Stopping Elmer and the damage he inflicts upon the United States (and the normal people who have to live with him) is a tricky problem -- tricky because almost everything you can think of to put a stop to his abuses, crimes, and antics that degrade the quality of life for everyone are in fact illegal themselves.

Setting fire to Elmer's pickups, SUVs, and "Hummers" is a good way to put an abrupt stop to much of the damage that Elmer can inflict upon society, and taking away his firearms is another good way to quickly stop particular Elmers. The issue is whether the law allows for normal citizens of the United States to take matters into their own hands to work toward safeguarding the health and safety of the populace when the law can't or wont safeguard society from Elmers.

There are a number of very good reasons to burn Elmer's irresponsible toys; burn his surrogate penis. But at the same time there are a great many reasons -- more numerous, in fact -- to not burn them.

This web page will take a look at the problems involved in stopping Elmer by setting fire to his property that -- at core -- makes Elmer believe he's a "real man" and as such motivates much of his behavior.

While we're looking at the many reasons why burning Elmer's toys is wrong, we'll occasionally describe how the benefits of burning the fuckers weigh against the negatives.

We here at the Stop Elmer Fudd web site believe that Elmer's irresponsible vehicles need to be taken off the roads, absolutely, and we further believe that they need to be removed now and that they need to be removed perminantly. But at the same time we believe that setting fire to Elmer's surrogate penis is wrong! In part because it's illegal but even more importantly because it causes as much pollution in a day than Elmer driving the iresponsible gas guzzler causes in a year's worth of driving.

Some of us here at the Stop Elmer Fudd web site love to see irresponsible gas guzzlers burning -- whether they're on the side of the highway, in Iraq after an Iraqi Freedom Fighter gets through with it, or whether it's sitting in some car lot, torched by the Earth Liberation Front. Yes, we love to see it and love to read about it, but we don't think it's a good, reasonable, rational, sane way to deal with the problem.

Here is a photograph of one of Elmer Fudd's larger surrogate penis. While pickup trucks are the penis of choice, the so-called "Hummer" has become one of the more popular penis enlargers available to Elmers. Because of the massive price tags, however, few Elmers are able to purchase them -- and even those who do routinely have to give them up after they're retrieved by the banks that own them since Elmer's chronically incapable of paying for them (thanks in large part to the cost of gasoline. Even when Elmer can afford the vehicle, he often can't afford to drive it.)

When people set fire to pickups, SUVs, and "Hummers," not only are they releasing a great deal of pollution to the environment, they're negating the resources that went into building the vehicle in the first place.

For example, a great amount of coal or petrolium went into the vehicle to melt the steel that was used to form the body of the car. Burning one of Elmer's irresponsible toys makes the loss of that enegy -- and the rape and destruction of mountains where the coal was strip mined from or the invasion of innocent people that bled for the oil -- meaningless.

Another problem with burning Elmer's irresponsible vehicles is the fact that they're going to be insured most of the time. Arson will pay Elmer most of the full amount of the replacement cost of the vehicle you set fire to -- unless the vehicle doesn't carry insurance to cover such things.

Typically a new vehicle -- like those shown in this series of photographs of "Hummers" and SUVs that members of the Earth Liberation Front set fire to in Southern California car dealerships -- are all insured. Deductables get paid, the buildings that were also burned by the ELF get paid off and rebuilt, maybe the dealership's insurance rates go up, but then the dealership gets right back into business with new cars, selling irresponsible gas guzzlers to more Elmers.

Setting fire to insured vehicles, in other words, only stops Elmer for a couple of weeks -- maybe a few months at the most. It's not a viable solution.

One of the more salient reasons why setting fire to Elmer's pickups, SUVs, and "Hummers" is such a bad idea is the fact that normal people who oppose everything Elmer stands for are the good guys! and as such the use of arson against those who befoul the country and motivate the government's slaughter of innocent children abroad to steal their oil -- it doesn't look good in the papers and on the television.

It's an undeniable fact: Most of the people in the United States are in near complete agreement with much of what the major environmentalist organizations around the United States advocate.

It's another undeniable fact: Most of the people in the United States are absolutely against what is perceived to be violence in an environmental cause. The fact that setting fire to inanimate objects isn't violence doesn't matter; the right-wing extremist media of the country invariably depict arson against objects as if it was violence and as such it's a black eye among the environmental world.

While these photographs show tens of millions of dollars worth of punishment against the irresponsible, criminal automotive industry, at the same time they show futility. These criminals will be back in business -- quickly back in business -- and the ELF morons that set fire to the place will get to sit in prison as if they're the sinners, not the Elmers and the automotive industry that's killing innocent children in Iraq and Afghanistan so that Elmer can fill his gas tanks; gas tanks in vehicles that get 10 miles to the gallon on a good day.

But that's setting fire to car lot vehicles. What about pickups, SUVs, and "Hummers" that are owned by Elmers themselves? While it's true that many -- if not most -- of them are owned by the bank, many of them will not have insurance; certainly not enough to replace the vehicle when they're subjected to arson.

Well, the Stop Elmer Fudd web site notes that there's only one benefit of torching this type of vehicle while at the same time all of the other negative consequences and reasons not to torch these things remain.

The benefit is obvious: An uninsured vehicle fire is a vehicle fire that takes that Elmer off the road for a long time; long enough that maybe in a statistical sense having that Elmer off the road may have saved a life (when everything required to power that vehicle is factored along with the adverse health and safety of that vehicle being on the road.)

But that possible benefit has to be realistic: The probability of realizing that benefit is going to be low; low enough that it virtually pales into insignificance against the detrimental aspects of setting fire to Elmer's irresponsible gas guzzlers.

Bottom line: It isn't worth it and, in any event, it's wrong to set fire to Elmer's vehicles. Yes, it's great seeing them burn when it's unavoidable, when it's done by people fighting for their country, or when they've crashed and burned, but deliberate arson is more than we here at the Stop Elmer Fudd web site can condone. We love to see them burn, yes, but we don't think people should deliberately set them on fire.

Obviously there are a lot of environmentalist extremists -- such as the Earth Liberation Front -- which would disagree and certainly we've read all of their arguments and suggestions in the various magazines, web sites, mailing lists, and discussion forums. But we don't agree. Groups such as Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front should be out there planting spikes in trees on public lands to keep the U. S. government from committing treason by selling them to corporate criminals, we would like to suggest. In other words there are better things for environmentalists to do that actually save a bit of this planet than setting fire to things.

Return to the Elmer Fudd web site's main page