Got what he f*ing deserved!

[Fairweather]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7550964/

 

Take note ye intellectuals! You are not above the law....

 

Calif. student gets 8 years for SUV vandalism

Sentenced for 2003 spree that torched Hummers, other gas guzzlers

Updated: 9:45 p.m. ET April 18, 2005

 

LOS ANGELES - An aspiring physicist was sentenced to more than eight years in prison on Monday and ordered to pay $3.5 million for his role in a spree of arson and vandalism that targeted gas-guzzling Hummers and other sports utility vehicles.

 

 

Rejecting pleas for clemency from William Cottrell, a 24-year-old doctoral candidate in physics at the California Institute of Technology, U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner added more time to the sentence after finding that Cottrell was trying to sway consumers with his anti-SUV message.

 

The slogans Cottrell spray-painted onto vehicles included “Fat Lazy Americans,” “No Respect for Earth” and “SUV = Terrorism.”

 

Cottrell, who admitted only spray-painting and testified he did not know that two friends were bringing Molotov cocktails, promised he would never break the law again. The two friends have fled the country to avoid prosecution, authorities said.

 

“I want nothing more than to be a physicist,” Cottrell said. “I would do anything to earn any leniency the court could show in this matter.”

 

Cottrell was convicted last November on seven counts of arson and one count of conspiracy related to a 2003 vandalism and firebombing spree that targeted about 125 large sports utility vehicles at four Southern California dealerships and a few homes.

 

Lawyers mount autism defense:

 

Cottrell’s attorneys asked for the five-year mandatory minimum sentence saying that their client has Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism marked by impaired ability to understand social situations.

 

They said it affected his judgment and kept him from backing out when his two friends started lighting Molotov cocktails.

 

But Judge Klausner said high intelligence should work against a defendant, not in his favor. “What a talent to have wasted,” Klausner said. “There’s only one person to blame for that, and I’m sure Mr. Cottrell understands that it’s him.”

 

Attorneys estimated that Cottrell, who had faced a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, could spend six years in jail, including credit for time served.

 

“The defendant engaged in conduct to send a political message,” said federal prosecutor Beverly Reid O’Connell. “He’s a scheming, arrogant person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system.”

[chirp]

I really like my 4runner. And I am not fat or lazy... I promise.

[Stemalot]

Sentence totally don't fit the crime.

 

I am lazy (sometimes)...but I am not an American. I really like my Jeep, but I am thinking about selling it. Gas is expensive and I don't need it 90% of times. Plus it's bad for the environment...

[AlpineK]

He should have stuck with those removable stickers folks like to put on SUVs.

[foraker]

So, Fairweather, what is it you have against intelligence? Slow day over at Ascensionist?

[olyclimber]

in·tel·lec·tu·al -adj.

 

Of or relating to the intellect.

Rational rather than emotional.

Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.

 

Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See synonyms at intelligent.

Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.

n.

An intellectual person.

 

 

He sounds like a kid who didn't think through the consequences of his actions...not an intellectual. What do you have against thought, anyway?

[foraker]

I guess if he'd been some funcationally illiterate blue collar type who just went ape shit after seen a Vote Green sticker on a Honda Prius, that would have been ok.....

 

Before you get the idea that I'm condoning the idiot's actions, I'm not.

[Couloir]

Plastic is a petroleum product.

[AlpineK]

Maybe Fairweather is still bitter from being picked on and beat up by kids in the science and drama clubs in school.

[catbirdseat]

If one were really interested in fighting SUVs the best way to do that would be to lobby in favor of higher gas taxes or use tax based on vehicle weight.

[Roger]

well golly what a good point! lobbying your state legislator sounds way more satisfying than throwing a molotov cocktail at a hummer.

 

where is the COBRA COMMANDER anyway? I miss that guy.

[Dru]

If one were really interested in fighting SUVs the best way to do that would be to lobby in favor of higher gas taxes or use tax based on vehicle weight.

 

you can get land mines that are very sensitive to vehicle weight

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Destructive anti-SUV activism RULZ!!!

[whirlwind]

the old sugar in the gas tank isn't such a bad idea either....

i'd have to agree with the fact that higher gas prices bwill make people want more effecnt cars and trucks, it worked in the 70's

[stinkybritches]

Its cool to hate Suv's.

All the alternanerds are doin it.

[jordop]

the old sugar in the gas tank isn't such a bad idea either....

i'd have to agree with the fact that higher gas prices bwill make people want more effecnt cars and trucks, it worked in the 70's

there was also a president in the 70s with the courage to confront Americans and auto makers about their priorities. I would like to see any data to suggest that Americans have significantly changed their vehicle purchasing preferences since the gas went up.

[Harry_Pi]

Hello capitalist!

You need to read more and post less. GM and F stock prices are at or close to 52 week lows.

Thank you for allow me to post.

