In the numerous conversations I had with friends last weekend, almost every one included the line “the end of days is coming” or “did someone order an apocalypse?” We were, of course, referencing the crazy weather this weekend, but we were also more generally talking about weather around the country and the world. And seriously, people, it is starting to feel rather apocalyptic out here on the third rock from the Sun.

The thunder/lightning/hailstorm we had on Friday? It was weird. Really, really weird. We don’t get thunderstorms, and it reminded me of Vermont summers; Baxt commented that it reminded her of the Midwest. This is not the sort of weather we have on the California coast. And rain in June? Highly suspicious. When I stepped outside on Friday afternoon, it filled me with excitement, but also puzzlement, because that sort of weather is very out of place here. The air smelled like ozone, and it was heavy and warm and still, and it reminded me of the time there was a tornado in Vermont, and we all ran out to see.

We also apparently had a lot of dry lightning strikes which sparked fires, lots and lots of little fires, and planes kept seeing more. Our fires didn’t make the news, because they weren’t very large, and they were primarily in wooded regions, rather than residential areas, but I definitely took note. This is a very dry summer, and those fires could have been a lot worse if people hadn’t been on top of things.

So just in Mendocino County, we had fires, strange weather, and the occasional earthquake. To be fair, occasional earthquakes aren’t that unusual, so no one really notices, and perhaps it is not fair to count them in my apocalyptic assessment of planetary health. In the Midwest, we’ve got epic flooding, which appears to be getting worse by the day, and I just read in the Times that people are thinking about abandoning entire towns rather than trying to rebuild them.

And here we are, talking about offshore oil drilling while New Orleans is still floundering in the filth we haven’t bothered to clean up. Is it just me, or is there a profound and perhaps even willful disconnect?

I know that unusual weather does happen now and then, and that it’s hard to draw any conclusions from a limited data set. The fact of the matter is that freak thunderstorms do happen, and if I had, say, two thousand years of data from this area, I might find that the statistical anomaly of Friday’s weather wasn’t all that unusual, in the grand scheme of things. And obviously flooding in the Midwest happens, because it’s happened several times in my memory, and so do earthquakes and fires and all sorts of other things. So it’s not really fair to say that there’s more peculiar weather now than there was before, because I don’t really have enough data.

But, I tell you what, it feels pretty darn apocalyptic to me. And it seems like a sign that we should perhaps be paying attention to. There’s a message in the weather, and I don’t know about you, but I am reading it loud and clear. I can’t help but wonder if this is the Earth’s form of intifada (which means “shaking off” in Arabic, as I hope we all know). It’s almost as though the Earth is twitching, like the muscles of an impatient horse, to see if it can shake some of the flies away.

Maybe the Earth is thinking it’s time for a hard reset, in electronics parlance. It has tried error messages, and those don’t seem to be working out. So watch out for the Four Horsemen, homechickens.

So there I was, minding my own business, chatting with Baxt, when she said that she got epic hail at her house. And I was all like “Dude!” and she was all like “it was weird.” And suddenly, there was a huge-ass mother of all thunderclaps basically right over my house which caused Mr Bell to rocket into the air, followed by a wicked lightning strike, and I looked outside, and saw this:

And I was all like “damn, dude, those are some bad-ass clouds,” and then I popped into the alley, and saw this:

And I was like “HOLY CRAP.”

So I ran inside to say “holy crap” to Baxt, and I grabbed my camera, and I went outside to take pictures, and then it started raining, so I had to hide in my doorway and take pictures:

Look, kids, I am not from the Midwest. It does not thunder, rain, or lightning in June.

Ever.

Period.

The end days?

They are here.

Did somebody order an apocalypse?

For this week’s installment in the saving the environment with minimal personal effort or expense series, it’s time to talk about one of my favourite issues: packaging and containers! Packaging, as we all know, eats up tremendous amounts of natural resources. A surprising amount of packaging is not recyclable, and even when it is, it’s still pretty darn wasteful.

Fortunately, there are lots of ways to make packaging go further. In addition to, you know, helping the planet and stuff, some of the things discussed in this entry will also reduce clutter around the house and save money, which makes them even more awesome. Yay! Awesome!

