curmudgeon's tags:
Who's reading curmudgeon (60):

Several unoccupied homes in the Pacific Northwest have been destroyed, reportedly by members of the Earth Liberation Front.

According to news reports, these homes were being promoted as “eco-friendly” structures – employing recycled materials, non-toxic paints and garnering greater energy efficiency through super-insulation and modern appliances.

Unfortunately for developers, building any homes in rural areas is not eco-friendly enough for some environmentalists.

But how eco-friendly are these ELF folks by burning houses down? Aren’t they creating the CO2 they believe is harming the Earth’s atmosphere? And what of the toxins in the burnt insulation, now spewed into the clouds hovering over Washington State? And the particulate matter that chokes the lungs of poor urban and suburban children? And the forest wood that has been charred for no purpose at all?

Do these people really think that burning a few houses down will actually halt or deter development?

The linked article mentions that one person in that area is now on trial for burning houses in other developments. She faces 35 years in prison. Somehow I just don’t think this will deter those who agree with her point of view and are willing to commit to these “direct actions”. So long as developers and law enforcement are unable to catch these people in the act, this may become an unfortunate and senseless  cost of doing business.

It’s sad and pathetic that people can become so narrow-minded and selfish in their quest for a healthier environment that they will resort to the violence and terror that accomplishes nothing.

Several unoccupied homes in the Pacific Northwest have been destroyed, reportedly by members of the Earth Liberation Front.

According to news reports, these homes were being promoted as “eco-friendly” structures – employing recycled materials, non-toxic paints and garnering greater energy efficiency through super-insulation and modern appliances.

Unfortunately for developers, building any homes in rural areas is not eco-friendly enough for some environmentalists.

But how eco-friendly are these ELF folks by burning houses down? Aren’t they creating the CO2 they believe is harming the Earth’s atmosphere? And what of the toxins in the burnt insulation, now spewed into the clouds hovering over Washington State? And the particulate matter that chokes the lungs of poor urban and suburban children? And the forest wood that has been charred for no purpose at all?

Do these people really think that burning a few houses down will actually halt or deter development?

The linked article mentions that one person in that area is now on trial for burning houses in other developments. She faces 35 years in prison. Somehow I just don’t think this will deter those who agree with her point of view and are willing to commit to these “direct actions”. So long as developers and law enforcement are unable to catch these people in the act, this may become an unfortunate and senseless  cost of doing business.

It’s sad and pathetic that people can become so narrow-minded and selfish in their quest for a healthier environment that they will resort to the violence and terror that accomplishes nothing.



del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • Expendable said on Mar 03, 2008....
    You double-posted.
     
    Part of terrorism is getting your message in the media. Violence works very well to get you there. So burning down homes gets them media cred. Getting caught and becoming a martyr for eco-terrorists everywhere? Priceless.
  • bloc said on Mar 04, 2008....
    They should be treated like any other criminals. It reminds me of the people that bomb abortion clinics in that it's so hypocritical.

    On a side note, is it ok to waterboard eco-terrorists? Is it ok to label them "enemy combatants" and detain them without due process?

    I'm very worried about the slippery slope of arguing that we need to abandon our laws and constitution for "terrorists" then using the label "terrorist" for things like this.

  • curmudgeon said on Mar 04, 2008....
    bloc - nice question.
     
    Do the authorities have credible information that eco-terrorists are plotting to collapse the Sears tower, or the new WTC towers,  or both? Are authorities reasonably sure that the person they are interrogating has the information they need to stop the plot, or plots? Have the interrogators tried other methods to no avail? Is time of the essence? Are interrogators reasonably certain that waterboarding will yield the information they need?
     
    Again - I'm not into this silly justification game you love so much. I'm interested in what works. If a small wrong prevents a much much greater wrong it's an ethical no-brainer.
     
    Or do we just risk the deaths of innocent people because we feel bad about pouring water up some green-criminal's nose? 
     
    The response / pre-emption / direct action needs to be proportional to the magnitude of the crime. Waterboarding some misguided tree-hugger seems out of proportion, given that they are careful not to hurt anyone. But if someday they get themselves into blowing up airliners to reduce CO2 emissions or prevent sky-marring contrails...the sky's the limit as far as interrogations go.
  • bloc said on Mar 04, 2008....
    "Again - I'm not into this silly justification game you love so much. I'm interested in what works. If a small wrong prevents a much much greater wrong it's an ethical no-brainer."

    I don't see how this is a silly game. You listed a bunch of questions that are perfectly reasonable, even if we have different opinions about them. What's most interesting is that the answer to those questions has been no in many if not all of the instances that our government has used torture.
  • curmudgeon said on Mar 04, 2008....
    It's feels like a silly game because it's a merry go round that never ends. We're never going to convince each other. I'm not saying anything new and neither are you. Once a new administration is in place, waterboarding and everything else will continue. It will be overseas, it will be covert, heck it will likely even be corporate, but it will continue because a variety of techniques are called for a variety of situations and people have varying tolerances of fear, pain and discomfort.
     
    Again, I simply don't see why the folks in this business would waste their time pursuing avenues of interrogation that don't work. Perhaps I'm naive.
     
    In a past blog on waterboarding, you noted that the article I cited has the CIA agent saying that waterboarding ought not to be used anymore. I honestly missed that one. The question is, should it not be used because it's ineffective, or because it's politically unpopular? I'm all for stopping it if there are more effective methods, but if it's simply to save face on the world stage, that would be a disservice to our nation if it compromises security.
     
    Hopefully someday someone will find an expedient but humane way to glean useful, accurate information from people we think are in the know. Until then, it's a dirty business indeed.
     
    I guess I'm happy to keep dancing to this song if you are. I have a lot of respect for you. Best wishes.
  • bloc said on Mar 04, 2008....
    "Again, I simply don't see why the folks in this business would waste their time pursuing avenues of interrogation that don't work. Perhaps I'm naive."

    This is an interesting issue. I'm not sure if you know, you don't read my blog as frequently as others, but I'm a software developer and I've found myself in a management position the past 3-4 years. What you are saying would be applicable in many areas of life, including software development. Why would someone use a technique that isn't effective?

    It would take me a long while to give my opinion on why people do, but I am certain that they do and even that they frequently do. Often it's because they are trying to take a short cut, which often is an illusory one, and in the end it bites them in the ass.

    "The question is, should it not be used because it's ineffective, or because it's politically unpopular?"

    Another great question, missing the most important reason; because it's immoral.  I've said in the past that I wouldn't be opposed to drastic measures in something like a ticking time-bomb, but I don't think this requires us to legalize torture. The President can pardon a person under these circumstances. What bothers me most is that we've used torture under circumstances that aren't anything close to the ticking time bomb. How do you feel about that?

    "I'm all for stopping it if there are more effective methods, but if it's simply to save face on the world stage, that would be a disservice to our nation if it compromises security."

    To me this is a view that misses the forest for the trees. If we limit the context of effectiveness to getting info, maybe torture does get info. But, what if the torture is ineffective in the larger context? What if it creates more terrorists? What if it causes countries to refuse to give us information or to give us less information? What if a country like Canada refuses to turn over suspects to us because we torture?

    I ask you to consider that it may be ineffective in this larger context if morality and right and wrong aren't motivating factors for you.

Comment on "What Should We Do About Eco-Terrorism?"

politics environment hypocrisy (Click to add tags below)

(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper....
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses....
Oooh, Sunday was a red letter day!...