The view from our rented Condo in downtown... you can see the lake and the mountains in the background...
Church Street all lit up
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Burlington, VT
Some shots from around Burlington, VT, where Jonmikel and I headed off to for Thanksgiving. My brother put on a play, More: the Play, and so everyone who is anyone was there. Were you?
The view from our rented Condo in downtown... you can see the lake and the mountains in the background...
Church Street all lit up
The view from our rented Condo in downtown... you can see the lake and the mountains in the background...Church Street all lit up
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Thanksgiving is still forthcoming...
The alternative energy question is a complicated and convoluted one. Nothing seems to fit quite right, and each alterative has a whole list of caveats on which some people may not be willing to compromise. Let’s break it down. Obviously, oil and coal suck. Moving on.
Ethanol. Ethanol is cleaner-burning, yes. But it’s made of food. Corn, to be exact. Corn from Mexico, to be even more exact. In this day and age, when stories of food shortages are plastered across newspapers in the developing world (and in Europe, where they seem more aware of such things), does it really make sense to be making car fuel out of food? They are experiencing shortages of corn in Mexico, so much so, that many people are now going without their traditional tortillas because they have nothing with which to make them. Corn farmers make more money selling corn to fuel companies than to locals who need to eat.
Next, wind power. Seems like a great idea, especially once you get past the immense oil investments it takes to make the turbines in the first place. From then on, the power is green and clean. Problems arise, however, in the set-up. What better place to put fields of wind turbines than in real fields? Say, in Kansas or something. Sounds great, until you take into account the fact that those turbines are being placed in prime whooping crane nesting grounds. The population of those and similar birds since the advent of those imposing, modern windmills is staggering. They have nowhere to nest. Not to mention the fact that bats are dying in boatloads because the turbine suction destroys their ability to navigate in the dark, causing fatal crashes. Is it really fair to ask these aviators to give up their lives so we can watch the big game in HD?
Let’s move on to solar power. Pretty clean, especially since we plan on keeping the sun around for quite a while. However, the metals required to make them are relatively rare and non-renewable. Also, the mining investments are substantial, involving both oil-driven machinery and invasive mining procedures that damage habitats, watersheds, and numerous other cultural and natural resources. The manufacturing of the panels, too, is a huge draw on oil and coal resources, requiring intensive industrial input, though it is (hopefully) a one-time investment. That’s assuming they never break. While use is low, the impact of mining and manufacture is minimal; but should all 6 billion people (or even just 100 million of them) up and decide they want solar panels of their very own, the impact on the environment would be devastating.
Hydrogen might also seem like a fun solution to the gas problem, though you would have to be able to deal with the fear that one inopportune bump from another car will send you up in a brilliant ball of fire.
Nuclear is another choice, a popular one in Europe, where reactors line the Rhine. It’s clean burning and fairly efficient, though mining burdens are notable, and there’s always the question of what in the world you’re going to do with the waste. There was a long-standing solution that we could just dump it in Africa, but apparently, people actually live there (who knew?). Some guy in England claims that he’s created a way of balling the waste up and exposing the outside to extreme amounts of energy to solidify it into a shatter-and-leak-proof glass coating with a shelf-life of 200,000 years, effectively encasing the waste until it is no longer dangerous. The European Community has been working non-stop to find a means of disposing or reusing the waste, so I think it would be safe to assume that eventually, they’ll find something. But until there, there’s always the danger that we’ll all starting growing third arms. Which, you know, may come in handy.
Natural gas has also been tossed about. Many buses in cities have converted to the substance, which, while slightly more clean-burning than oil, is not necessarily more efficient or cheaper; there’s also that pesky little “non-renewable” label that goes with it, implying that like coal and oil, the mining (digging? I don’t know what the correct term for gas extraction would be) of it is environmentally unsustainable (I’m not gonna lie, there’s no way to mine anything in an environmentally-friendly way, those who say there is are lying) and it will run out. Which is what we’re trying to avoid in the first place.
Don’t even get me started on “clean coal” or some such nonsense… that’s just West Virginia’s way of pretending to be economically important so the rest of us don’t forget they’re actually a state.
Please feel free to add suggestions! Maybe we can solve the world’s problems…
Ethanol. Ethanol is cleaner-burning, yes. But it’s made of food. Corn, to be exact. Corn from Mexico, to be even more exact. In this day and age, when stories of food shortages are plastered across newspapers in the developing world (and in Europe, where they seem more aware of such things), does it really make sense to be making car fuel out of food? They are experiencing shortages of corn in Mexico, so much so, that many people are now going without their traditional tortillas because they have nothing with which to make them. Corn farmers make more money selling corn to fuel companies than to locals who need to eat.
