Recent comments

If I maybe so bold....

Before you start berating people for listening to

1. I will never be able to see the glaciers of Glacier National Park, the famed snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro, or any number of other threatened resources because by the time I can afford to travel to see these sights, they will be gone - thanks to humans or 'nature's cycles'. Period. The chance to see these things will be taken away from me forever. There is no going back. Why? Because the people in power refused to act when they had the chance. Thanks, guys.

2. You people (yes, I mean YOU PEOPLE) out there who disregard global warming are the people who are in power today, and will die soon, to be blunt. It is MY generation and MY future that will be most affected by climate change, and it is MY future you are screwing around with.

3. Regardless of whether or not climate change is caused by humans, by not doing anything, those people who sit idle are taking away my chance at living in a stable world. I do not, and will not accept this. I alone will determine my future.

And in case you haven't noticed, we're [students are] doing a whole heck of a lot more to deal with it than anyone else. The high school and college students of America are taking our future into our own hands, and out of those who do nothing but dither and squabble. The Sierra Student Coalition registered over 70 victories this past school year on college campuses in the Climate Campus Challenge, with 13 colleges signing on the become carbon neutral. And the momentum keeps building - Towson University agreed to become carbon neutral just this past week, and the start of November will bring thousands of students together for PowerShift 2007 - the 1st ever international student conference on climate change.

What have the politicians done? Ummmm - nothing.

Oh, wait - they have talked. That always helps.

---
jr_ranger
"Good Planets are Hard to Find"
http://tntrailhead.blogspot.com
http://zinch.com/jr_ranger
http://picasaweb.google.com/north.cascades
President, CHS SPEAK (CHS Students Promoting Environmental Action & Knowledge)
Founder and President, CHS Campus Greens
Member, Sierra Student Coalition Conservation Committee Subcommittee for Campaigns and Materials

Jim, I'm not in favor of any of it. It's just that each little piece of our identity that gets collected by this company and that government entity is faced with a pathetic wimper from the masses against it, and the march toward everyone knowing everything about everyone continues. We can scream about it as individuals all we want, but until someone steps in as President of this country who's not a Democrat and not a Republican, nothing will change, and it will get worse. Money drives the two parties against each other, money from big business who wants all that information, and the government has access to most if not all that information when they want or need it. The fact that the government may collect it a little more directly doesn't really change much at all, except perhaps allow them to nab terrorists a little quicker than they might otherwise. The damage has already been done and it's doubtful there's any going back at this point.

How about Canby's Cross at Lava Beds National Monument? The original, on display at the VC, was raised in 1882 by Lieutenant John S. Parke (possibly "it received no permission at the time"). A replica was raised (presumably by the NPS).

This isn't about being able to put up religious symbols today or swastikas or Al Qaeda or any other number of red herrings; it's about respecting the symbols of the past and allowing their continued existence.

People might get offended seeing these symbols, even the crosses at Arlington National Cemetery.

And what should we say to someone whom, upon viewing such symbols, becomes offended? "Too bad, but you'll live."

There's a "Christ of the Abyss" on a coral reef in John Pennekamp State Park in Florida. It has been there since the early 60's and is a popular sight for snorkelers and scuba divers. The ACLU tried to get it removed also, but to remove it would have disturbed the reef and destroyed coral so it's still there. (A reasonable decision since it is the mandate of parks to protect nature first and foremost).

This case could go to the U. S. Supreme Court and whatever decision they make must be content neutral--that is it should treat all religious symbols on public land in the same way. If they are historic, that is they've been there for a number of years, they are undisturbed whether they are Hopi, Hawaiian, Tlinglit, or Christian. If Hawaiians can perform religious services on Kilaeua and have their rock memorials protected on federal lands, even if they were put up yesterday, then the same should hold true for all other religions. People just want all religions treated equally, no special preferences.

I am correct in following Mr. Allen's argument to it's logical conclusion: that any symbol that does not have "official memorialization" (what a wonderfully nebulous and totally bureaucratic concept) should be taken down?

What is the process whereby things are given their "official" status? Does it involve a working group armed with visioning documents to approve the proposed memorialization? (I'm sure I'm missing a few steps in this elaborately thought out process.) Who makes the final decision? How does one go about requesting an "official memorilaiztion"? Is it a committee that meets once a year or can one do it by downloading the needed documents?

Should the crosses come down from the San Antonio Missions? The padres who erected them probably predated any notion of the right or wrong way to place sacred symbols on the landscape. They may have felt the hubris filled notion that they were answering to a much higher authority: the Spanish Crown!