Reusing bags is perhaps one of the easiest and best things you can do. I have a couple of sturdy grocery bags made from recycled Pete-knows-what, and they are insanely strong; I routinely use them to haul 40 pounds of cat litter home from the feed store. Most grocery stores offer a bag credit to people who bring their own bags, and reusing your own bags also means that you won’t end up with a crazy buildup of grocery bags rattling around the corners of the house. Hooray!

You can also reuse the bags you use for produce and other goods. I generally avoid bags when possible, and I try to wash out and re-use produce bags as much as I can. Just because you carried snow peas in a bag last week doesn’t mean you can’t rinse it, hang it to dry, and use it to transport cherries this week. When the bags finally start to shred, then you can bring them to a plastic bag collection site; most stores have them.

Furthermore, why stop with bags? Consider purchasing stuff in bulk and re-using containers, too. All of my soaps and bath supplies, for example, are purchased in bulk and pumped directly into containers I bring from home. You can also get things like rice, beans, nuts, dried fruit, candy, and so forth in bulk. Bulk foods are typically cheaper and way more fresh than packaged goods, and the selection is comparable (if not better than) the array on the shelf. In the case of bulk foods, make sure to get a tare weight for the container you use, so that you aren’t charged for the weight of the container along with the food; if your grocer doesn’t have an honor-system for tare weights, bring along an empty version of the container for the checker to weigh to determine the tare.

You can also expand your personal war on packaging a bit, if you feel like it. For example, you can stop purchasing packaged foods which are easy enough to make from scratch, like cookies, breads, sauces, and so forth. Home-made foods are cheaper, and I think they taste better. In addition, you can control the ingredients much more easily to create the flavor you like, or to avoid things you are allergic to. When you get in the habit of making things like pasta sauce in huge bulk batches, it’s not that big a deal, and I suspect that within a few months, you’ll be turning up your nose at the packaged stuff anyway.

For tea drinkers, consider giving up teabags. In addition to just being lame, teabags waste a lot of packaging. Once you get hooked on looseleaf, you won’t want to go back.

In short, avoid commercial packaging as much as possible, and reuse the bags and containers you have until they fall apart. This isn’t that hard to do, and it makes a pretty major difference. Like some of the other environmentally-friendly things I’ve recommended, bringing your own bags/containers/etc also saves you money, which is, you know, always a good thing. In most of the world, the practice of conserving containers and bags is routine, so why not join the club?

Here’s the next entry in my little series on how to save the world with minimal effort. I’ve already talked about some ways to address water usage, and this week I’m going to start talking about how to reduce the amount of stuff you bring into your house in the first place, because that’s a bit part of reducing your footprint in the world.

In order for something to be included in this series, I have to ask myself if it’s something that pretty much anyone could do without an unreasonable amount of effort. In some cases, the things I recommend actually involve negative effort (as in, don’t buy shit), and in other cases, a little bit of effort is involved, but I still don’t think it involves undue sacrifice or difficulties. Others might disagree. This week’s entry in particular is more open to debate, I think, but I’m writing it anyway.

This week, I’m talking about how to reduce the amount of useless mail in your life. The volume of paper in the form of junk mail, unopened bank statements, and so forth which gets tossed in this country is pretty incredible, and it’s easy to reduce.

Start with junk mail: sign up for a junk mail service. These services send you addressed and pre-paid envelopes which you stuff with your junk mail. They study your junk mail, and in return, they get your name pulled from mailing lists so that you don’t get as much junk mail. I don’t actually get that much junk mail, so I don’t know the name of a service off the top of my head, which means y’all are going to have to do a little Googling for this one.

Cancel your newspaper subscription: if you subscribe to a newspaper, stop. Most newspapers have online editions which are fully accessible, often for free, so you will save money and paper. If your paper doesn’t reprint everything online, respectfully write and suggest that they start. You can even indicate that you would be willing to pay a fee to access premium content, if you want. I know that some people really like the dead tree editions of newspapers, but, uh, get over it.

