|
Bodie's Pages |
Remember, Bush said the War on Terror would be "indefinite" in length. As in having no end. Are you ready to live in a martial society for the rest of your life? Freedoms are lost in time of war. It will only get worse as this war stretches on. There will be no end to the War on Terrorism. Remember the pre-war briefings, when cynics asked "what plans do you have for rebuilding post-war Iraq?" And we were all assured, don't worry, they have their top people working on multiple plans. It's been a hell of a plan: use million dollar smart weapons to save the infrastructure, then allow looters to destroy it. Wouldn't high-altitude carpet bombing have been cheaper and easier, producing the same results? How about a policy which allows people to be held in detention, "indefinitely," without the government being required to notify relatives who they hold or where they're being held? What do you think about losing the right to confidential communication with your attorney? How about locking up an elderly librarian because she tells a newspaper the FBI obtained records on book lending history? Is this shit sounding scary yet? Guilty until proven innocent. And don't forget that other minor change in foreign policy: Bush's statement that we would use nuclear weapons pre-emptively against any nation or organization which threatens our safety. Nothing like rolling back 50 years of non-proliferation policies. ("Now listen up, India and Pakistan: it is not ok to threaten your enemy with nukes, unless you're the United States.") Combine this with intelligence reports loaded to make a nation look like a menace, and oops, sorry we nuked you, we thought you were terrorists. But I guess this is ok, just like back in good ol' Texas, where a couple executions of innocent men are regrettable but ok as long as the real bad guys are fried on schedule. So now we're going it alone, screw World opinion. Remember learning about isolationism back in grade school? Think back to your lessons: was it a good thing? I think it's pretty clear that a stable world is in our own best interest. Being The Superpower, I believe we have certain moral duties. I don't want to be the world's policeman, forcing the rules from our culture upon the rest of the world, but we do have an obligation to promote stability and human rights. That means supporting the institutions which have been set up to promote same, including the United Nations. Yes, the U.N. is a bureaucratic, bloated, political organization, but it's the main mechanism in place for resolving world crises, so it is the tool we need to use. We cannot continue to embrace the U.N. only when it agrees with our policies, and ignore it when it doesn't. Does this not make us the ultimate hypocrite, on a global scale? How can we expect other nations to comply with the U.N. if we don't? Enough said, more to follow when I'm sufficiently manic to produce some good, spittle-flying comments on this subject. "For every tree we cut down, we plant two!" So the timber industry's propaganda goes, seen on TV and the bumpers of big, American-made pickups. Those same pickups usually have another sticker plastered nearby, saying something crude like, "Next time you need to wipe your ass, use a Spotted Owl." He he, that one is my favorite. But propaganda it is, a deception which pains me to hear repeated by those around me who can't be bothered to think for themselves. It's as bad as the thick rows of trees left standing along the freeways, to hide the huge clearcuts which parallel the freeways of the northwest U.S. The timber companies leave nice, thick forests in these buffer areas, but cut right to the banks of streams and rivers not visible to the public. Can't have the public see a big, ugly slash pile and maybe think the worse of forestry practices, no way. But fish can't complain, so no worries there. What the industry tag line should say, is "For every tree we cut down, we plant two! Of course, the seedling mortality rate is such that many of them don't live past a couple of years. But our new forests will grown uniformly fast and straight, so uniformly in fact that in some of the forests we manage, you can stand in any area and look down long lines of trunks, like being in a giant corn field. And we plant only the finest softwoods, we don't like those useless deciduous trees. (But that's nothing the modern version of Agent Orange can't handle.) Diversity is really key to a forest's health, but since we want to maximize our harvest, there's no room for giant weeds like Oaks or Maples. Our trees are frequently clones, nearly identically genetically, selected for their fast growth and general hardiness. One danger, though, is that the cloned trees will share susceptibility to some rare disease. If that disease should appear, instead of a portion of the (diverse) forest dying, the entire forest will die. Oh, and we almost forgot to mention the effect of logging on the topsoil, waterways, and species dependent upon them. But you, the public, are too simple to understand. Just repeat after us: for every tree we cut down, we plant two!" Hey, you "Greed is Good" Republican business fuckheads out there, let's put this in your terms: A diverse financial portfolio ensures your financial well-being and survival even in the worst of times. And the markets do occasionally take a dive. The same applies to the forest, and to the world around us in general. (And apologies to Aunt Terri, if you're reading this, because I know you hate the word, "diversity.") Speaking of "greed is good," the Junk Bond King, Michael Milken, together with his buddy, Charles Hurwitz, got together back in the 80's to make a huge amount of money at the expense of the American Taxpayer and the North Coast forests. The corporate officers of Enron probably took lessons from them. Hurwitz floated junk bonds, agreeing to pay high interest to investors, because he planned on immediately clear-cutting all of Pacific Lumber's holdings. Some say that this company, while no doubt engaging in the slimy, "tragedy of the commons" style behavior of most timber companies, was actually managing it's lands pretty well, such that a sustainable, consistent harvest was likely for long years to come. But Hurwitz came in and immediately started cutting everything, ignoring all ethical and legal considerations in the process. Hell, he even raided the company's employee pension plan. And the laughable thing, sad actually, is that the local employees still support their company. They still blame the downturn in their industry on the evil tree-huggers. Check out the Jail Charles Hurwitz web site for a huge amount of information on this particular tragedy. Let's face it: like so many other natural resources, timber is becoming an increasingly rare and sought-after commodity. The good ol' days of plentiful, big, quality timber are gone. This is the fundamental reason for the decline of the timber industry, not lawsuits by the Greens. The crash would have occurred eventually.
