• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Eco-Terrorists Vandalize Hummer

The story about a man whose Hummer was vandalized by angry environmentalists, which fronted the Metro section of yesterday’s Washington Post, has gotten quite a bit of attention in the blogosphere.

Hummer Dude Gareth Groves 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.”

[…]

He bought the used 2005 vehicle a month ago from a dentist in Fairfax County and left it in a shop for several weeks so it could be outfitted to his specifications — new, bigger tires and a “lift kit,” meaning it would be higher off the ground. Groves, who grew up in the District and works in marketing for a local radio station, said he wanted the car in part because he is starting a company, Washington Sports Marketing, that is “image-based.”

He said he wants to get it towed and repaired but fears extremists might not be done making an example of him. “I’m worried about what I do now,” he said. “If I get it fixed, do I put it back in the same spot three weeks from now?”

Jason Steck dubs the vandals “Environmental Taliban” and observes,

Environmentalists and other moralists from the left have been growing increasingly intolerant of dissent in recent years. Even as they accuse conservatives of trying to dictate how people live their lives, authoritarian elements among liberals have fought to maintain speech codes on college campus and have proposed wide-ranging mandates on speech and action targeting everything from dissent on global warming to bans on cars they don’t like to taxes on food they don’t like.

BCB’s “Gaius” agrees noting that, “Vigilantes are vigilantes, regardless of their cause.”

The Influence Peddler adds, “The owner sounds like a perfectly nice guy, but he can’t be very bright if it never occurred to him that ‘environmentalists’ might vandalize his car. If he doesn’t understand that many on the Left are hypocrites who have no respect for private property and societal norms, then he hasn’t been paying attention.”

Kim Priestap piles on: “The environmental movement is nothing more than the new collective. You are required to go along with their dogma, and if you don’t you will pay the price.”

Let’s be clear here: One or more persons, presumably motivated by environmentalism, committed a crime here. This was not the actions of “the Left” or even “the environmental movement.” Al Gore isn’t running around vandalizing people’s property and neither are 99.99% of Prius drivers. The criminals who did this are no more representative of their ideological compatriots than the terrorists who murder people coming to work at abortion clinics. Indeed, the neighbors quoted in the story, who hated the guy’s Hummer, nonetheless strongly condemned this act, dubbing it, as does Dan Riehl, “a hate crime.”

Don Surber gets it just right:

These cretins are dangerous persons who are using environmentalism as an excuse to terrorize a man.

Put them in Palestine and they throw concrete blocks (”rocks” as the media call them) at Israeli soldiers. Put them in Germany in the 1930s and they lead the charge for on Krystallnacht. They were the Midnight Riders in she[e]ts burning crosses in the South during Reconstruction.

Unfortunately, while the vast majority of people would eschew violence, far too many are willing to smirk at it if it’s directed against those they dislike.

Lean Left‘s KTK thinks Groves got what he deserved and is angry at the Post for treating it like a big deal.

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.

All that being said, however, why exactly did the Washington Post give this story more than 20 column inches in today’s paper? A rich white loser in NW DC got his car vandalized? That’s the lead story in the B-section of the paper that broke the Watergate case?!

It’s the complicity in this jerkoff’s insular sense of entitlement that bugs me about this. The article notes that he’s aware of the stupidity and wastefulness of such a machine – he just doesn’t care. But apparently the Post doesn’t care either – and by that I mean not only do they think that his financial inconvenience is more important than his indifference to the environment, but they think that he, individually, is more important than everything they didn’t write about that day.

Gordo at appletree agrees completely:

I don’t think that this sort of vandalism is ever justified, but I also can’t understand why the Post got a case of the vapors over this incident. Have a look at Gareth Groves, the owner of the Hummer […] He looks like a selfish prick who bought a rolling biohazard, either with money that his mommy gave him or with money he “earned” doing the kind of work you don’t mention when you’re talking to a reporter.

Right now, there are soldiers dying in their Hummers in Iraq so that Gareth Groves can play Army in Washington. So I don’t think I’ll be losing any sleep because a Hummer got vandalized in DC.

The Human Trampoline entitles her post “Hummer-owning faggot gets what he deserves” and adds, “I only wish this service was extended to traditional SUVs as well.”

A LiveSpace blogger adds,

The Hummer is a symbol for me of so much that is wrong in America: too much wealth in the hands of too few; a belief that we Americans have a right to use up all the world’s resources, so long as we can afford to pay for them; the need to project an image of meanness to everyone around us. And Ms. Fremaux’s answer is unfortunately the liberal response to so much that needs fixng: fix it through the system. But what if the system itself is broken? What if Americans are so intellectually lazy, so besotted with consumerism, so brainwashed by 24-hr doses of FOX News, that they no longer know right from wrong?

In my opinion, the Hummer itself is a hate crime.

Another, running a site called Ohio Renaissance… – Activism in the news, writes, “For some reason, I just don’t feel sorry for the guy.”

Brian at Mad Dad’s Intel observes, “Frankly, I’m more afraid of global warming than tree-huggers. But that’s just me…”

In fairness, only the first of these is from a Lefty blogger of any prominance and my guess is the vast majority of the A-listers would quickly condemn criminal action; certainly, all my regular reads would. Then again, none of them have thus far commented on the story despite the widespread attention it’s getting on the Right. I had to go trolling through Technorati to find most of these reactions.

Gun Toting Liberal‘s Dustin Metzger speaks for the Sane Left:

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.

Indeed. He also cites Matthew Sparks of treehugger.

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.

Quite right.

Violence aside, I must admit I just don’t get the animosity towards Hummers. Sport utility vehicles are ubiquitous but there’s a special hatred reserved for the Hummer.

A few months back, my wife and I rented one on a trip to Southern California. We wanted a “fun” car for the weekend and were looking for a convertible but they didn’t have one. Because gas prices were sky high at the time and they were having trouble moving them, they offered us an H2 and we figured, Why not? We got all manner of evil glares from other drivers and people walking past on the sidewalk. Yet, no one seems to mind people driving around in Porshe 911 convertibles or Ferraris and such, which burn even more fuel.

Related Posts:

  • None Found

About James Joyner
James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway, an associate professor of security studies at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. He earned a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter.

Comments

  1. M1EK says:

    Violence aside, I must admit I just don’t get the animosity towards Hummers. Sport utility vehicles are ubiquitous but there’s a special hatred reserved for the Hummer.

    SUVs get favorable treatment by CAFE and by emissions law – disproportionate to their fuel consumption, even. They provide the illusion of additional safety to their own passengers while concretely lessening the safety of other road users. The largest ones got a gigantic tax break the last few years which makes the (now vanished) Prius credit look like nothing.

    The Hummer takes all of that to the extreme by glorying in it. It’s like the infamous 6000 SUX in RoboCop.

    Don’t forget – there are plenty of good reasons (not just BS like “envy”) for disliking SUVs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  2. James Joyner says:

    Don’t forget – there are plenty of good reasons (not just BS like “envy”) for disliking SUVs.