Cancel paper statements: almost all banks, lenders, and credit card companies offer an electronic statement option, so use it. By stopping paper statements, you can save a bunch of paper, and reduce the risk of identity theft (assuming you toss statements after reading them, although I guess a lot of people save them). You will still get some physical mail, but the amount will be greatly reduced. Plus, you’ll free up a ton of space in your filing cabinets by having your bills archived on someone else’s dime.

Online ordering: bundle orders together as much as possible to reduce packaging, and, as always, ask yourself if you really need whatever it is that you’re ordering, or see if you can get it locally to reduce the use of packaging/shipping while supporting a local business. (Unless, of course, you live in Fort Bragg, where you can’t buy anything useful locally.)

While some people might argue that paper is recyclable, and therefore not that big a deal, paper waste is a big issue. By reducing overall demand for paper, we can reduce the stress on the world’s forests, and reduce pollution from paper mills and printshops. Also, paper recycling is expensive, time consuming, and often polluting, so even if you do recycle your paper, it doesn’t totally absolve you. Furthermore, a lot of paper which people innocently recycle ends up in landfills, for a variety of reasons, so even when you think you’re doing the right thing, you might be foiled by the recycling industry. Besides, who wants a bunch of stupid mail anyway?

For this week’s installment on how to help the environment without exerting that much effort, we’re going to talk about a subject dear to the hearts of pretty much anyone under the age of eight: pee pee! Urine, as some might prefer. Pee, for those of you who have been flushing it down your toilet at every opportunity, is a substance with myriad possibilities which go far beyond mere flushing. Plus, it’s fun to talk about.

For amateur players, there’s one simple thing to do with pee which can actually have a pretty big impact on the environment, and that’s “letting it mellow” as they used to say here in California during the drought days. Contrary to popular belief, your toilet will not actually explode, leak, or spontaneously burst into song if urine is left in the bowl.

If you allow urine to accumulate and flush it, you’re going to accomplish several things. First off, you’re going to save on your water bill, because flushing the toilet requires, duh, water. Saving on your water bill is generally a good thing, especially if you live in an area where water rates are going up due to increased population density or drought conditions.

You’re also going to use less water, which is generally agreed to be good for the environment. Also, when you flush pee down the toilet, you’re using perfectly useful potable water, and you’re introducing it to all kinds of nasty things in the sewer/septic system, thereby rendering it useless until it has been subjected to a variety of treatment processes. Which is just kind of dumb. Limiting flushing can have a big impact, especially when everyone in a community does it.

For those with septic systems, reduced flushing also lowers the load on the septic system, which is a good thing as well. Furthermore, for ladies who are concerned about stoppages as a result of toilet paper boluses, used toilet paper can be discreetly disposed of in the garbage, which will also reduce the load on the septic system. The practice of trashing, rather than flushing, toilet paper is actually pretty common in many parts of the world, for all you urbanites who are quivering at the very thought. (Naturally, when trashing toilet paper, one does run the risk of contaminating the soil and groundwater through landfills, unless you incinerate your paper waste. However, one could say the same thing about diapers, and no one’s suggesting we get rid of those.)

For the more advanced, here’s a short list of exciting things you can do with pee.

• Use it as fertilizer. Diluted in water in around a 10:1 solution, pee makes great fertilizer. You can actually make it less dilute, depending on the plant, although you do run a risk of creating a bit of a smell.
• Also for gardening: repel unwanted animal visitors, such as deer, with a healthy sprinkling of urine around their favourite spots.
• Make gunpowder with it! You’ll need a lot of urine, and it will need to be stale before being strained slowly through woodchips, straw or other organic material for the saltpeter. Not for the faint of heart.
• Use it in textile production; urine has historically been used to bleach whites, full wool, and set dyes. You’ll get bonus authenticity points at ren fairs if you can boast a genuine urine finish, I promise. Again, the urine has to be allowed to stand, to allow ammonia to develop.

In an interesting historical sidenote, when penicillin was still extremely expensive during the Second World War, physicians distilled the urine of their patients in the Pacific Theatre to reclaim, uh, penicillin. But you don’t need to do that. Unless you want to. But consult your doctor first, ok?