"But I never break the law!" - Ignorance Isn't Innocence So I once had a discussion via internet web board with a netizen who related the tale of an evil mountain biker who was riding ILLEGALLY along an interpretive trail around a historic mine site. She was so offended that she felt compelled to take action, but in her words, was not in a position to stop him. Later posts revealed he was riding slowly, not doing any damage or threatening public safety. But it was illegal, off with his head! OK, but you never break the law, yeah right. What the fuck? You want to ruin a beautiful day in the mountains over that? You're going to stop him physically, and then what? Citizen's arrest, detaining him until the local law enforcement arrives? Fisticuffs? A severe tongue lashing? Lighten up, weirdo. Stay in town if you miss the Neighborhood Watch that much. I've been accused of being "anti-cop" and "anti-law," but that really oversimplifies things to the point of being untrue. I've got a pretty negative history with law enforcement and the United States' legal/judicial system in general. No, I've never been in the system, never been arrested, haven't had a traffic ticket in over 11 years, and I'm a relatively clean-cut, nice guy. I'm wise enough to not display a bad attitude when around cops. My best friend in high school went on to become a cop. My father-in-law is a retired FBI special agent. I work closely with a woman who quit the police department due to the harassment she received there. I work with police on a weekly basis. I keep my eyes open to the world around me. I believe that there are too many laws, resulting in criminalizing of large segments of society and selective enforcement. Do cops pull someone over every time they see the law broken? Heck no! The "no front license plate" law in particular is used selectively to further question those who fit "the profile." Ask a cop how many times the average person breaks the law while driving a mile. So why aren't we pulled over every time? It's not the cop's role to judge, only to enforce, yet fifty times a day the average cop judges the lack of a turn signal to be ok, and not worth enforcing. Are there maybe too many laws, or do we just need more cops? How often are laws repealed? Very, very rarely. Forming a class-action or otherwise fighting the system sounds good on paper (or in cyberspace), but does the average citizen really have the time and resources available to do so? Ever hear the expression, "you can't fight city hall?" That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but most of us really can’t afford to spend time in jail for protesting or can’t afford to fund those who will protest for us. It's not uncommon for a state-level fundraiser to cost $1000+ a plate; does that really allow Joe Citizen to rub elbows with his state representative? We can write letters to our representatives, but cynic that I am, I wonder if that isn't just a panacea. So many of these laws are written by lawyers and insurance companies, whose ultimate motivation is money, not public safety. There's a reason the California Correctional Officers union is by-far the wealthiest union in this state, spending the most money on lobbyists and the political campaigns of those who support them. Yes, the new laws usually make sense (like the helmet laws) but ultimately they're legislating common sense. When laws are substituted for one's personal responsibility and decision making ability, people tend to rely upon them exclusively, without thinking about issues of morality and law themselves. Have you seen the recent controversy regarding graphic computer games (and one called "Grand Theft Auto", in particular)? Instead of passing laws to ban the manufacture and sale of these games, how about asking parents to monitor what their kids are doing? How about asking parents to be responsible for what their kids play with? No, it's much easier to pass a law (and a cynic would say that the lawyers get rich off of the process of creating a new law). There are too many laws in this nation. We are not the "land of the free." Were you aware that in 2002 we surpassed Russia in terms of having the highest per-capita rate of prisoners of any (reporting) country in the world? Per the Department of Justice's own statistics, something like 1 in 110 Americans are currently in jail or prison. Closer to 1 in 30 has been in the system in some way (jail, prison, probation, parole, at-home detention) within the last year. These are the DOJ's statistics; you should see what more liberal groups like Amnesty International and Prison Watch have to say on this issue. And where's the accountability? I know that police have a long tradition of graft, a tradition I would have supported 30 years ago. "Why not take money off of that scumbag gang banger? You're risking your life for the public, so you're entitled to steal from the thieves," goes the justification. When one reads about Abner Louima in New York, the Rampart Division in LA, and