Thursday, January 04, 2007
Beast in the Garden
Recently, I finished reading The Beast in the Garden by David Baron. The book recounts the story of humans and wild animals, in particular the mountain lion, sharing living space in the Boulder, Colorado area with fatal results for both species.
People in the Boulder area relished living close to nature. They rejoiced when deer and other wild animals were frequent visitors in their yards. Unfortunately, deer make up the primary diet of mountain lions. Thus, the mountain lion slowly followed the deer into suburban and then urban areas.
Initially, the mountain lions avoided contact with humans. But, gradually, through the process of habituation, the lions learned that people, the lights around their houses, cars, the humans in general were of no real threat to them. The lions began eating pets and farm animals. A few attacks on humans occurred.
Yet, the overwhelming sentiment by the citizens was for the safety and welfare of the mountain lions, not people. Community meetings were held and most people that showed up were there to "speak on behalf of the lions."
During the development of the problems, a wildlife biologist realized the real threat posed by mountain lions and how the process of habituation would allow the lions to become more bold with future attacks on humans a virtual certainty. No one gave his warnings significant credence.
January 14, 1991 in nearby Clear Creek, Co., high school student Scott Lancaster went for a training run during fifth period. He ran a route that circled up a hillside, through wooded areas, and back to the school. He was seen going by the school at the completion of his first circuit. During the next circuit, Scott was killed and partially eaten by a mountain lion.
Even after this incident, the public expressed much concern for the welfare of mountain lions although it was realized that something needed to be done. Eventually, authorities came up with no lethal measures, such as rubber buckshot, to help teach lions a fear of humans and discourage the lions from entering human territory.
What struck me, when I first heard about this book and what was reinforced in reading it, is how well the story parallels the threat of terrorism to America.
The 9/11 terrorists purposefully "habituated" themselves to American culture. The learned how to fit in to our society. The only difference between the terrorists and the mountain lions is the purposefulness of the terrorists' actions. The lions' only goal is to find food. The terrorists wish to kill Americans.
Yet, just as those who were concerned about the lions, many Americans (read liberals mostly) seem more concerned about the terrorists than their own children, nieces, nephews, neighbors, and other fellow citizens. Thus, the absurd level of outrage over Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and other "atrocities" supposedly committed by American soldiers, CIA, etc.
Too many Americans have a schizophrenic disconnect with nature, wild animals and terrorists. The book is a great read, a thorough and fascinating look into the actions and psyches of wild animals and humans and their interaction with each other. The psycho/sociological process of how many want to deal with terrorists is accurately reflected in the attitudes of the animal "lovers" in the liberal Boulder area.
As for me, I believe we need to take measures with terrorists similar to what officials eventually did in Boulder, make them scared of us. Whether the methods are fatal or non-fatal, some how we must create enough fear in them that they dare not attack us. This probably needs some new and creative techniques other than just simple military assault. Then and only then, since even terrorists are God's children, we can work on guiding them, if possible, to a life that is in much greater harmony with the rest of the world.
People in the Boulder area relished living close to nature. They rejoiced when deer and other wild animals were frequent visitors in their yards. Unfortunately, deer make up the primary diet of mountain lions. Thus, the mountain lion slowly followed the deer into suburban and then urban areas.
Initially, the mountain lions avoided contact with humans. But, gradually, through the process of habituation, the lions learned that people, the lights around their houses, cars, the humans in general were of no real threat to them. The lions began eating pets and farm animals. A few attacks on humans occurred.
Yet, the overwhelming sentiment by the citizens was for the safety and welfare of the mountain lions, not people. Community meetings were held and most people that showed up were there to "speak on behalf of the lions."
During the development of the problems, a wildlife biologist realized the real threat posed by mountain lions and how the process of habituation would allow the lions to become more bold with future attacks on humans a virtual certainty. No one gave his warnings significant credence.
January 14, 1991 in nearby Clear Creek, Co., high school student Scott Lancaster went for a training run during fifth period. He ran a route that circled up a hillside, through wooded areas, and back to the school. He was seen going by the school at the completion of his first circuit. During the next circuit, Scott was killed and partially eaten by a mountain lion.
Even after this incident, the public expressed much concern for the welfare of mountain lions although it was realized that something needed to be done. Eventually, authorities came up with no lethal measures, such as rubber buckshot, to help teach lions a fear of humans and discourage the lions from entering human territory.
What struck me, when I first heard about this book and what was reinforced in reading it, is how well the story parallels the threat of terrorism to America.
