Walking the Berkshires

Forest Feud in the Bay State

There is a war going on in Massachusetts over the management of the Commonwealth's forests.  It is splitting environmentalists and blacking the eyes of more than one state agency.  It has attracted the attention of the Boston media in a market where it is often hard to get coverage of anything west of Worcester.  At its core, it involves mistrust and miscommunication on a rather grand scale, and flaming emails and blistering opinion pieces are just part of the fallout over what some are calling the folly of felling the Bay State's forests.

The Commonwealth is accused of mismanaging the forest resources under its care, including badly conducted timber harvests, slipshod reasoning for liquidating entire stands and many other administrative and programmatic lapses that have jeopardized its credibility with the public and with outside reviewers.   Back in 2004 the Commonwealth received provisional "green" certification from the Forest Stewardship Council for half a million acres - virtually all of publicly held forestland - and following a review last summer it failed to retain this FSC certification.

The FCS 2009 recertification auditing report is fascinating reading (scoll down a bit here for the .pdf).  Its findings include a number of major and minor corrective actions that either had not been addressed when previously identified or which had manifested more recently.  Among these were a number of auditing standards that clearly require more planning staff and resources than the various state agencies have to work with, which in itself is a deficiency called out in the plan and a chronic underfunding problem of longstanding.  As a result, the Commonwealth has withdrawn whole sections of state forests, - including the SE portion of Massachusetts - for which management plans have not been drafted from FSC eligibility.

Other findings point to significant agency lapses and even systemic failures.  For me this one was the most damning section of the review:

"Prior to harvesting of conifer plantations (often with complete removal), BoF and DWSP have not completed an adequate environmental assessment to assess impacts of long term ecological functions of the forest.  Since their initial certification in 2004, all agencies under this certificate have harvested some plantations of non-native (and in some cases, native white pine) conifer species.  BoF has been the most aggressive, with the least developed rationale for converting conifer plantations.  DFW's conversion has been very limited and well-justified ecologically.  Thus, this...does not apply to DWF.  Justifications offered to the audit team differ by agency.  For BoF the justification centers of two points: 1) that non-native species are intrinsically in conflict with biodiversity goals, and 2) aggressive regeneration harvesting of non-native stands presents an opportunity to create early successional habitat. 

For DWSP the stated reasons for removing conifer plantations include: diversify forests, eliminate non-native species and address failing stands.  DWSP also makes the point that diverse native stands offer better resilience to disturbance, thus protecting watershed values.

This rationale does not take into consideration the fact that such plantations offer valuable habitats viz: dense mature coniferous habitat used during migration as as winter habitat for animals.  In addition, such habitat require at least 50 years to create, whereas early successional pioneer hardwoods require only a year or two. The precautionary principle would thus suggest that clearcutting such stands would be a last, not first, resort (as mentioned again, below, Norway Spruce is non-invasive).  The evaluation team found no evidence that the positive aspects of retaining these plantations on the landscape have been considered, and thus BoF and DWSP have not presented a balanced environmental impact assessment - that addresses the pros and cons of their maintenance - prior to implementing a program for their rapid removal.

Second, forest management agencies are charged under FSC standards to maintain productive forests.  Existing plantations offer some of the most productive stands on the entire ownership, as long as they are not in decline owing to forest health issues, such as root rots.  We note that the Adams Road (Savoy SF) plantations averaged over 200 square feet of basal area and did not appear to be suffering from forest health issues.

We further note that Norway Spruce, while an exotic species, is demonstrably non-invasive and poses little threat to native plant communities."

The review team went on to call for an immediate halt to all clear cutting by the BoF and DWSP until a thorough environmental review is conducted.  Given that the Boston media are still highlighting clear cuts on state land, it is unclear whether the commonwealth heeded this very strong requirement to cease and desist back in August of last year.

What is going on?  Is Massachusetts, the bluest of the blue and greener than most, really doing a hatchet job on its natural resources?  What, aside from the insular nature of state agencies and general lack of oversight and transparency, is causing these behaviors?   Do you know what a well managed forest looks like?  Does the Commonwealth?  As one with more than a passing familiarity with many of the principal actors in this drama, I will offer a few thoughts on that in a subsequent post.