    So, fix the tax laws so that personal vehicles don’t get treated as farm equipment. And make other vehicles safer. Or, for that matter, if there’s enough evidence that SUVs are inherently unsafe to others, work to ban them.

    Regardless, there’s something irrational about the vehemence of people’s attitudes on this issue.

    My wife drives a non-Hummer SUV because she likes to ride up high so that she can see the road better. And it’s undeniably the case that she can in fact see better than in a Prius or, indeed, any traditional car. Myself, I prefer performance and handling and am willing to sacrifice that and, indeed, since it’s smaller, a modicum of safety.

    Neither her MDX nor my 350Z gets great fuel economy. Yet there’s much more animosity directed towards the SUV than the sports car.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  3. Stormy70 says:

    The self-righteous left in all its glory. I can smell the smug from here.

    I have an SUV and I work from home, so I have filled it up once this summer. All the preaching from people who commute an hour to work everyday just rolls off my back.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  4. ken says:

    We got all manner of evil glares from other drivers and people walking past on the sidewalk.

    And you say this happened to you in Southern California?

    I think you were feeling a little guilty about your wasteful spending and were seeking the disapproval from others that you could not give yourself.

    Californians are generally the most tolerant people you will ever meet and a persons choice of cars is not a bother.

    How you drive it however is entirely different. Poor driving skills are looked down upon especially in traffic. People will often express their displeasure with poor drivers in such obvious manners as glaring, frowning etc. I suspect that what you were seeing is others frustration at your driving skills not being up to standard for the car you were driving.

    You probably were mistaking the disapproval of how you were driving with displeasure at your choice of what to drive.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  5. James Joyner says:

    Poor driving skills are looked down upon especially in traffic.

    What traffic? I drive in the D.C. Metro area routinely. Driving from Redondo Beach to Venice Beach is a leisurely drive by comparison.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Alex Knapp says:

    My wife drives a non-Hummer SUV because she likes to ride up high so that she can see the road better. And it’s undeniably the case that she can in fact see better than in a Prius or, indeed, any traditional car.

    You know, I always hear people say this, but I’ve found that when I drive an SUV that I have a better view of the road ahead, but a much more limited view of the world to the sides and back of me. Most SUV’s that I’ve driven seem to have lousy mirrors and huge blind spots.

    I drive a smaller car because I like good gas mileage and prefer a car that handles well. And thank goodness it handles well, because the folks who drive SUVs on my commute don’t seem to bother with shoulder checking before they change lanes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. markm says:

    “SUVs get favorable treatment by CAFE and by emissions law – disproportionate to their fuel consumption, even. They provide the illusion of additional safety to their own passengers while concretely lessening the safety of other road users. The largest ones got a gigantic tax break the last few years which makes the (now vanished) Prius credit look like nothing.”

    Sounds to me all the more reason to buy and drive SUV’s (and please people, buy American!). I cannot stand driving small vehicles. I don’t care if they get 100mpg and fix all the problems of the environment…i’ll never drive anything smaller than a full sized pickup truck.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Brian J. says:

    Hummers have a military lineage and are currently in use in various battlefields abroad. Hence their extra hatred, perhaps.

    Unlike Jeeps, which have the military vintage but whose origin has probably been forgotten.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. JKB says:

    I believe the animosity toward Hummers and also SUVs is that they are in your face. Being big and tall, they demand attention. A sports car doesn’t block your view and fits with the smaller is better psychosis. It doesn’t matter which might get lower gas mileage or have a smaller total energy footprint. Would anyone feel good about owning a Prius if it was as big and boxy as a Hummer? I still haven’t figured out why they made the Prius so ugly but maybe it needed to readily identify the owner as a smug person? Well, that’s my 2 cent psychology opinion, anyway.

    SUVs are not inherently less safe than other cars. The complaint is that drivers in SUVs feel safer and therefore drive more aggressively toward other cars. Being near a school when all soccer moms are picking up the kids in their SUVs can be intimidating. It probably is mostly all in peoples heads. The big flat, boxy front ends makes an SUV appear more threatening than the gentle slope of a sedan’s hood at the same speed.

    In the end it the bigness that people hate. Look at how much extra environment an SUV takes up. Kind of like why they hate fat people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. James Joyner says:

    Most SUV’s that I’ve driven seem to have lousy mirrors and huge blind spots.

    The MDX doesn’t seem to have that problem. I’ve driven it quite a bit and see well out of it.

    Indeed, it’s mostly glass, with large passenger windows and a huge rear window, and the mirrors are excellent. It’s true that there’s a blind spot with the strut that separates the front and back seat windows, but that’s pretty standard on most vehicles.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. andrew says:

    Funny. Gareth, a guy who of 32 who lives with his mom drives a hummer. A veritable Freudian field day.

    He bought a $38,000 truck… I wonder if he has a 401K?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  12. markm says:

    “SUVs are not inherently less safe than other cars.”

    Wellllllll…sorta. It’s almost always better to be the hammer than the nail. When it’s not is when the bumpers or the “meat” of the vehicles doesn’t line up, mostly where someone raises or “jacks up” an SUV. An accident involving the two is usually a fatality in the lower smaller vehicle and severe injuries if not death in in the bigger vehicle. The bigger vehicles tend to roll over more as they are more top heavy AND they are not designed to take a hit from “underneath”.

    Also, I was recently shamed by driving a KIA SUV..i don’t recall the name of it. What a POS!!!. And you want to talk about a crapy vehicle you could not see out of…sheesh!.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Billy says:

    You know, I always hear people say this, but I’ve found that when I drive an SUV that I have a better view of the road ahead, but a much more limited view of the world to the sides and back of me. Most SUV’s that I’ve driven seem to have lousy mirrors and huge blind spots.

    After working a job for a while where I drove all sorts of cars, some for extended periods of time, I’ve got to agree – the “I can see better” is more of a myth than reality. It is true that if you’re behind a Hummer in traffic that an SUV will give you a slightly better ability to see to the front, but this is more a result of the fact that there are so many vehicles for which “taller is better” has been the philosophy. And this really does only apply in traffic, when “seeing better” is of decidedly limited applicability; I don’t think the case can be made that on the open road an SUV offers anything resembling an awareness advantage. Indeed, I’ve found quite the opposite – “I can see better” is part of the perpetuated fallacy that driving an SUV is somehow safer than driving an ordinary car (despite evidence to the contrary), and I cannot count the number of times I have seen the “I’m in a safer vehicle so I don’t have to yield or even pay attention” mode of driving in practice.

    That said, people can drive what they want, and they shouldn’t have to risk vandalism for it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Alex Knapp says:

    The MDX doesn’t seem to have that problem. I’ve driven it quite a bit and see well out of it.

    Fair enough–haven’t driven one of those.

    Anyways, on the main topic, I think that environmentalists need to get some better rhetoric if they actually want to propagandize properly. There’s an environmentalist friend of mine doesn’t go on about selfishness or penis envy–he just refers to SUVs as “Taliban wagons”, which got some legs in environmental circles in this area. If I can dig it up, I’ll see if I can find his article “Why do SUV owners hate our troops?” about dependence on foreign oil, etc.

