Loading ...Early yesterday an article from The Washington Post started to make the rounds and it’s still not blown over:
On a narrow, leafy street in Northwest Washington, where Prius hybrid cars and Volvos are the norm, one man bought a flashy gray Hummer that was too massive to fit in his garage.
So he parked the seven-foot-tall behemoth on the street in front of his house and smiled politely when his eco-friendly neighbors looked on in disapproval at his “dream car.”
It lasted five days on the street before two masked men took a bat to every window, a knife to each 38-inch tire and scratched into the body: “FOR THE ENVIRON.”
[...]
Now, as Groves ponders what to do with the remains of his $38,000 SUV, he has been the target of a number of people who have driven by the crime scene in his upscale neighborhood and glared at him in smug satisfaction.
[...]
Another neighbor, Lani Fremaux, 58, said she bought a T-shirt months ago with a picture of a Hummer and above it the word “Bummer.” She wore the shirt proudly but said she is so upset with recent events on her street that she might retire it.
“They’ve got everything at their disposal in this city to make a statement in a legal way,” Fremaux said of the bat-wielding men who struck out at the Hummer. “I consider this a hate crime.”
At first glance the story is simple. A man bought a hummer, it was quickly vandalized, and the motive was apparently “FOR THE ENVIRON.” Given the fact that this type of anti-hummer rhetoric has been commonplace for years the story’s barely even newsworthy and I, in fact, didn’t even think to post on the matter until things like this came up:
This 32-year-old clown who lives in his mother’s townhouse in an expensive part of Washington, DC, bought a Hummer too big to fit in his mother’s garage. He then paid extra to have it jacked up and fitted with super-sized tires. It gets 14mpg and he justifies it by saying he needs it to create the right “image” for the “sports marketing” company he wants to start. He parked the 7-foot-tall penis substitute on the street, and within a week somebody vandalized it, slashing all the tires, breaking all the windows, and keying “FOR THE ENVIRON” [sic] into the paint.
Tough break. That’ll probably put a real dent in his startup bobble-head doll business. Along with the $38,000 he paid for the thing (used), replacing all the tires and windows might even delay his moving out of his mother’s house, not that he appears to be in any hurry. I’m all for the environment, but vandalizing ridiculous cars is probably not the best way to deal with the issues. And if whoever did it gets caught, they should be made to pay restitution fully equal to the cost of a set of windows and tires . . . for a Prius.
Someone needs to remind the people over at Lean Left that hummers aren’t illegal but, last I checked, vandalism is. Now I may agree that for most people buying a hummer is extremely irresponsible and I might even laugh at the 7-foot sex symbol jokes, but rhetorically attacking a man because his vehicle was destroyed by “save the Earth” eco-freaks? No thanks, you’ve officially stumbled into extremist territory at that point and not even this liberal’ll get your back.
Thankfully not all environmentalists think this is a laughing matter. Take Matthew Sparkes of TreeHugger.com, for example:
Should Grove have bought a Hummer? No. Should he have used that money to move out of his mother’s house? Yes. Do any of us have any right to harm his property? No. He’s either going to repair the car, using paint and chemicals, creating waste, or scrap it and buy something else, causing even more waste. As well as this, it’s probably alienated quite a few people from the green cause. We’re reaching tipping point now; green issues are reaching the mainstream. Acts like this are the last thing we need.
He’s exactly right: eco-terrorist attacks such as this (don’t agree it’s a terrorist attack? I suggest you look up the definition of the word) do nothing but harm the environmentalist movement just as it’s starting to get mainstream support. It’s my fear that this type of thing might be more common in the years to come and Jason Steck over at Michael P.F. van der Galiën’s personal blog puts it perfectly:
The escalation from upturned nose to advocating government micromanagement to imposing that management by vigilantism was predictable. At the point that a group comes to believe that its lifestyle serves a “higher cause”, the move from persuasion to “direct action” becomes quite easy. Many are even proud of it. In this way, environmentalists who embrace violence as well as those who embrace speech codes in the cause of “stopping hate” (”hate” being defined as anything they disagree with) share common ground with religious extremists who use violence, coercion, and the power of the state to enforce compliance with their “higher cause”.
