sins of commission

 

 
 
about the film sins of commission

Posts Tagged ‘environmental protection’

The Edge of Reality

Saturday, March 21st, 2009

THE EDGE BUYS LAND IN MALIBU

When I first read “The Edge of Destruction” by CRAIG STEPHENS in LA WEEKLY, the first thing that hit me was the provocative headline.  Mr. Stephens knows how to sell a story. He knows if the headline read: Malibu Welcomes The Edge or The Edge Brings Much Needed Jobs To Community or The Edge Contributes Handsomely To Property Taxes In Malibu - no one would notice.

But Mr. Stephen’s headline identifies a huge problem in Coastal California and the rest of America. One that I call DA-IS-NA-ID. Do As I Say, Not As I Do.

The other thing I noticed is that the people complaining already live there, and obviously built something themselves or moved into a house someone else built.

I wonder if they were subject to the same kind of scrutiny and contempt they so freely demonstrate for The Edge. Their home affected the environment too. So what is the underlying issue? An Archery Range?

Had a lot of fun at Malibu Mountain Archery Range. Put a bunch of holes in the paper targets. Liked to see all the Boy Scouts out there camping on a weekend. All the kids learning how to use a bow and arrow, cook, camp out and hike. Glad someone is exposing the no good x&%!@ that would throw out a charity

There is plenty of land already preserved in the State of California. Out of California’s 99,882.700 Acres 42,288,380 is already owned by the state or the feds for a total of 42. 36% 

That’s a lot of acres of public land available for archery, not to mention the Archery club could potentially find a better spot somewhere else in the huge, already well preserved, Santa Monica Mountains. (Source: www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf).  What is the real issue with The Edge’s new home? What It really boils down to is old-fashioned American prejudice.

 DA-IS-NA-ID

I read down the list of comments. One after another, people just grumble, spout and spew, but one thing is for certain…they are pissed! So pissed,  they threaten not to buy the latest U2 album. 

Reminds me of frothing folk who burned their John Lennon records way back when for saying ” the Beatles were bigger than Jesus.”  The times, they have have sure changed.

People now refuse to buy a record because someone wants to build home in their neighborhood.

This has nothing to do with whether these projects/Obama are good or bad, it has to do with U2’s hypocrisy. So am I stunned to find out that they don’t live up to the same environmental standards that they demand from the little guy? Nope! We are supposed walk to work; they ride in private his and her jets

How did Obama get into this? Is he moving in too? Please tell me which U2 record is calling people e to walk to work? Also please tell me whose environmental standards are we supposed to live up to? Yours? 

Are we all now socialist workers of the world?

Have we hung up our American individuality to don identical black burkas and lock step to work? Are we now supposed to look over our shoulders or peer out from behind dark curtains to see what the other is doing, rather than pay attention to ourselves? 

In the 1950’s we had a RED SCARE in this country. Many of you probably remember Senator Joe McCarthy. Many people were accused of being UN-AMERICAN and black listed.

The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) investigated communist organizations. The HUAC came into being because they wanted to prove that a lot of actors and writers were communists.

Is this where we are going? Are we witnessing the beginning of a GREEN SCARE?  Someone not living like us, doing something different from us?  

A few folks raised the issue why that land wasn’t purchased by others - or even the conservancy? Good question.

I am sorely confused. Was land purchased by David Evans, or not? If he has the money to buy a swath, why shouldn’t he? He worked hard; he earned it. If he wants to build a house for every member of his family, why can’t he? 

Other people even had the gall to mention the biggest bugaboo of all …property rights. Two words that are as evil as a rapist, baby killer, or mass- murderer judging by one fellow’s comments:

Have property rights? Yes, and within the law you can be be immoral, teach your kids to be racists and never deal with ethics or fairness. You may be as greedy and uncaring as the law allows. You may do what you want with your property and never consider your neighbors, your community, your city or the planet. Under the law in other countries you can torture and kill your wife.

Whew…I guess in his world, wife killing and property rights go hand in hand. But this fellow did say the magic words “Under the law in other countries…” Let’s read them again, shall we, Under the law in other countries…

What the respondent seems to have forgotten is that we are in AMERICA, and under American law, The Edge has constitutional rights - just like him, or any of the other folk who wrote in. But why talk about the constitution, say you, that’s a right-wing issue, isn’t it?  Says who - and since when?

Constitutional rights and Environmental protection are not mutually exclusive of each other. Both need great care and our due diligence to insure we have freedom and an healthy environment for future generations. So what is the solution?

Here is a novel concept: Why not welcome The Edge into the community and thank him for the bread he will be putting on the tables of the many who will be employed building whatever he builds.

The Scarlet Letter, written by Nathaniel Hawthorne, set in 17th-century Puritan Boston, and tells the story of Hester Prynne, who gives birth after committing adultery, and struggles to create a new life of repentance and dignity.

Most Puritans were a strict, unfeeling, and unforgiving lot. Hester was scorned by women who felt  she deserved a larger punishment than she actually received.

Instead of only being made to stand on the scaffold and wear the scarlet letter on her chest, they suggest that she have it branded on her forehead or even be put to death.

 

It is to the credit of human nature, that, except where its selfishness is brought into play, it loves more readily than it hates.  Hatred, by a gradual and quiet process, will even be transformed to love, unless the change be impeded by a continually new irritation of the original feeling of hostility.  ~Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter, Chapter XIII

Shall we do the same to The Edge?

California “Natural” Resources Agency - Something Smells Fishy

Saturday, February 7th, 2009

Name Change Won’t Alter Resources Agency’s Dark Mission

Big Kudos to Dan Bacher at TRUTHOUT. Dan is a local activist and an editor of The Fish Sniffer, “The No. 1 newspaper in the world dedicated entirely to fishermen.)