    Is that an unfair attack? Probably. But from a purely rhetorical standpoint, it’s way more effective.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Bithead says:

    I drive the Buick version of the Trailblazer, these days… a Rainier. Here’s a few pics, if you like. I get around 16mp around town, 21-22 on the highway. Not too shabby, for a 300hp rig, actually. In the seventies, this would have been considered a small vehicle.

    And guess what? The H3 uses the same Atlas engine, and gets about the same MPG…. within a few tenths of an MPG.

    Let’s examine some of the standard anti-SUV arguments:

    SUV’s support terrorists

    While this would be true if we were actually getting a significant portion of our oil from the Middle East, we’re not. Iraq, for example, only accounts for around 9% of our consumption, under the normal conditions we’ve not had for some 10 years now.

    Also, let’s consider that the head of ‘People for the American Way’, Norman Lear who is the creator of these ads has a garage with 21 cars that includes 2 Limousines Private Jet. Forgive me, Norman, but somehow, I doubt your sincerity on this issue. In fact, Lear is not alone. According to actual survey, over half of the people involved in this political hit movement drive SUV’s.

    And I’m not even going to get into Al Gore and his jet collection. His SUV’s. And so on.

    Let’s also consider the idea that all automobiles burn fuel, and often at as high a rate as SUV’s, the whining not withstanding. Looking even closer, let’s say that the SUV uses 20 gal per week, on average. Meanwhile the driver of the average car gets a little better, burning perhaps 8 gallons per week less. Are the folks at the Detroit project telling us that it’s just the money for that eight gallons that funds terrorism, and the rest are OK?

    So, by those lights, shouldn’t that be ANYTHING that burns gas or uses oil contributes? Why just SUV’s? Should we be shutting down NASCAR and NHRA competitions because they’re anti-American? Do we all become Amish to satisfy these people? The question becomes, of course, at what point does this Liber-Lieâ„¢ get to absurd levels?

    SUV’s Pollute

    Again, comes the question about ALL autos. The fact is, the pollution from such vehicles are no worse than the vast majority on the road today, Including the mini-coffins the left would have us driving.

    There’s no real need for the SUV

    I’m forced to agree with Charles Galbach, who speaks to these points better than I:

    “In the first place, the purchase of SUV’s by businesses was the result of your close buddies, the tax lawyers and their cohorts in the not that long ago Democratically controlled congress which permitted or encouraged a windfall tax deduction for SUV’s, posing as “trucks”. Since the Republicans have a history of trying to bottle up lawyers, including tax lawyers, where they belong and also have a history of opposing business taxes rather than the Democrat method of manufacturing loopholes, it had to be the Democrats who conjured up this ruse. It obviously backfired with unintended consequences.

    Secondly, it was the Democrats who forced the auto industry into creating vehicles that couldn’t hold even 2 adults and 2 children without them being squashed inside a thimble sized vehicle. These same vehicles are underpowered and therefore unsafe on any highway at any speed. They qualify for no more than zipping around an area no bigger than your typical gated community — a role better served by the usual golf cart.

    Everyone, except the rabid few enviro-whackos can see this. As a result, we see mom driving around in an oversized vehicle which is the only one that can hold her kids and a couple friends on a trip to soccer practice — or grandma driving around in an oversized vehicle which is about the only thing safe enough for her to drive on her daily errands.”

    To this excellent commentary, I would add one more point: Like millions of Americans, I tow frequently enough to make a truck an economical choice.

    Cars have been so downsized that towing with anything less is simply unsafe if not impossible. As an example, I will never forget the sight a few years ago while in Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick, the sight of an obviously honeymooning couple using a Dodge Neon to tow a fairly small sized popup camper. We were at a parking spot along the ocean, near a popular eating spot. There’s a sizeable hill out front. When he pulled in, I could smell his brakes burning, from trying to get down the hill without smacking something or someone. They ate, and left. Well, they tried to…. They got stuck going back up that same hill… the car had all it could do to hold the trailer against the hill… and the trailer only weighed a couple thousand lbs.!

    You do NOT want people and equipment like this next to you on the highway. But just think of all the gas he’s saving, right up to the part where they both die horribly because he can’t control the thing.

    If higher MPG’s is the desired goal, fine, go after it. Meantime, leave me something that actually works. Create something that can tow 6000lbs, without getting into trouble, is safe in an accident situation, and yet gets 45mpg, and is at a reasonable initial cost, and is as dependable as our current modes of transport, and I’ll buy it.

    Meantime, leave me the beep alone.

    Which leads me, finally, to a personal comment, to those of you who think small cars are “safe”.

    I hesitate to say this.
    Twice now, I’ve been at the scene of an accident… once where I knew the victims personally, and once where I happened upon an accident before the police arrived. Both fatal accidents, both one car accidents, and both situations where the person would have lived had they had something better than a Ford Fiesta in one case, or a Prius, in the other. In both cases, they valued a gallon of gas over their own lives, and paid the price…. And I’m left with the horrible memory of those two incidents.

    I will never drive such a vehicle, and I don’t give a hot crap WHAT kind of gas numbers it turns in.

    SUV’s Aren’t safe in accdients, having higher accident death rates.

    NHTSA figures report that 64% of SUV deaths are blamed on lack of seatbelts, not of vehicle design. And of those, a sizable number are related to tire failures, which in turn are caused by lack of tire maintenance… simply keeping the tires up to pressure, and THAT in fairly isolated cases. When those incidents are factored out, the death rates in SUV’s are actually LOWER than for the kind of tincans the left would have us in. Much lower.

    Sorry, but from any angle… ANY angle…this anti-SUV argument doesn’t hold up. Since all these arguments are so easily defeated, it strikes me that what we’re seeing is more a political ploy, than anything else. An excuse for a bigger attack. An infamous socialist (is there any other kind) Adolf Hitler, had the Jews as an excuse for his attacks. The socialists of today have the SUV as their excuse. I refuse to be a victim as they were, for the purpose of someone’s political ploy for power.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  16. M1EK says:

    Neither her MDX nor my 350Z gets great fuel economy. Yet there’s much more animosity directed towards the SUV than the sports car.

    The sports car’s manufacturer had to subsidize an economy car to make up for its low mileage. The SUV’s manufacturer did not. That’s the CAFE impact. The sports car also needs to satisfy stricter emissions requirements than does the SUV. Finally, the sports car does not take safety AWAY from other vehicles on the road.

    As for the “make other cars safer” retort, the only thing worse than a mix of small cars and SUVs would be all-SUVs; because SUVs really haven’t resulted in greater safety for their own passengers (despite the popular misconception). Once safety becomes nothing more than an arms race, we all lose – it becomes not just a zero-sum game but a negative-sum game (SUV-to-SUV collisions worse overall than SUV-to-car or car-to-SUV, and FAR worse than car-to-car).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. markm says:

    Something else I read over the weekend that makes you say hmmmmmmm. The 06 or 07 Lincoln (not an SUV but somewhat of a “big car”) get’s nearly three times the milage of a 1974 Pinto. So to those that say our vehicles have not improved their efficiency…nertz to you!. YOU keep driving what makes you feel good…leave me out of your silly argument.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Should Grove have bought a Hummer?

