or surgery, then it can kill you.
I spent most of my childhood ill; I am one of the people who lived off the Oregon coast. My mother almost died due to the chrud when it caused multiple simultaneous organ failure. My father is infected as well.
However, we were the lucky ones. We were able to figure out what was causing our illnesses and get effective treatment (doxycyclene if i am spelling it correctly). About 80% of the infected people who are tested get false negatives, so most of the thousands of people who are infected dont even know what is making them sick. They just think they are unhealty or cursed or something.
I am all for making better corn, but I dont want to see any better diseases. Bio-engineered organisms sounds like the easiest way to quick-fix the environment, but keep your hands off that darn bacteria- what we have already is bad enough!
If you want to fix the environment, go knock on the door of a factory or something
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Hallelujah!!! Eco-terrorists and other such nutcases should practice what they preach and go save the environment. By this I mean do their small part to ease overpopulation by removing themselves from the planet.
While I do believe that the environment should be protected, environmental groups often go about it in ways which do significant harm to civilization and the environment.
People also complain about how government is run by corporate masters and their lobbyists. There is a simple solution to this problem. If you really feel that strongly about it, don't vote for candidates who are corporate puppets and boycott those corporations with whose practices you do not agree. Corporations and politicians cannot survive without customers/political supporters.
-----
Bow before my sig, for it is good.
"(given that you believe the connection between CO2 and greenhouse gas)."
Nice try, confusing the issue. But you're right about one thing, there is definitely a connection between CO2 and greenhouse gas. Can you guess what it is? Yes! CO2 is one of many greenhouse gases!
What you are confusing is however the amount of CO2 which could potentially cause a greenhouse effect which in itself is a pretty iffy proposition. (You'd need a heck of a lot more than billion tons of CO2, even if also had lots of methane and fluor-carbon compounds at your disposal). Suffice it to say that we could raise the level of CO2 emission fifty times the estimated figures of the early eighties and we would not make a dent in this mythical limit how much the atmosphere is thought to be able to take before it "curls up and dies". Volcanos and other geological phenomena like oceanic fissures release more CO2 each day than all of humanity in the entire last century so the point the Kyoto pseudo-scientists are trying to make is moot from the outset. Humans just don't really figure enough in the grand scheme of things to make a difference. Live with that.
It strikes me that the SUV retailer is going to have insurance against this kind of event, so they aren't hurt too bad (other than missing a week's worth of sales). The maker of the SUV's actually benefits because those SUV's were effectively "bought" by the insurance company. The retailer then put in an order for the replacements. The only person who was clearly hurt here is the insurance company....and who gives money to insurance companies? We do. Either directly, or through higher prices charged by the car dealers when we go to buy a car.
Kind thoughts do not change the world
Many people who spend time thinking about the future see a growing anti-technology movement coming. I recently saw the director of the Human genome project speak, and he predicts that in 30 years there will be a powerful anti-technology movement, with violent fringe elements. In Freeman J. Dyson's 1998 Imagined Worlds he makes a similar point.
I am a scientist, who uses the tools of genetic engineering to understand the natural world every day. I am also a green, left leaning environmentalist. We do need stronger controls, and more research on GMOs. And our capitalist consumer culture is fundamentally flawed . But science and technology are not the problem. Those that think so are being fooled.
soapbox
As has already been pointed out to you, the argument against SUVs has nothing to do with those who need a 4WD vehicle like you. It's against the clowns that clog up the roads and car parks, drive like idiots due to the illusion of safety, and use up dwindling oil resources just to satisfy their pathetic egos. Since you don't fit into that category please stop justifying those peoples' stupidity.
As for minding my own business, I have problems with SUV drivers on a regular basis, with being cut off or seeing one parked over 2 parking spaces in the supermarket car park (much more than drivers of ordinary cars), so I would say it is my business.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
Except that I'm a Brit where most of the population is urban and SUVs are a damn nuisance. I've got no objection to farmers and other people that actually need that kind of machine having one (and who buy proper ones, not the pathetic toys), I'm just tired of people who buy one because it's the latest fad and have no consideration for anyone else because they think they're perfectly safe in their tank.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
There is an interesting debate going on in parts of Europe right now concerning the insertion of engineered plants / animals into the food chain (acceptance in Yurp isn't as high as in the US). There was a radio interview the other day in which a point was brought up which I thought was interesting:
Engineered food is an unknown risk, but in a new way. Other large-scale risks can be calculated with more precision, e.g. nuclear power, direct contamination of water supply etc. Engineered food may have a very large scale impact 20 years down the road, and however small chances are, they must be "multiplied" by this potential impact. The question was of insurance, and the point was: insurance in this instance is doing nothing other than allowing companies to take risks they would otherwise not take, by paying for someone else to take over not only the risk, but actually the accountability.