Kleen Energy Plant Explodes in Middletown CT

There has been a massive explosion at 11:26 Sunday morning at the Kleen Energy Power Plant   on River Rd. in Middletown, CT.  The plant was slated to come online in June, 2010.  A call for general emergency response has gone out in a 25 mile radius, according to a friend of mine with access to emergency responder channels.  Early reports suggest the potential for high casualties,and life flight.helicopter response from as far away as Boston.  The explosion rocked the city and could be felt miles away. 

More: The site of the plant on River Rd. is easy to locate on Google Earth.  It is the only huge industrial facility east of Middletown with power transmission lines running from it.   A fairly isolated site in terms of proximity to other infrastructure, but will create a challenge for emergency responders on River Rd.

More:  Sad news via my friend with emergency responder updates: 

CFP NATIONAL U/D1: MIDDLETOWN, CT ***GENERAL ALARM EXPLOSION & MCI*** ON RIVER RD @ THE 'TRASH TO ENERGY' POWER PLANT. CMND REPORTS GAS IS SHUT OFF, APROX 100 INJS, 4 CRITICAL & 2 DOA. 2ND STAGING AREA BEING ESTABLISHED FOR MASSIVE EMS RESPONSE. (VAR) [704] 85

Seeing Yellow

I am really glad my job isn't to manage this public relations disaster for the Borough Of Litchfield, Connecticut and its Board of Warden and Burgesses.  Fair use excerpt from Rinker Buck's column in the Hartford Courant:

"For the past six years several military mothers here and their supporters have decorated the trees on the town green with yellow ribbons to express their support for local residents who serve in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But on Tuesday the Borough of Litchfield's governing body, the board of warden and burgesses, voted to prohibit expression that involves ribbons on trees, and that has thrown this attractive tourist mecca in Litchfield County into an uproar...

...Borough Warden Lee Losee did not return phone calls Friday requesting comment on the board's decision. Two board of warden and burgesses members, however, while declining to be quoted on the decision, agreed to describe their reasons for banning ribbons on the green.

First, the board members said, Norfolk forester Starling Childs had inspected the trees on the green and concluded that the ribbons were hurting their health, encouraging the growth of fungus under the ribbons. Second, the presence of yellow ribbons on the green might encourage other groups to apply for permission to hang ribbons there.

Childs, who maintains the 6,000-acre Great Mountain Forest in Norfolk, is one of Connecticut's best-known tree experts. Reached on Friday, Childs said that he was asked by the Borough of Litchfield in October to conduct an inventory of its trees on the green as part of a plan for preserving the space. But Childs says that he was not asked to examine the question of the yellow ribbons and in fact did not even mention them in his report.

"They must be confusing me with some other botanist, because I don't remember even noticing the ribbons at all and I certainly didn't comment on them," says Childs. "The borough should know that if they wanted a professional opinion on the ribbons, they would have to ask for a written report, and they never requested that."

Childs said that he saw the yellow ribbons on the trees on Thursday night, while driving through Litchfield, and he doubted they were causing serious damage to the trees."

Moms and apple pies are probably darting for cover in Litchfield, even as we speak.

In Memoriam: What Henry Knox has to do with 9/11

In January, 1776, Henry Knox and his civilian teamsters  passed through Egremont, Massachusetts on their way through the Berkshires with a train of cannon and other war supplies destined for Boston.  In September, 2001, hijacked passenger airliners were deliberately crashed into the heart of New York's financial district, the Pentagon, and (after passenger intervention) a field in Pennsylvania.  As is evident from the photograph at left, these two separate events are now commemorated together in North Egremont.

The vertical marker is one of the 30 granite and bronze monuments placed in 1927 to commemorate the Knox expedition by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the Sesquicentennial of the American Revolution.  The route taken by Knox is poorly documented by primary sources, and in 1975 this marker was moved from its original location along Rte 23 in South Egremont to its present site in North Egremont to reflect a different theory of where Knox crossed the Taconics into the Berkshires.  The monument itself remains the property of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the small patch of open space on which it is situated is owned by the municipality.

The nearly horizontal plaque and its stone and cement base were physically integrated with the Knox memorial in 2002.  The North Egremont 9/11 memorial reads as follows:

"This monument is dedicated to the thousands of men, women and children killed by terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania on September 11th, 2001.  They died for our country and our freedom.  We shall not forget.  Dedicated on September 11, 2002 North Egremont, Massachusetts"

As a war memorial with the fresh association of 9/11, these conjoined monuments have attracted both a small American flag and someone's personal offering of a conch shell.  Visually, as a piece of public art, the Knox memorial is now the headstone, casting its shadow on the graves of 9/11.