So, kids, that’s the urine special. Sometime we’ll talk about number two, as well, but for now, here are some exciting toilet tips for further water conserving greatness:

• Put a brick in it. Most toilets, even low-flow toilets, use more water than strictly needed per flush. Stick a brick or another large object in the toilet bowl to displace water, thereby reducing the amount used per flush. You can also adjust your little toilet bobbly thingie (and don’t try and tell me that’s not a technical term) to lower the overall water level in your toilet.
• Consider installing a handwashing sink over your toilet; a number of companies make neat little modules which allow you to wash your hands in the water flowing into the toilet tank, thereby killing two birds with one stone, as it were.
• Get rid of your toilet (not for all those reading along at home, I know). Composting toilets, incinerating toilets, and plain old outhouses use little to no water, and they produce a sterile byproduct when handled properly. Yay!

I figure that since I am always talking trash about the green movement, I should put my money where my mouth is and start a weekly series on things one can do to help the environment. And stuff. Since the Farmers’ Market is on Wednesdays, it gives me a giddy sense of connection to talk about environmental stuff on Wednesdays, so here’s the first post. If y’all like it, I’ll keep doing it. If y’all don’t…I don’t know what will happen. Something exciting, in all probability.

At any rate, today I decided to talk about the combat shower because, well, because it’s a pretty useful water-saving skill to have. You may also know the combat shower as the “navy shower,” or by some other creative slang term, in which case, please add that slang term to the comments, because I collect slang terms like cat hair.

Long before I cared about the environment, I was familiar with the combat shower, for the simple reason that I grew up in a house with a very limited water supply. Showers had to be made as efficient as possible, or we would run out of water, and that would suck. For years, I was known for my eerily rapid showers (in part because I don’t wash my hair every damn time I shower like some kind of OCD freak).

The goal of a combat shower is to get as clean as possible while using as little water as possible. In my experience, I think that I actually get cleaner when I take combat showers than I do when I take regular showers, perhaps because taking a combat shower ironically gives one more time to shower.

How is this, you might ask?

Because, my homechickens, when you take a combat shower, you don’t leave the shower running continuously. Instead, you hop in, turn on the water, get wet, turn the water off, and then soap yourself. If you’re washing your hair, you get it good and soaking in this first pass, and then lather up your hair while the shower is off. Since the water isn’t pushing the soap off, willy nilly, and you’re not worried about running out of hot water because, duh, the shower’s not running, you can scrub all the little piggies, and it’s a grand old time. Incidentally, for those of you who shave various body parts, this is a dandy time to do that. The heat opens up all your pores, making it easier and more comfortable to shave, and the soap makes a great shaving lubricant.

Then you turn the water back on, rinse off, and hop out. Unless you washed your hair, in which case you turn the water off, apply conditioner if you’re into that sort of thing, and then turn it back on again to rinse the conditioner out before turning turning the water off and toweling dry. (Or air drying, whatever works for you.)

For those of you who have long hair, like I do, you can appreciate the amount of water this saves, and people who have less hair can still save a lot of water by showering this way. I’d argue that it’s a pretty small step which saves a significant amount of water, and it doesn’t require:

A. A major lifestyle adjustment

B. A purchase

or

C. A sacrifice of any kind

For extra credit, set up a greywater reclamation system, and use it to flush the toilet or water the garden. Or both. Or, heck, you can fill water balloons with it and fire them at your neighbors. It’s your choice.

The New York Times has a great feature article about an experimental “sustainability house” at Oberlin College which was basically engineered entirely by students, and I think it’s worth reading, because the concept is just so awesome. Having attended a small liberal arts college or two myself, I am well aware of the power that student groups can have, and it’s wonderful to see that profiled in a major news outlet. And, I think that the article is very well reported, offering subtle suggestions while also putting a strong emphasis on the idea that if you want to live green, you’ve got to make some sacrifices; but those sacrifices don’t have to be all that bad, if you do it right and have a positive attitude.

