The Forest Service is getting set to touch off a series of prescribed burns.
They’re gun shy after last year’s escape, which caused the 1,800-acre Wizard Fire. I think they’re worried about public response.
Well, this member of the public is in full support of the fall burning program. I don’t love smoke on crisp, clear fall days and I don’t love brown pine needles in my woods — but I’m willing to live with them for the sake of the long-term health of the forests I love.
The forest is more than a pretty view — it’s a vital ecosystem. For some of us it is a downright sacred world. We’ve done a lot to make it sick and fire is the cure.
It’s the only cure, too. Mechanical thinning doesn’t replace fire. Nothing does. It is nature’s cleansing agent and this is its time of year.
There’s no excuse for the lapses that led to the Wizard Fire. I understand why people are angry about that. But there’s another truth that needs to be told here: the Wizard Fire was a beautiful thing from the standpoint of forest health. Almost all low-intensity — a nice, cleansing fire.
We need to treat more of the forest with fire — and at this time of year — not less. Of course we need for it to happen on purpose, in a controlled, non-threatening manner.
The Forest Service blew it on the RNA burn last year — and learned from it.
We can’t let the risks associated with prescribed burning make us too fearful to reap its benefits.
We need to put up with the smoke and the “ugly” immediate aftermath, because it is the only thing that can protect the forest from much uglier disease and from catastrophic fire.
About 1/4 of the Angeles National Forest where I roamed incessantly as a kid and as a young man has been ruined, burned to a literal crisp by an arson-caused wildfire of catastrophic proportions.
It was inevitable; the only thing that could have prevented the dire consequences is if those slopes had burned over lightly many times in preceding years.
If you love the forests of the Sisters Country, learn to love fire. The forest cannot live without it.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Crossing the line
I got an earful from my brother this morning regarding “what passes for news these days.”
He was peeved about the new focus of the remarkable story of Melanie Oudin, the 17-year-old phenom who knocked over, one after another, a murderers row of Russian aces on her way to the U.S. Open Tennis quarterfinals, where she fell to 19-year-old Caroline Wozniacki.
Someone dug up court filings on divorce proceedings between Oudin’s parents and aired the whole sorry tale, which was dutifully reported by media from the sports world and beyond. Tabloid fodder from heaven, right?
“Here’s the good news,” my brother said. “You’ve become a celebrity because of an exceptional tennis performance. Here’s the bad news: You’re a celebrity; and this is how we treat celebrities.”
As is often the case, my brother and I were thinking the same thought. My reaction to seeing this story splashed all over the Internet was, why does this girl deserve to have her family’s dirty laundry hung out for everyone in the world to pick over?
The answer is, she doesn’t. I realize that this is spitting into the ocean, but there is no reason that any of us need to know about this. It’s mere titillation.
Family problems — divorce, infidelity, illness — are well within a zone of privacy that should be respected. Politicians and some other public figures should be exempted because there is an issue of public trust involved, but even there some circumspection is in order. We don’t need the feeding frenzy that accompanies these things, from Bill Clinton to Mark Sanford to John Edwards.
Thinking about the Oudin situation led me back to another, more significant, question of drawing lines that I’ve been thinking a lot about for the past few days: the publishing of an AP photo of the dying of Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard in Afghanistan (after his family had asked AP not to distribute the photo).
That decision by AP drew stinging rebukes for insensitivity.
I’m of two minds about this. I don’t think AP should have distributed this particular photo, especially in the face of an express request from the family not to do so. Showing the young man in his last, dying agony caused too much pain to his loved ones.
But by the same token, we are too inclined to sanitize ugly realities. We don’t need to know about someone’s messy marital situation. But we do need to face up to the reality of warfare that is being carried out in our name and on our dime.
If we don’t have to look, we don’t have to face up. (That’s not a political statement, by the way. Whether you support a policy or not, it’s important to grapple with the consequences, especially when they are literally life-and-death).
“Just tell us about it; we don’t need to see it.”
I’ve heard that fairly often in response to photos of accidents and the like. I don’t buy it. Much as it pains a word guy to say it, images are more powerful than words at conveying stark realities.
I’ve seen (and shot) my share of bad accidents. Seeing what I have seen has made a significant impact on my driving habits. Not the rational understanding of the dangers of the highway — an emotional response to seeing what happens when a couple of tons of steel hits something at speed.
That’s got value. That’s a need-to-know thing. We all know that that damned Barclay Drive/Highway 20 intersection is dangerous. Seeing twisted steel all over the road makes you actually slow down and look when. Does me, anyway. Every time.
Sensitivity to victims and family members is important. You don’t necessarily need to show the face of fear and pain to get the point across. How graphic is too graphic? Is it the ability to put a name to a face the tipping point?
There is an iconic photograph of a terrified young Vietnamese girl running down a road from a napalm attack on her village that brought home powerfully the impact of that conflict on civilians. Why is it OK to run that and not a shot of a dying U.S. Marine?
How about the famous shot of the South Vietnamese officer executing a Viet Cong guerrilla during Tet?
I think AP stepped over the line, but I can't say in a hard-and-fast way where the line lies.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
He was peeved about the new focus of the remarkable story of Melanie Oudin, the 17-year-old phenom who knocked over, one after another, a murderers row of Russian aces on her way to the U.S. Open Tennis quarterfinals, where she fell to 19-year-old Caroline Wozniacki.
Someone dug up court filings on divorce proceedings between Oudin’s parents and aired the whole sorry tale, which was dutifully reported by media from the sports world and beyond. Tabloid fodder from heaven, right?
“Here’s the good news,” my brother said. “You’ve become a celebrity because of an exceptional tennis performance. Here’s the bad news: You’re a celebrity; and this is how we treat celebrities.”