In many ways, these memorials seem more dissimilar than alike, reflecting a great deal both about the events they commemorate and the values and attitudes of those who erected them and how we remember today.  There is something very intentional about the union of these two monuments, with one the visible extension and successor to the other.  There is a very clear message that those died in the terrorist attacks were as patriotic as those who dragged the cannons to Boston.   The North Egremont memorial was an expression of fresh grief and resolve to give meaning to terrible losses.  Whereas the Knox commemoration was an expression of state pride in the accomplishments of a favorite son and role that Boston, and the cannons brought from Ticonderoga, played in our Nation's founding. 

People in 1927 could look to recent victory in Europe - "Lafayette, we are here! -  as the coming of age of that nation which their Revolutionary ancestors helped to establish.  These monuments, which along with their counterparts in New York represent one of the earliest "heritage trails" established in America, gave a local connection to larger events.  That connection is precisely what this September 11th memorial is all about.  There is a strong cultural connection in this part of western New England to New York City which is home to many of our part-time residents. Many of us lost love ones there, or are close to others who did.

Local commemorations, however, often reflect individual sensibilities and the need to make the personal very public.  I do not know who was behind the North Egremont memorial, or the decision to physically integrate it with the Knox monument. I can contrast it with a private effort by her friends to plant a native American Elm cultivar with a stone plaque in the memory of a Salisbury, Connecticut resident who died that day.  I can also compare it to the current controversy in Kent, Connecticut over a grieving father's insistence that the wording of a public 9/11 public memorial to his son include the phrase "murdered by Moslem extremists."  The complete wording as proposed is as follows:

James Gadiel
February 3, 1978
A gentleman and a gentle man
Lifelong resident of Kent
Murdered by Moslem extremists
September 11, 2001

In recent days, what previously had divided a small town is now a conservative cause celeb thanks to national exposure.  I will note, as an aside, that "Muslim" and "Moslem" are not interchangeable, with the latter word an older transliteration that less accurately reflects the Arabic pronunciation /mʊslɪm/.  Some Muslims, I understand, find the older word offensive, analogous, perhaps, to calling Beijing "Peking". I rather doubt that changing from one self referential word to the other would address the controversy, but thought it worth considering that "Moslem" is the word proposed for the memorial.

What is written in stone is meant to be gospel.  What we cast in bronze we intend to endure beyond our span of years.  What we chose to record, and how we record it, is what we want others to remember.  Yet time and the distance from living memory can make some public monuments lose their meaning, especially when demographics change and the old surnames on the war memorials are no longer represented in the community.  Three of the Knox monuments in New York have simply vanished, and others have been moved about in response to development.  "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!".

Imbuing the Knox memorial in North Egremont (which was moved to its current site just a few decades ago)  with the meaning of 9/11 may have rescued it from obscurity, even if for the benefit of modern interpretation of the more recent event.  As an historian I find the pairing troubling, but I also know that the object is not the event, but rather an artifact of its own time.  It is therefore subject to reinterpretation by subsequent generations, revealing much about what we remember, and how we recast the past to give meaning to the present.

Scary Ladybug in the LJ This Week

Just in time for Hallowe'en: the invasion of the harlequin ladybug!  Readable here with free subscription.

"These are not the sweet, friendly red-and-black ladybugs of childhood memory, the benign foe of aphids, the farmer’s friend. They are an alien species with rusty orange shells, once intentionally released as a biological control for crop and landscape pests and now here to stay.

And they want to come into your home. "

Hope and the Politics of Peace

Nobody - neither the bookies nor the pundits - saw this coming. 

"The Nobel Peace Prize goes to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

This award strikes many in America as more of an "A for effort" than recognition of significant accomplishments only 9 months into his first term as US President.  In making its announcement, the Nobel Foundation offered this insight into its selection of Obama for this award:

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

In light of this justification, Obama's speech last month before the UN General Assembly may have helped make up the minds of the Nobel Committee:

"I have been in office for just nine months -- though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted, I believe, in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in hope -- the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change."