One of my alma maters recently sent out a big brochure about how they are greening the campus, and attempting to make it more sustainable (the irony of telling me this in a giant glossy brochure was not lost on me). It seems to be a growing trend in American colleges from small and liberal to large and conservative, and it’s got me pretty excited, personally.

I think that college campuses can sometimes turn into really interesting microcosms of society, and since so many Americans are going to college these days, students are definitely taking their college experiences with them into the outside world, which means that people who go to college on sustainable campuses will bring some of that with them when they graduate. Such programs also encourage ecological innovation, which means that it may be easier and easier to enact small changes to make a big difference.

Some of the measures taken in the house the Times profiled were pretty cool, like having a shower timer, unplugging one of the two fridges in the house, and using reclaimed greywater for flushing. All of these things are pretty easy to do, and they can make a big difference; so can having signs to remind people to turn lights out, which the people in Oberlin House do as well.

One thing I thought was really interesting was that in addition to encouraging ecological sustainability, the project also supports the growth of community. The students are encouraged to study together in the living room to use less energy than they would working individually in their rooms, and they talk through various issues as a collective, from how to improve efficiency to how to resolve conflict. They don’t have a television, to save on energy, and I imagine that also really helps to build a collective. I think that’s an important part of the college experience, the whole working as a collective idea, because otherwise you’ll end up a bitter misanthrope who can’t get along with anyone, like me. And I like the idea of working to benefit the community while building your own community, because I am a dirty hippie at heart.

I also like that the project doesn’t penalize students. If you take a long shower, it’s not like you’re getting fined, although other people might give you a friendly ribbing. It’s not about who is the greenest one of all, it’s about finding constructive, cool, and innovative ways to make a positive change.

As well as creepy ones: there’s a picture of John Edwards posted over the shower to motivate people into making their showers brief.

The article really illustrated the friendly, community-based aspect of the green movement, showing how people can make changes without spending a lot of money, and encouraging the green movement I want to see, which is less focused on consumer culture and more focused on restructuring your life and community. It was an object lesson in all of the things the green movement could be, if it tried.

Ok, I’m sorry, but I just need to rant about biodegradable furniture for a moment. I realize that I am always going on about how ecoculture is turning into consumer culture, but it really is, and it’s really starting to bother the blue heck out of me. I absolutely hate what the mainstream environmental movement is turning into, and I want to see someone give it a swift kick in the rump, or perhaps a beating with a baguette.

So people are all touting biodegradable furniture now because it’s the amazing, groundbreaking wave of the future, furniture that just breaks down and decomposes instead of hanging out in landfills, rotting. And, on the surface, this seems like a great idea. I mean I am all for things that biodegrade, as well as goods which don’t contain harmful chemicals and other nasties.

However, the whole concept of biodegradable furniture is based on the assumption that furniture is basically a disposable consumer good, and that bothers me, because it’s encouraging consumption over reuse, repair, and repurposing. Instead of engineering furniture so that it will break down when we are done with it, we should be engineering furniture which is designed to last a long time, so that it will hold up under extended use. Furniture which can be reconfigured and used in new, innovative ways. And we should be supporting collection and refurbishment of used furniture for eventual resale, rather than making compostable furniture.

I think what bothers me most about this whole aspect of the environmental movement is that people want to have their cake and eat it too, and they have been spurred to think this way by big corporations, which of course want to keep selling things to people. And you can’t sell things when people come to the realization that consumer culture of any form is antithetical to environmentalism. It doesn’t matter if you buy organic, biodegradable, chemical-free, whatever stuff: what matters is that you are still buying stuff.

Stuff is the problem, not the solution, and I would love to see all of these people who are all into the green lifestyle turning their backs on the companies which are marketing scads of “environmentally friendly” products at consumers. People should not be patting themselves on the back for buying lawn furniture which will melt at the end of the summer, they should be kicking themselves for not buying sturdy, well made furniture which will last for generations of happy summers.

