Friday, March 21, 2014
HOW SILLY CAN THE TREE-HUGGERS GET IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ANYWAY?
The State's intention to remove 300 trees for the sake of Highway camera observance and safety, is the right thing to do regardless of the dorky Tree-huggers and the rest of them.
The saying rings true; "you can grow grass on a busy street" in the West Coast of Washington. In fact, a street can be abandoned just a short period of time, when you see it crack and come apart with weeds and miniature tree growth already taking their place in no time at all.
Since those trees to be removed are spread over a distance of 14 Freeway miles, it only comes to 250 ft. per tree. In most places you will see probably 3 to 4 thousand trees near the highway in each mile.
Of course, when you're dealing with folks as mentally disturbed as a tree-hugger, you must realize there's nobody home to start with when it comes to using common sense.
If it's that important to their pot-smoking, blurry eyes to see trees, all they really need to do is get off their naturally fertilized butts and plant 300 trees where they're not going to get in the way of the highway cameras.
Since when was there ever a shortage of trees in Western Washington anyway? I'm sure the "Spotted owl" doesn't give a darn,
In case someone forgot to inform them, trees are considered a renewable resource anyway.
How smart are we, to let the stupid pot smokers left over from the Woodstock era take irresponsible charge of responsible positions in our EPA the way we have? Beats me!! Just sayin"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWill wonders never cease? We may actually agree on the main point of your argument. In fact let me give you a little more fuel for your fire, so to speak: The WSDOT tree removal project has, from the start, included the replacement of all 500 of those tress to be removed. Thus, those pot-smoking, blurry-eyed, tree hugging environmentalists don't have to get up off their "naturally fertilized butts" for anything except raiding the 'fridge when they get the munchies from all that, now legal, pot they're smoking.
ReplyDeleteYour point that trees are a renewable resource is well taken. As a matter of fact trees are, as the timber industry will attest, a valuable cash crop and critically important to the economic vitality of Washington state. There are legitimate reasons to exercise reasonable forest management policies both from a business sustainability perspective and an environmental point of view. These are not always mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact I would argue that business sustainability and environmentalism have more in common than most people, on both sides, realize. That said, we are not talking about clear cutting old-growth forest here. WSDOT is doing their job and taking the environmental impact far more seriously than those (relatively few) who oppose what they refer to as "tree killing" seem to want to acknowledge.
I have to say that your defense of "our EPA" is a bit surprising. Regardless of how you view the EPA overall though, you'll be pleased to know that there is no opposition to this particular project from the federal or state EPA. The opposition is mostly, if not entirely, private citizens kicking up a stink about something they don't fully understand. There is no exclusivity to that boat, is there? We all, from time to time, go off on a tangential rant before we have all the facts.
The other thing that, I must say, surprises me greatly is that you seem to be in favour of more government surveillance. I would have thought you would want less ability for "big brother" to spy on average citizens not more. I'm sure you've seen news stories where these traffic cameras are used to locate or identify people fleeing from justice, "Amber Alerts" and other things, too. What else could a Governor or a President, regardless of who it is, and the DOJ (not to mention CIA and NSA) do with such a vast network of surveillance equipment? Just askin'
More than anything, Jim, my focus was meant to be mainly on the absurdity of that particular situation. As far as the EPA is concerned, they have pretty well set me in a position of resentment due to their abuse of power for the sake of feeling powerful rather than using common sense. Do you ever recall an instance where the thought of 'compromise' to their way of thinking could really and truly be considered? I've actually quit looking for one and have settled down to the fact I never will.
DeleteIn reply to my defense of the EPA, I wasn't defending them but referring to the EPA because they all part of the same club, but sometime wear different hats! Ultimately their thinking is the same. They all urinate in the same toilet, so to speak. The Gov't surveillance thing I frown on is when they are truly violating our privacy in so many ways that violate our freedom of movement and speech. We elected them to carry out our wishes by a Gov't "Of the People, by the People and for the People". Not for us to carry out theirs.
Delete