The worst-case scenario would be a cross between Thalidomid ("Contergan") for the masses and, well, lots and lots of insurance companies in chapter 13.
yes, we have no bananas
I hear lots of people bashing SUV's, but they do serve a purpose. I own a Ford Expedition and the sole reason is because I can fit in it. I'm 6'5" and 350 lbs. I would LOVE to have a nice, fuel efficient gas-electric hybrid. I don't need the passenger space of my vehicle, and I certainly don't need the extra gas cost. I would love to get rid of it, but my job and my family require a lot of driving and for me, the choice was my back or the environment. I chose my back. Even in my behemoth, I have to bend down at stop lights to see when they turn green. If anyone out there has an inside track to a car manufacturer, recommend bigger cabs. I'll forego cargo space if it means I can sit up straight without looking through the mandatory tinted sun-screen at the top of my windshield.
Bio-engineering is a trend impossible to stop, because of the enormous potential of benefit. The best way to reduce the risk is to sponsor more research to evaluate possible consequences, develope precautionary measures, etc., and in general, to understand it better so that we can keep it under control.
In fact, the existence of golf courses is less environmentally sound than driving SUVs, by a tremendous margin. The amount of pesticide runoff alone makes that obvious. And I'm not even counting all the emissions from petroleum burning vehicles used to mow the acres and acres of grass continually. Or the emissions from golf carts. Or all the energy and petroleum that goes to produce golf clubs, balls, bags, and the like. Or the amount of over-processed food consumed by the groundskeepers and and caddies who wouldn't even exist if it weren't for golf-courses.
KTS:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Utensil.
KTS:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Utensil.
There is no contradiction.
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.
Umm.... should we really have that problem in the first place?
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
Not only do antics like this do more damage then they prevent, they don't get the point across. Blowing up a car dealership isn't going to make people buy less SUVs, it's just going to piss off law enforcement. Massive social engineering that makes those hybrid gas-electric cars "cool" instead of SUVs will make people buy less SUVs. If those 'eco-terrorists' really wanted to make a difference, they'd be putting up billboards on I-95 about how much more likely you are to die in an accident in an SUV. It's never going to be cool to die in a car accident.
Taxes is what pays for your public school, and your national defence, and the roads that you use. And if your vehicle is guzzling to much gas, taxes would pay for your clean air. So, when will you start your civil war? When you're out of money, or when your kids are choking to death.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
1) Money to local, state,federal, and international government. If the tax is earmarked as an environmental tax, the proceeds would go to conserve wetlands, forests. Subsidize clean public transportation, fund clean energy research, fund campaigns on environmental matters. (shouldn't the government have warned against SUVs? They warn about tobacco. Where's the difference?)
2) But the taxes not collected would have an even greater effect. A higher tax would cause people to chose smaller, more economic cars, and thus contribute to cleaner air.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
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.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
It seems to me that torching an SUV dealership would release a lot of non-environmentally friendly garbage into the air. Kind of counter productive for the eco-terrorists when you think about it.
While I have come to HATE SUVs, I think those who would burn down a dealership are responding in frustration. Consider that _every_ internal combustion engine is producing toxic fumes in the air, oil and gas running off into our waterways, noise, and the destruction of nature along with expensive road construction. SUVs, and all other vehicles, are damaging our property. Shouldn't they be liable for destroying our America?
So how about a fee for every gallon of gasoline (and diesel, and fuel oil, etc.) designed to compensate Americans for the damage they cause. Then, to be truly democratic, distribute the proceeds equally to every adult citizen. How much of a fee would be appropriate? Well, no amount is enough, but we're in a trap, aren't we? So how about we start at $1.00 a gallon and go from there. Those who do very little driving, or use highly efficient vehicles, or buy goods that didn't have to be trucked 3,000 miles, get back more than they put in. Those who drive SUVs, and act as heavy consumers, pay more. And industry has an incentive to reduce their consumption even more. And a monthly check emphasizes the relationship between "cheap" gas and the continued rape and murder of the landscape.