So perhaps Obama received the award for taking American diplomacy in a new direction, and for his willingness to define the tasks that lie ahead as a shared responsibility among all nations.  Certainly this passage from his UN address makes that clear:

"Some of our actions have yielded progress. Some have laid the groundwork for progress in the future. But make no mistake: This cannot solely be America's endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. We have sought -- in word and deed -- a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

There is no more symbolic - and political - Nobel award than the Peace Prize. It is by its very nature a validation of ideals. 

• It has been granted to those who brokered the end of wars (Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Kissinger)
• It has been awarded to  those who by their example kept the world's attention on the need to confront injustice and oppression in brutally repressive societies (Aung San Suu Kyi, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa). 
• It has been given in hope to former adversaries whose previous record was anything but peaceful (Yassir Arafat, F.W. DeKlerk, Anwar Al-Sadat).
•  It has recognized those who have dedicated themselves to the alleviation of human suffering (The International Committee of the Red Cross, Mother Teresa, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Doctors Without Borders).  
• And it has been granted to visionaries and organizations who articulate a profoundly different way of dealing with global conflicts and challenges (The Quakers, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War,  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its most visible proponent, Al Gore). 

If anywhere, it is in this last category where Barack Obama's award may fit, though for me and many others it seems premature.

I believe that the Nobel Committee selects Peace Prize winners as much to make a statement of ideals as to recognize the saints and successful peacemakers among us.  In drawing attention to Barack Obama, it seeks to validate what is still an untried vision, not only for American diplomacy but for international problem-solving and conflict resolution. 

It will remain a very controversial award here at home even as it is lauded abroad,  not only because of concerns that America's interests will be sublimated to those of other nations but also because it is still very early in his presidency and the success or failure of his vision and governance remains to be seen.  There is so much that is symbolic in Obama's presidency and it is too soon for there to be much of substance.  We are leery of mythologizing our sitting presidents - one must have been dead for 5 years before his image appears on a postage stamp - and we like to think that America is a meritocracy and that we earn whatever success and recognition we achieve in life rather than having it given to us preferentially.  Those who oppose affirmative action may see yet another example of it in this award.  Those who are inspired by his presidency will find it affirming.  It is certain that partisan politics will see this award as another wedge issue.

I believe that there is hardly a world leader who carries as much symbolism and upon whom so many fix their hopes and aspirations as Barack Obama.  A symbolic award for a symbolic Presidency may be quite fitting after all.  We can only hope that deeds follow words in the years to come.

More (10/9/2009):  President Obama is certainly a class act:

"I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.  Let me be clear; I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people of all nations.  To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize: men and women who've inspired me, and inspired the whole world through their courageous pursuit of peace.  But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build.  A world that gives life to our founding documents.   And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement, It's also be used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.  And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call to all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."

Riding in the Slipstream with Loud and Rich

I took in back-to-back shows this weekend by Loudon Wainright III and Richard Thompson, who are touring North America together this Fall as "Loud and Rich."  This is the first time since my Deadhead days I have followed musicians from one gig to the next, and it afforded me the chance to see how this combo was shaping up and especially to spoil myself by listening to Richard Thompson two nights in a row.  I swear, I could happily do that for a week of Sundays, even if he stuck to the same set list.  The things he can do with a guitar never fail to astonish. 

These two old friends are an intriguing pairing.  They both share a merciless wit, with clear affection for novelty songs and dark humor.  Thompson produced a couple of Wainwright's albums and Loudon has covered some of Thompson's songs.  They both have folk roots and they both have maintained a loyal fan base for about 40 years.  They clearly get along, and that was particularly evident in some of the songs they did together.  Otherwise, they are very different musicians.  Wainwright is a shoot-from-the-hip kind of performer, whereas Thompson has a smoother delivery, spot on timing and far superior technique.  They may have had equal billing, but any other performer with Loudon's skills would have merely been the opening act. 