I recently made a vow to myself that I would buy as few things in containers as possible, as part of an extension of my Lent scheme of not buying any packaged food. Now, obviously, some things have to come in containers, like olive oil and peanut butter, although I can buy bulk olive oil and decant it into an existing container, and reuse those peanut butter jars for, uh, jam. Or something. The point is that, where I can, I avoid containers and excess packaging, because I think it’s important, it’s not that hard, and it’s cheaper to make your own things, rather than using packaged foods.

Anyway, the other day I was standing in Down Home Foods after picking up some looseleaf tea (in bags reused from last time) and shampoo (purchased bulk, squirted directly into my faithful old shampoo bottle), and I encountered a personal dilemma. You see, Down Home usually doesn’t have Annie’s Goddess Dressing, which is one of my favourite all-time dressings ever. And they did on Monday, and I was looking at it and thinking about how much I wanted some, and how I haven’t been able to replicate it at home…and then I walked away. Because I am perfectly capable of making salad dressing, and I don’t need to buy it in a container.

Now, granted, this was a very small sacrifice in the grand scheme of things, but the point is that it was a sacrifice which I made, personally, to protect the environment and to live more frugally. And the thing about the environmental movement, the real one, is that sacrifices have to be made by everyone (and some of those sacrifices are a little bigger than not buying Annie’s Goddess Dressing).

Now, I could have argued that I would reuse the glass container, but the problem isn’t with the container, it’s with the product itself. By buying commercial dressing, I am contributing to the marketing for such products, instead of rejecting them. By making dressing at home with my own, fresh ingredients, on the other hand, I’m not only making better dressing, I’m also undermining (in a very minimal way) the market for packaged dressings. Are packaged dressings going to vanish entirely? Well, no, unless society gets really radical (and that would be awesome), but by making my own dressing, I encourage the people around me to do the same, because they see how easy and tasty it is, and that does make a difference. I eat a lot of salad. So do most of my friends. And by making a small lifestyle adjustment, we are thumbing our noses at a tiny aspect of consumer culture.

And that, for me, is what “green living” is all about, is small deeds, innovation, and reuse. Not buying the latest hip green product so that I can claim I’m environmentally friendly and get a new set of lawn chairs every year. Now, I’m not claiming to be all greener-than-thou here, and I am definitely far from a perfect person, but at least I accept the reality that you don’t get to be a consumer and an ecowarrior, kids. This is an either/other situation, and that’s just how it works.

While poking around for excellent articles to link to in my sites of interest post for the day, I came across this story at the International Herald Tribune, and I just had to comment on it in a post of its own, because the article is awesome, and it makes some really excellent points. Granted, many of these points have been made on this very site before, numerous times, but something about seeing them in print makes me all giddy inside. Go read it. It’s short, and it filled my heart with glee, so I think you might enjoy it.

The basic point of the article is that going “green” requires consuming less crap. I mean, fundamentally. The whole point is to reduce your impact on the world, so therefore you need to be consuming less, buying less, re-using more, and living a lifestyle which is oriented more on conservation than consumption.

The thing is, as the author points out, this is actually kind of boring. If you care deeply about the environment, you do things like showering less frequently, reusing containers, keeping stacks of recycling around, wearing used clothes, and so forth. You actually use everything you own until it wears out or cannot be retooled in a new way. You take your shoes to the saddlery to be repaired, you make rag rugs out of torn clothes, you use holey socks as dusters.

However, now that “green” has become fashionable, this weird situation is arising where major companies are marketing green products, creating a consumer market for green goods. Which is, uhm, totally insane.

Look. I am all for the production of necessary products in environmentally sustainable ways, and for the promotion of more ethical living. But I see the green movement going the same way as the local foodshed movement; it’s becoming an elite pursuit for the wealthy. By turning the green movement into an orgy of consumerism, we’re sending the message that you need to buy shit to go green.

On the contrary, to go green, you need to not buy shit. And I hate that two good movements, coming from a good place, are just turning into capitalist nightmares, marketed at the wealthy and the people who blindly follow trends. It seems like every “green living tips” article I see has a list of crap to buy, and that doesn’t really encourage people in lower income brackets to pursue more ecologically friendly modes of living. We should be stressing that caring about the Earth doesn’t require money, it just requires some logic, and anyone is capable of doing their part.