    How you answer this question says everything we need to know about how much respect you have for what is called “the pursuit of happiness.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. M1EK says:

    YOU keep driving what makes you feel good…leave me out of your silly argument.

    As long as your SUV is subject to the same emissions, fuel economy, and safety requirements as the other vehicles on the road, and as long as we hike the gas tax to cover the true cost of driving (including Middle East adventurism), I heartily support your right to drive what you like.

    We’re a long ways from that today. You get preferential treatment compared to regular cars in so many ways that the “S” in “SUV” should stand for “subsidized”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  20. markm says:

    “We’re a long ways from that today. You get preferential treatment compared to regular cars in so many ways that the “S” in “SUV” should stand for “subsidized”.”

    Meh, I can live with that and sleep good at night.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. […] Joyner wants to know why liberals aren’t talking about the man whose Hummer was severely vandalized in Upper […]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Andy says:

    Eco-Terrorists?

    Eco-Terrorists?

    Are you f**king kidding me?

    If it had been some skateboard punks keying the hummer it would be a misdemeanor or low level felony vandalism, but since some wacko did it because he hates SUVs it’s terrorism?

    That is ridiculous.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  23. Andy says:

    Bithead, nice Hitler = modern left comparison.

    Besides the fact that you don’t seem to know anything about history (Hitler was a socialist?), your satisfaction of Godwin’s law is a nice example of the absurdist reduction of argument that the anti-left typically produces.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  24. floyd says:

    The H2 is only a 3/4ton chevy pickup in drag.
    The H3 is only a chevy canyon mini-truck in drag.
    The morons that hate them only really hate the image and therefore are only attacking free speech!
    What are they going to do when the HYBRID Hummer comes out? It could be as soon as next year.

    My SUV gets 24mpg city/29mpg highway;Plus they even make a hybrid version of it for those who want the headaches for a couple mpg more.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Bithead says:

    What is deestroying the Hummer, but brownshirt tactics, Andy?

    As for Hitler being a socialist, I understand history very well, thank you… I give you Doctor John Ray.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  26. Bithead says:

    My SUV gets 24mpg city/29mpg highway;Plus they even make a hybrid version of it for those who want the headaches for a couple mpg more

    If you’re driving something that’s getting those MPG, you’re not driving a truck. You’re driving a car, with a thyroid condition. I will guarantee you, it has very little in the way of towing capacity. My wife’s Escape, for example, fits that category rather nicely.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. James Joyner says:

    If it had been some skateboard punks keying the hummer it would be a misdemeanor or low level felony vandalism, but since some wacko did it because he hates SUVs it’s terrorism?

    Terrorism is the use of criminal action to instill fear for the purposes of achieving a political goal. That’s what was being done here.

    If someone paints “Kilroy was here” on a church, it’s vandalism. If someone paints a swastika on a synagogue, it’s a hate crime. We differentiate based on intent.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  28. James Joyner says:

    If you’re driving something that’s getting those MPG, you’re not driving a truck. You’re driving a car, with a thyroid condition. I will guarantee you, it has very little in the way of towing capacity.

    Sure. My wife’s MDX is built on a Honda Odyssey minivan platform, for example.

    Most people buy SUVs as alternatives to minivans and station wagons, not pickup trucks. Nobody’s taking their Escalade off-roading or pulling a camper with it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. Andy says:

    As for Hitler being a socialist, I understand history very well, thank you… I give you Doctor John Ray.

    Well, heck, I don’t even need to read past the title. I’m convinced! He seems really enthusiastic about comparing Hitler to modern socialists too, so I’m on board with that too.

    Remember kids, universal health care = gas chambers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  30. floyd says:

    Andy; Hitler’s party translates to “National Socialist” Party or “Nazi” for short.
    Sorry; It’s just a fact.

    markm; The Lincoln comment is absurd.
    I have owned a dozen Pintos which averaged about 28mpg driven with a total disregard for economy,
    And about 35mpg at steady highway speeds.
    The Lincoln is pretty good, but 84mpg is a
    S T R E T C H !!
    Your point is well taken though!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  31. floyd says:

    Bithead; It is an Escape, with which I tow a small camper. I just hope some ecology minded thug doesn’t think it’s a real SUV![lol]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Andy says:

    Andy; Hitler’s party translates to “National Socialist” Party or “Nazi” for short.
    Sorry; It’s just a fact.

    Wow, just like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a democratic republic!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  33. floyd says:

    Or the Democrat party in the U.S.A. is “for democracy”[lol]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  34. Andy says:

    So, um, I take that to mean that you agree that your point is silly?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Bandit says:

    I guess these people are a little unclear on private property rights. But I guess since they really don’t like Hummers it’s OK.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. […] or H1s I’d be more impressed on aesthetic grounds…and a little intimidated.  But is violence really the answer to Hummer driving jackassery?  Of course not, but unlike Andrew, I’m not so […]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. J Rosen says:

    Have you ever been tailgated, blinded by its raised halogen headlights directly in your rear-view mirror, by one of these monsters on an Interstate?
    Have you ever tried to pull out out into an intersection when your view is blocked by a parked one?

    Have you ever been cut off by one at high speed, knowing that it could demolish you without noticing a thing?

    And I don’t even drive a mini — just a normal-sized sedan.

    All of these things are true of SUV’s too, but not quite so much. The Hummer is an SUV on steroids, a self-propelled phallus, arrogance on wheels, a macho fantasy for chickenhawks. I wouldn’t trash one, and don’t condone doing so, but I can certainly understand the feeling. (And slashing tires is not quite the same as bombing clinics, is it?)

    And besides, the things are fucking UGLY, UGLY, UGLY. Makes the Edsel look positively dreamy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  38. floyd says:

    Andy; What point was that? Do you mean the point
    that all political parties aren’t what they say they are? It is not really as silly as it is dangerous for those that buy the Party line!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. Anjin-San says:

    Vandalizing an SUV hardly rises to the level of “terrorism” though certainly anyone who deliberately damages a car or truck that does not belong to them deserves to see the inside of a jail cell.

    As for hummers, they strike me as sort of the ultimate male inadequacy compensator. How anyone can drive one without acute embarrassment eludes me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  40. Billy says:

    Do you mean the point
    that all political parties aren’t what they say they are?

    No, I think he was referring to your asinine earlier post that because the Nazis called themselves socialists, socialists are Nazis.

    On that point, you and Bithead should really do some research on national socialism before you go throwing it around like you know what it means.

    Godwin’s law strikes again!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  41. Anjin-San says:

    Bit I am curious, why put pictures of your car on the Internet? My car is completely smoking, but I have never felt the need to post it, or even take a picture of it for that matter. I guess I am missing something here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. JKB says:

    “As for hummers, they strike me as sort of the ultimate male inadequacy compensator. How anyone can drive one without acute embarrassment eludes me.”