Loud and Rich played the Flynn Theater in Burlington Vermont on October 3rd, and Harvard's Sanders Theater in Cambridge, MA on the 4th. The format of the tour has Loudon playing for about an hour, to be joined by Thompson for a pair of songs and then wrapping up with one more on his own.  After intermission, Thompson takes the stage for an hour, with Loudon coming back for two encores together (the first Thompson's choice, the second one Loudon's).  With the exception of "Down Where the Drunkards Roll" - done as a duet as the first encore on both nights -  the other songs they performed together were different each time.  The best was a raucous rendition in Cambridge of the R&B classic "Smokey Joe's Cafe", which suited their styles really well, and featured Thompson's over the top delivery of Smokey Joe's warning -  in a Scottish brogue, no less -  "You better eat up all your beans, boy and clear right on out."

I understand now why restaurant critics make two visits before submitting their reviews, because the Flynn show had some unfortunate "presentation issues", particularly in Loudon's uneven opening set, that were fortunately nowhere in evidence the next night.  Anyone, particularly a guitarist who plays his ax as savagely as Wainwright, can break a guitar string.  Loudon broke two, without a technician to swap out instruments, and forgot the words to some of his new songs on more than one occasion.  Even RT was not immune to whatever bad karma was in the air, as he unintentionally disconnected in the closing bars of 52 Vincent Black Lightning (the horror!).  To his credit, Wainwright had his game fully on at the Cambridge show. The first nights of this kind of tour are essentially the shakedown cruise, anyway.

Wainwright had a piano on stage in Burlington and pulled out "Red Guitar" and "Another Song in C", which managed to pull the heartstrings at one moment and dip into self-referential mockery the next.  He didn't bring his banjo, alas.  He featured a number of songs from his last two albums and some that haven't even made it to disc yet.  I admit that since one of these - Recovery - consists of revisiting songs from his back catalog, I was hoping for a few more old chestnuts. "Dead Skunk"?  "Swimming Song"?  "Clockwork Chartreuse"? No matter.  Always alert to topics and trends ripe for exploitation in song, Wainwright has several "for the New Depression", including "Cash For Clunkers", a crowd favorite that Loudon wisely decided to lead off with the second night.  Wainwright was game to shuffle his set list from night to night, which bodes well for the tour as he adapts to crowd response.

Thompson gave strong performances on both nights.  I was blessed with very close seats in both theaters.  The guitarists in the audience - including my wife for the Burlington show - were universally gobsmacked by his picking and fretwork.  I've seen him perform live often enough in the last few years to start to notice how even songs that seem to be in regular rotation evolve as he plays, and especially the way he sings them.  He positively growls the line "to ride" in 52 Vincent Black Lightning like the pipes of James Adie's motorbike, and the way he ratchets up the vocal crescendos of Crawl Back (Under My Stone) - the closing song of the second set on both nights - left me and everyone else in the hall as delirious as the roiling chords that wail in waves from that guitar like it were a fully loaded Strat instead of acoustic.

Thompson's set during the Flynn Show stuck to a list that included a haunting rendition of "Persuasion" and a foray into the acoustic material from the mid 90's album You? Me? Us?, from which he selected both "Cold Kisses" and (surprisingly) "Woods of Darney".  Richard has a new lament in his repertoire to go with three recent losses - with the chorus "A Brother Slips Away" - that I hope makes it into his next album.  He did great renditions of "I Wanna See the Bright Lights Tonight" each show, dropping an hilarious aside during the second performance that the original LP featured the misprinted lyric "a couple of drunken knights rolling around on the floor"  that would have made ol' Sigmund proud. 

RT seems to favor some of his more recent work more than others in performance. He knows that "52 Vincent Black Lightning" is the one song we all must have and very kindly obliges us every time. He featured three songs from "Sweet Warrior" in Burlington that I heard him do last year in Great Barrington: "Johnny's Far Away", "Dad's Gonna Kill Me" and "Sunset Song", which last has the potential to be another audience favorite in the same vein as "Beeswing".  However, the songs from his 2005 "all acoustic" Front Parlor Ballads appear destined for obscurity and rarely get an airing.

The second set in Cambridge followed the same list as the night before until the audience started calling out requests.  So near the end, with Thompson declaring he was "putty in our hands", he obliged by playing "Bathsheba Smiles", "Beeswing" and "From Galway to Graceland".  On this night with things breaking their way and all that good energy in the hall, I would have loved to have heard another song or two with Loud and Rich together.  God knows what they would have decided to play next.  Maybe something by Plastic Bertrand.  Thompson has that covered.