Gaius of Blue Crab Boulevard goes on step further and predicts even worse:
The extreme rhetoric and continued ratcheting upward of demands for coercive action by the environmental extremists can only lead to this outcome in the end. Vigilantes are vigilantes, regardless of their cause. It is only a matter of time until someone gets killed by some self-appointed “defender of the earth” for daring to “damage” the environment. And the extremists will continue to define downwards what constitutes “damage”.
I’m afraid they’re both right. If there’s one thing that liberals and conservatives should both be against it’s violent extremists. Whether they’re anti-abortion crusaders, anti-government bombers, cross-burning racists, or “save the environment” terrorists EVERYONE should find them all equally abhorrent.
That’s not too much to ask is it?
***
Crossposted at Blue Collar Heresy
Other blogger reactions (thanks in part to MemeOrandum): Kim Priestap (Wizbang); Raphael Alexander (Unambiguously Ambidextrous); (Read Debate Wisconsin); (Olav Bryant Smith); Dan (Rielh World Views); Don Surber (Daily Mail); (The Influence Peddler)
Have something to add? Feel free to comment here or contact the author directly.
Thanks for the link, but I don’t think I was out of line to “rhetorically attack” a man for buying a Hummer. As I said, “Right now, there are soldiers dying in their Hummers in Iraq so that Gareth Groves can play Army in Washington.”
I don’t think that was at all out of bounds. I also said that vandalizing his Hummer was NOT right, and I’ll say right now that I hope the vandals are caught.
It’s not really the remarks regarding his hummer that are the problem gordo, it’s assuming he’s a drug dealer and a punk that’s at issue.
We don’t know any details about Mr. Groves and assuming that because he lives with his parents, doesn’t “look like a stockbroker”, and owns a hummer that he sells drugs is a ‘bit out of line. That is why you’re link was put in the context it was.
I’m glad you want the vandals caught, don’t get me wrong, but it still doesn’t give us the right to judge a man without knowing more about him.
Eco-terrorists? Come on. I checked the link to the definition of terrorism and Vandalism doesn’t exactly fit the definition of a “war crime.”
This is exactly the kind of hysteria the neocons need to lump ordinary Americans (while vandals) into the same category as Osama bin Laden and steal our civil liberties.
Terrorism defined:
United States Gov’t Definition: …activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…”
UN 1994 General Assembly Definition: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.
Tell me again, how is this not terrorism again? You may not like it, and you may see it as hype, but that doesn’t make it any less true. The vandals in this case were motivated by a political ideology, they used violence & broke the law, and their motive was retributive intimidation for both this man and hummer owners in general. They’re terrorists in every sense of the word. Murderers? No, but not innocents either.
Vandalism is vandalism. If it said “Jews suck” or “I hate Niggas” would it be a terrorist attack? No, hate crime maybe. Problem today is that people whip out the word “terror” so much it is instilling terror to begin with- do we label them “terrorists” as well for instilling fear and irrational need to flee and point fingers? No.
Poor guy has —redacted—, he’s suffered enough.
Personally I don’t like Hummers- and I give them a wide berth because 9/10 times it’s being driven by some no-neck bonehead ( at least in my neck of the woods).
i just spit on ‘em and laugh as they pay over 100 bucks to fill their tank.
( small comfort to me that it costs me 50, but I get over 30 mpg!)
I’ll take the bait. Saying “Jews suck” or “I hate Niggas” wouldn’t be a terrorist activity, you’re right, but then they’re not designed to coerce a population. They’re simple hatred. You want a terrorist attack? Try a KKK crossburning, it fits the definition. Or the IRA bombings. Even their nonlethal attacks were still terrorist actions. Terrorism isn’t limited to Islamic extremists after all.