No need to burn down dealerships this way. Recognize the economic nature of clean air, healthy waterways, and vibrant forests and plains, and those dealerships will shrink dramatically. And, there'll be fewer people in small vehicles being crushed by the tankmobiles.
I've been around with the likes of these people, and these ppl are just too simplistic to see real life situations in their real light, and try to reduce everything to a 'good guys, bad guys' perspective. And in this view, someone has to be the bad guy.So much for the car dealer or the greenery guy. You're evil!
...
The scary thing is that this automatically makes them the good guys, and thus leaves them no room at all to have a relativistic approach to life. They will not recognize the 'bad' impulses that also temp them to buy big cars, turn the airco up, leave the computer running all night (oh my!) and leaving the bathroom light on.
These guys are redirecting their own frustration with their imperfectness on others, and that's pretty lame, and walking around with personal problems like that won't change shit, and we should hope that they'll catch on to that soon.
---
Living is a way of life
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Somewhat offtopic, but I used to play a game at my college (which had a day care center off to the side) of "count the SUV". :) Almost as much fun as "count the cell phones".
However, I racked my brain to think of an underlying logical reason (one that even the bio-terrorists may have missed) as to why human genetics is different than previous "enviormental changes". Isn't human genetics, e.g. designer babies, the first effort by mankind to *directly* alter the biology of itself.
Drugs have indirect effects that often are temporary. Genetically-engineered food can be consumed, but its negative effects (if any) are also temporary. Glasses and contacts can be taken off. Laser eye surgery or heart surgery can permanently affect your body, but often these are reversible to some extent.
As far as I know, biologic engineering is the first effort being made to change a human before he or she has the option to change himself, and in a permanent way. Now I can see why some liberals are up in alarm.
This is the first time we're going to directly, not indirectly, try to change someone before they have a choice to.
After the hybrid crops were introduced in India, China, and the Indonesias, it was found out that they were less resistant to natural pests. To compensate, farmers had to spray more pesticides on them.
Also, to get more yield out of their fields, farmers stopped growing other crops and devoted land only to the hybrid plants. This meant that pests could feed on the weak hybrids all year round. Pest populations went out of control, since the natural predators of them were killed by pesticides. Now, most farmers have reverted to crop rotation and the use of natural plants.
Until someone can make a crop that grows faster, is more resistant to pests, uses less nutrients, and doesn't cause harm to the environment, then we will continue to use normal crops. That is not a good thing, since they are worse on the land, but farmers have a bottom line too.
D/\ Gooberguy
Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
I think, any 4-6 person vehicle that has a worse gas-mileage than a Cessna 172 (around 16-18 MPG) and can not fly, is evil :)
However, this burning of an SUV dealership reminds me of the case when a "Pro-Life" activist killed a doctor who performed abortions.
Hyppocrats...
Typical leftists, if people aren't doing what you want them to do, use force/terror/destruction.
That sounds more ltypical of the American foreign policy than American leftists.
There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.
"Locke would say ... that we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property."
...and did.
.. or top down democracy. Briefly, the rights OF property means that the wealthy and the powerful (the minority) have rights under the constitution to protect their property (holdings) from the masses.
... an astute and lucid political thinker whose views largely prevailed] and others with intellectual roots in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism--pre-capitalist, and anti-capitalist in spirit
Madison would counter
The rights to life, liberty and property as were written in the constitution actually mean the rights OF property
The growth of the industrial economy, and the rise of corporate forms of economic enterprise, led to a completely new meaning of the term. In a current official document, "Person" is broadly defined to include any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust,corporation or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), or any government entity," a concept that doubtless would have shocked Madison [the leading framer of the constitutional system
These radical changes in the conception of human rights and democracy were not introduced primarily by legislation, but by judicial decisions and intellectual commentary.
Corporations, which previously had been considered artificial entities with no rights, were accorded all the rights of persons, and far more, since they are "immortal persons," and "persons" of extraordinary wealth and power.
Furthermore, they were no longer bound to the specific purposes designated by state charter, but could act as they chose, with few constraints. The intellectual backgrounds for granting such extraordinary rights to "collectivist legal entities" lie in neo-Hegelian doctrines that also underlie Bolshevism and fascism: the idea that organic entities have rights over and above those of persons.
