Of Monkeys and Polar Bears

What do the monkeys in India and the Alaskan Polar bear have in common? More than you might think. They are both well-loved animals looking for a new place to live.
Recently an Alaskan Polar Bear wondered into a Native Village looking for food. There is no debate that this happened simply because the Bear is quickly losing its habitat--the polar sea ice. It needs to look for food on land now, and obviously the Village dumpsters are a good choice.

The monkeys in India have a similar dilemma. As the Indian economy grows, the human population can afford to build houses in former wilderness habitat. With the sprawl, the monkeys lose their natural home. So the logical course of events has been for them to become city-dwelling monkeys. Living among and harassing their new human neighbors.

Unfortunately for the Alaskan polar bear, he was shot and killed, simply because he came too close. The Indian monkeys are painstakingly relocated, to ever dwindling habitats, only to return to their city families.

It seems to me that people have a hard time understanding these connections. As we continue to cheer our economic development, we keep ignoring its byproducts. Be it the loss of sea ice due to warming or the loss of forests for our animals as we expand our homes. It is simply impossible to sustain suburban lifestyles for every inhabitant on earth. The animals need to go somewhere. Some folks may like a world filled only with shopping malls, but that world is not for me.

How Green is Your Greed??

The USA is built upon the premise that the free-market, capitalistic system is best. Simply put, the idea is the acceptance that humans are greedy little buggers, and are most functional when they are working for their own individual well-being.
Fine, I understand that. Now along comes the "green" revolution. Which to me, as a wilderness junky, is an idea whose time has come. Of course, most folks aren't fundamentally too concerned of the paving of the world--(Old Navy vs. forest, Old Navy wins) But the idea that those pesky storms and droughts are something we have a hand in, has gotten some folks attention.
Yet, this brings about the biggest challenge, which I will call green vs. green. In other words, this nation understands our love of "green money", but how will they replace that with the love for a "greener" environment? Some may immediately argue--but why do these have to be mutually exclusive ideas? Well I'll tell you why: for every hippie bicycling to work, at least five more people are dreaming about their big trucks, big houses and new furniture sets.
The next outcry would be: well we have green building and hybrid automobiles! And I agree, beautiful choices--but how long until the masses buy into that notion? And even if they did, could you feasibly steer them towards real change? As in: owning only one hybrid car or building a smaller green house???
I just don't know how it's possible unless we somehow re-wire ourselves. So many folks experience what I call the "castle syndrome". We can't help but want to live in a big pseudo-castle, full of fine furnishings to prove that we have "made it". Chalk that up to so many of our ancestors envying the castles of our leaders, it's in our blood to want to be king.
Even scarier, is the developing world's economic progress. A great thing for human kind, but how will the "green movement" handle all these new consumers? They too want cars, air conditioning, bedroom sets, countless shoes--it's now their time to be king of the castle.
The only answer is a global societal shift in the definition of "status". Kudos to the celebrities who recognize this, by flaunting their new found passions for green houses & cars--but again, these aren't exactly small houses, and could very well be multiple houses...
Which too brings about the sad but obvious point--when the world's economy is based on us buying more stuff and consuming more oil, will a new system replace it based on sustainability????
Thus the battle rages on: green vs. green, thy swords are drawn.

That's Right--Guns Don't Kill People

Just a few days ago, here in Alaska, a young man went on a random shooting spree in Anchorage. He did take a quick catnap in the woods, but then awoke and proceeded to shoot a few more people. Then today, the news reports another young man in Omaha wasn't too happy with his life, so he thought he could at least become famous by assassinating some Christmas shoppers.
What these two young men had in common were that they were both disturbed & angry individuals. They no longer cared about their own lives, nor the lives of others. So on a whim, decided it was time to simply shoot a few folks down.
I'm sure plenty of nuts out there are screaming how you should "lock them up faster" or "death penalty " yada, yada.....
But my question is, how does the death penalty prevent the next upset & suicidal individual from taking out a few people?? And when it comes to incarceration, treatment centers, etc... who can really make a 100% accurate call as to someone's potential to be dangerous in the future?? Hitler thought he did--why he was simply going to eliminate anyone that even had a whiff of non-conformity to them.
So to make a long story short, unless we are going to set up concentration camps for the eccentric or angry (and then still miss the pissed off teen in some high school in Anytown) wouldn't it be easier to just ban assault weapons??
Let the police have their pistols and the hunters their rifles, but the rest of us---keep 'em away!

Which Kind of Mistake is Worse??

