Boiling
Pots
in the Beltway
Citizen
demand for the protection of nature is as diverse and widespread as
ever,
perhaps at a higher level than during the years when I helped with
campaigns
that put more than a million acres of mostly-private Florida lands and
waters
into the National Parks system -- in a state where turning nature into
real
estate was, and is, still the best legal way to make money.
There have been structural and strategic changes in the way the
national
environmental movement expresses itself, in Washington, on environmental
issues. An apparent consensus that only two or three issues are of
real
national interest -- so all the other issues and their constituencies
shrink to
b-list status in Washington.
Further diminishing Congressional attention to environmental issues
through a
politically naive focus on the White House as the only locus of power,
when as
far as the nature agencies are concerned, federal institutions are only
nominally in the executive branch, and are actually creatures of the
Congress. And a focus on campaign politics at the Presidential
level that again
(this time because of increased party discipline around issues that
affect
Presidential races) devalues Congressional relationships to
environmental
issues.
All these add up to make much of the public, most of the press, most of
our
remaining friends in Congress and whoever occupies the White House see
environmental issues, at the national level, as the product of a
relatively
small group of like-minded and politically identical interests.
It's as if we were an orchestra that sent most of the musicians
outside, to
highlight the soloists who get to say in the hall -- but even the solo
notes
don't sound that good when the orchestra can't be heard any more.
Since I've been actively working to save real places in nature (1961),
there
have always been raging debates about the theology of environmentalism
--
critiques and seductions from the right and the left, academics
fighting over
the correct labels, people within the community talking about new
leadership
when they have never led (or even really worked in) a tough fight to
save a
real place, roots vs. suit, artists convincing themselves and some of
us that
if they could produce the perfect film/book everything would be fine,
the
architect/visionary flavor of the month, people in business (energy,
agriculture, transportation) wrapping green flags around themselves and
spending enough money to attract validators. It wasn't just in
the last
few years that the self-defined most important environmental leaders
ranked
themselves by how close they could sit next to someone like Ken Lay.
So none of this handwringing is really new. What's new is the
inability
of most national groups to agree that more than two or three issues are
really
worth while -- no matter what reasons are given for this focus, the
result is a
triage, and the consequence is constant erosion of federal performance
on
environmental matters, a practical devolution of what should be federal
authority and responsibility to state and local political leaders,
because not
enough people are boiling enough pots in Washington to make enough
politicians
feel the heat.
I do think this is a correctable problem, and that to correct the
problem at
the national level will make it more likely that decent US environmental
impulses will have more impact on global issues. And because the
national
community's influence in D.C. has become so minimal, we can reasonably
hope for
some of the national groups to re-think the way issues are approached
in Washington, and start
winning more.
And some people do get tired, and in their exhaustion see diminished
opportunity for everyone. We should try to help them feel better,
and not
let ourselves get captured by their decaying energy.
--Joe
Browder
Frontlines
Activism Is Alive, Empowering
Dear
Editors,
Just
writing to say I really enjoy your Lowbagger
web-zine and specifically your article "Days of Whine and
Posers." I was part of the
campaign in Humboldt county to save the Aradia tree sit on Gypsy
mountain,
including spending time in a tunnel under a logging road.
Although
we did ultimately lose it was none the less ultimately one of the most
empowering experiences of my life to see people put their lives on the
line to fight
to save a small grove of old growth Redwood trees. We may have
lost one
battle but I am not depressed, rather ready to keep fighting the
greedheads on
all issues whether it's the ongoing illegal "war on terror" or the
continuing assault on the forests of the Pacific Northwest.
Keep up the good fight and thanks for keeping your values and your
spunk.
Peace out,
Matthew "Raven" Rogers
Gaffney
Has A
Strategy, And Always Has
What a BLOW HARD
you are, Roselle! Obviously you love
to hear yourself
talk.
I've been offering a strategy for years, only no one has listened.
Here's the
rejoinder I sent Michael Donnelly recently, after one of his tirades on
Counterpunch. Of course, he never replied.
I hail from eastern Oregon and long ago helped develop
Audubon's old growth maps for
five national forests east of the cascade divide. I saw a lot of back
country
in that period and learned about the serious problems we have out on
the ground
in eastern Oregon, mostly due to fire
suppression. After the east side
screens went into effect, when we basically stopped the cutting of old
growth
in its tracks, I realized that NOW was the time to get restoration
moving, and
that's when I ran headlong into ONRC's ideological resistance -- and
ultimately
became disillusioned with much of the so called environmental movement.
