Terrible to lose men this way:
SAN FRANCISCO — Nine people are presumed dead in the crash of a helicopter that was carrying firefighters over the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, officials said Wednesday.
The crash happened Tuesday night just after the helicopter picked up firefighters, who had been battling a blaze north of Junction City, from a clearing in a remote, rugged region of the forest, said Jennifer Rabuck, spokeswoman for the U.S. Forest Service.
Aug 6, 2008
Re: The View From Below
First, let me go on the record as being sympathetic to those who want to save the Berkeley coastal oaks. I love trees and far prefer green landscapes to concrete jungles. I think it would be better if another site is found provided it is both environmentally and fiscally feasible. However, it would not be the end of the world if some of these great trees were cut down. The histrionics of the tree sitters and their supporters seem misplaced for reasons I will chronicle along the way. So, from my admittedly right wing, knuckle dragging, reactionary, deep south view:
1) The Burial Grounds: I'm loath to use Wikipedia as a source owing to their renown unreliability, but from their own report was this tidbit:
Kent Lightfoot, a curator at the University's Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology, said that there was no clear ethnic identification of the skeletons, nor evidence that they were part of a larger burial grounds and not simply isolated skeletons. Lightfoot went on to say that the only known artifact recovered near the skeletons was an Mexican coin from the second quarter of the 19th century.
Moreover, I don't find much credibility with this dude. Reminds me too much of this dude.
2) The WWI Site: I seriously doubt those cats in the trees have the dead of WWI on their minds while they're perching up there with their University provided protein bars and bags of poop. I'm thinking reason number 6 would be more to their ideological liking.
However, I am happy to see that Cal-Berkeley honored their WWI dead. Nearby Clemson University, with it's military tradition, did likewise with the "Valley". Though, I doubt that type of reverence for the American fighting man could be found in Berkeley now.
3) The Law: Interesting that a State University would enter into such an agreement with local government. Now they're obviously trapped in the uncomfortable position of trying to wiggle out of it. Personally, I hope they compromise and save the trees, but, as Reid said, C-B is the largest land owner in Berkeley. A pretty strong hand.
4) Shake, rattle and roll: Well, I'm no seis...seism....uh, er...earthquake studier, but I can't see how building the athletic complex down the street is going to make any difference. The whole frickin' state is on a fault line. If a quake occurs that has the destructive power to destroy the stadium where it is now, then probably no place in Berkeley will be safe. Perhaps a site in Nevada might do.
5) The lawsuits: City of Berkeley-check. After all, the impetus behind this whole thing is that pesky don't cut down the trees agreement- in which it seems the city has 'em by the short ones.
The California Oaks Foundation-check. I didn't even bother looking these guys up. Their name alone explains their interest.
The Panoramic Hill Association-I guess the residents of this exclusive neighborhood don't want their gorgeous view further spoiled by a bunch of football hooligans. Here is a comment I found from a PHA resident on the Homeowner's website.
Despite the sometimes oppressive presence (bold-mine) of Memorial Stadium at its base, the hill maintains a remote, unspoiled quality which enhances the presence of its numerous historic dwellings -
I suspect there are many other firmly held beliefs that encouraged the PHA to hop aboard the litigation train. If I lived there I'd probably take that haughty attitude myself.
Save Tightwad Hill-Now I can identify with pin headed college football fans, but you have to wonder what credence a bunch of guys too cheap to shell out the clams for a ticket to the games can lend to the save the trees cause. However, they seem to have saved their vantage point for the time being. Go Bears!
6)The Warming argument: Herein lies the place I diverge from the pack; stray from the fold and take tongue firmly out of cheek. Global warming/climate change does present challenges, but I do not agree that it is "the biggest problem we face today". I am more inclined to see growing, unaccountable, freedom squashing, socialists government, metastasizing, freedom robbing global Islamofacsism and blind allegiance to freedom stealing multiculturalism as far more dire problems for America (and the planet) than a debatable marginal increase in global temperatures. Of course, therein lies the problem. Many of those posing the "climate crisis" are unwilling to debate the issues that may or may not be causing the said problem, and are quick to label dissenters as "deniers". Despite the fact that thousands of scientists have jumped off the "crisis" bandwagon, and regardless of reports that global temps have actually cooled in the last ten years, the mainstream media continues to push crisis mongering with its blame America/Americans/humans first shtick. I think the approach taken by many in government and media underestimates the innovative, creative spirit of American ingenuity to adapt and prosper in a changing environment; but then, perhaps that is exactly their intention given their political proclivities. Get environmentalists and government out of the way and watch what happens. America, with all her myriad problems, is a problem solving country; and, when unencumbered by knee-jerk over regulation, is the greatest purveyor of freedom and, dare I say it, progress the world has ever seen. I sure as hell ain't waiting around on the rest of the world to do anything but punish achievement when it comes to climate solutions.
