I was out and about tonight and decided to stop by Diablos to see my buddy Starla. I’ve not seen her in a while. But I found out that she quit her job there. I hope that she is doing well. I would have walked out, but the bartender was gorgeous and so I ordered a beer. Her black hair and coal eyes are very striking, and she has personality! She is definitely my type, though I know that I am not hers. So I hung out a bit, read from a couple books that I carried with me (I was en route to a coffee shop) and ordered a cup of coffee. A girl that works as a dancer at the club I work at came in and sat with me (her and a friend) and ate some food. After a while I took off and headed for home.
Two thoughts, well, several thoughts actually, but two were most prominent in my mind while walking home. One was the notion of writing a story without any human characters at all. The idea is to enliven the ‘non-human’ world a bit. A second idea, after I had left the gas station with a bag of M&Ms and pondering evolutionary consequences in memetics, and my curiosity at the sort of changes to come to culture and government due to the increased horizontal transmission of memes… and I stopped underneath a tree on a street where I live. I believe it is a species of cedar. It is typical of many conifers here in Eugene. It has a conal shape to it, tapered from the top, and isn’t “shaggy” looking like firs or some pines. It appears like a christmas tree (though quite tall) and when one gets underneath its umbrella it is discovered that it isn’t one trunk, but three trunks steming from the ground. Many times I have passed underneath this tree and a year ago the tri-trunk served as a symbol of the tri-goddess for me. However tonight with the rain it was another reminder of the density of its foliage, for as always (and it rains constantly during the winter) the ground underneath is dry. I touched the bark and got “dust-like” dirt on my hand from the dry bark. There is no dust to be found in Eugene from November to April when it rains and moss grows everywhere (rooftops, tree bark, sidewalks, gutters). Once again I marvelled at it. Quickly my mind was filled with the thought of the need for trees in the mountains and how reckless logging (the dominant approach it would seem) clears trees from the hillside and nothing holds the water and a mudslide occurs and the quality of the water (for fish and wildlife, not just humans) is degraded as such. But what occured to me here was that this tree wasn’t keeping the ground from being washed away, for it is a flat area. But it did keep the ground dry by cover of its foliage. And what rain did get to the earth appeared to be soaked up by the roots and not allowed to accumulate (or the surrounding ground would have soaked into the ground under the tree’s branches). This tree was drinking water.
Then an odd thought came to me. There are areas that are low on water, right? Recall the continual fight over water by different factions in southern Oregon. Now, the odd idea is this. Let us use science to devise a means of filtering water. We create huge filters and line them along the bottoms of ravines. We clearcut all vegetation off of the mountainside and allow the rain to fall. We not only clearcut it, we reinforce it with pavement and concrete so that no mudslides occur. Now there are no trees drinking the water that is ours, that we can use, that should go to crops and human car washes. Some people only care about this because of the salmon, right? So we increase fish hatcheries and artificial overhangs along banks (to lower the temperature of the water) and manage the water so that not only is it harvested from the mountains cleanly, but we also use it to grow our harvest of fish. If we take control of this we are allowed greater predictability in our supplies and reserves for the markets.
Great idea right? I can then take this idea with Dick Cheney and push him to do this on national television. He must agree with me on these things. His actions don’t speak otherwise, so I know I have an ally in him. Yet, here is the kicker. The idea itself is horribly ludicrous and misguided on so many different levels. If Dick doesn’t agree with it, what are his reasons for doing so? If he can give one (provided that we rule out the technological aspect of doing this, for to make these things would create jobs and provide a steady revenue for the state) it would seem to me to be outside of the utilitarian realm of ideas that Dick and other morons like him have concerning the environment. I am giving a utilitarian approach for the use of the resources around us and I do not see what utilitarian opposition he would have. Therefore I am assuming that he would either have to shut his lip (wouldn’t we all be blessed) or offer a non-utilitarian approach. The non-utilitarian arguements of environmentalists have been attacked by Dick and other idiots, essentially because of their non-utilitarian nature. I cannot argue with these morons by using oppositional language, becaues they argue firstly against the philosophy before the idea. But to get one of these bastards into a utilitarian argument where their wall of support is gone, they have only one direction to go, forward, and forward is where we want.
Yes, Dick’s mother named him quite appropriate.