numerous other cases, one can't help but be afraid of the police. Maybe those are extreme cases, but how can the average citizen judge whether or not he's dealing with an honest cop? And the penalties for those cops whom are caught are usually minor. "Aw, he's a pillar of the community, doing a dangerous job, so please grant him leniency." You certainly can't put a crooked cop in the general prison population, say the lawyers, because it's too dangerous. HA! I think cops, due to the power they have over us, should be held more accountable when they break the law, not less. Were you aware that LA County plans on spending its entire tobacco settlement on lawyer fees due to fallout from the Rampart scandal? What a huge waste of money. But keep passing laws and keep locking them up. The ends justifies the means. And I can't wait until we have cameras on every street corner, with a computer behind them sending you tickets in the mail (oops, you used your turn signal, but not 100' ahead of time, as specified by law).1 This has turned into quite a rant, sorry. But obviously it bugs me when people say (usually in a self-righteous, indignant tone), "but I never break the law!" We all do, many times a day, and whether or not we mean to, ignorance is not innocence. 1Son of a bitch! I just received a ticket in the mail from some computer watching the Bay Bridge toll lanes. Problem is, I haven't been there in some time, and the car in the picture isn't mine. Little problem with the last digit of the license plate.
Why doesn't the (Un)Wise Use Movement respect bugs?
The following was my response to a web board posting calling for
"reform" of the Endangered Species Act. I suppose in all fairness
I should post the other person's response, but it really is a vague bit
of garbage, not worth the screen space.
It could be true, that the various regulatory agencies involved are spending a large portion of their budget on fighting lawsuits. But you think bureaucracy is an acceptable reason for allowing our actions to make a species go extinct? That is, staff are too busy dealing with burdensome legal action to perform their organization's duties? From what I've seen, many of those cases are righteous suits, which wouldn't exist if the regulatory agency/defendant had just done their job. Rather ironic that the agencies charged with safeguarding our lands are now complaining that they are spending all their resources on legal affairs. To what were they devoting all their resources prior to now? Prior negligence doesn't help the current situation, I understand, but the general attitude has been "let's get the resources we need to stimulate business and our economy, and to hell with supposed (liberal greenie propaganda) effects on our environment. We'll worry about that later; American know-how will save us." Nuts; Remember learning about Manifest Destiny in, oh, about 6th grade? What hubris, what arrogance, what idiocy to think we have a good enough understanding of the way our world works to make decisions on which species live and die. I know the natural order of things in the universe is towards chaos, and that large extinctions are a part of the historical record, but can anyone really dispute that the current species die-off is being accelerated (and probably caused) by human actions? Do you really want to engage in environmental isolationism and just watch it happen? Common sense? Ok, it might be common sense to delist that pupfish which is only found in two small pools and is blocking development of something new and shiny. Sure would be a bummer if that old cliché about it possessing some unique trait with medical applications turned out to be true (ala the Yew tree). Or what if it was linked to a change in the local environment that allowed another, more important species to thrive? But maybe that's a risk we can take, assuming the species is properly studied first. Since you mentioned vernal pools, let's go into them deeper. Yup, most of the time they're dry, sometimes they're a large patch of mud. But for a brief time, they're beautiful oases in a dry world, filled with a diverse multitude of tiny life, surrounded by rings of multi-colored flowers. But "tiny" is the word to use. They don't have any big, dramatic critters like Bald Eagles or Spotted Owls. They have Faerie Shrimp and Whirligig beetle larvae. "They're just bugs and mud puddles, so what need do we have for them anyway?" asks your typical Dittohead. I'll spare you a longer rant, but check out http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/whats_new/vernal_sjq.html if you still think Vernal Pools should be bulldozed. As part of your proposed reform of the ESA, you mention it should be narrowed down? I still don't understand what you mean, can you clarify? Are you talking about excluding organisms of a certain size, or certain genera, maybe only species with backbones? "Easiest to get in court" is a downright rude reference, which does no justice to those pioneers who worked so