In Noam Chomsky. Market Democracy.
Also good reading is Profits Over People, neoliberalism and global order. Noam Chomsky (1999).
Enlighten thyself.
Right off the top, I hate the word eco-terrorist. It screams far-right activism. Environmentalist are not communists, terrorists, or tree huggers, they are PEOPLE who really care about this earth we live in and can actually get past the idea that the world doesn't begin at California and end at Maine.
That being said, has it ever crossed the minds of people that this has little to do with the environmnet and more to do with the STEEL industry?
I don't know, but the loss of 18,000 jobs in the steel industry in PA (Pennsylvania) alone may have something to do with it. Maybe the fact that steel imports from Japan far outweight the steel used in production in the USofA.
Just maybe the real culprits here aren't the far left, the far right, or the center, but rather corporations. For all the flag-waving I'm seeing on Slashdot lately I think it rather ironic that while the masses are being prodded to patriotism, the corporations who own government and own your soul are shipping your jobs anywhere in the world where enviro concerns are non-existant and/or labour is dirt cheap.
In the meantime, our criminal president is reversing legislation that has been long and hard fought and paid for to appease big business who have no regard for anything but profit.
I think that offering another possibility to think about may just wake some people up and get them to start asking questions. If so, that would have justified this post.
A number of yrs ago a nuclear plant was built at 3-mile Island in Pennsylvania. A number of years ago a nuclear plant was built in Cherynobl Russia. The president of the United States of America is suggesting a return to nuclear power and burning fossil fuels as energy sources. Why? So we in North America can continue to live far beyond our means of production? Good plan ... NOT!
ah so that's where you get your information from? I'm sure gonna hang onto you post for enlightenment .... NOT! Ask yourself who owns the network this spew came out of. I suggest you move your butt off the couch and into a library.
And if I suspect that you're a hacker who might endanger me by hacking a power plant or military computer, I have the right to burn your house down.
No one ever asked for SUVs to be invented. They have become ubiquitous through the power of marketing. But does that justify their existence? We must remember that one of the most effective--yet most horrible--marketing campaigns ever was Adolf Hitler's crusade against Jews.
I think that people are waking up to the empty values of Capitalism. Apolitical, it deifies money, steals from the living, and destroys the future.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Cowards lie down and let the whole bloody planet be turned into a parking lot. Cowards don't bother to do anything to fix a government corrupted by big business. Cowards aren't willing to put their lives on the line for a cause they believe in. Cowards wouldn't trust enough that democracy can be fixed in order to work outside the system to fix it. Arizona can most definitely shoot back - figuratively AND literally. It's legal in AZ to shoot a arsonist if caught in the act. The FBI and Arizonan police are on the case. Do you think the courts will be KIND to the eco-arsonists if they're caught?? Of course, that's IF they're caught. Nearly all of what the police knows is what the eco-arsonists fed them in that Phoenix New Times interview, which may be total B.S. for all we know. The FBI has resorted to photographing random mountain bikers to find the eco-arsonists - real effective, huh? Especially when they might not be bikers anyway. And the point is to find a target that will make the impact you're looking for. The media will cover arsons of luxury homes, more than less notable targets. A trend brings even more attention to the crimes... and to the reasons for them, which is the whole point of it all!
________
"And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion...." -- J.S. Mill
I agree that often eco-terrorism is sometimes crazy teenagers playing with matches, or extreme ignorant firebugs, but NOT ALWAYS. For example, there was a case in Arizona where half-built luxury homes on the edge of a nature preserve were being burned down by a group of mountain bikers. Though in MOST cases this would be unacceptable, consider: 1.) All the targets were half-constructed mansions, thus uninhabited. Evidence shows the eco-arsonists took great pains not to put other people's safety at risk. 2.) They were LUXURY homes. One still shouldn't burn any home down, generally, but at least it wasn't low-income housing or something like that. The owners of these mansions would have to be INSANELY wealthy, and probably they own other homes elsewhere, so it doesn't hurt THEM too bad. 3.) The message had to be sent. In Arizona, it is all too obvious that developers' money is in control of the government. Previously untouched wilderness is being developed at an acre per hour. That is obscene! There's absolutely NO planning or limits on growth. A bill to slow down development WAS introduced, but an influx of money killed it. Obviously SOMETHING had to be done! So the eco-arsonists started torching some half-built mansions, not to burn down every luxury home in the state, duh, but to attract the media and increase public awareness, in the hopes that government officials might listen to the people rather than their wallets, or else be voted out of office. And they have been somewhat successful. I'm not recommending that everyone go out and burn down buildings. The eco-arsonists, in a newspaper interview, showed that they take their job seriously. They extensively plan each fire, to make sure no one is hurt. They care about the environment and realized the problem before others paid attention. And they have enough faith in democracy to risk their lives in order to rally the public behind this important issue. No one is hurt, the environment at stake.... I think these eco-terrorists are justified. Not to say the SUV-burning ones being discussed are justified, though. They seem ignorant, unproductive, and rather insane. I'm just arguing that not all eco-terrorists are wrong.