Next, wind power. Seems like a great idea, especially once you get past the immense oil investments it takes to make the turbines in the first place. From then on, the power is green and clean. Problems arise, however, in the set-up. What better place to put fields of wind turbines than in real fields? Say, in Kansas or something. Sounds great, until you take into account the fact that those turbines are being placed in prime whooping crane nesting grounds. The population of those and similar birds since the advent of those imposing, modern windmills is staggering. They have nowhere to nest. Not to mention the fact that bats are dying in boatloads because the turbine suction destroys their ability to navigate in the dark, causing fatal crashes. Is it really fair to ask these aviators to give up their lives so we can watch the big game in HD?
Let’s move on to solar power. Pretty clean, especially since we plan on keeping the sun around for quite a while. However, the metals required to make them are relatively rare and non-renewable. Also, the mining investments are substantial, involving both oil-driven machinery and invasive mining procedures that damage habitats, watersheds, and numerous other cultural and natural resources. The manufacturing of the panels, too, is a huge draw on oil and coal resources, requiring intensive industrial input, though it is (hopefully) a one-time investment. That’s assuming they never break. While use is low, the impact of mining and manufacture is minimal; but should all 6 billion people (or even just 100 million of them) up and decide they want solar panels of their very own, the impact on the environment would be devastating.
Hydrogen might also seem like a fun solution to the gas problem, though you would have to be able to deal with the fear that one inopportune bump from another car will send you up in a brilliant ball of fire.
Nuclear is another choice, a popular one in Europe, where reactors line the Rhine. It’s clean burning and fairly efficient, though mining burdens are notable, and there’s always the question of what in the world you’re going to do with the waste. There was a long-standing solution that we could just dump it in Africa, but apparently, people actually live there (who knew?). Some guy in England claims that he’s created a way of balling the waste up and exposing the outside to extreme amounts of energy to solidify it into a shatter-and-leak-proof glass coating with a shelf-life of 200,000 years, effectively encasing the waste until it is no longer dangerous. The European Community has been working non-stop to find a means of disposing or reusing the waste, so I think it would be safe to assume that eventually, they’ll find something. But until there, there’s always the danger that we’ll all starting growing third arms. Which, you know, may come in handy.
Natural gas has also been tossed about. Many buses in cities have converted to the substance, which, while slightly more clean-burning than oil, is not necessarily more efficient or cheaper; there’s also that pesky little “non-renewable” label that goes with it, implying that like coal and oil, the mining (digging? I don’t know what the correct term for gas extraction would be) of it is environmentally unsustainable (I’m not gonna lie, there’s no way to mine anything in an environmentally-friendly way, those who say there is are lying) and it will run out. Which is what we’re trying to avoid in the first place.
Don’t even get me started on “clean coal” or some such nonsense… that’s just West Virginia’s way of pretending to be economically important so the rest of us don’t forget they’re actually a state.
Please feel free to add suggestions! Maybe we can solve the world’s problems…
I will get to Thanksgiving stuff eventually...
I have found that I am more and more irritated when people refer to a place like Yellowstone National Park as a “natural” park. It insinuates that there is no cultural value of Yellowstone. It insinuates that only battlefields or poets’ homes or historic structures can be “cultural” parks. A cultural resource is not a tree or a bear, but a house or a fort or a mine. A cultural landscape is something that has been manipulated by man, not something that has only been appreciated. The US has a very single-minded view on what is and is not a cultural resource.
After working with tribes in Yellowstone, I understand that an outcropping or a waterfall or a bear isn’t just an outcropping or a waterfall or a bear. An outcropping could be a place where a guard stood watch every night while the tribe was camped nearby. A waterfall could be the place where someone believes a god sleeps. A bear could be a brother (for the sake of the cliché…). UNESCO defines a cultural landscape as any or any combination of the following: A landscape designed intentionally by humans; one which has been altered purposefully by humans; or one that humans consider culturally important but have not altered, or have altered only minimally and without purpose. The latter is known as a “associative landscape.” In the US, NPS defines a cultural landscape only as something that man has altered and considered significant. Which means cultural resources in Yellowstone are ignored in favor of slaughtering bison. Because that is more in-tune with the enabling legislation of the park, apparently.