hard to get these cases reviewed. Was a time that lawsuits based upon the ESA were dismissed outright. It was a surreal situation, the law saying one thing very clearly but plaintiffs being refused their day in court. The current cases reflect the hard work of many people, including literally uncountable hours of disciplined research. Your casual dismissal of these people demonstrates your disregard for, and ignorance of, the scientific process in general. Which brings me to your requirement of proof. Scientists are, by nature, very skeptical people. That's why evolution is called the THEORY of Evolution. It's not called the PROOF of Evolution. But scientific theories, including those regarding species extinction, are posted publicly for the world's scientists to pick apart and refute. Hard proofs are rare. But have you ever seen a theory which stated that logging is good for the Spotted Owl. Or in desert terms, that ORV use is good for the tortoise? Looking forward to a reply,
Here's a concept: incidents of road rage would be significantly reduced if everyone drove according to the "Golden Rule." Instead of insisting you're right, and staying in the fast lane while going close to the speed limit, how about just moving over and letting that line of faster cars behind you go on by? Do you really want that Type-A, aggressive driver tailgating you, maybe even being forced to pass you in a dangerous spot? Some of us don't let things like curves and solid double yellow lines deter us. And believe me, a head-on collision caused by passing like this would no doubt involve your vehicle as well. Use those turnouts, dufus. They don't have to be marked with a sign, or even paved, to be useful. And how about using the turnout right away, instead of waiting for 5 cars to accumulate behind you? The law says you don't have to pull over until those 5 cars accrue, but this is where the courtesy part comes in. Why not take 10 extra seconds to let that angry, unsafe teenager pass you? He will probably give you a friendly wave instead of the finger, and you'll both continue along your journey, stress-free.
There's a fine tradition among anglers of keeping their best fishing holes secret. This is not seen as a bad thing by the community, but rather a necessity to prevent the best spots being plundered by the guidebook-toting masses. It is a self-evident truth that the more people know of a unique area (be it a great fishing hole, a cave, a hot spring, rock art site, or even a nice campsite), the more likely that area is to be destroyed. Some areas just can't support the masses. There's a reason a fawn has spots: concealment is the best strategy. Forget about protection; if it gets so far that an area needs to be protected from people, then it is too late. Such protection will typically consist of restricting access and enforcing rules designed for the masses. I see no moral dilemma in having a small campfire on the shore of a lake above timberline. But if multiple groups have multiple fires, a problem is created. So the rule is: no camp fires. I've seen the argument made that if a special area is widely known, featured in guidebooks and on the internet, it's ok to tell people about it, because the secret's out. Bah! That's like saying it's ok to loot after an earthquake! The damage has been done, but encouraging more damage isn't going to help. And you and I, the veteran explorers, may think the secret is out, but it may not be as widely known as we think. But post details on the internet, and you can be damn sure others will pick up on it, maybe link to it, maybe even plagiarize and repost in other media. Some areas are so widely known that we should discuss them, perhaps even exagerate their wonders. I'm thinking about Yosemite, specifically, but maybe even Death Valley National Park. There's still many undiscovered secrets out there, so by concentrating the masses in certain "crown jewels" parks, we can spare the rest of the backcountry. I regret that Yosemite is such a carnival, but at least 90% of the freaks go there, instead of finding their way to my neck of the woods. So resist the urge to boast about the places you've been. Keep your fishing holes secret!
You've reached the end of my Rants page. If you actually read this far, you've got more patience than most; I thank you for taking the time to read what I have to say. I wish everyone were willing to consider these issues. From what I gather, our Founding Fathers created this nation based upon public discourse and debate. Discussion of controversial ideas was discouraged by the ruling (British) government, to more easily keep the colonies down. In our own society, discussing politics and religion at work, parties, and other social events is considered impolite. What has happened? If we can't talk about this stuff at work, where we spend a third of our lives, where many people have the most contact with other adults, than where should we debate? Yes, it's real fun hanging out with me at barbeques....
|
