|
June 24, 2010
Those in charge of natural law have great power!
Like many people, I like taking nature walks. There's something about getting away from humanity that I find emotionally appealing. What I don't like is the increasing tendency by other humans -- especially meddlesome humans -- to interrupt the natural beauty with constant, ugly reminders of their relentless and intrusive presence. And what a domineering presence it is! These people (some might call them environmental crackpots) seem to believe that what they call "the environment" and what normal people might call nature, even natural beauty, is exclusively theirs to control. They believe that natural beauty of the sort we might enjoy in public parks or on public lands is also theirs to destroy according to the vagaries of their latest whims. They even think that they and they alone have the right to set fire to nature! Not only that, but they like to brag about it in the form of offensive signs like these: I am sick to death of seeing them, much less thinking about them. But think about them I must, for these arrogant declarations to the taxpayers who are forced to pay for them are not merely signs. They mean what they say. These people -- whoever they are -- have been given a unique right to set fires, and of course those of us who pay their salaries have no say in the matter. If you think about it, that's real power. They alone have the power to be the fire starters! The power to destroy nature! In order to save it, so they say. Some of what we ignorant peons might think constitutes natural beauty is deemed by our moral superiors to be "non-native species" and thus worthy of being singled out for death by fire. The fires that these specially anointed humans start are called "controlled burns." They have the right to set fire to nature whenever they deem it necessary. And they get to make up the rules as they go along, setting fires whenever and wherever they deem it necessary, supplying narratives like this to be tailored accordingly: In the beginning stages of the prescribed burn program, frequent burns were necessary to reverse the effects of the approximately 100 years of suppressed fire cycles. More frequent burning was required to set-back exotic invasive plants such as buckthorn & honeysuckle to allow more light to penetrate into the savannah habitats. As the successes of the High Park prescribed burn program continue, the frequency and interval between burns will need to be reevaluated and adjusted accordingly.Hear hear! And who pays for their fun and games? We do, of course. By "we" I mean those of us who are not allowed to set fires. If you doubt me, try burning leaves or starting a bonfire. You'll be arrested. In many places now, even having a fire in a fireplace is illegal. That's because fires started by taxpaying peons pollute the air. Unlike the controlled burns which must by some magic be emissions-free, or else they'd never start them, right? I know that bitching in my blog won't stop these relentless saviors, and I normally wouldn't have bothered with a post like this, except an item I saw in Drudge aroused my curiosity. It seems that some environmentalists don't like the controlled burns which are being done in Lousiana to get rid of the oil, because the fires are burning sea turtles: VENICE, La. - A boat captain working to rescue sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico says he has seen BP ships burning sea turtles and other wildlife alive.Huh? But I thought controlled burns were good for the environment. And here's this Captain Ellis (who must be an officially credentialed environmentalist, for why else would he make it into the news?) saying that some controlled burns are bad. What's up with that? Is there a controlled burn double standard? In this case, perhaps it's because the controlled fires are being set by BP, which, because it is an evil corporation, does not set the kind of "safe" fires which environmentalists set (which of course would never harm wildlife or pollute the air.....) But that can't be right, because I found some herpetologists complaining that controlled burns of precisely the type they're doing around here are killing and injuring helpless snakes. One herpetologist offers advice on healing a snake which was injured in a supposedly "controlled" burn: Clean the burn twice a day with betadyne and put some triple antibiotic ointment on it after you clean it. If it doesn't start to heal up I would suggest a vet visit if that's possible. I've had a few snakes brought to me from those ignorant controlled burning on nature trails.Wow. What if it turns out that fires burn whatever wildlife happens to be in an area -- regardless of whether they're started by environmentalists, evil corporations, or just taxpaying landowners? I'm confused here, because if such fires are set by humans, and if man is not part of nature, then aren't these fires like, equally unnatural? Or is there an exception for those who set the fires on behalf of what they deem to be natural law? Probably. Because it seems that only they have the right to kill snakes and turtles and pollute the air while despoiling natural beauty while advertising their prowess with annoying signs. The rest of us can only marvel over their power, and despair! posted by Eric on 06.24.10 at 11:24 AM
Comments
My "favorite" in this sort of thing is at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. I don't know if it's still there, but it was when we went there a lot -- about ten years ago when the boys were little. There's a whole "plot" given over for a cemetery of extinct species. The gravestones include the T-Rex and the saber tooth tiger. And there's this thing with a flip up cover that says "The only species capable of causing the extinction of others." Need I say there's a mirror inside it. Sarah · June 24, 2010 12:22 PM Yes, and let's not forget the Invasion of South America -- which occurred 3 million years ago: http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec03/b65lec03.htm ***QUOTE***
***END QUOTE*** Since "the only species capable of causing the extinction of others" is man, we must have evolved much earlier than commonly believed, traveled to South America to kill off all these species, and then disappeared without leaving a trace. Man is truly unnatural. Diabolical. (Which means Satanic!) Eric Scheie · June 24, 2010 01:17 PM Done properly controlled burns can cut back on wild fires. Done properly of course. Our last two big fires came about because the fuel built up to dangerous levels. Thought we could save some money, ended up paying more than we saved fighting the fires and saving homes. What with the El Niño rains and the growth they've encouraged, I'm expecting especially heavy brush for this year's fire season. Alan Kellogg · June 24, 2010 04:01 PM Honeysuckle? Dang. When I was growing up in the South it was ubiquitous. I loved it. The fireflies seemed to love it. And these mopes consider it non-native? Dang. They want to destroy (or at least cut back) on what I love. Dang. A paean to honeysuckle: I’m used to honeysuckle---we loved it as children, plucking it unmercifully, sucking the tee-ninecy drop of sweetness from the broken spot at the stem end, and tossing away the still-bright husks without a second thought. We also cut great sheaves of them, to go in cans and bottles and whatever jug or vase we might appropriate, taking them to neighbors and shut-ins and decorating our tree-houses and playhouses within an inch of Miss Martha’s life. http://lawntea.blogspot.com/2010/05/honeysuckle-trees.html from the comments: I have surely been enjoying the honeysuckle, though. The smell takes me back to childhood, Little League games, fireflies, playing kickball in our backyard. Where I live (Rockford, Illinois) it is a good year for fireflies and honeysuckle. I LOVE it. M. Simon · June 24, 2010 06:06 PM Are the signs flammable? rhhardin · June 24, 2010 08:50 PM The opposite of what you write about is occurring in the Lower Columbia Basin. Instead of burning nature to "preserve" it, environmental groups are flooding it purposely. And you can forget the takings clause in the Constitution. They don't intend to pay fair market for most of this land, rather just destroy it's human use and value first, and then offer to take it off your hands. Frank · June 25, 2010 04:08 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
June 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2010
May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Your Next Senator Or Congressman
All Heck Is Breaking Loose Al Gore's emissions are not sustainable Those in charge of natural law have great power! Real storm? Or election year storm? BBC Covers Amateur Fusion Can't? Or won't? As the remarkable becomes unremarkable... Tariffs Got An Old Hard Drive?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Professional environmentalists consider them lords of the manor Environment. They get really annoyed with any serfs in their line of sight.