It’s especially upsetting to me because, as an anthropologist, I have been able to get a better grasp on how much the US has sh*t on the Native Americans, and how we all like to think that we’re beyond that, and how much that just isn’t true. For example, the Nez Perce has asked for permission, if the US government is going to slaughter the bison anyway, to hunt the bison that wander outside of the park boundary on to public lands (notably USFS, though there may be some BLM land involved, also), as they see the bison not only as economically important, but also socially and cultural significant and stimulating. I’ve seen the photos of their hunts, the way they involve the children, who may not have such experiences otherwise, to join in on horseback; they praying and the revelry they have for the hunt and the death and the sacrifice. It’s serious stuff. But can the US government allow them to do this? Of course not. That would be way too economically viable; how would they spend all that money if not for the pointless slaughter of bison that probably won’t transmit brucellosis to cattle but because NPS/USF must suck up to ranchers ignorant of biology they kill them anyway. I mean, allowing a tribe to cushion some of the cost for their traditional practices, not to mention their contentious treaty rights to do so, would be irresponsible. I bet Suzanne Lewis thought that one up all on her own.
Now that I’ve brought up the Big S.L. (for those who don’t know, she is the superintendent for Yellowstone), I might as well segue into the New York Times’ opinion that calls for her immediate dismissal for her complete mockery of the YELL winter-use proposal. The editorial can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22sat4.html?_r=1. I tend to agree with the statement, though for my own reasons. Yes, she has been instrumental in maintaining an unhealthy (according to ONLY the best scientists Yellowstone has to offer, so really, do they even count?) level of snowmobiles in the winter (though really, I love snowmobiling, I just believe in doing it sustainably). But I also believe that she has been entirely irresponsible in her duties to the association tribes of Yellowstone National Park. She has, on several occasions, refused to meet with and show respect to tribal elders for momentous occasions (for example, the first NAGPRA reburial that took place in the park in October 2006, during which she just “couldn’t make it”), and has also made it extremely difficult and uncomfortable for the cultural resources staff within the park to function efficiently and appropriately. Her lack of support is a tell-tale sign that she is not fit to run one of the Capital N, Capital P icon parks in the United States, a park that should have a rich a thriving, not stymied and struggling, cultural resources program. The role Native Americans play in park administration should be held in high esteem by the superintendent, and instead she treats it as an unnecessary and annoying burden that should be minimized at all costs.
After working with tribes in Yellowstone, I understand that an outcropping or a waterfall or a bear isn’t just an outcropping or a waterfall or a bear. An outcropping could be a place where a guard stood watch every night while the tribe was camped nearby. A waterfall could be the place where someone believes a god sleeps. A bear could be a brother (for the sake of the cliché…). UNESCO defines a cultural landscape as any or any combination of the following: A landscape designed intentionally by humans; one which has been altered purposefully by humans; or one that humans consider culturally important but have not altered, or have altered only minimally and without purpose. The latter is known as a “associative landscape.” In the US, NPS defines a cultural landscape only as something that man has altered and considered significant. Which means cultural resources in Yellowstone are ignored in favor of slaughtering bison. Because that is more in-tune with the enabling legislation of the park, apparently.
It’s especially upsetting to me because, as an anthropologist, I have been able to get a better grasp on how much the US has sh*t on the Native Americans, and how we all like to think that we’re beyond that, and how much that just isn’t true. For example, the Nez Perce has asked for permission, if the US government is going to slaughter the bison anyway, to hunt the bison that wander outside of the park boundary on to public lands (notably USFS, though there may be some BLM land involved, also), as they see the bison not only as economically important, but also socially and cultural significant and stimulating. I’ve seen the photos of their hunts, the way they involve the children, who may not have such experiences otherwise, to join in on horseback; they praying and the revelry they have for the hunt and the death and the sacrifice. It’s serious stuff. But can the US government allow them to do this? Of course not. That would be way too economically viable; how would they spend all that money if not for the pointless slaughter of bison that probably won’t transmit brucellosis to cattle but because NPS/USF must suck up to ranchers ignorant of biology they kill them anyway. I mean, allowing a tribe to cushion some of the cost for their traditional practices, not to mention their contentious treaty rights to do so, would be irresponsible. I bet Suzanne Lewis thought that one up all on her own.