As far as the trees at Berkeley are concerned, cutting them down would definitely alter the view and violate local sensibilities, and, on the surface, looks like a dumb idea; but, in reality would have little effect on global climate or real quality of life there. After all, residents of the area have co-existed with the stadium since 1923. I think institutions like this (and hundreds if not thousands of others) are where the answers are to be found regarding our (humankind's) use and protection of the environment, and not in a quasi-religion being promulgated by many in the environmental movement. I'm all for conservation and intelligent energy uses, but I'm not willing to worship at the altar of the "isms" mentioned above.
So, in closing, Berkeley: get those idiots out of the trees and focused on REAL planetary problems, find some other place for your football team so as to save those awesome trees, and you Tightwad Hill guys keep cheering on the Bears and maybe you'll see these guys come January.
1) The Burial Grounds: I'm loath to use Wikipedia as a source owing to their renown unreliability, but from their own report was this tidbit:
Kent Lightfoot, a curator at the University's Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology, said that there was no clear ethnic identification of the skeletons, nor evidence that they were part of a larger burial grounds and not simply isolated skeletons. Lightfoot went on to say that the only known artifact recovered near the skeletons was an Mexican coin from the second quarter of the 19th century.
Moreover, I don't find much credibility with this dude. Reminds me too much of this dude.
2) The WWI Site: I seriously doubt those cats in the trees have the dead of WWI on their minds while they're perching up there with their University provided protein bars and bags of poop. I'm thinking reason number 6 would be more to their ideological liking.
However, I am happy to see that Cal-Berkeley honored their WWI dead. Nearby Clemson University, with it's military tradition, did likewise with the "Valley". Though, I doubt that type of reverence for the American fighting man could be found in Berkeley now.
3) The Law: Interesting that a State University would enter into such an agreement with local government. Now they're obviously trapped in the uncomfortable position of trying to wiggle out of it. Personally, I hope they compromise and save the trees, but, as Reid said, C-B is the largest land owner in Berkeley. A pretty strong hand.
4) Shake, rattle and roll: Well, I'm no seis...seism....uh, er...earthquake studier, but I can't see how building the athletic complex down the street is going to make any difference. The whole frickin' state is on a fault line. If a quake occurs that has the destructive power to destroy the stadium where it is now, then probably no place in Berkeley will be safe. Perhaps a site in Nevada might do.
5) The lawsuits: City of Berkeley-check. After all, the impetus behind this whole thing is that pesky don't cut down the trees agreement- in which it seems the city has 'em by the short ones.
The California Oaks Foundation-check. I didn't even bother looking these guys up. Their name alone explains their interest.
The Panoramic Hill Association-I guess the residents of this exclusive neighborhood don't want their gorgeous view further spoiled by a bunch of football hooligans. Here is a comment I found from a PHA resident on the Homeowner's website.
Despite the sometimes oppressive presence (bold-mine) of Memorial Stadium at its base, the hill maintains a remote, unspoiled quality which enhances the presence of its numerous historic dwellings -
I suspect there are many other firmly held beliefs that encouraged the PHA to hop aboard the litigation train. If I lived there I'd probably take that haughty attitude myself.
Save Tightwad Hill-Now I can identify with pin headed college football fans, but you have to wonder what credence a bunch of guys too cheap to shell out the clams for a ticket to the games can lend to the save the trees cause. However, they seem to have saved their vantage point for the time being. Go Bears!
6)The Warming argument: Herein lies the place I diverge from the pack; stray from the fold and take tongue firmly out of cheek. Global warming/climate change does present challenges, but I do not agree that it is "the biggest problem we face today". I am more inclined to see growing, unaccountable, freedom squashing, socialists government, metastasizing, freedom robbing global Islamofacsism and blind allegiance to freedom stealing multiculturalism as far more dire problems for America (and the planet) than a debatable marginal increase in global temperatures. Of course, therein lies the problem. Many of those posing the "climate crisis" are unwilling to debate the issues that may or may not be causing the said problem, and are quick to label dissenters as "deniers". Despite the fact that thousands of scientists have jumped off the "crisis" bandwagon, and regardless of reports that global temps have actually cooled in the last ten years, the mainstream media continues to push crisis mongering with its blame America/Americans/humans first shtick. I think the approach taken by many in government and media underestimates the innovative, creative spirit of American ingenuity to adapt and prosper in a changing environment; but then, perhaps that is exactly their intention given their political proclivities. Get environmentalists and government out of the way and watch what happens. America, with all her myriad problems, is a problem solving country; and, when unencumbered by knee-jerk over regulation, is the greatest purveyor of freedom and, dare I say it, progress the world has ever seen. I sure as hell ain't waiting around on the rest of the world to do anything but punish achievement when it comes to climate solutions.