    Given the number of Hummers I’ve seen with women behind the wheel, I suppose your statement is true in a since or perhaps the women are just compensating for being petite? Surely they wouldn’t buy a Hummer just because they enjoy driving a big truck. Of course it may be that they are an accessory as a friend replied when I commented on the practicality of her new Jeep, “I don’t care, I look good in it.”

    Sadly, the Hummer haters are likely to be the born again seeking redemption from their zealotry. Much as the writer of this article:

    My beloved Explorer looked so vulgar and selfish. What statement was I trying to make, apart from ‘Sod you, I will look after my family at the expense of everybody else’s’? My car said: ‘There is no such thing as society.’

    At the same time, I started to notice people were treating me differently. Where there was once an amused respect for my Tonka truck fantasies, there was now obvious disdain. Nobody ever let me out at a junction.

    Meanwhile, the Chelsea Tractor drivers who remain are like the Boers who refused to accept the end of apartheid. I want to shout: ‘Don’t you understand? Nobody likes you! Times have changed!’

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. Bithead says:

    Nobody’s taking their Escalade off-roading or pulling a camper with it.

    They may not be off roading with it, James, but they most certainly are pulling a camper with it a lot of times. It turns out the Escalade is a very capable trailer- handler. And as I gather, rather comfortable for the long haul. I see ’em now and again, while camping. I actually gave one serious consideration, but the paint on it had been kinda beat.

    I’ve never driven the MDX, although the 360 in Buick trim is supposed to be in the same competitive range, if you KWIM. There again, however, the MDX isn’t on a truck frame, and the Buick is.

    (Chuckle) I actually had occasion to do a little (Mild) off a roading with the Buick here over July forth weekend. Whereas the Tralblazer and Envoy versions came with fully xfer case 4*4, the Buick comes with AWD, which is actually much better on the highway, for it’s handling. It’s not a full-on offroader, but how many fully loaded Buicks are? (Chuckle) It did everything I asked, by the way, even in that harsher environment. I must say, I was impressed.

    In truth, the SUV around here is mostly a snow vehicle. The added group clearance and 4*4 is a real help with what we get every winter around here. The AWD excells here, too, and in my own view is better than the full 4*4 for the purpose.

    Bit I am curious, why put pictures of your car on the Internet? My car is completely smoking, but I have never felt the need to post it, or even take a picture of it for that matter. I guess I am missing something here.

    It’s a hobby. The van in the first pic was the vehicle that started that for me. I took it from a bare bones sport-top conversion to an over-the top rig in three years. Heated leather, uprated audio and video plus the game system, added a fridge, uprated tires, brakes suspension, engine, etc. It was a project truck for me, and I had a lot of fun doing it. The pics were part of it. Based on pics I took of that rig along the way, I got suggestions and commiserations from other folks who were building up THEIR vans. The body kit was a major thing, in the day… and the suggestion for the source was an email which came from a viewer of the pics I’d posted.

    As I say on that page, I’m not convinced I’m going to be modifying this one much at all, since it already has so much on it …but you never know. The bug may strike me on this one, too. The Buick version is kinda rare… that year, particularly. There’s really not much in the way of aftermarket sources for such a truck. I guess I’m hoping to find the same level of help I gt on the earlier vehicle… but the lower numbers on the road are hindering that a bit. I don’t know if any of that answers your question, but I hope so.

    *** And Billy, I see your reply, where you say you didn’t bother reading the article. So much for being open to history, or leaning from it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. Bithead says:

    Bithead; It is an Escape, with which I tow a small camper. I just hope some ecology minded thug doesn’t think it’s a real SUV![lol]

    Well, I have to tell you, that’s been a serious consideration with both my rig, and my wife’s, which is also an Escape.

    You’re quite correct, however, that there is an awful lot of idiocy going on over such matters. It’s hardly new. I wrote an extended bitch about this back in 2002, before I even owned the blue van in the pic. Here it is.

    As I suggested in that post, over 5 years ago, the biggest enemy we face is not external, but rather, the willing… nay… gleeful idiocy we see surrounding this kinda stuff.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  45. Billy says:

    And Billy, I see your reply, where you say you didn’t bother reading the article

    I’ll let that one slide, since I suppose if you can’t tell the difference between National Socialism and Socialism then I can’t expect you not to confuse “Andy” and “Billy,” but I will point out that Andy never said he didn’t read it – merely that with a title like that it was unnecessary.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  46. Andy says:

    Quick, who said that Nazism “has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism”?

    That would be Hitler.

    The modern extremist right is desperate to tie Nazism to socialism for some odd reason. It’s as if Stalinist Communism isn’t bad enough, but the left has to take responsibility for Nazis too.

    As much as I want to accept the fundamental truths of a ranting article by a wingnut “published on the internet only,” I think I’m going to go with basically every peer-reviewed historian from the past 70 years instead.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  47. rufus says:

    Quite right- one of the major ‘selling points’ for the Nazis was that they were supposedly willing and able to keep the communists at bay. ‘Better Hitler than Stalin’ was the popular wisdom, although of course it’s really a hell of a choice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. floyd says:

    Bithead; Good writing; I saved the rest for further rumination and look forward to when time allows.
    Your article proves a valid point, that proactive writing is more effective and better understood than simply reactive writing in response to Gleeful Idiocy!
    The posting of comments is stimulating though, wouldn’t you say?[lol]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  49. floyd says:

    “”No, I think he was referring to your asinine earlier post that because the Nazis called themselves socialists, socialists are Nazis.””
    “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

    Billy; Get someone who can read with comprehension to read that comment to you again,
    I said nothing of the sort!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  50. Bithead says:

    Bithead; Good writing; I saved the rest for further rumination and look forward to when time allows.
    Your article proves a valid point, that proactive writing is more effective and better understood than simply reactive writing in response to Gleeful Idiocy!
    The posting of comments is stimulating though, wouldn’t you say?[lol]

    Thanks.

    Well, it’s certainly true that proactive writing gives one a chance to more thoroughly explored topic than does the average conversation and the comments section. In the case of the piece that I linked I was pretty well isolated; there was noting in the way of internet linking… just a boy, his fire, his camper, and his Palm Pilot 505. perhaps one of the reasons that that peace is as effective as it is is because I actually had the chance to sit back and ponder my words as I wrote them. Alas, I’ve not had much chance to get out this year, so far. But we’ve got between now and October to get a few trips in, so I’m still hopeful.

    Anwyay… When you’re actually writing things online, there is an almost mechanical push to hurry things along and get whatever it is you’re doing, posted. It’s one reason that my own blog tends to lean toward the “link, comment, post” mode. I actually getting an extended analytical piece no more than once every couple of days, now. The “link, comment, post” stuff ends up being the support for earlier analytical pieces I’ve done. Frankly, I’ve given up trying to predict what happening or what, and is going to set my trigger off for one of the more extended pieces.