And please, from now on, save the personal insults… they’ll just get redacted anyway.
Johnny
I’m kinda with you on this. Someone driving a Hummer get’s their punishment at the pump. Let’s see, 50 gallon tank X $3.00/gallon gas / 5 mpg (cosine of stupid)= ummmm…well let’s not bother with the details. It hurts…okay.
Dustin
You’re exactly right on the money. While “terrism” might be a little strong, no one should endorse destruction in the name of a political movement.
Terrorism defined:
UN short legal definition, also proposed by Alex P. Schmid: an act of terrorism is the “peacetime equivalent of a war crime.”
WAR CRIME? Sorry, falls a little short.
And let’s take a look at the other definitions:
On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”[6]
No intent to cause death or serious bodily harm. Not terrorism.
Next!
“Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.”
“Repeated”? No, it was an isolated incident. “Anxiety-inspiring”, well maybe you need to get on some Big Pharma drugs if this gives you anxiety.
How about we have a narrow definition for terrorism, this way our civil liberties remain intact? I just posted on my blog a story about how the Drug Czar said that marijuana growers are terrorists. A tad ridiculuous if you ask me.
Sorry, Dustin… bro… I love ya like a blender, but it has only been under Republican Congress that the definition of “terr’ist” has been stretched to where it can fit to where it can just about apply to any pissed off ‘Merkan at any given time. “Terr’ist” isn’t really a word I like to throw out there too much unless we’re talking about Far-Right, Christian fundamentalist radicals such as Timothy McVeigh, perhaps, President Bush, Osama Bin Ladin, Dick Cheney, Robert Rudolph (and other abortion clinic bomber types), al-Qaeda, etc., and others who KILL and MURDER in the name of God.
Where it gets scary in calling 2-bit vandals who vandalize property to raise eco awareness is where the Gub’mint can wiretap and datamine us when we join a demonstration against damming a river, or a creek, spring; chopping down a forest, etc., etc. — just so they can verify we aren’t one of them “terr’ist” types, yannow?
Don’t get me wrong, I totally found the views you expressed here to be very interesting, and I agree with EVERY point you made here with the sole exception of, what I feel, is lightly tossing the label of “terr’ist” out there a bit too easily, that’s all.
Great post, and great conversation, y’all ! ! ! !
It really is a tricky topic isn’t it? lol. I concede the point. These vandals shouldn’t be considered terrorists.
I suppose my gut instinct is to see everything as shades of gray and, other than the severity of their actions and the differences in their motives, I still feel that they meet the basic criteria of terrorism (illegal, using violence as a tool, actions intended to intimidate/influence a person or population, and motivated by some sort of ideology). In this case they ‘technically’ fit that definition, and other than being low level petty stuff it differs in nothing but the degree of severity.
You’re right though: with the people we have in power and the abuses they’re willing to commit in the name of “security” and combating their terrorist hype it’s probably not wise to toss the phrase around without getting extremely specific about what you mean.
Hummer Guy // Jul 23, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Mixed Reaction to Hummer Vandalism…
When we first heard the story of a Washington DC man who’s Hummer had been vandalized by environmental terrorists, we were surprised. It wasn’t the act of Hummer vandalism that surprised us, since we see that all the time – in fact just last w…
Dustin-
you broke my redaction cherry! kudos! Though I would have liked the old school Sharpie cross out better.
Seriously, there is a certain class of people the Hummer appeals too- the arrogant, inconcerned, morally and socially aloof. For those Suburban soccer moms who drive vehicles over a 2 ton curb weight- there is no sport nor utility use for these people.
Not to mention the cubic volume of these things on the road and constant sight-blockage they represent.
I have to give contractors a pass though, because that’s who gets real use out of them, and to get away with the $3,000 gas credit they should have a GC licensce.