The ideological
position against any commercial cutting has in my view been the biggest
single
factor explaining why we are losing the battle to save our forests. You
simply
can't reset the biological clock in these fire suppressed forests
without large
scale thinning projects, and to make it happen you have to be
able to get
a return on saw logs. You do it with correct dbh limits -- so you leave
the
biggest and best while reducing the fuels. Andy Kerr's idea that wild
fire is
always a good thing is not supported by science -- at least not on the
eastside
or in the Sierras. A few years back I attended a workshop in Ashland -- part of the annual
winter forest
conference -- billed as a restoration affair, only it was packed with
anti
restoration people. The subject was the QLG, yet there was no one there
from Quincy to present their side of
the story. It
was a fiasco. I watched as Tim Ingalsbee miss characterized the ecology
of the
Sierras. He called it "wet-forest ecology" etc., etc., and of course
he condemned what the folks in Quincy were trying to do. I
pointed out that it
ain't wet at all, it's a dry forest type, and if you don't believe me
pull out
your old worn copy of John Muir's book on the Sierras where he talks
about the
open park-like stands and the annual summer ground fires. We are so far
from
that now it's another world. It goes on and on with the threatened
White headed
woodpecker which prefers the open stands and is not even utilizing its
best
habitat now because of the fir encroachment and tangled undergrowth.
And I
would be willing to bet that not 1 in 100 of the forest activists
understand
the solid reason why the scientific CASPO panel rejected set asides to
protect
the spotted owl in the Sierras. Because the fuels issue is so extreme
that even
if you set aside the entire ecosystem you won't assure the species'
survival.
The CASPO experts called for restoration thinning and fire
reintroduction over
the range of the bird to save it. And that was back around 1992. But is
there
even one enviro around who knows this? Apparently the only ones who
bothered to
read the report live in Quincy.
If people had listened to me ten years ago when I was trying to get
restoration
moving east of the cascades we would now control Congress on every
environmental issue -- despite Bush. Because the truth is that
most
Americans do want a protected environment - and there really and
truly is
a lot of common ground here with small operators and community
protection
interests (urban-forest interface) etc that could grow the green
movement by
another 10%. That would be enough to win. But with Andy Kerr and his no
cut ilk
calling the shots it didn't happen -- instead we preached to the choir
the no
cut mantra and that's why we have lost the battle and will continue to
lose.
(You going after Foreman is no surprise: he refused for the best of
reasons to
endorse no cut.)
Sad to say but I have watched with dismay how enviros toss out the
science when
it doesn't agree with their ideology. All of it makes me
wonder if
we are in fact a failed species, simply incapable of ever getting our
shit
together on this small planet. Nuf said.
--Mark Gaffney
Debunk
the Human Supremacy Myth
Dear Editors,
Hi.
Saw your article on Dave Foreman's doom and gloom forecast. As someone
who comes
in on the animal rights side of ecology issues—the doom and gloom
scenario painted
by Foreman is pretty much understood among grass roots
activists--victories are
small and the ethical perversion and stupidity of people is
epic--but we
press ahead anyway. It is just the way it is--regardless of the future.
We live
for the moment. Take for example, the Canadian seal hunt underway as we
speak--the largest in 50 years. Inuits and their apologists whined that
they
had a right to club seals so they could sell them to vain city folk
whities(so
they could then use the money to buy TVs and shotguns from other
whities). Apparently--seal
clubbers have a right to club seals to death and sell
their pelts--but their targeted customers didn’t have a right not to
buy them. Ok.
That's one example of the stupidity we face (makes me wonder if some of
these
seal hunters accidentally smacked themselves in the head one too many
times out
on the ice). But--after some years-thanks to vigorous campaigning, the
seal
hunt market pretty much died out.
Then
a funny thing happened--our intrepid stewards of the
sea--Newfoundlander
fisherfolk, discovered that if you keep removing more and more fish
from the
water--you end up with less and less. So thanks to their great
stewardship,
they were out of work--and the government hit on a novel idea: blame
the seals.
They claimed seals were eating cod (apparently a sea dwelling animal
who
has to eat from the sea by necessity, is trumped by a land
dwelling
animal who eats from the sea out of desire). Ignoring the fact that
biologists
report that cod only makes up 5% of their diet—the truth eventually
came out--the
government just wanted to give the fisherfolk something to do--so they
found
Russians cared little about animal rights (human variety or otherwise)
and the
Chinese valued seal genitals for aphrodisiacs (their impotency problem
could
have fooled me)--and a new market was born.
Now--here
we are again--an issue that seemed to be settled has resurfaced worse
than
ever. Just like the issue of whaling is creeping back. But do we give
up? Hell
no. And there are a million issues like that. As I type I just got a
notice
about a university professor who plans to study why stun guns caused 70
potential criminals to die--so he is going to do shock experiments on
pigs and
then give them overdoses of cocaine. It was bad enough that such
intelligent,
clean and benign creatures are grown and slaughtered so
humans can get heart attacks
(and fill streams with swine manure and
urine).
We aren’t only battling the unenlightened in the general public--but
the sadly
comatose folks in the "conversation" movement that seem to think humans
are meant to be stewards of Nature (the fisheries issue is just one
example of
how that is a bunch of horseshit--if humans are stewards of Nature then
I would
hate to see what type of job we would be doing if we were actually
trying to
destroy the ecosystems). Ahem--case in point:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=624667
A worm is a steward of Nature---humans have a long way to go to compete
with them, and yet they regard worms (and pigs, and rats and
cockroaches and other
hardy little beings) as worthy of tortures that would not be visited on
the
most despised criminals and even use them as the basis for insults.