As far as the trees at Berkeley are concerned, cutting them down would definitely alter the view and violate local sensibilities, and, on the surface, looks like a dumb idea; but, in reality would have little effect on global climate or real quality of life there. After all, residents of the area have co-existed with the stadium since 1923. I think institutions like this (and hundreds if not thousands of others) are where the answers are to be found regarding our (humankind's) use and protection of the environment, and not in a quasi-religion being promulgated by many in the environmental movement. I'm all for conservation and intelligent energy uses, but I'm not willing to worship at the altar of the "isms" mentioned above.
So, in closing, Berkeley: get those idiots out of the trees and focused on REAL planetary problems, find some other place for your football team so as to save those awesome trees, and you Tightwad Hill guys keep cheering on the Bears and maybe you'll see these guys come January.
Aug 4, 2008
The long awaited Larry King interview with Steve Spurrier
Larry King: Monday we'll have the two Barbara's, Feldon and Eden, both looking good and offering up sex tips for septuagenarians. You won't want to miss it.
Tonight we welcome former Heisman winner and national championship head coach at the University of Florida- and current University of South Carolina top banana, the legendary "old ball coach", Steve Spurrier. Welcome coach.
Steve Spurrier: Good to be here Larry
LK: Coach, it has to be tough for a guy like you with all the success you had at UF to have an experience like the Redskins and now North Carolina.
SS: That's South Carolina, Larry. And yeah, it's tough to fail at the pro level and then show up to a place like this with no athletic tradition, really low expectations and a stadium in the warehouse district.
LK: Did you ever consider retiring...its rumoured that you got a pretty sweet deal when you signed on at SC...Augusta National membership and all.
SS: Somebody is full of crap if they think I got a deal like that here in South Carolina. Heck, they still got that flag...which ought to tell you something about this place. Anyway I think I burned my Augusta National membership bridge when I whizzed in the woods off 14.
LK: Wednesday the whole hour with the "Hoff" himself, David Hasselhoff.
So how's the team shaping up this year coach?
SS: Oh, I think we can be pretty good if I can keep 'em from hanging out in 5 Points, getting drunk, fighting and keying cars and the like. But, you know, all teams go through this, they have the same kinda thing up at Clemson; only they get away with it.
LK: Can North Carolina compete in the always tough SEC?
SS: That's South Carolina damn it! And I think we can compete even though we play in the toughest conference in America. We had some good wins last year; we beat Georgia in Athens, Clemson hasn't done that much
LK: We've got a caller from Easley, South Carolina. Go ahead caller you're on with Steve Spurrier.
Caller: Steve, did you really tell that Paulk kid that you'd never lose to Clemson again?
SS: Like I said after that game, Rodney Paulk is full of crap if he said I said that. And then that Clemson fan put up that damn billboard. I think that was a little over the top.
LK: Thursday we'll have Martha Stewart and Joan Rivers...don't miss that one!
Coach, you seem a little obsessed with Clemson...
SS: Well, if we played their schedule we'd be playing in January every year...
LK: Anything to this "chicken curse"?
SS: Yeah, there might be.
LK: We'll have a special Larry King Live this Sunday with Alec Baldwin, Ted Turner, Suzanne Summers...
Tonight we welcome former Heisman winner and national championship head coach at the University of Florida- and current University of South Carolina top banana, the legendary "old ball coach", Steve Spurrier. Welcome coach.
Steve Spurrier: Good to be here Larry
LK: Coach, it has to be tough for a guy like you with all the success you had at UF to have an experience like the Redskins and now North Carolina.
SS: That's South Carolina, Larry. And yeah, it's tough to fail at the pro level and then show up to a place like this with no athletic tradition, really low expectations and a stadium in the warehouse district.
LK: Did you ever consider retiring...its rumoured that you got a pretty sweet deal when you signed on at SC...Augusta National membership and all.
SS: Somebody is full of crap if they think I got a deal like that here in South Carolina. Heck, they still got that flag...which ought to tell you something about this place. Anyway I think I burned my Augusta National membership bridge when I whizzed in the woods off 14.
LK: Wednesday the whole hour with the "Hoff" himself, David Hasselhoff.
So how's the team shaping up this year coach?
SS: Oh, I think we can be pretty good if I can keep 'em from hanging out in 5 Points, getting drunk, fighting and keying cars and the like. But, you know, all teams go through this, they have the same kinda thing up at Clemson; only they get away with it.