Now that I’ve brought up the Big S.L. (for those who don’t know, she is the superintendent for Yellowstone), I might as well segue into the New York Times’ opinion that calls for her immediate dismissal for her complete mockery of the YELL winter-use proposal. The editorial can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22sat4.html?_r=1. I tend to agree with the statement, though for my own reasons. Yes, she has been instrumental in maintaining an unhealthy (according to ONLY the best scientists Yellowstone has to offer, so really, do they even count?) level of snowmobiles in the winter (though really, I love snowmobiling, I just believe in doing it sustainably). But I also believe that she has been entirely irresponsible in her duties to the association tribes of Yellowstone National Park. She has, on several occasions, refused to meet with and show respect to tribal elders for momentous occasions (for example, the first NAGPRA reburial that took place in the park in October 2006, during which she just “couldn’t make it”), and has also made it extremely difficult and uncomfortable for the cultural resources staff within the park to function efficiently and appropriately. Her lack of support is a tell-tale sign that she is not fit to run one of the Capital N, Capital P icon parks in the United States, a park that should have a rich a thriving, not stymied and struggling, cultural resources program. The role Native Americans play in park administration should be held in high esteem by the superintendent, and instead she treats it as an unnecessary and annoying burden that should be minimized at all costs.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
A recent study of ethnic minority groups within the United States asked people within these groups (anything from Native Americans to blacks to Latinos to any number of Asian minority groups and anything else in between here and there) which group they felt was the most discriminated against and the worst-off of any minority designation. In a sweeping show of support for our indigenous neighbors, every single minority group (in an overall round-up of scores) said that the Native Americans were by far the most “shit on” of American minorities. Except the blacks, who overwhelmingly pointed to themselves as the worst off.
I find that an extremely interesting dynamic.
Several studies (check out BBC) have pointed to indigenous peoples worldwide as being the worst-off groups of people in the world. Reports show that indigenous minorities (or sometimes even majorities) often fare much worse than even the poorest non-indigenous communities in countries. Even the poorest neighborhoods in Cairo cannot compare to the state of life in many Sinai Bedouin villages. Even the most dangerous Arab cities have nothing on the poor Turaeg ghettos that pepper the desert. American gangster grottoes are safe havens compared to many Indian Reservations. Consistently, indigenous peoples have the worst health, the most worthless land, and the lowest wages.
Interestingly, there is a push by several groups of indigenous people, notably Native Alaskans and South Pacific Islanders, to have governments and economists and anthropologists stop judging their quality of like by economic factors, especially wages. Quality of life doesn’t necessarily mean having a full-time job or a large house to many people, and many survive quite well on their own farms and through their own hunting or pastoralist efforts.
There has been a lot of talk about Yellowstone’s winter use plan. The buzz is everywhere, in emails and water cooler chats and on phones and in corners. It seems all of the world is up in arms about the now-adopted 2004 snowmobile plan, allowing up to 720 such vehicles into YELL a day (and something like 78 snowcoaches, which in addition to being more environmentally friendly, are way less fun). The original 720-a-day plan was shot down; YELL superintendent then attempted to call the judge’s bluff, threatening to shut down the entire park for the winter, to which conservation groups said, “go ahead.” So she finally accepted the need and general responsibility (I bet she didn’t think she’s have any of that as superintendent) to develop a new plan, allowing only 318 snowmobiles into the park each day. This was hailed as decent temporary compromise, with the ultimate goal (at least in conservationists’ and Clinton supporters’ minds) as the total elimination of snowmobiles in the park altogether, giving, of course, gateway communities (many of which rely on such winter sports to pay for their rustic log cabins in some of the most expensive real estate around) to adjust to the change in economics. This plan was accepted and was under public comment when, in a surprisingly underhanded move, even for the government, ANOTHER unrelated judge decided to interpret the previous judge’s decision to mean that the temporary plan should be to allow 720 snowmobiles in the park each day until next year or the year after, when we could maybe start to think about thinking about a slow transition. Of course, NPS immediately jumped on this, and BAM. 720 snowmobiles are now allowed in the park each day. Public comment ended approximately 30 seconds after the press release was written, but oh, we’ve been given ample time to make complaints. Score one for YELL superintendent.
However, just as an interesting point of fact. I just checked out the several webcams placed strategically throughout Yellowstone, and guess what? There is no snow! With the Park due to open in December 15, it looks like winter riders will be relegated to the sidelines, waiting for wintery-er skies. Kind of hard to ride snowmobiles on concrete, last time I checked. So with the wonders of global warming, it looks like us conservationists (not saying that I personally supported any of the suggested winter-use plans) won’t have to worry about snowmobiles in the park, after all. Ha! Take that, Wyoming judge!