So
you mentioned "another Enlightenment" may be necessary. I agree--and
the prime issue numero uno has got to be that of exposing and debunking
the human
supremacy myth--(the stewardship joke is one example of that in
action). No
other ideological issue gets to the heart of the problem. Human regard
the
planet and other species as less than them(even when they claim they
don't--I
don't know how many hunters say that when they shoot a deer or bear for
pleasure
whether dietary or sexual, this constitutes respect) and behave
accordingly.
And
the thing is--if humans don't learn humility and to respect Nature
(truly respect,
not the lip service "I beat my wife because I love her" kind),
then they will bury themselves--and cockroaches will party. And who can
say
environmentalists dont have a sense of humor when Nature itself has a
sense of
irony about it?
Cheers,
A. Weebler
http://animalvegfaq.tripod.com
History
of
White People Rings True
Dear
Mr. Roselle:
Really
nice "White People..." piece. Enjoyed it from start to finish.
Sincerely,
Glen
Ford,
Editor and Co-Publisher
www.BlackCommentator.com
Economic
Factors Hinder Ability to Be Active
Dear Editors,
Great story
about basketball and no dancing white people.
I loved it, and
we do care about the environment.
Hell we want to
be part of it, but George and his gang only want us to work for 5
dollars an
hour, and you know homey don't play that.
Chow and Assalaamu Alaikum
Khaled aka Cedric
Roselle
Has Keen Eye for Forbidden Topics
Hey
Mike,
You
nailed it so well. I'm still laughing. Merciful of you to focus on the
environmental folks
(white trash freaks) only, but I understand this is gonna
have to be
a sector by sector expose. Thanks for noticing. I attended Detroit's anti-war
event yesterday & out of 500-600 ralliers packed in a
downtown
church there were three black people. And yes, there were
also
precisely three black speakers out of eight or nine total and they
were
of the V.I.P. sort, to boot (congressman, city councilor, etc.).
Well, as
you have figured out , black people in
Detroit
probably were busy doing whatever the hell 92
%
of a city's population has to do.
You
have a keen eye for the key forbidden
topics and the wit to stitch it together seamlessly for the
culturally
challenged (socially
squeamish?).
--John
Joslin
Poetry Update
Needed
Dear Editors,
I really like the Lowbagger
site--very refreshing. Good to read my old friend Mike's articles
again, too.
It also shows class that you've included poetry on the site.
Howsomever...
Couldn't you come up with a sexier title than "Poet's Lounge"? And
can't
the poems be changed more often? I like the format The Nation
uses--unfortunately the byline "Deadline Poet" is already taken.
Maybe "Poet's Platform"?
Keep up the good work!
Dennis Fritzinger
Brownbagger
Recipes
Dear
Shitferbrains,
There
is a guy named Dan Leone who writes a so-called food column for the
free weekly San
Francisco Bay Guardian. The
column is called "Cheap Eats." The column is done
Roselle-style: It supposedly reviews food like Roselle supposedly
talks about environmental issues. The only difference is
that Roselle
actually knows about environmental issues. At least he says
he does,
and I believe him because he taught me about them, along with
Karen
Pickett. If he doesn't, neither do I, and we can't have
that! Dan
Leone, on the other hand, wouldn't know gourmet food from dog
food.
Neither would a lowbagger, so it's a perfect fit! Leone, as my
close friend I-Hate-You once said, looks for big piles of
meat as cheap
as he can get. That seems to be his only criteria for deciding
whether a
place is good. Perfect for meat-guzzling lowbaggers.
Here's
a link to a sample recent "Cheap Eats" column: http://www.sfbg.com/39/22/x_cheap_eats.html
Lowbagger needs a "Cheap
Eats" column of its own. I like the name "Brownbagger,"
but call it whatever you want. Roselle knows good
lowbagger food. I know this, because the last time I saw him at
ELAW, he
was eating a bag of coconut chocolate cookies. I assume he was
eating
them for lunch since it was around lunchtime. So, he should write
the
column. Or you could ask Dan Leone to write it for
you.
Email him at cheapeatsguy@yahoo.com
Jeff Hoffman
Freedom
of
Choice
Dear
Editors,
I
appreciate your work with Lowbagger.
I can imagine the headaches you must
have getting things to work. I use foxfire and mozilla on a windows
box.
Yeah some of the pictures don't work, but that's the joy of so many
different browser choices. And then there is the added pain of which os
platform are you using? Mac? Windows? Linux? Which raises the question:
what
is acceptable lowbagger technology? Is it about the gear or the
message? Is
gps acceptable or do we throw away the map and compass and wander in
hopes
of seeing the bear (reference to Faulkner's The Bear)? That might make
an
interesting column to get opinions filling your mailbox.
Smile,
Wesley Hutchins