I’m “green” by nature, not because I care about the environment, although I do, but because I grow up dirt poor, so I’m a cheapskate. I use energy efficient tools in my house because they save me money, and the environmental benefit is a nice bonus. It would never occur to me to toss a container after using it once, to leave a light on when I’m not using it, to do anything but compost. I suspect that a lot of people lived green long before living green was a concept in the minds of corporations.

It’s gravely disappointing to me that the green movement is going where it is, that people are being told they can have their cake and eat it too. Sure, build a monstrous house! If you use “green certified” building materials, it’s ok! Sure, drive a car! If it’s a Prius, it’s ok! Be selfish! You can buy indulgences!

That’s what I was so pleased to see this honest and frank article in the IHT, because it pointed out the glaring truth of the matter. And how delightful it would be to see a genuine movement of people working to consume less, rejecting the products marketed to them and using common sense to think about how they can reduce their impact on the environment. There’s “living the green lifestyle,” and then there’s the reality of living a conscious life, and these two things are very different.

So, you know that stupid border fence? The one that is magically supposed to keep big scary illegal immigrants from entering the United States? Yeah, I try not to think about it either, because it is one of the most idiotic wastes of money I have ever seen, and the thing about living in this country is that you sometimes have to willfully ignore things to keep your head from exploding.

That said, I was reminded of this ludicrous proposition yet again when I found this charming article in the Los Angeles Times. As if the world was conspiring, NPR also had a report on the fence yesterday, so it was clear that I would have to waken from my lethargy and write an incoherent rant about it.

Basically, after the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that it could get the border fence up by 2008. Only it turns out that it may not meet that goal, so it is…ignoring environmental regulations and cultural imperatives to slice through the Southwestern landscape in order to meet its goal. As a “last resort,” of course; DHS wants to assure you that it cares deeply about the environment (but not Native American culture). Perhaps this sudden rush is because DHS fears that if a Democrat gains the Presidential office, the country will come to its senses, and this pet project will be soundly put down, as it should have been long ago.

I have been opposed to the border fence from the beginning, since it is stupid and a bit embarrassing. As one of the astute LA Times commenters* pointed out, the border fence is like the Maginot Line, and it will be just as ineffective. It reminds me of the Berlin Wall, and the Israeli-West Bank Barrier, all projects designed to keep people and ideas separated. Only the thing about people and ideas is that they are like cats, tending to go where they will. A wall won’t stop things, it will just create more chaos and heartache. It’s just not a logical approach to the immigration problem. (I say, why the hell not let them in? If America’s so darn awesome, surely we have room for everyone.)

When the proposal was initially brought up, environmental activists pointed out that it could become an environmental disaster. Many animals are used to moving freely around the region which is in the process of being fenced, as are Native Americans. By erecting a wall, we may destroy populations of animals we claim to value, like ocelots, and it will also endanger Native American culture. Oh, and it will infuriate ranchers.

Reading about the wall, I am reminded of what happened to the West when we started stringing barbed wire across it. There was a time when animals roamed freely throughout the American West, and then one day farmers said “this is mine and this is yours,” and things like buffalo started to become a problem, because they were having none of this barbed wire crap. So, obviously, the logical response was to start slaughtering all the buffalo so that they wouldn’t destroy the fences which were being used to keep our European cows neatly confined.

The border fence gets me as hopping mad as a buffalo, and apparently a lot of people agree with me. It’s just one more example in a long list of things I feel powerless to control, and it makes me hate the country and culture I live in. We are many: they are few. So why are they winning?

*Note to the Chronicle: I am a firm believer in Northern California superiority, as we all know, but this is one case in which the residents of Southern California seem to have us beat. The comments on LA Times articles are typically thoughtful, germane, and interesting, a far cry from the bigoted bile which spews forth on the SFGate comments. I just think the Chronicle should take note of this, and perhaps take steps, such as recruiting Southern Californians to comment on SFGate articles or something. God, I can’t believe I just said that.