In the past 10 years we've had two United States presidents. Both have become notorious for their presidential mistakes. Each has their own snafu: Clinton the Monica debacle and Bush the Iraq war. Clinton obviously made a mistake in judgement to allow kinky pandering in the Oval office. Bush's mistake involved an overzealous and quick decision to go to war without having all the facts straight.
So as recent history has shown these are admittedly presidential mistakes. However, for Clinton's zippergate, he was served an impeachment trial. Bush is left to his own devices, maybe tortured by his own dream? For the life of me I can't figure out, how Clinton's mistake is worse than Bush's. Why aren't at least ceremonial impeachment hearings be held?? Isn't death, injury, destruction and PTSD a tiny bit worse than the possibility that some sort of presidential spooge hit the carpet???

Keeping Up With the Joneses--Alaskan style

I always love to comment on how many Americans are obsessed with the game of "Keeping Up With the Joneses". Or as it is also know: achieving some sort of perceived status through material gain...
One of the most interesting things about Alaskans is that most of them don't participate in that sort of lifestyle. Sure, new folks move to the state all the time and proceed to hide in color-coded gated communities, or lobby for more shopping malls. Yet outside of Anchorage, the majority of Alaskans still march around in dirty coveralls and drive beat-up pick up trucks. What makes it interesting, is that Alaskans have money, they just don't care about the status quo. If they did--I have devised a list of how to 'keep up with your Alaskan neighbors'...

1- Collect as many jalopies as possible, then arrange strategically throughout your property.
2- Build the perfect out-house and get it published in any of the outhouse books & calendars.
3- Go shopping in rubber boots- "xtra-tuffs"- it shows that you just may have been fishing.
4- Park a giant RV on your front-lawn, then use it only once a year.
5- Also obtain a large steel, shipping crate. Store yard sale finds within in.
6- Do not side your house--only leave the Tyvek showing, this proves that you are smarter than the tax assessor.
7- Obtain a horse or livestock to take care of the yard. Never be seen pushing a lawn mower.
8- Park the snowmachine in clear view, then everyone will know you are adventurous.
9- Always be seen in dirty work overalls. It shows that you are tougher than any professional.
10-Make sure your pick-up truck has large tires, is covered in mud & has at least one obscene bumper sticker.

Do you really want the right to bleed to death?

Living in Alaska, it is easy to fall into a quasi-libertarian mindset. I really enjoy living sans zoning and regulations. Not that we do anything radical at my place--no major farm animals or jalopies here. But there sure is something nice about knowing I could have them if the mood should strike me.
The sad thing is, I also know about all the pitfalls that come about when no one is watching over you. We live in a home built without building codes, which besides the frozen sewer vent pipe, hasn't posed a safety hazard. My neighbor, on the other hand, accidentally poisoned her family while cooking in a home with a gas stove that has no oven hood (vent)! That wasn't even a home-made cabin, but a decent house built by a 'reputable' Alaskan home builder.
Folks out here don't want to be regulated. For example there is a huge fight for the Borough to leave home property owners alone who want to build near certain river beds. However, these same rivers are currently eroding, so folks on the other end are screaming for the Borough to bail out there homes that are falling into the river!
It's pretty incredible stuff. I also know that the government spends a lot of money cleaning up after people and their "rights"--not to wear helmets, seat belts or the right to enjoy tons of other reckless behaviors. Taking care of oneself--they call it. But does that mean we leave the splattered motorcyclist on the road and allow the magpies to take care of it??? Having worked in the Alaskan disability field, I can tell you that tons of State & Federal Medicaid money go for self-inflicted disability care. It ranges from drunk and driving brain injuries, to ATV crash paraplegia to chronic obesity and lung cancer. All our rights gone wrong--and the tax dollars pay for it.
To me libertarianism is like socialism--a good idea in theory, but just doesn't work in reality.

I Want to Buy a Wolf

No, I don't necessarily want a pet wolf at this moment. There are still places where these can be obtained in Alaska--but the dominance wrestling and mind games one needs to play with this "pet" would just take too much time.
What I want instead is to ensure that an adopted wolf of mine could live in the wild, free from aerial hunting, trapping or other human barbarianism. I would feel blessed simply to watch this wild wolf that only needed to worry about natural disasters or disease, not people.
But I can't. There is no amount a money I can earn that would pay for such a privilege. The most I could do is but a nature preserve for my wolf, but even this would be like a zoo--because without a fence, he/she would still be in danger. And a fenced in wolf can't roam or mate. There is nothing great about that.
This is my peeve--why do sport hunters feel they "earn the right" with their money to shoot a prized grizzly or wolf. But I can never "earn" the right to protect it? These are not species that anyone eats, it is purely a trophy.
Why does money buy you anything, but it can't buy an animal it's right to live in the wild and die of natural causes. They say our natural resources belong to the public, but the killers right trumps the viewers rights.