All in all I was pleased to have attended both concerts. A bit of a novelty act, something of an experiment, it was great fun to watch and hear.  My cousins in Charlottesville should make every effort to catch Loud and Rich when they roll into town, and RT has a solo gig coming up in Princeton, too, so my kin in Jersey have an appointment to keep.

 

American Dreamer

I had my first dream about President Obama last night.  At some point during every presidency of my adult life, I have dreamed about having some casual, one-on-one time with the current president.  In each case, whether I agreed with his politics or not, it made the man more human and accessible.  I am told that such dreams can be interpreted as anxiety dreams, where my unconscious mind tries to influence powers beyond my control. 

I can see that.  Obama was certainly non-threatening in last night's dream.  I said as much to him as we sat together, telling him I thought he was being very approachable and that I felt we could talk about normal stuff, like the Red Sox.  I then mentally kicked myself because he is a White Sox fan, but he just nodded and indicated that we were both wearing the same Fenway colors.  (I also noted that the curl of chest hair at his neckline had gone gray but am not going to try and interpret what that means).  In any case, I do not at any time recall him speaking to me, just that it felt comfortable in his presence.

I usually keep my personal politics apart from what I write in this blog.  Perhaps Obama was on my mind because of the consternation in some vocal quarters regarding his upcoming speech to America's schoolchildren.  The message to work hard and stay in school is hardly partisan, but apparently having it come from the President is perceived that way by many who oppose his politics.  The AP reports:

"As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

I'm calling bullshit.  It gives the appearance of respecting the office of President and of encouraging students to dedicate themselves to learning and to being good citizens (things that partisan politics on either side lost track of long ago).

Public school is one of the bastions of our democracy.  Every single day, my children salute the flag and pledge allegiance, which is an indoctrination in civics and patriotism that few of those crying foul about the President's address find objectionable. I am not concerned in the slightest that my children may have the opportunity to listen to the President speaking directly to them about personal responsibility and developing their full potential.  I would not object to that message from any President.  I have the opportunity and responsibility as a parent to discuss what they heard and thought when they come home.

President George W. Bush asked America's children to donate a dollar to help the children of Afghanistan as we went to war in October of 2001: a far more overtly political message to our youth.  His father gave an address to America's schoolchildren that this transcript shows is exactly in line with what Obama intends to do next Tuesday.   A presidential address of this sort is not unprecedented, nor out of line with the respect usually accorded to Chief Executives of our nation since generations of American schoolchildren were taught to venerate Washington.  One can only conclude that it is an objection to this President, and what he represents, that is behind the calls to keep children out of school in districts that have elected to show the speech, and the decision by others not to show it at all.

I want my children to appreciate that there are many sides to the issues they will face in life, and particularly that there is more to history than what they are taught in school.  I want them to be critical and informed consumers of information.  The teachable moment in this case is sadly not about the President's message, but the reaction to it from those unwilling to trust their children to listen to it thoughtfully and discuss with them afterward what they heard.  Respect for the office even when you oppose the politics of the officeholder is a traditional value that has been abandoned in American politics.  There is nothing liberal or conservative about that dereliction.

The real risk here is that by speaking directly to schoolchildren, President Obama becomes more accessible to them, and with that familiarity perhaps more acceptable as well.  Then he may appear in their dreams, and we know what that leads to...

Of Quagmires and Hollywood Endings

What was the last significant American movie about the Viet Nam era?  Stuck?  Let me rephrase the question.  Have there been any this decade?  Here are your choices:

We Were Soldiers (March, 2002) : Mel Gibson

The Quiet American (February, 2003) Michael Caine

Word of Honor (December 2003) Don Johnson

Faith of my Fathers (May 2005) TV movie about POW John McCain

Rescue Dawn (July 2007) Christian Bale

American Gangster (November 2007) Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe

1968 Tunnel Rats (March 2009) Independent film

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that since the Gulf War, the Viet Nam war movie has been in a state of arrested development.

Forrest Gump and Dead Presidents were the decade's most notable offerings in the 1990's, and I do not mean to imply that a film had to be highbrow or highly political to be notable.  Forrest Gump's importance is not what it has to say about history but as an early, high profile use of digital manipulation of historic film footage. Dead Presidents is just classic Blacksploitation revisited. Not a Deerhunter or Full Metal Jacket among them,nor yet a Rambo.