________
"And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion...." -- J.S. Mill
gambling with our quality of life?
Shame on the author of this article. It's way too easy to spread panic on advanced technological topics. Think before you post. Do you really think an organisation like GreenPeace saves whales with your money? No, they use it to scare the unaware crowds and supply them with their narrow-minded opinions.
Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. Hell, make sure it is well-thought and well-argumented. Especially, on these difficult matters!
History is full of ignorance, fear and deception of the masses. This is your chance to be different.
IANAL, but imagine a beowulf cluster of in Soviet Russia all your belong are base to us welcoming the new SCO overlords.
"That issue aside, terrorism is NEVER justified, no matter what the cause." Really? How bout the french resistance fighters in France during their occupation by Germany in WWII? They used terrorist tactics and committed acts of terrorism. You can say that it was simple retaliation and a 'war' but many of their acts were meant to cause terror against the german soldiers. That, believe it or not, makes it terrorism. (in my mind, but I think I'm right here (for once))
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Y'know, you're right. I wasn't exactly thinking (even though I clearly said German SOLDIERS) that it was directed against ONLY soldiers, (and the rest of the German war machine)
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
> a gang of ignorant religious wackos
I doubt that most environmentalists are ignorant of the issues. Certainly eco-terrorists are overzealous, but I'm sure they're better informed (if misguided) than the common man.
> 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.
I'm guessing you're rather continue along on our merry way, destroying ecosystem after ecosystem, melting the polar ice caps, heating up the planet 10 degrees over the next 100 years, raising the sea level 100 feet (oops, hope you don't live in Florida!) and hope your descendants can solve all the problems we left behind?
The big problem I see with current trends (especially in the U.S.) is that nothing we're doing is sustainable. We're using up our natural resources at a frightening fast rate. We're still polluting like mad, we're pumping tremendous amounts of C02 and methane into the atmosphere and eventually we'll kill off the human race or just most of the planet. If every one in the world lived like the US did, we'd need 3 Earths to handle the demand on natural resources.
I don't expect to move back to living in trees and caves, but we better start working on solving some of our current problems. Drilling for more oil doesn't do anything productive in the long run. I'd rather see a $10 billion program to put solar panels on the majority of everyone's houses. Sure, it wouldn't solve all our power needs but it's a step in the right direction. Upping fuel mileage requirements, working on conservation and getting people educated on what they're consuming and it's environmental cost. The next time you buy something look at what its made of, where its made and imagine the complex process of manufacture and possibility of environmental problems.
> 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.)
So you're just of the opinion that added CO2 and methane to the atmosphere is harmless? And we can keep losing dense biomass (forests) for our nice golf courses, manicured lawns and grazing land for 1 billion cattle while at the same time added greenhouses gases to our atmosphere. If we keep this up indefinitely, I hope you'll agree that somewhere down the road this might lead to some serious problems. CO2 is currently 0.35% or so I think....what happens when it's 5%? It's certainly a possibility, don't you think? And most experts and most countries agree that global warming is a serious problem that we need to address. The U.S. seems the only industrialized nation that's still trying to hide its head in the sand.
> 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.
Ugh, this is such a weak argument. "Back when I was a child, the world was flat. Now the 'experts' say the world is round. What do they know"? So any opinion from X years ago that's conveniently on your side of the argument is reason to say the current beliefs are suspect or wrong?
> In short, read what you're writing, for Pete's sake, and understand what you're asking of the rest of us
My main point was that people need to get educated about a lot of environment issues. Is that too much to ask? Buying a more fuel efficient car, supporting renewable energy, or learning the environment cost of something? For example, 1 lb of cotton uses on average 10 lbs of pesticides and fertilizers to get made. You probably didn't know that and think of cotton as very natural and environmentally friendly. But it's not really. Buying organic cotton is a much better choice.