Maybe we should rename Zion National Park since it is a holy Hebrew word in the Jewish faith that was used by the Mormon Church to promote a Christian concept. It certainly didn't received an "official memorialization" process that I'm aware of.

Where does it end?

What if the erection on this hilltop were a Swastika, put there in 1939, well before the NPS was on the scene.

What if some person in the dark of night decided that the Al Queda symbol should dominate the hilltop.

What would the reaction be?

The cross was not the result of any official memorialization, it received no permission at the time. Was allowed to stand only because of neglect. It has no place on public lands. It should go. At least that's how I see it.

Art Allen

I neglected to mention in my initial post that the cross long pre-dates arrival of the Park Service, as the preserve wasn't created until 1994. Of course, prior to that year the land was managed by the BLM.

Lone Hiker, I assume you have not read any of Dr. Hanson's research work at NASA on global warming. If you did, perhaps you might think twice before blogging your complete distortion of the facts what causes global warming. Corporate America could use you as there poster child to enhace their agenda that rape and pillage is good for the atmosphere. I guess the religious right wing shake there booties every time Al Gore speaks the truth for a cleaner world. Remembering the tobacco industry and there pack of lies that cigarette's are not harmful to your health, it's the same line that corporate America sheds: disinformation, misinformation, bad information and no information on accurate research on global warming...and you Lone Hiker help to follow such distorted route...to most Americans that doesn't fly!

It's appropriate if the reaction is different (for the totem pole than for the cross) for many of the same reasons I give above. And, not just those, but more besides ... though all of them related.

As it stands, in the parks I know something about (Yellowstone and Grand Teton), tribes have not been able to pursue activities related to their faith historically because the National Park Service has so often denied their connection to the history of the park. Even today, there's a scholar trying to claim that Sheepeaters didn't even really exist. I think the issue with religion as it relates to the tribes isn't always so "protect 'the minority'" as it is caricaturized. And, actually, from my point of view, as someone who calls himself a Christian, I think that's too bad! I'd sooner part with a cross than with a totem pole given the historical and social context of how those symbols have ended up in and are used across this country and in the parks.

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World

how long does something need to stand in a national park before it becomes part of the tapestry of the story of a park itself and protected by law? i seem to remember something about trash (not referring to the cross, have no interest in the can of worms here) becoming historical after a certain period of time.

The aren't any scientists at ANY level, academic or governmental, who have a solid enough foundation regarding this topic that qualifies them to redirect environmental issues, that if incorrectly altered, could have the same effect on our species as the misguided mountain lion hunts of the early 20th C did on the mule deer population on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. I guess only the Rev. Al Gore is all-knowing enough to tell us how to effectively respond to the changes in world environment without causing any additional damage......he and his team of celebrity energy wasters telling me, a degreed molecular biochemist how to fix the world! There are only a few known pieces of evidence pertinent to this issue. Most importantly, we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA, given the lack of historical data that are available for collection and proper dissemination, if this change is truly representative of a cycle, a unique event, or a true shift / change in the OVERALL conditions that have existed for THOUSANDS of generations. It should be common knowledge that the earth's environmental conditions have followed this "wave" pattern, not a flat-line, for the span of it's existence. The events that relate directly to the shifts in these cycles are simply NOT understood, only unsubstantiated and under-studied hypothesis are known, and none of them have garnered enough solid data that would lend credence to support any particular theory as to the overall direction in which we are currently headed. In it's infancy, when anaerobic atmospheric conditions ceased and when the planet was indeed MUCH warmer than it presently stands, and the land mass was whole, world-wide (as it were for the period) tropical conditions existed on most every inch of land. Carbon dioxide (and methane, the real culprit in the warming process) emissions were at levels estimated to be relative, although obviously not equivilent to where they currently stand. Yet, the planet gradually cooled, mammals evolved, and we progressed(?) to the mess in which we currently reside. Hypothetically, the planet should have overheated millions of years ago under just such conditions as outlined, albeit very superficially, above would indicate. But here we stand debating what to do that will correct the current allegedly man-made situation.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are NOT the major issue that needs to be addressed, in terms of the oxidation / reduction theory specific to the ozone molecule. And for the sake of our environment, PLEASE stop attending the First United Church of Gore and do a bit of independent investigative research on your own, or better yet, with some guidance from a credible chemist (any junior college or higher level instructor would suffice) in order to have as solid a foundation for grasping the true nature of the issues in these changing times. Bad sources of information lead to bad choices; don't let yours be among them.