LK: Can North Carolina compete in the always tough SEC?
SS: That's South Carolina damn it! And I think we can compete even though we play in the toughest conference in America. We had some good wins last year; we beat Georgia in Athens, Clemson hasn't done that much
LK: We've got a caller from Easley, South Carolina. Go ahead caller you're on with Steve Spurrier.
Caller: Steve, did you really tell that Paulk kid that you'd never lose to Clemson again?
SS: Like I said after that game, Rodney Paulk is full of crap if he said I said that. And then that Clemson fan put up that damn billboard. I think that was a little over the top.
LK: Thursday we'll have Martha Stewart and Joan Rivers...don't miss that one!
Coach, you seem a little obsessed with Clemson...
SS: Well, if we played their schedule we'd be playing in January every year...
LK: Anything to this "chicken curse"?
SS: Yeah, there might be.
LK: We'll have a special Larry King Live this Sunday with Alec Baldwin, Ted Turner, Suzanne Summers...
The view from below
Look up. Do you see them? Look in the trees. Yes, up there in the tall oaks and redwoods of Berkley, California. That's correct, right smack dab on campus. They are camping in the trees. Have been for over 18 months. Why the h-e double hockey-sticks would you camp in a tree for 18 months, you ask? To save those trees, that's why. From what, you ask. From the dreadful, inhumane scum-of-the-earth bastards with chainsaws, that's who! Why would these dudes want to cut down these old-growth trees? Progress? Well, sort of. Allow me to explain.
UC-Berkeley's Memorial Stadium sits astride the Hayward fault and city code enforcers have a problem with this. The school wants to build a new stadium to replace the one on the faultline and the new one would occupy the space now occupied by the coastal oaks with hippies growing in them. Simple enough, right? Read on.
SEVEN REASONS WHY THE OAK GROVE SHOULD NOT BE DESTROYED
1. It is a Native American burial ground. Native American remains were found at the site in 1923 when the stadium was being built. UC Berkley tried to hide this from the public but documentation was leaked by a conscious UCB employee.
2. It is a World War I Memorial site. The stadium and the Oak Grove are named in honor of Californians who died in World War I.
3. Berkeley City Law prohibits removing mature Coast Live Oaks. Coast Live Oaks are Protected Heritage Trees in the City of Berkeley. If UCB, the largest landowner in Berkeley, doesn't have to follow city ordinances, why should anyone else have to?
4. The new proposed development is adjacent to the (recently active) Hayward Fault. Since the tree-sit started on Dec. 2 there have been seven earthquakes (ranging from 2.0-4.2 on the Richter scale) on the Hayward fault which runs directly under Memorial Stadium.
5. There are four lawsuits against UC Berkeley. A diverse group of institutions and organizations; the City of Berkeley, California Oaks Foundation, Panoramic Hill Association and Save Tightwad Hill are challenging the proposed development as being in violation of various regulations including CEQA (California Envoironmental Quality Air Act), the Alquist-Priolo Act (earthquake fault proximity), and laws regarding emergency access and response requirements.
6. Global Warming is the biggest problem we face today. Cutting down old Oak (and other trees accellerates warming and climate change. Replacing these trees with saplings does not come close to replacing the bio-mass lost.
7. There are other viable alternative sites for the facility. The athletic training facility can be built at Maxwell Field, with the playing surface maintained above. The parking lot at Bancroft/Fulton is another option. A third option is the building at 2223 Fulton St., which is in need of demolition. A further option is expansion at the Edwards Field site. These are only some of the many alternatives to building at Oak Grove.
City Councilman Laurie Capitelli said he was relieved to see the case moving forward, but was concerned about the plight of the tree-sitters, whose food and water were cut off last week when university arborists dismantled all but one of their platforms.
"We've got a volatile situation in the trees right now," Capitelli said. "One way or another, we've got to get them out of there safely. My hope, at this point, is that the judge moves quickly to issue a definitive decision so we can resolve this." Seven protesters remain in the trees, sharing a single platform about 40 feet up a redwood tree. Campus Police Chief Victoria Harrison spent about 45 minutes Thursday talking to the tree-sitters about their food and water supplies and waste disposal. The tree-sitters refused to turn over their waste, which has been accumulating since last week, but did accept bottled water and energy bars on Friday, Mogulof said. "When the injunction is lifted and the legal coast is clear, at that point we will have reached the end of the judicial process," he said. "We hope and expect that anyone left in the trees will, at that point, abide by any and all court rulings." The tree-sitters have said they'll refuse to come down until the grove is protected from development. About 44 trees are slated for removal to build the athletic center, but the university has said it would plant about 130 trees in their place. In a separate project, UC next wants to retrofit Memorial Stadium, which also is likely to provoke a legal battle with neighbors and the city. Most of the plaintiffs want the landmark stadium razed and a new stadium built elsewhere.