As for the end of the human race or the world, it's only a very remote possibility. But just the idea that we're doing things that could be causing it is alarming. Something that important needs to be taken very seriously. Waiting until we have "irrefutable proof" will be much too late.
I thought it was kindof a funny advert....
--Stupidity is Self Curing!
Thanks for the corrections (rice and vitamin A), my significant other (the geneticist) is not around to keep me from making an ass of myself.
As to one of your points, I was under the impression that a buffer zone is required around all testing areas where GM crops are being test.
I have heard about the seed thing, and I'm not sure what I think about it. Sure, I think that the people who came up with the idea should be able to profit, this is good ol' America. But... I agree that the indenturing nature of that is bad. I don't see a simply solution.
--Hobo
--Stupidity is Self Curing!
Wow, excuuuse me! No offense though, but I think I'll listen to the experts. You sound like maybe you know a little, but not a lot. I listen to the lifelong molecular biologists and geneticists. They dedicate their lives to this sort of stuff. Prove to me that you know what your talking about. Your just spitting stuff out. I've talked to biologists that give me hard facts/stats with which I can better understand.
Again, you go tell some chinese people that their children have to grow up blind, because you don't really understand the nature of the thing you're talking about.
--Stupidity is Self Curing!
that's a really good question.....hmmmm.... Just lucky sometimes.
--Stupidity is Self Curing!
I must admit that I was focusing on your typo about GMO's. However, the reason that you got blasted and not dair, is cuz dair was simply explaining the facts to me. You just blasted a-way, while dair was offering friendly corrections.
Second of all, according to all three of the people sitting in my house (who are all PhD's or soon to be PhD's in botany, plant pathology, or molecular biology) they are telling me that you have exagerating quite a bit. First of all, multi-vitamins are not readily available in central china, and second of all, these geeks here are telling me that five punds is quite an exageration.
By the way, I am of course blinded by love for my "life long geneticist." But that isn't really germaine. It just happens that most of my friends are in research in plants or computers. And my guess is that since the love of my life IS working towards a PhD in plant pathology and molecular biology (focused on genetics) she know's more about it than you, regardless of how blind I am. -Hobo
--Stupidity is Self Curing!
In Oregon recently, some eco-terror people recently burned down a bunch of trees that were genetically modified for purposes of bio-remediayion. It amazes me what ignorance people display through much of eco-terrorism. I consider myself to be a pretty environmentally friendly guy. However, I also happen to be in love with someone who is a researcher in plant genetics (lucky me!), and I've learned how ignorant I was. I used to be one of the people how vowed against all Genetically Modified Organisms(GMO), now I see a great deal of value. For example, in some countries, many people have vitamin deficiencies that can lead to blindness (I think this is vitamin K but I can't remember). Some researchers are working on (or may have finished) corn that grows with the vitamin in it. They did this using genetics. Now go tell a few million parents that their children can grow up without blindess. This corn has no impact on the environment that is different from regular corn. This does not mean that GMO companies should be allowed to act with impunity; and most geneticists agree. There needs be very careful controls on the development and use of GMO's. (Monarch butterflies being a good example of the potential problems). How 'bout another sample: Bio-remediation. What if we created a harmless bacteria that can clean up toxic waste. I know someone working on such a project. She is practically booed every time she tells someone that she works in genetics, but it seems to me like she is doing some very interesting work. In conclusion, if we can create wood that is more efficient, crops that are disease or weather resistant etc, we can solve a lot of problems. Let's just be careful when making them. I heard a quote from a geneticist talking about creating "hardier" crops through Genetic Modification. He said, "The person who has no food has only one problem. The person who has food has many problems." I think his point is well taken, by me at least. That, for those of us who have food, it is easy to complain about GM stuff. And for those who would destory this kind of work, maybe you should go to the far east and tell two parents that their children are going to have to grow up blind, because you destroyed the test field where the GM corn was being grown. -Hobo
--Stupidity is Self Curing!
What's the use of the truth if you can't tell a lie sometimes?