The 9/11 terrorists purposefully "habituated" themselves to American culture. The learned how to fit in to our society. The only difference between the terrorists and the mountain lions is the purposefulness of the terrorists' actions. The lions' only goal is to find food. The terrorists wish to kill Americans.
Yet, just as those who were concerned about the lions, many Americans (read liberals mostly) seem more concerned about the terrorists than their own children, nieces, nephews, neighbors, and other fellow citizens. Thus, the absurd level of outrage over Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and other "atrocities" supposedly committed by American soldiers, CIA, etc.
Too many Americans have a schizophrenic disconnect with nature, wild animals and terrorists. The book is a great read, a thorough and fascinating look into the actions and psyches of wild animals and humans and their interaction with each other. The psycho/sociological process of how many want to deal with terrorists is accurately reflected in the attitudes of the animal "lovers" in the liberal Boulder area.
As for me, I believe we need to take measures with terrorists similar to what officials eventually did in Boulder, make them scared of us. Whether the methods are fatal or non-fatal, some how we must create enough fear in them that they dare not attack us. This probably needs some new and creative techniques other than just simple military assault. Then and only then, since even terrorists are God's children, we can work on guiding them, if possible, to a life that is in much greater harmony with the rest of the world.
Comments:
<< Home
Most Americans unhappy with the treatment of the 'enemy' are more worried about the slippery slope, and the strange new definitions the Gobal Counterinsurgency is forcing upon us.
My beleif? Catch suspected terrorists, try them, and if they are convicted, execute them. Timothy McVeigh's execution is something I use as an example of why we keep the death penalty around.
The folks you hear 'defending the terrorists' are ususally in the unenviable postion of 'defending rule of law and due process,' and don't phrase it right in their arguments. Some boneheads take this too far and make unfair and illogical comparisons for the sake of getting on TV (Gitmo = Gulag etc. etc), but for the most part, those who are most easily cast as 'defending the terrorists' want to make sure we don't destroy our own Constitutional protections in order to prosecute criminals.
This isn't new, it is an age old debate we've been having since the principle of Habeus Corpus was demanded as a cheque on tyrannical prosecutions.
This also stems from the 'enemy combatant' strageness that the current Administration has used to prosecute the war. It is very tough to get over and have no objections to terms that seem to violate civil definitions we've had for so long. Until the 'enemy combatants' stuff, people were either 'soldiers of an opposing army' or 'criminals,' both of which definitions applied long held rule sets for prosecution.
My beleif? Catch suspected terrorists, try them, and if they are convicted, execute them. Timothy McVeigh's execution is something I use as an example of why we keep the death penalty around.
The folks you hear 'defending the terrorists' are ususally in the unenviable postion of 'defending rule of law and due process,' and don't phrase it right in their arguments. Some boneheads take this too far and make unfair and illogical comparisons for the sake of getting on TV (Gitmo = Gulag etc. etc), but for the most part, those who are most easily cast as 'defending the terrorists' want to make sure we don't destroy our own Constitutional protections in order to prosecute criminals.
This isn't new, it is an age old debate we've been having since the principle of Habeus Corpus was demanded as a cheque on tyrannical prosecutions.
This also stems from the 'enemy combatant' strageness that the current Administration has used to prosecute the war. It is very tough to get over and have no objections to terms that seem to violate civil definitions we've had for so long. Until the 'enemy combatants' stuff, people were either 'soldiers of an opposing army' or 'criminals,' both of which definitions applied long held rule sets for prosecution.
Patrick,
You make valid points. I think the "boneheads" are far too great in number and that many are less interested in protecting our Constitution and Constitutional rights than in finding whatever excuse available to attack Bush and/or America in general.
Attacking Bush or America is fine if you do it for valid reasons, not overblown hysteria.
I overstated my case somewhat in my post because I'm very concerned that the problem of terrorism will fester and explode if not addressed effectively, which I don't believe Bush or the Democrats has. I believe that too many don't see terrorism as a great threat. Also, these same people are in denial that feelings of tenderness and compassion are not the answer.
In much that same way that wild animals are viewed through Disneyfication and the animals' true nature ignored, many have trouble accepting that their are truly evil people in this world.
I am very concerned about our civil liberties and rights but only see the Democrats bring this subject up as a tool against Republicans. Remember Clinton/Gore wanted a chip in all computers that the FBI could access virtually at will. The Democrats simply want to infringe on our rights in different ways, such as violating freedom of religion by forcing Catholic hospitals to allow abortions to be performed in thier facilities and by forcing pharmacies to dispense RU486.