[specialed]

Some commentators have said that the gov. should straight raise the price to of gas to a blanket $4.00 a gallon no more no less. It will take that much to really encourage the market to turn to hybrids and the manufacturers to offer more in that catagory. And it will reduce reliance on foreign oil. And all the extra $ above market will be tax that will reduce the defecit. Its win win win win.

 

Except for people like me who drive big trucks. I'll have to buy a hybrid big ass truck.

[willstrickland]

Here is a true "win-win-win-win" situation, observe the amazing, Solar Tower project (pretty cool stuff, worth clicking through):

 

http://www.enviromission.com.au/index1.htm

 

click on "The Project" bar at the top.

These things are a type of passive solar that doesn't use photovoltaic cells, but instead uses a greenhouse type effect to create a constant updraft through a huge chimney. Virtually maintenance free, no fuel inputs other than the sun, no emissions.

 

 

Boeing is taking a different angle. They use a heat collector on a tower in the center of an array of mirrors. The collector heats salts that become molten and flow into a heat transfer mechanism that produces steam to drive turbines.

 

http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/energy/powertower.html

 

 

There ARE options, if our jackassed legislators and executive branch would quit playing games and invest heavily in this kind of infrastructure.

 

The problem with fuel cell tech (or Hydra-jun cars in the vernacular of Chimpy McBush, ex oil-man) is that you have to obtain hydrogen from natural gas, or water. Using water as a source is obviously clean and abundant, but inefficient. However, if we had enough cheap, clean electricity sources (such as the stuff linked above) it would be more feasible, and that would relinquish us from the hold of foreign oil.

 

But, it's expensive. We could, however, achieve economies of scale with a large scale rollout plan. And in 15 years when oil is going for about $800 bbl, we will look pretty fucking smart indeed, not to mention the benefits it will provide our economy.

 

A win-win-win-win situation. Too bad the whores who are supposed to be representing us are sold to the highest special interest bidder.

[JayB]

Any of you folks looked at the price per watt and reliability of the alternatives out there? There's a reason that they haven't been widely adopted. They are more expensive and less reliable. If there was a technology out there that provided more energy, with less waste, at a lower cost - the very same energy companies that make a considerable profit selling oil and gas, would buy the rights to the technology outright or license them, and make a killing selling the power that they generated with it.

 

Ever time you convert energy from one form to another there's going to be waste, and in most cases that waste will impact the environment where the conversion is taking place. Where there's no appreciable waste product, there's usually another impact - as is the case with dams, windpower, and photovoltaics - the production of which (photovoltaics) produces a considerable amount of toxic waste. Pick your poison.

 

The fact of the matter is that if you want reliable, CO2 emission free, megawatt-level power generation the only option is nuclear power. If we were to suddenly apply rational standards to the processing of the waste and actually use the multibillion dollar vitrification and deep underground storage facilities that we've built the waste-handling problem associated with nuclear power would be quite manageable. Ironically enough, however, the same folks who are ostensibly most interested in protecting the environment and alarmed by the prospect of accelerated global warming are often the most vehement foes of nuclear power generation. I look forward to the day when there's other options, but for the forseeable future most power generation is going to involve burning hydrocarbons or splitting atoms.

[Cobra_Commander]

where is the COBRA COMMANDER anyway? I miss that guy.

 

RIGHT ABOVE YOU (and it gets 400 mpg on cobra diesel #2 so shut it)

 

[Cobra_Commander]

How has JayB not won a nobel prize yet? He is clearly the authority on everything from middle east conflicts to the latest in civilian power development. AMAZING! JayB for president.

[JayB]

And - if this hatred of SUV's was the least bit rational, those most consumed by it would also presumably be equally engaged in the villification of folks driving luxury sedans, sports cars, conversion vans, etc - virtually all of which are sporting V8's with 250+ horsepower and fuel efficiencies that are just as dismal as your average SUV. Seeing as no such thing is happening, one can safely conclude that the source of the disdain has little or nothing to do with fuel efficiency and quite a bit more to do with the attributes of the people driving them.

 

And finally - someone should Google the fleet efficiencies of the US and Canada. That would be interesting to look at in light of the $4.00 a gallon argument. I haven't noticed much of a difference in the looks of the vehicles on the road up there - but if there is a difference, then one could presumably use Canada as a model of the maximum fleet efficiency we'd have in the US after 15 years of expensive gas, and decide if the costs will actually bring about the benefits that the advocates of this policy are claiming.

[AlpineK]

I think europe would be a better model in some respects. Gas isn't that much more in Canada right now, but it's cost a lot more in Europe for a long time. The downside is that Europe has a much better rail system; so you don't need the car in the first place.

[specialed]

Some old Canadian logger told me, "Chevy, Dodge, and Ford, they're all great trucks. Its all titties and beer for the first few years. But year after year goin up and down those logging roads every day, its always the Ford trucks that last the longest."