I agree that SUV's are evil and need to be eridicated but I also agree with many of the comments here saying that this is not the way to go about it. There are many things that can be done that don't involve letting off clouds of toxic SUV smoke or destroying other peoples property. I have found the following websites to be very informative. Maybe if people came up with more creative ways of getting attention they would be listened to rather than being slagged off as ignorant dealership burning hippies. http://www.adbusters.org http://www.changingtheclimate.com A new sport is sweeping the continent: Big Game SUV Hunting. This latest wave of extreme sporting sees jammers taking to the streets with "I'M CHANGING THE CLIMATE! ASK ME HOW" bumper stickers and tagging any planet-heating SUVs in their path. Download your stickers and learn more how SUVs contribute to global warming at www.changingtheclimate.com. It beats the hell out of getting arrested for burning dealerships and slashing tires.
"The nature of Monkey was irrepressible!"
"Whereas would-be demagogues, to get people to do what they want them to do, create strawmen and then call them names like "typical leftists."" Please name even ONE of these scum who is not also a hard-core marxist.
If you believe that violence is justified, then take responsibility for your beliefs. Carry out your terrorism in broad daylight in front of witnesses and be sure to give your name. If you believe in something enough ignore the law, destroy things that don't belong to you and endanger lives (arson is *never* safe) then you ought to believe in it enough to attach your name to it.
The ELF is no different than the KKK. In either case, the group is taking violent action against things that they despise. And in either case, the cowards hide their identities so that they can continue to enjoy the fruits of the society that they claim to hate.
They just don't have the snazzy hoods. Then again, maybe they do. I've never seen these cowards in action.
There are 2 (and only 2) reasons why one should own an SUV.
1) You do serious off-roading. This does not mean driving down a dirt road, or even a muddy road. It most certainly does not mean driving on ice or snow. This pertains to people who take their vehicles over combinations of large rocks, standing water, mud, loose dirt, etc.
2) You have a large family and you frequently tow a large payload (such as a boat).
In all other cases, an SUV is the wrong vehicle for the job, and if you are considering it you need to seriously analyze your choice of vehicle. SUVs are not safe. They are more dangerous in single car collisions (such as when you lose control of the vehicle and hit a guardrail, ditch, telephone pole, etc.), they are less able to handle emergency situations (such as swerving or hard braking to avoid road obstructions). Their Body-On-Frame construction means that in a collision with a smaller car, the brunt of the force will be transferred to the other vehicle, and in a collision with a larger vehicle (such as another SUV), the occupants will suffer the brunt of the force.
Please read the following sites for information regarding the myths of SUV "safety" and their ability to "handle" inclement weather.
Why SUVs are inferior on-road and off-road
Why technically advanced All-Wheel Drive systems are better than primitive part-time 4WD
On a side note, some have mentioned in defense that SUVs are taxed higher through the gasoline tax. Consider that many high-end sports cars (such as Porsche 911 Turbos, Ferarris, and such) are tacked with gas-guzzler taxes even though they get better mileage than the king of inefficency, the Ford Excursion V10 (8 city/10 HWY) and you will start to see the "fairness" of the fact that these vehicles don't have to stand up to the same crash standards, construction standards, or fuel standards that other vehicles do.
Though burning down a SUV dealership my not be the BEST way to stop "crimes against the planet" it is ONE way. Think of who pays for the destruction, the owners of the dealership who are selling SUV's who obviously don't have much concern for the environment, they just want to make money. This is also possibly discouraging some people from purchasing SUV's, knowing that people will commit violent acts in order to prevent the use of SUV's.
Oh, I know, this is all awful. Where is my freedom, where is my right to waste resources and consume, consume, consume?! The fact is, it's sad that people have to resort to violence in order to get people's attention about important problems that affect everyone, like pollution. Education is the most important tool to create an informed society that is active in government and social issues.
I personally support violent action as long as no people or animals are harmed.
Though the problem with vigilante justice may be that at times it is done more out of emotion than intelligence, justice from the government is being sold to the highest bidder.
"They ignore peaceful protests!" -Aus Rotten
bain
Forget the message behind the torching. This is nothing less than a piss ant version of Timothy McVeigh. How do you know there wasn't someone in the facility? (Timothy McVeigh) How do you know that an emergency worker or fireperson will not be involved in a deadly/maiming accident while addressing your clever act against "the man". (Timothy McVeigh) How do you know that fire would not spread to a non-target? Space left blank to ad your own chain of events.