But, on the whole, I see too much "sympathy" for terrorists in the MSM. If 9/11 didn't convince these people of the danger, what will? Or, maybe, they simply hold America responsible for all the world's ills.
You make valid points. I think the "boneheads" are far too great in number and that many are less interested in protecting our Constitution and Constitutional rights than in finding whatever excuse available to attack Bush and/or America in general.
Attacking Bush or America is fine if you do it for valid reasons, not overblown hysteria.
I overstated my case somewhat in my post because I'm very concerned that the problem of terrorism will fester and explode if not addressed effectively, which I don't believe Bush or the Democrats has. I believe that too many don't see terrorism as a great threat. Also, these same people are in denial that feelings of tenderness and compassion are not the answer.
In much that same way that wild animals are viewed through Disneyfication and the animals' true nature ignored, many have trouble accepting that their are truly evil people in this world.
I am very concerned about our civil liberties and rights but only see the Democrats bring this subject up as a tool against Republicans. Remember Clinton/Gore wanted a chip in all computers that the FBI could access virtually at will. The Democrats simply want to infringe on our rights in different ways, such as violating freedom of religion by forcing Catholic hospitals to allow abortions to be performed in thier facilities and by forcing pharmacies to dispense RU486.
But, on the whole, I see too much "sympathy" for terrorists in the MSM. If 9/11 didn't convince these people of the danger, what will? Or, maybe, they simply hold America responsible for all the world's ills.
ok, in theory your right.. but in practice it wouldnt work..
terrorism requires fear, if you execute a terrorist, people will use his death as a rallying call to fight to oppressive people who dared kill them..
if, you kill a terrorist for killing 1 person.. then they will more likely to kill 10, or 100, if the same penalty happens.
yes there are a lot more terrorist pleasers, and always will be, irish groups were still collecting money the days after 9/11 in the american bars..
there will never be a easy answer to terrorism, imprisonment, creates living martyrs, executing them dead martyrs. if you go too far along the authoritarian route, then its possible that you may in future create more killers.
if you dont, you may be seen as weak.. and so manke more.. one answer is to take all the property of known terrorists, and give them no money and leave them no property.. it may help a little..
there is a difference between relgious rights and beleifs, and the denial of human rights. you may not like some of the freedoms or rights, but we cant say these people are less than us, because of their faith their personal needs is different to ours.. its when one group forces change upon the lives of people, whether its the islamic religion or chrisitanity or even governmental organisations, to deny yours or mine or fred bloggs down the roads right to be human.. thats when you get more terrorism, more fear more resentment..
look at the abortion clinics, you have anti abortionists breaking and creating fear in people.. thats just another form of terrorism, maybe not as bad as blowing up cars etc.. but its just the same.. you cannot have 2 rules for the same thing, saying its ok for christians to create terror, but bad for muslims..
terrorism requires fear, if you execute a terrorist, people will use his death as a rallying call to fight to oppressive people who dared kill them..
if, you kill a terrorist for killing 1 person.. then they will more likely to kill 10, or 100, if the same penalty happens.
yes there are a lot more terrorist pleasers, and always will be, irish groups were still collecting money the days after 9/11 in the american bars..
there will never be a easy answer to terrorism, imprisonment, creates living martyrs, executing them dead martyrs. if you go too far along the authoritarian route, then its possible that you may in future create more killers.
if you dont, you may be seen as weak.. and so manke more.. one answer is to take all the property of known terrorists, and give them no money and leave them no property.. it may help a little..
there is a difference between relgious rights and beleifs, and the denial of human rights. you may not like some of the freedoms or rights, but we cant say these people are less than us, because of their faith their personal needs is different to ours.. its when one group forces change upon the lives of people, whether its the islamic religion or chrisitanity or even governmental organisations, to deny yours or mine or fred bloggs down the roads right to be human.. thats when you get more terrorism, more fear more resentment..
look at the abortion clinics, you have anti abortionists breaking and creating fear in people.. thats just another form of terrorism, maybe not as bad as blowing up cars etc.. but its just the same.. you cannot have 2 rules for the same thing, saying its ok for christians to create terror, but bad for muslims..
same with animal testing labs, they have been burned down, peoples lives destroyed by the fear.. they are just as guilty of creating terror, than any terrorist.. but they are somehow seen as being morally better.. (i object to the makup testing centres, but medical possibly) therefore they arent as bad..