As all things environment move centerstage, more corporations and agencies like the California Coastal Commission are going to greenwash and drape themselves in a cloak of green to enable them to commit sins of commission under the guise of sound environmental protection.

The CCC has been doing this for years.

On January 1 The Resources Agency adopted a new name, the California “Natural” Resources Agency, to give the agency a more “green” veneer. 

(Source: Truthout)

Unfortunately, nothing has changed at the agency. A press release from the agency in late December claimed that the name change was adopted to “better reflect its mission.”

“Since 1961, the Resources Agency has been responsible for the safeguarding and stewardship of California’s precious natural resources,” according to the release. “From water and wildlife management and conservation to wildland fire protection, energy, ocean and coastal policy, land stewardship, climate change adaptation, sustainable living, and the promotion of outdoor recreation, the agency oversees most all of the state’s functions designed to protect California’s natural resources.”

In July, Gov. Arnold “Fish Terminator” Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 1464 (Maldonado) authorizing the Resources Agency to change its name. “The new Agency logo will remain largely the same and the change will be phased in gradually as new supplies are ordered,” the release stated. “In this way there will be little or no cost to the Agency or any of its departments, boards or commissions (The California Coastal Commission is one of them) save for any replacement costs that would normally be incurred.”

California’s Natural Resources Agency is responsible for the state’s natural resource policies, programs and activities. It has 17,000 employees and oversees 25 departments, commissions, boards and conservancies, including the Department of Fish and Game, Department of Water Resources, CALFED Bay-Delta Program, California Conservation Corps, Department of Boating and Waterways, Department of Conservation, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and Department of Parks and Recreation.

(Note: Curious that the article did not mention the CCC in the line up)

However, wouldn’t it be more appropriate for the Resources Agency to adopt a name that truly reflects its REAL primary mission? Based on years covering California fisheries, this mission appears to be engineering the collapse of Central Valley salmon fisheries, driving the California Delta’s pelagic fish populations to the edge of extinction, building a peripheral canal, constructing more dams, slashing funds for salmon and steelhead restoration, and instituting massive closures of public trust fisheries throughout the state’s ocean waters.

Considering all of this, wouldn’t “the Natural Destruction Agency” be a more appropriate name for the agency?

Other potential names for the agency could be

“Bureau of Corporate Greenwashing,”

“Raping of Natural Resources Agency,”

“No More Natural Resources Agency,”

“The Fish Termination Agency,” or the “Water Exports Agency.”

Readers of Dan’s articles have also suggested the “Final Legislative Usurpation of Significant Habitats, FLUSH,” and “The Death Star” as more appropriate names for this agency with such a legacy of environmental destruction behind it.

While the name of the agency has changed, pelagic (open water) fish populations of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta continue to collapse. There is nothing “natural” about this unprecedented and catastrophic species decline.

The delta smelt population has declined to its lowest level ever, according to the latest data from the DFG’s fall midwater trawl survey. The DFG studies the health of these populations by compiling an “index” - a relative measure of abundance. The index declined to 23 in fall 2008, down from the previous low level of 28 in fall 2009.

These fish populations have declined to unprecedented low population levels because of the deplorable water and fishery management policies of the California “Natural” Resources Agency under the Schwarzenegger administration, combined with extremely bad management by the federal government.

In 1976, the California Legislature enacted the California Coastal Act that established a far-reaching coastal protection program and made permanent the California Coastal Commission.  ( Source: California Natural Resources Agency.

The commission is supposed to plan and regulate development and natural resource use along the coast in partnership with local governments and in keeping with the requirements of the Coastal Act. SINS OF COMMISSION reveals the commission’s unsung other mission is to destroy chapparral, sell environmental degredation, obliterate constitutional rights, and cook the books on pollution standards. 

The crisis in Delta fisheries, or in the abundant chaparral that surrounds major California cities will not be solved by changing the agency’s name..but by cleaning house.

 

Something smell fishy to you too?  Help us get the word out.  Hit the Donate Now button on the right.

Why California Burns - One possible explanation

Monday, December 1st, 2008

The existing regulations do not meet the current requirements of the City’s Fire Chief, particularly with respect to brush management.

-San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders

Strong environmental protection policy is essential for our survival here on Earth.  Whether people can or can’t trim or cut brush in order to save their lives, should not be a debate.

Fires are getting more expensive to fight due to rising costs of fighting bigger fires and drier conditions. (CNN)

Has anybody asked themselves, “What if fires were getting more intense because there was a greater supply of fuel than ever before?”  Firestorms have intensified over the last 15 years according to Urban Wild Land Fire guru and former Los Angeles County (LACoFD) chief Scott Franklin.  ”Its curious to note”, says former  chief Scott Franklin, “that the intensification of fire storms coincides with stronger environmental protection…” He is referring to the large continuous swaths of fuel beds to be specific.

What if a simple revisit to the way we protect and manage brush decreased the fuel source that drives the fires? Think it might save precious resources environmental, human, and financial?

A clear public safety hazard is present for existing structures adjacent to undeveloped areas of native and naturalized vegetation.

-San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders

What if it were possible to trim the protected brush in a way that decreases the head of the brush - the part that’s is similar to a match. I’m no rocket scientist but if you decrease the head of the match, the flame length is shorter, thus the Santa Ana winds wouldn’t be whipping up 50′ to 100′ flames….they’d be blowing over flames 10′ or less but the good news for everyone is that the chaparral rejuvenates and potential damage to lives and homes is decrease. 

Problem is there needs to be cooperation on all sides.

Why not start there?



 
 
Subscribe for Updates
First name
E-mail
 
facebook international documentary association imdb youtube