As is often the case, my brother and I were thinking the same thought. My reaction to seeing this story splashed all over the Internet was, why does this girl deserve to have her family’s dirty laundry hung out for everyone in the world to pick over?
The answer is, she doesn’t. I realize that this is spitting into the ocean, but there is no reason that any of us need to know about this. It’s mere titillation.
Family problems — divorce, infidelity, illness — are well within a zone of privacy that should be respected. Politicians and some other public figures should be exempted because there is an issue of public trust involved, but even there some circumspection is in order. We don’t need the feeding frenzy that accompanies these things, from Bill Clinton to Mark Sanford to John Edwards.
Thinking about the Oudin situation led me back to another, more significant, question of drawing lines that I’ve been thinking a lot about for the past few days: the publishing of an AP photo of the dying of Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard in Afghanistan (after his family had asked AP not to distribute the photo).
That decision by AP drew stinging rebukes for insensitivity.
I’m of two minds about this. I don’t think AP should have distributed this particular photo, especially in the face of an express request from the family not to do so. Showing the young man in his last, dying agony caused too much pain to his loved ones.
But by the same token, we are too inclined to sanitize ugly realities. We don’t need to know about someone’s messy marital situation. But we do need to face up to the reality of warfare that is being carried out in our name and on our dime.
If we don’t have to look, we don’t have to face up. (That’s not a political statement, by the way. Whether you support a policy or not, it’s important to grapple with the consequences, especially when they are literally life-and-death).
“Just tell us about it; we don’t need to see it.”
I’ve heard that fairly often in response to photos of accidents and the like. I don’t buy it. Much as it pains a word guy to say it, images are more powerful than words at conveying stark realities.
I’ve seen (and shot) my share of bad accidents. Seeing what I have seen has made a significant impact on my driving habits. Not the rational understanding of the dangers of the highway — an emotional response to seeing what happens when a couple of tons of steel hits something at speed.
That’s got value. That’s a need-to-know thing. We all know that that damned Barclay Drive/Highway 20 intersection is dangerous. Seeing twisted steel all over the road makes you actually slow down and look when. Does me, anyway. Every time.
Sensitivity to victims and family members is important. You don’t necessarily need to show the face of fear and pain to get the point across. How graphic is too graphic? Is it the ability to put a name to a face the tipping point?
There is an iconic photograph of a terrified young Vietnamese girl running down a road from a napalm attack on her village that brought home powerfully the impact of that conflict on civilians. Why is it OK to run that and not a shot of a dying U.S. Marine?
How about the famous shot of the South Vietnamese officer executing a Viet Cong guerrilla during Tet?
I think AP stepped over the line, but I can't say in a hard-and-fast way where the line lies.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Some actual thinking about health care
If you’re tired of the shouting and the superficial sound bytes passing for discussion of health care reform in the United States, you might want to check out the latest issue of The Atlantic magazine.
David Goldhill writes a piece titled “How American Health Care Killed My Father.”
It’s too long and detailed an exploration of the flaws and potentials of American health care to summarize here. The gist is this.: Goldhill argues that the only way that costs can be tamed and quality ensured is by converting to a consumer-driven model for health care.
Right now, patients and their families are not the customers — insurance companies and the government are. Goldhill argues that any reform that does not address that fundamental distortion is bound to fail.
It’s a refreshingly nonpartisan, non-ideological approach — Health Savings Account; government-pooled catastrophic insurance; greater transparency.
No shouting, no spinning. It's long, it's detailed, it's dense with ideas and information. Worth a read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
Jim Cornelius, Editor
David Goldhill writes a piece titled “How American Health Care Killed My Father.”
It’s too long and detailed an exploration of the flaws and potentials of American health care to summarize here. The gist is this.: Goldhill argues that the only way that costs can be tamed and quality ensured is by converting to a consumer-driven model for health care.
Right now, patients and their families are not the customers — insurance companies and the government are. Goldhill argues that any reform that does not address that fundamental distortion is bound to fail.
It’s a refreshingly nonpartisan, non-ideological approach — Health Savings Account; government-pooled catastrophic insurance; greater transparency.
No shouting, no spinning. It's long, it's detailed, it's dense with ideas and information. Worth a read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Friday, September 4, 2009
Duck you sucker!
Okay all you Duck fans out there: What do you do about LeGarrette Blount?
For those of you who have been completely incommunicado since Thursday night, a Boise State player bumped Blount and said something (presumably impolite) to him after Boise State’s 19-8 victory.
Blount decked him with a beautiful right handed sucker punch. Then he started to go after some fans and had to be wrestled to the ground by a Ducks assistant coach.
Blount later apologized, saying he lost his head. We noticed. And it’s apparently not the first incident with him this season.
So what do you do with him? If I’m the coach, I suspend him indefinitely — until I know for sure that he can control himself. I don’t care how important a player is to a team, that kind of lack of self-control can’t be tolerated.
What’s the appropriate sanction?
Jim Cornelius, Editor
For those of you who have been completely incommunicado since Thursday night, a Boise State player bumped Blount and said something (presumably impolite) to him after Boise State’s 19-8 victory.
Blount decked him with a beautiful right handed sucker punch. Then he started to go after some fans and had to be wrestled to the ground by a Ducks assistant coach.
Blount later apologized, saying he lost his head. We noticed. And it’s apparently not the first incident with him this season.
So what do you do with him? If I’m the coach, I suspend him indefinitely — until I know for sure that he can control himself. I don’t care how important a player is to a team, that kind of lack of self-control can’t be tolerated.
What’s the appropriate sanction?
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