Happily we have more mountain lions than terrorists here in the USA, yet you have them knocking on your door. They aren't. Fear of predators is an American staple. Polar bears wander into town when the ice melt doesn't allow them access. Do the math.
I'm very concerned that the problem of terrorism will fester and explode if not addressed effectively
I would argue that it already has exploded, again and again, in our nation's history. This is the problem we have with trying to define a verb as a noun. Terrorism is a activity/atrocity that someone engages in. We will live with terrorism as long as we live with other people.
Right now, terrorism is being used as a 'red scare' on the right and the left that seems to eliminate logic and rationality from the problem solving process. On the right, 'terrorism' is being used today like 'communism' was in the past: some strange spectral evil that is lurking right behind the corner in your pantry, requiring constant fear and over the top solutions to a problem that more readily requires personal vigilance, responsibility, deliberate action and common sense on the part of both the citizenry and the government.
The left's response is more a response to the right's 'over the top-ism' than it is to actual terrorism, which makes it seem far more comical/dangerous. They respond mainly to the disconnect that oil money (read: right wingers) actually pays for more terrorism, and make the leap to "America is reapin the whirlwind because of global warming etc, etc" without first describing the steps by which they've come to their conclusion. Which makes some very valid points irrelevant becuase of who is delivering the information.
The right's response is mainly political (and the way they have exploited the GWOT for political gain is shameful) and the left's response is mainly academic (and associates them with outside-of-reality-ism). Both approaches get vastly more airtime than either deserves, and both shout out or overshadow anyone speaking about real solutions.
What does this mean? The same thing it has always meant: America is the greatest nation in the world, but our focus groups suck.
Luckily, we have real people who are really concerned with defending this nation within the letters of the law and hunting down actual terrorists as opposed to wiretapping your grandma. They will win this fight with terrorism, as they won the last ones with the Mob, the Klan, the McVeighs, the Davidians, etc, etc...
I would argue that it already has exploded, again and again, in our nation's history. This is the problem we have with trying to define a verb as a noun. Terrorism is a activity/atrocity that someone engages in. We will live with terrorism as long as we live with other people.
Right now, terrorism is being used as a 'red scare' on the right and the left that seems to eliminate logic and rationality from the problem solving process. On the right, 'terrorism' is being used today like 'communism' was in the past: some strange spectral evil that is lurking right behind the corner in your pantry, requiring constant fear and over the top solutions to a problem that more readily requires personal vigilance, responsibility, deliberate action and common sense on the part of both the citizenry and the government.
The left's response is more a response to the right's 'over the top-ism' than it is to actual terrorism, which makes it seem far more comical/dangerous. They respond mainly to the disconnect that oil money (read: right wingers) actually pays for more terrorism, and make the leap to "America is reapin the whirlwind because of global warming etc, etc" without first describing the steps by which they've come to their conclusion. Which makes some very valid points irrelevant becuase of who is delivering the information.
The right's response is mainly political (and the way they have exploited the GWOT for political gain is shameful) and the left's response is mainly academic (and associates them with outside-of-reality-ism). Both approaches get vastly more airtime than either deserves, and both shout out or overshadow anyone speaking about real solutions.
What does this mean? The same thing it has always meant: America is the greatest nation in the world, but our focus groups suck.
Luckily, we have real people who are really concerned with defending this nation within the letters of the law and hunting down actual terrorists as opposed to wiretapping your grandma. They will win this fight with terrorism, as they won the last ones with the Mob, the Klan, the McVeighs, the Davidians, etc, etc...
as someone who has lived through long and sustained terrorism, we have adapted to cope.
it seems odd to say you can learn to live with the fear, but its true.. yes you need to be more vigilant, take nothing for granted, but then you have to live your life as the same time.. for to force you to retreat into a single point of existence, means they win.. they have significantly altered your lifestyle.
you have to be careful of making laws, making a too extreme form of retaliation, as they will be seen as a win by the terrorists at the very least,
i walk here and i am always watching, because of the fear, it will never go away, you just have to learn to survive with it.
something america needs to learn, sometimes i think the greatest threat to security is the security services themselves.. if the terrorists can cause havoc just by saying they will do this.. and the security services go overboard.. then they are doing what the terrorists want.. to create fear
it seems odd to say you can learn to live with the fear, but its true.. yes you need to be more vigilant, take nothing for granted, but then you have to live your life as the same time.. for to force you to retreat into a single point of existence, means they win.. they have significantly altered your lifestyle.