Since 9/11, the genre continues to be impoverished.  Gibson's movie, filmed in 2001, is a continuation of the redemptive, heroic depiction of the service and sacrifice of American soldiers in Viet Nam - and their families at home - that arose in American society in the late 1980s and continues to this day.  The Quiet American is based on a novel from an earlier era and is more notable for the Oscar nominated performance of Michael Caine than what the story itself has to say about American involvement in Southeast Asia.  The rest are throwbacks of varying quality, but do nothing to carry the conversation about how we interpret the events of the fast receding past and that heavily value laden conflict.

Mainstream American films - aside for those that go direct to video - quite naturally tend to track with the tastes of contemporary American audiences.  American films about Viet Nam will indicate how contemporary politics and society grapple with the memory of what amounts to a period of national trauma. A gung ho film like John Wayne's Green Berets gives way to the nihilism of Apocalypse Now, the morality play of Platoon, the revenge fantasy of Rambo.  Depictions of the Viet Nam veteran progress from hero to outcast to perpetrator to victim and back to hero, and that is where we are left as a new generation of veterans emerges from a new series of conflicts.

Maybe there is nothing new for Hollywood to say about Viet Nam because we have come full circle, or perhaps we are stalled by contemporary events.   Maybe when the first President Bush declared during the Gulf War that we have put Viet Nam behind us, it foreshadowed the second''s declaration of "mission accomplished".  And maybe in another ten years, the memory of our current wars will inform how Hollywood revisits Viet Nam. 

Either that, or we will get another pulpy Quentin Tarantino gorefest along the lines of Inglorious Bastards.  

When the Terms of Victory Ensure a Lost Cause

I left the following in the comments of Kevin Levin's blog Civil War Memory, in response to a discussion about the Wal-Mart / Wilderness controversy:

Historic landscapes are increasingly rare in the intensively developed Eastern corridor of the United States. Just as habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity, battlefield fragmentation eliminates some of its potential to inform and affect visitors and community identity. Rarely can land protection efforts realize the full conservation potential of a significant landscape, either as habitat or for its historic value. Where such opportunities still exist, it may well be a top conservation priority to invest all the time, treasure and creativity at society’s disposal to ensure that these landscapes maintain their full integrity.

How many American battlefields still have this potential? Antietam? Gettysburg? Saratoga? Not many more. And sadly, not the Wilderness.

Many, many other battle sites have not been isolated in time, where historic viewsheds can be maintained and the surrounding community becomes identified, for better or worse, by a signature event that occurred there long before living memory. If you want to interpret the site of Bunker Hill, you must contend with a obelisk in the midst of the Charlestown that rose from the ashes and a community whose residents have other sources of self and community identity. For some of us today, this is a regrettable loss,but for the generations who came after the Revolution, the monument was a fitting memorial and the idea that valuable real estate would be locked up in the interest of preservation would have made little sense.

There are many different values at play in situations like this. One thing I have learned in my years in the land protection business is that community support is vital if you want to conserve significant amounts of land, and there is no better way to derail a well-intentioned preservation effort then to let it become characterized as an imposition by outsiders – or worse, by Government – that values a rare species over the needs of local people, public land over private property, or the memory of something that happened long ago over the perceived needs of those who live there today. It may be a false dichotomy, but it can be lethal for conservation.

Places like the Wilderness are without a doubt under intense development pressure. It goes against our instincts to accept the loss of another irreplaceable acre of land with historic significance. Yet those terms of victory will ensure a lost cause.

On the other hand, there are many examples across this country, even in places typically thought of as intensely conservative and staunchly in favor of private property rights, where it is a condition of development permitting that lost wetlands and habitat be mitigated by the restoration or conservation of an equivalent amount at another location. What if Wal-Mart, as a condition of the permitting it received, had purchased for preservation another area of the Battlefield, perhaps with even greater significance? This would not have addressed all the impacts of development – traffic, for instance – but it could have been a creative solution and provided an outcome other than the zero sum game.

It would only be possible if those granting the permits, those working for preservation, those concerned about economic development, and the developers themselves were willing to work toward such an outcome. Sometimes, giving an inch is an unacceptable concession. Far more frequently, it can result in a negotiated compromise that provides benefits for more than just one side. This is a hard lesson, but one we need to grapple with before the next crisis that threatens the special places we value.