Aristotle and the Gay Hyenas

I know I have not been here for you, blog.  I have left you alone in the colddark, with no new pictures or typing.

I am sorry.

But.  Would reading about an exhibit about homosexual animals cheer you up?

Here you go.

yay gay!

Some nice quotes:

" 'The sexual urge is strong in all animals...it's fun to have sex.' "

"One radical Christian said organizers of the exhibition...should 'burn in hell.' "

" 'Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them,' "

Bonobos are so way totally bisexuals.  They are way sexxxy.  I'd have to punch up the sexxx factor times a million to get them to read my blog.  Bonobos use sexual activity as a sort of social glue, to keep things cool in their community.  Sort of how I imagine Hippies and pot.  In my imagination, pretty much all Hippies smoke pot, all of them except the super yoga hippies.

Say - has everyone out there had their flu shot?  The flu is coming around extra early this year.  I highly recommend getting a flu shot for oneself.  ASAP.  I have more to say about this issue, but I have to play secretary now.

Bush and the Lumberjacks and the Scrubby, Twiggy Things

So, like, there have totally been all of these crazy fires around here lately.  Well, there was one fire that was way totally crazy to the max.  It was called "The Day Fire."  It was, like, the biggest fire.  Ever.

Okay, I don't know if it was the biggest ever, but it was pretty close.

Anyway.  So, this Bush guy, this Mister President man comes to town, to take pictures with Firefighters and all, and this is one of the things he says:

"I believe Congress needs to pass further laws that will enable us to restore forests once they've been burned."

[This quote can be found on this article - dailybulletin - however, it can also be found all over the place.]

First, I don't even know what that means.  A law?  To enable?  Who is stopping?  Restore how?  What?

Maybe I am way ignorant as far as ecology goes, but I was pretty sure that we in Southern California live in the biome known as chaparral.  Chaparral is dry, hot, filled with scrubby/brushy/twiggy things, and quite used to experiencing fires.  In fact, many of the plant species that live in the chaparral biome count on the extreme heat of a fire to do their reproductive thing.

How does M. President want to restore the forests?  Why?  So they can burn again even sooner?

I do understand that, after a large fire, the area is more prone to mudslides, since much of the plant life (and therefore the root-life) has been burnt to smithereens, which makes the soil looser.  Also, there aren't so many leaves and branches to help soften the blow of erosion via rain and wind.

Wikipedia tells me that there are two controversial ideas bopping about re chaparral and wildfire (wikichapa):

1.  The fires are totally necessary to keep the biome healthy.  If the plants and things are allowed to go for long periods of time without burning down...this is no good.  It is unnatural.  What's worse,

2.  Without having regular fires, the brush/plant things tend to build up quite a bit so that when there is a fire - woah.  Look out.  Super Big Fire!

Now, there are those who will say that numbers 1 and 2 above are total myths, and that chaparral is fine to go for a bazillion years with no fire activity thosewhocry - myth!).

Gosh.  I so don't know.  I'm all turned around on do we don't we burn the chaparral.

I've totally gotten off the main topic, which is this:  President Bush pretty much seems to be a big dumb-head when it comes to science and/or an insincere liar.  Probably both.  I would very much like to see him out there, in the burning sun, planting scrubby, twiggy things.

The scrubby twiggy things will do just fine without his money, thank you very much.  That's their job.

If you are a scrubby twiggy thing who has recently been burnt pretty much to smithereens by the Day Fire, and disagree with my assessment of the situation, please feel free to contact me, so that I may set the record straight.  If you are a scrubby twiggy thing who wants a load of money from Congress - please feel free to phone me directly.

The only reason we even care about these fires is because they come close to houses, and could therefore burn the houses to smithereens.  Houses are not adapted to cycles of wildfires, and do not use the heat of a fire for reproduction.  In fact, quite the opposite.

If you are a house and you take issue with my assessment of your relationship to wildfires re the cycle of life, please contact me, so that I may share your story.

_______________________________________________

It's later.  I have read some more.  It seems that "restoration" can mean quite a few things.  Maybe P.B. means money to thin out any existing chaparral.  I've also found evidence of a movement to replace the "bad" forests (although most of these bad forests must = chaparral) with new, more better forests. 

In 2003, the "Healthy Forests" Bill was passed.  This program, which helps speed up removal of any surplus scrubby twiggies and trees, fits in nicely with the interests of timber-type companies, who have been wanting to get into public forest lands for a very, very long time.  At least, Thomas Michael Power says so. 

Now, take a peek at what some dude said to help pass this "Healthy Forests" Bill:

"Similarly, that money could pay to remove most of the beetle-killed trees in Southern California and rebuild new fire-resistant forests that are more natural and sustainable than those that were lost...private companies could harvest and thin only the trees required to restore and sustain a healthy, fire-resistant forest, it could be done. In exchange, companies would sell the wood..."

The above is from the California Forest Products Commission's website.  I did the bold.  Some guy called Thomas Bonnickson said all that stuff.  It's a bit disingenuous since a majority of California wildfires occur not in "forests" but in shrubby, twiggy chaparral, which does not care to be replaced by uber-fire-resistant trees.

This is what T. Power has to say:

"90 percent of the lands burned by the southern California wildfires were not forestlands but shrublands dominated by head-high brush, grass, and chaparral. On most of these lands there are few, if any, commercially-valuable trees that can be removed by logging."

I guess P.B. is not so dumb after all.  He's just into lumberjacks.

I'm not going to go on about this any longer, as I've grown tired of suddenly becoming some sort of Ecology Rules!  Fight the Power! blogger, as opposed to my usual germs and guts and fishtanks.

I am no tree hugger, but it seems that, in addition to being a former chicken hugger and a current llama hugger, I am also a scrubby twiggy brush hugger.  Is anyone into that, in a sexxxy way?  I could take some pictures.