The university would like to preserve the stadium, which was named by Sports Illustrated as the best place in the United States to watch a college football game and is on the National Register of Historic Places.
The $125 million sports complex will replace the seismically shaky (and already-cracked) Memorial Stadium, and it will also allow the cash-strapped university to bring in big name recruits, football and otherwise, which can translate into millions a year in revenue. Last year Cal was ranked #12 in the nation going into the college football season, something that will bring the university millions in television revenue alone.
Would you cut them down for that kind of money?
UC-Berkeley's Memorial Stadium sits astride the Hayward fault and city code enforcers have a problem with this. The school wants to build a new stadium to replace the one on the faultline and the new one would occupy the space now occupied by the coastal oaks with hippies growing in them. Simple enough, right? Read on.
SEVEN REASONS WHY THE OAK GROVE SHOULD NOT BE DESTROYED
1. It is a Native American burial ground. Native American remains were found at the site in 1923 when the stadium was being built. UC Berkley tried to hide this from the public but documentation was leaked by a conscious UCB employee.
2. It is a World War I Memorial site. The stadium and the Oak Grove are named in honor of Californians who died in World War I.
3. Berkeley City Law prohibits removing mature Coast Live Oaks. Coast Live Oaks are Protected Heritage Trees in the City of Berkeley. If UCB, the largest landowner in Berkeley, doesn't have to follow city ordinances, why should anyone else have to?
4. The new proposed development is adjacent to the (recently active) Hayward Fault. Since the tree-sit started on Dec. 2 there have been seven earthquakes (ranging from 2.0-4.2 on the Richter scale) on the Hayward fault which runs directly under Memorial Stadium.
5. There are four lawsuits against UC Berkeley. A diverse group of institutions and organizations; the City of Berkeley, California Oaks Foundation, Panoramic Hill Association and Save Tightwad Hill are challenging the proposed development as being in violation of various regulations including CEQA (California Envoironmental Quality Air Act), the Alquist-Priolo Act (earthquake fault proximity), and laws regarding emergency access and response requirements.
6. Global Warming is the biggest problem we face today. Cutting down old Oak (and other trees accellerates warming and climate change. Replacing these trees with saplings does not come close to replacing the bio-mass lost.
7. There are other viable alternative sites for the facility. The athletic training facility can be built at Maxwell Field, with the playing surface maintained above. The parking lot at Bancroft/Fulton is another option. A third option is the building at 2223 Fulton St., which is in need of demolition. A further option is expansion at the Edwards Field site. These are only some of the many alternatives to building at Oak Grove.
City Councilman Laurie Capitelli said he was relieved to see the case moving forward, but was concerned about the plight of the tree-sitters, whose food and water were cut off last week when university arborists dismantled all but one of their platforms.
"We've got a volatile situation in the trees right now," Capitelli said. "One way or another, we've got to get them out of there safely. My hope, at this point, is that the judge moves quickly to issue a definitive decision so we can resolve this." Seven protesters remain in the trees, sharing a single platform about 40 feet up a redwood tree. Campus Police Chief Victoria Harrison spent about 45 minutes Thursday talking to the tree-sitters about their food and water supplies and waste disposal. The tree-sitters refused to turn over their waste, which has been accumulating since last week, but did accept bottled water and energy bars on Friday, Mogulof said. "When the injunction is lifted and the legal coast is clear, at that point we will have reached the end of the judicial process," he said. "We hope and expect that anyone left in the trees will, at that point, abide by any and all court rulings." The tree-sitters have said they'll refuse to come down until the grove is protected from development. About 44 trees are slated for removal to build the athletic center, but the university has said it would plant about 130 trees in their place. In a separate project, UC next wants to retrofit Memorial Stadium, which also is likely to provoke a legal battle with neighbors and the city. Most of the plaintiffs want the landmark stadium razed and a new stadium built elsewhere.
The university would like to preserve the stadium, which was named by Sports Illustrated as the best place in the United States to watch a college football game and is on the National Register of Historic Places.
The $125 million sports complex will replace the seismically shaky (and already-cracked) Memorial Stadium, and it will also allow the cash-strapped university to bring in big name recruits, football and otherwise, which can translate into millions a year in revenue. Last year Cal was ranked #12 in the nation going into the college football season, something that will bring the university millions in television revenue alone.
Would you cut them down for that kind of money?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)