    To tell you the truth, I have fallen lately into the habit of writing down thoughts as they occur into the Palm and then piecing them together as the subject relate. Not only is it a real time saver, but it’s a real idea saver.

    The places that I frequent, tend to get a little more heavily than some into the analytical work. This site is one of them, and it’s why I’m usually found here at some point during the day. another would be Q&O, and a third would be Billy Beck’s Two-Four.

    You’re quite right that discussions within the comments environment are stimulating, in much the same way I found Usenet stimulating some years ago, and the BBS world before that. There’s no replacement for the back and forth that occurs in those kind of environments.

    However, I’ve always taken at that each type… the “short hit, link, and run” style, and the more extended analytical stuff, each has their own attractions. I find also that when taken in balance they tend to feed each other.

    Without the extended analytical’s as a basis, there’s hardly any need of conversation…. No starting point. On the other hand without the feedback from the conversation, there’s hardly any point in posting analyticals, at least from my own POV. More, the conversation tends to push the analyticals to deeper levels, perhaps exploring areas that would not be touched on, without that feedback.

    Andy:

    I think I’m going to go with basically every peer-reviewed historian from the past 70 years instead.

    There’s a phrase describing “peer review”. It’s called “Echo chamber”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  51. Andy says:

    There’s a phrase describing “peer review”. It’s called “Echo chamber”.

    Wow, you’ve got an answer for everything. You’re saying the basically every historical analysis of Nazism is wrong and some kooky guy who thinks Nazis are gay Marxists is right?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  52. G.A.Phillips says:

    Hitler was a socialist, evolutionist, and a terrorist.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  53. Andy says:

    Hitler was a socialist, evolutionist, and a terrorist.

    He was probably a heliocentrist too!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  54. Bithead says:

    I’m saying that those who lean left, and don’t like the comparison, tend to disagree with it. Those who are educators who don’t like the comparison, because they lean left, are called “peers”.

    See, here’s your problem; you’re telling me, that your objection to the writings of Doctor Ray, are that his personal opinion is involved. Are you really going to tell me, that only the RIGHT is susceptible to allowing their personal politics decide the outcome of their research?

    If the vast majority of the “peers” are leftist, how do you suppose the resulting review will look, hmmm?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  55. G.A.Phillips says:

    He was probably a heliocentrist too!!!

    Not sure, but he was in great favor of the repetitious lie that you liberals seem to have mastered.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  56. Andy says:

    you’re telling me, that your objection to the writings of Doctor Ray, are that his personal opinion is involved

    No, it’s that they’re batsh*t crazy.

    No sensible person thinks that Hitler was a socialist of the sort that you and other modern right wingers are trying to link him to.

    Seriously, if you think these things you probably need some very remedial education.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  57. Andy says:

    Not sure, but he was in great favor of the repetitious lie that you liberals seem to have mastered.

    G.A., you’re devolving from bad spoof to annoying spoof. How tedious.

    Let me write your response you don’t have to:
    “Libtards are evil and they love Hitler and hate freedom and puppies.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  58. Billy says:

    Wow. This thread has really devolved into a beautiful example of anti-intellectualism.

    Both by example…

    Billy; Get someone who can read with comprehension to read that comment to you again,
    I said nothing of the sort!

    Hitler’s party translates to “National Socialist” Party or “Nazi” for short.
    Sorry; It’s just a fact.

    (Um. Ok.)

    …and by rhetoric…

    There’s a phrase describing “peer review”. It’s called “Echo chamber”.

    This is, in all honesty, one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. I understand that the desire to go with ideology often trumps reason in what passes for discourse these days, but you really could not have picked a more rabidly charicatured way of expressing the idea.

    You do realize that you’ve effectively equated education with “the other” right? You do understand where that puts you? I know you’ll “claim you never said it” or that I’m “twisting your words,” but I really think they speak for themselves.

    Those who are educators who don’t like the comparison, because they lean left, are called “peers”.

    Please, please, go and do some research before you talk. Look up the word “peer” and come back.

    So let me get this straight. People who study history, and who review other historical research, are called peers because they don’t like the idea of comparing socialists to nazis and they lean left. Really? That’s what you’re going with?

    Undoubtedly, as any intellectually honest historian will tell you, fascist governments in the 30s and 40s shared some of their means with the communists and socialist ideology in general. Guess what: so does the United States to this day. The conflation of mechanics and intersection of logistical procedures with ideological common ground is ludicrous; that would be like claiming that anyone who admits the blitzkrieg was an effective technique against Poland is an anti-semite.

    Please just stop. It’s just too hard to wrap my brain around the vast gulf of ignorance that is your understanding of the world.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  59. floyd says:

    Billy; Real men prefer Anti-intellectualism to Pseudo-intellectualism any day, it’s more honest![lol]
    Now hurry and demonstrate your misunderstanding!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  60. the stupids says:

    From which butt did you pull that 911/ferrari “fact?”

    ~20 mpg for a porsche 911:
    http://www.edmunds.com/new/porsche/index.html

    ~12 mpg for a ferrari maranello:
    http://autos.aol.com/article/_a/the-10-least-fuel-efficient-vehicles/20051214142109990008

    Hummer H1 is conveniently exempt from EPA mileage certification, but the estimate is 8-10 mpg:
    http://www.mainebrook.com/opac/info/kb/Best_Worst_Gas_Mileage.php

    People hate Hummers because they’re absurd. You’re driving around in something that has absolutely no business on a civilian road. If somebody managed to get their tank licensed and drove around in it, wouldn’t you agree they were behaving irresponsibly?

    Riding a tank to work is not just unnecessary, it’s dangerous to everyone on the road, harmful to the road itself (effectively charging _you_ taxes for repairs), and just goddamn stupid. How is a hummer any different?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  61. floyd says:

    The stupids;
    The interstates were designed for the military.
    BTW, could you distinguish among the H1,H2,&H3 at forty MPH on a PUBLIC road? For which they pay more than you BTW.
    Is it fair to say that you only resent the H1?
    They are ridiculous, even the drivers of them know that! If you would quit hating them, they would quit driving them! can you spell…. ICONOCLAST?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  62. Grewgills says:

    They are ridiculous, even the drivers of them know that! If you would quit hating them, they would quit driving them! can you spell…. ICONOCLAST?

    That is just silly. Hummers are about conspicuous consumption, not iconoclasm.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  63. Bithead says:

    Please, please, go and do some research before you talk. Look up the word “peer” and come back.

    Ah, yes… Someone else who thinks the only way that I could disagree with their interpretation is that I’m “uninformed”. How condescending.
    I don’t suppose it’s occurred to you that I might disagree because I do understand the situation. No, I guess not. All you can see is your sacred cow burning.

    I like my sacred cow burgers well done, please.

    And speaking of condescending;

    Riding a tank to work is not just unnecessary, it’s dangerous to everyone on the road, harmful to the road itself (effectively charging _you_ taxes for repairs), and just goddamn stupid. How is a hummer any different?