Talk about irony.
However, just as an interesting point of fact. I just checked out the several webcams placed strategically throughout Yellowstone, and guess what? There is no snow! With the Park due to open in December 15, it looks like winter riders will be relegated to the sidelines, waiting for wintery-er skies. Kind of hard to ride snowmobiles on concrete, last time I checked. So with the wonders of global warming, it looks like us conservationists (not saying that I personally supported any of the suggested winter-use plans) won’t have to worry about snowmobiles in the park, after all. Ha! Take that, Wyoming judge!
Talk about irony.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Assessments!
Traveling for work is tough. I just spent two weeks out and about, the firt focusing on my very first NPCA assessment. It began at Cowpens National Battlefield, where we talked about resource conditions at that park and its co-managed companion, Ninety-Six National Monument (they have the same superintendant, despite the lengthy commute between them). I guess I should briefly describe what I'm actually DOING, since most people within NPCA have no idea, either. I am the cultural resources coordinator for NPCA's Center for State of the Parks. This is a center that focuses on resource conditions within the Park System. This applies to both natural and cultural resources, though I certainly have an expertise in cultural resources and less of one in natural resources, so I focus on the latter. We go into parks and review all their literature on their own resources and then provide a report outlining gaps in research, management and project needs, and recommendations for improvement. We do not produce any original research, more a synthesis of what is already out there. A new way of looking at what has already been done. A master's thesis. A means of collecting information for both advertising for parks and their needs as well as advocacy. A lot of sitting and reading and taking notes, and every once in a while we get to go into the field and be REAL researchers! While I won't (can't) go into detail of what went on in these workshops, I will include pictures of the sites. They were pretty neat, especially in the dynamics between them, though I am totally bummed that I didn't get to go to Ninety-Six. They were all Revolutionary War sites with very different histories, evidence of which you can see when you walk the grounds.
Anyway...
Anyway...
Kings Mountain National Military Park
Ferguson's Grave, Kings Mountain
Georgia Aster, a species of concern
Kings Mountain
US Monument at Cowpens National Battlefield
A moonshot at Kings Mountain
Tim Stone, the superintendant of Cowpens National Battlefield and Ninety Six National Monument
The US Monument at Cowpens National Battlefield
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Just to make it clear, I've been sick ever since I took an Not-100%-Hike up a mini-mountain. I must've caught something on the trip, so I've been pretty scarce. Also, my computer, my trusty Mac, will not turn on....
I did get to vote, and found I have strong opinions regarding unions and casinos. Go figure. But it was he first time I voted in an actual polling place, and it felt like I was taking a standardized test in high school, complete with the cheerfully condescending old people and the bubble sheets. I could have taken it on the computer, but I preferred the old fashioned way. Who needs technology anyway. Though there has been some controversy about Colorado nullifying people's votes due to mix-ups in who was registered where and whatnot. Who knows. These things only seem to come up at election time, even though they've been wrong for years. Funny how that works.
Anyway, I'm finally recovering just in time to hop a plane and do two weeks of travel. Kings Mountain National Military Park for an assessment this week, the weekend with Jonmikel's mother in Georgia, and next week in Harpers Ferry, WV for an all-staff retreat. Then a week here before hopping another plane to Burlington, VT for Thanksgiving. What a month. And what a month to experience with severe sinus pressure and chest congestion...
So I will leave you with a shot of City Park here in Ft. Collins, and some of FitzHugh, as he settles in quite nicely.
I did get to vote, and found I have strong opinions regarding unions and casinos. Go figure. But it was he first time I voted in an actual polling place, and it felt like I was taking a standardized test in high school, complete with the cheerfully condescending old people and the bubble sheets. I could have taken it on the computer, but I preferred the old fashioned way. Who needs technology anyway. Though there has been some controversy about Colorado nullifying people's votes due to mix-ups in who was registered where and whatnot. Who knows. These things only seem to come up at election time, even though they've been wrong for years. Funny how that works.
Anyway, I'm finally recovering just in time to hop a plane and do two weeks of travel. Kings Mountain National Military Park for an assessment this week, the weekend with Jonmikel's mother in Georgia, and next week in Harpers Ferry, WV for an all-staff retreat. Then a week here before hopping another plane to Burlington, VT for Thanksgiving. What a month. And what a month to experience with severe sinus pressure and chest congestion...
So I will leave you with a shot of City Park here in Ft. Collins, and some of FitzHugh, as he settles in quite nicely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