    Something being necessary or unnecessary is not your decision to make. It’s none of your business. You’re not the one paying for it. So long as the vehicle fits within the law, (and as it happens the Hummer does) you have no say on the matter, nor should you.

    It’s an interesting situation; not so very long ago the left in this country was all fired worried about those on the right moralizing about their sexual behavior. And that worrying goes on today. Witness the situation with Larry Flynt, just now.

    And yet, what do we see the left doing with regards to transportation hear the United States? Overt moralizing. One of a calling for? Laws to match with their version of morality.

    I suppose they figure it’s only valid when they do it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  64. markm says:

    “markm; The Lincoln comment is absurd.
    I have owned a dozen Pintos which averaged about 28mpg driven with a total disregard for economy,
    And about 35mpg at steady highway speeds.
    The Lincoln is pretty good, but 84mpg is a
    S T R E T C H !!
    Your point is well taken though!”

    I was going from memory but I suppose the article I read could have said the Lincoln was 3 times as efficient as a Pinto. That seems more plausible.

    I recall riding around in a friends Pinto quite a bit…and it got NOWHERE near 28mpg and it was a total dog. I don’t recall what year the vehicle was.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  65. Bithead says:

    I had a 72, with the German cast iron engine. It got around 20 around town. I threw a mattress in the back, and curtains in the windows and called it the world’s smallest RV.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  66. Bithead says:

    Since some decided to duck the truth, based on the Mere title of a link to article, I thought I’d bring out some salient points…

    “True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt’s: “Give back Alsace and Lorraine”. For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?”

    Have a look at the headline quote above and say who wrote it. It is a typical Hitler rant, is it not? Give it to 100 people who know Hitler’s speeches and 100 would identify it as something said by Adolf. The fierce German nationalism and territorial ambition is unmistakeable. And if there is any doubt, have a look at another quote from the same author:

    This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.

    That settles it, doesn’t it? Who does not know of Hitler’s glorification of military sacrifice and his aim to establish a “thousand-year Reich”?

    But neither quote is in fact from Hitler. Both quotes were written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx’s co-author

    Again:

    “Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew — not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time…. We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed — has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry”.

    Hitler, again? No. This time, Marx imself.

    Again, Doctor Ray:

    Note that Marx wanted to “emancipate” (free) mankind from Jewry (“Judentum” in Marx’s original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx’s essay in German was “Zur Judenfrage”, which — while not necessarily derogatory in itself — is nonetheless exactly the same expression (“Jewish question”) that Hitler used in his famous phrase “Endloesung der Judenfrage” (“Final solution of the Jewish question”). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily “dissolve” itself, the word he uses in German is “aufloesen”, which is a close relative of Hitler’s word “Endloesung” (“final solution”). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler’s ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels archived here.

    Doctor Ray goes further to point out that Soviet troops during world war one and afterward wore a shoulder patch that bore a swastika. Funny how that never gets mentioned. Turns out, even Hitler’s Icons, were leftist.

    I say again; the crime these thugs did in the ‘name of the environment” is precisely what Hitler’s brown shirts would have done. There is no difference. The reason there’s no difference, is the ideology is the same.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  67. Grewgills says:

    The only commonalities shown here (assuming accurate quotations) between Marx, Engels, and Hitler are strong German nationalism and antisemitism. Neither of these are components of modern socialism as practiced in the US or Western Europe.
    Chinese communists do have antipathy for all religion, not Judaism in particular, but are no more nationalistic than you.

    Re: the swastika
    By your logic here the Jains and the Nazis have much in common.

    I say again; the crime these thugs did in the ‘name of the environment” is precisely what Hitler’s brown shirts would have done. There is no difference. The reason there’s no difference, is the ideology is the same.

    Trying to parallel vandalism of someone’s vehicle with genocide is offensive on several levels. Your unsubtle attempt to tar the environmental movement as equivalent of Nazism is also disgusting. You belittle yourself when you belittle the suffering and death of millions in this way.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  68. Billy says:

    Real men prefer Anti-intellectualism to Pseudo-intellectualism any day, it’s more honest!

    The thing about pseudo-intellectualism is that it takes an intellectual to tell the difference.

    I don’t suppose it’s occurred to you that I might disagree because I do understand the situation. No, I guess not. All you can see is your sacred cow burning.

    A well reasoned, thoughtful response, as expected.

    To answer your question, it might have occurred to me if you demonstrated a basic grasp of history, which so far you have not.

    The only commonalities shown here (assuming accurate quotations) between Marx, Engels, and Hitler are strong German nationalism and antisemitism. Neither of these are components of modern socialism as practiced in the US or Western Europe.

    Quite right. You seem not to understand the very basics of what constitutes “socialism,” relying on the thesis that “if Marx and Engels said it, then it must be what socialists think.” On the plus side, you’re certainly demonstrating your credibility on issues of substance here, which I don’t want to discourage.

    Doctor Ray goes further to point out that Soviet troops during world war one and afterward wore a shoulder patch that bore a swastika. Funny how that never gets mentioned. Turns out, even Hitler’s Icons, were leftist.

    Apparently Herr Doktor has never heard of an “Encyclopedia” or “the internet” because if he’d looked in either of these places for a basic history of the swastika, he’d realize that the Balto-Slavs had used the symbol since before they’d been Christianized by the templars (and indeed, continued to after that point, referring to it as a “broken cross.”) The Lithuanian air force used the symbol between the wars, as did the Finns (long before Mein Kampf was even written). That the Russians would appropriate a Teutonic symbol for insignia purposes in the very region of its origin should not be surprising, and to assert that it equates modern socialism with nazism is beyond stupid. None of this even addresses Grewgills point about the Jains, and in Southern Asia more people than the entire population of the Western world still positively identify with the symbol as one of peace.

    Trying to parallel vandalism of someone’s vehicle with genocide is offensive on several levels. Your unsubtle attempt to tar the environmental movement as equivalent of Nazism is also disgusting. You belittle yourself when you belittle the suffering and death of millions in this way.

    Again, quite right. This is the thesis of Godwin’s law, as I understand it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  69. Bithead says:

    The only commonalities shown here (assuming accurate quotations) between Marx, Engels, and Hitler are strong German nationalism and antisemitism. Neither of these are components of modern socialism as practiced in the US or Western Europe

    Have you been watching the human rights abuses specifically as regards choose within Russia France and Spain lately? Apparently not. Who could ever of the queues France, for example, of not having a strong nationalist bent? I mean, c’mon, where view been for the last 40 years? One gets the impression you not been around for half of it.

    And Greg,, let’s get this where it needs to be…

    Trying to parallel vandalism of someone’s vehicle with genocide is offensive on several levels. Your unsubtle attempt to tar the environmental movement as equivalent of Nazism is also disgusting. You belittle yourself when you belittle the suffering and death of millions in this way.

    Not true in the least. The fact of the matter is, but the patterns are already there. The parallels are already there. I’m merely point them out. Failing to recognize those parallels, and react to them correctly, invites a repetition of the same problem.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  70. […] in his neighborhood decide that he wasn’t being environmentally friendly. I’ll link Joyner, here, because it’s handy… and he in turn quotes the WaPo: On a narrow, leafy street in […]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  71. Billy says:

    One gets the impression you not been around for half of it.

    One gets impression you not read so good.

    It is absolutely mind-boggling how you can simply read past everything said, and still think you’re right. Don’t you feel at least a little wrong, sometimes?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  72. Bithead says:

    Sure. That happens all the time.
    But not in this case.
    I say again; the parallels are there. That those make you uncomfortable is appropriate. Your denial is not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  73. Billy says:

    I say again; the parallels are there. That those make you uncomfortable is appropriate. Your denial is not.

    So, you really want to go there? Then let’s get into parallels parallels; I can go all day. [caveat: I do NOT condone any of these sites or the content therein, but bring this up to illustrate the inherent fallacy of your “logic.”]

    Please explain to me how your parallels are any different from these. This should be rich.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  74. Grewgills says:

    Not true in the least. The fact of the matter is, but the patterns are already there. The parallels are already there. I’m merely point them out. Failing to recognize those parallels, and react to them correctly, invites a repetition of the same problem.

    So when in your elaborately constructed fantasy do the environmentalist violently overthrow the government then torture and kill millions of SUV drivers?
    Could you enlighten us as the the rest of their agenda as you see it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  75. G.A.Phillips says:

    G.A., you’re devolving from bad spoof to annoying spoof. How tedious.

    Let me write your response you don’t have to:
    “Libtards are evil and they love Hitler and hate freedom and puppies.”

    If any thing is annoying it’s the party of posers and their worthlessly programed responses of the repetitive nothingness that they put the little bit of faith they have into.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  76. Bithead says:

    Of course you can, go there all day.
    The problem is, that despite the volume of the charges, they’re not supportable. The similarities between Nazism and Stalinism, however, are far more provable.

    So when in your elaborately constructed fantasy do the environmentalist violently overthrow the government then torture and kill millions of SUV drivers?

    If I recall, from my history lessons, they asked the same questions in both Russia and Germany, and you one, and more recently Argentina.

    As for people dying in this country, I have already mentioned seeing two people die for this nonsense. Those are hardly the only 2211 cell.

    Does anybody truly think that even assuming they manage to cram all Americans into vehicles of the size and structural strength of an Altoids box, that they’re going to STOP there? See, that’s the thing about the power of government; they don’t have to.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  77. Bithead says:

    only 2211 cell.= ones to do so.
    Sorry, damn dog started barking…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  78. Billy says:

    The problem is, that despite the volume of the charges, they’re not supportable. The similarities between Nazism and Stalinism, however, are far more provable.

    An astounding display of intellectual heavy lifting there. I am thoroughly rebutted.

    Shorter Bithead: “Nuh uh!”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  79. Grewgills says:

    As for people dying in this country, I have already mentioned seeing two people die for this nonsense. Those are hardly the only 2211 cell.

    You saw environmentalists kill two people? Explain.

    Anti-choice activists have killed more than 2 people and have bombed, burned and vandalized numerous family planning clinics.
    Is the anti-choice movement just like the Nazis?

    Does anybody truly think that even assuming they manage to cram all Americans into vehicles of the size and structural strength of an Altoids box, that they’re going to STOP there? See, that’s the thing about the power of government; they don’t have to.

    By your logic Europe is in the midst of a second Holocaust engineered by the environmentalists. Look the trains run on time, just like with the Nazis.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  80. Billy says:

    By your logic Europe is in the midst of a second Holocaust engineered by the environmentalists. Look the trains run on time, just like with the Nazis.

    Expecting logical consistency out of Bithead is a bit like expecting a blind pig to find an acorn. Sure, it happens sometimes, but what are the odds?

    This…

    Does anybody truly think that even assuming they manage to cram all Americans into vehicles of the size and structural strength of an Altoids box, that they’re going to STOP there? See, that’s the thing about the power of government; they don’t have to.

    …from the guy who said this:

    The list is that of the arguments Civil rights absolutists invariably cite as examples of ‘abuse’. But they never seem to get the idea that those all disappeared following the war.

    What was that about government power being scaled back again, Bit?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  81. floyd says:

    “”The thing about pseudo-intellectualism is that it takes an intellectual to tell the difference.””

    “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
    Billy ;
    [1] How would you know?
    [2] Thanks for the complement anyway!
    [3] Thank you also for fulfilling my request!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  82. G.A.Phillips says:

    Floyd, remember what Rush said he heard he said, Never get into an argument with an idiot, whoever is watching(or reading the posts) might not be able to tell the difference. lol!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  83. Bithead says:

    You saw environmentalists kill two people? Explain.

    Apparently, you didn’t read, before, here I said:

    I hesitate to say this.
    Twice now, I’ve been at the scene of an accident… once where I knew the victims personally, and once where I happened upon an accident before the police arrived. Both fatal accidents, both one car accidents, and both situations where the person would have lived had they had something better than a Ford Fiesta in one case, or a Prius, in the other. In both cases, they valued a gallon of gas over their own lives, and paid the price…. And I’m left with the horrible memory of those two incidents.

    I will never drive such a vehicle, and I don’t give a hot crap WHAT kind of gas numbers it turns in.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  84. Grewgills says:

    Bit,
    Environmentalists did not kill either of those people. They died in accidents. Plenty of people have died in roll over accidents in vehicles with high centers of gravity (like SUVs), yet you have no problem driving that type of vehicle. There is not much consistency in your arguments here.

    I see you have no answer to either of the other points I made in the previous comment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  85. Billy says:

    Bithead, you have demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of “causation in fact,” let alone “proximate cause.”

    By your logic, seventeen puppies just died because you drive an SUV.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  86. […] for us, OutsideTheBeltway.com already did a fantastic job compiling both sides of the issue from around the blogosphere. Most […]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  87. pete says:

    SO WHY DOES NO ONE CARE ABOUT THE GUY WHO DRIVES A FORD EXCURSION WITH A V 10 AND GETS AROUND 8 MPG AND NO ONES CARES WHY OH WHY IF YOU ARE SO AGAINST HUMMERS. THEY ARE JUST JEALOUS THAT DON’T WORK HARD ENOUGH TO MAKE THE MONEY TO BUY ONE THAT’S WHY ? WHAT ABOUT THE LEXUS CARS THAT COST MORE THEN A HUMMER ? NO SAYS NOTHING. HUMMER HATERS I SAY GO TO WORK AND WORK HARDER AND WORK MOIRE HOURS AND JUST MAYBE YOU CAN SAY I DO NT WANT ONE INSTEAD OF SAYING I CANT AFFORD ONE SO I WILL TEAR THIS GUYS HUMMER UP.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  88. BAMS says:

    helping save the earth by vandalizing a hummer is like trying to find a cure for aids by purposely infecting as many people as possible — help the earth by not destroying people’s belongings, that are now going to sit in a scrap yard/junk yard and add more trash to the planet as insurance purchases a brand new one for the victim.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0