you have to be careful of making laws, making a too extreme form of retaliation, as they will be seen as a win by the terrorists at the very least,
i walk here and i am always watching, because of the fear, it will never go away, you just have to learn to survive with it.
something america needs to learn, sometimes i think the greatest threat to security is the security services themselves.. if the terrorists can cause havoc just by saying they will do this.. and the security services go overboard.. then they are doing what the terrorists want.. to create fear
Mark - as an outdoorsy person, I do worry more about predators than terrorists in my personal life. A person being killed by a black bear was unheard of in Tennessee where I grew up. In the past 4-5 years two people have been killed by bears including the first person ever killed by a bear in the Great Smoky Moutain National Park. Still not a great threat but it gives me pause when I take my kids in the woods but am not allowed to bring a gun for protection.
A man in Cincinnati swears he's seen mountian lions nearby. If the lions are following deer, they could be. A deer crashed through a plate glass window into the lobby of the Millineum Hotel in the heart of Cincinnati this past summer. Coyotes are now common in Kentucky and Ohio but were non-existent or very rare 30 years ago.
BTW - polar bears will stalk and kill people.
I don't care what the numbers are. I don't want to be in the small percentage that are killed and eaten but, Mark, you're welcome to join the "Grizzly Man" in Alaska. Heck, they're just big teddy bears.
Patrick - I'm not sure if you're serious about the "Mob, the Klan, the McVeighs, the Davidians, etc, etc... " We haven't won the war against the Mob. The Davidians were not real threat to anyone except Janet Reno's ego maybe. McVeigh was a single deranged individual with a little help. The Klan still exists but primarily as a bunch of outcasts. It demise has more to do with changing social values than law enforcement.
I didn't emphasize it enough but the need for "new and creative techniques" for combatting terrorists is tremendous. Maybe by secretly supporting Muslim religious leaders who preach peace, we can take away the religious "authority" of the radical Islamist. I think the answer lies in bringing about a change in religious thought in those who would become terrorists.
A story a professor told in college was of a tribe that worshipped watermelons but would not eat them as they were sacred. An outsider came, told them this was silly, cut open the watermelon and began to eat it. The tribes people immediately attacked and killed him.
A second outsider came and saw the tribe's watermelon worship. Believing that it would be helpful to the tribe to be able to eat watermelon the outsider devised a plan. He told the tribe that one could eat watermelon but the proper religious ceremonies had to be performed. He showed them the ceremonies and they performed them together. Following this the tribe would have great religious ceremonies in which they would eat watermelon. They called the second outsider a great teacher.
Somehow, to me, this story demonstrates that we need to approach the problem of Islamic terrorists from a different angle. Probably one that incorporates more religion.
I do agree with your "Red Scare" analogy. If they were serious about security, our borders wouldn't be so porous, for one thing. But without illegal aliens there wouldn't be the source of cheap labor that the corporate benefactors of the politicians wish. Reminds me of Orwells' "1984". He was just off by a few years.
Mercurior - you make an excellent point when you say, the "greatest threat to security is the security services themselves." Indeed, I believe the greatest threat to our freedom is from our own government. Conservative and liberal politicians are attacking our freemdoms from different sides.
Post a Comment
A man in Cincinnati swears he's seen mountian lions nearby. If the lions are following deer, they could be. A deer crashed through a plate glass window into the lobby of the Millineum Hotel in the heart of Cincinnati this past summer. Coyotes are now common in Kentucky and Ohio but were non-existent or very rare 30 years ago.
BTW - polar bears will stalk and kill people.
I don't care what the numbers are. I don't want to be in the small percentage that are killed and eaten but, Mark, you're welcome to join the "Grizzly Man" in Alaska. Heck, they're just big teddy bears.
Patrick - I'm not sure if you're serious about the "Mob, the Klan, the McVeighs, the Davidians, etc, etc... " We haven't won the war against the Mob. The Davidians were not real threat to anyone except Janet Reno's ego maybe. McVeigh was a single deranged individual with a little help. The Klan still exists but primarily as a bunch of outcasts. It demise has more to do with changing social values than law enforcement.
I didn't emphasize it enough but the need for "new and creative techniques" for combatting terrorists is tremendous. Maybe by secretly supporting Muslim religious leaders who preach peace, we can take away the religious "authority" of the radical Islamist. I think the answer lies in bringing about a change in religious thought in those who would become terrorists.
A story a professor told in college was of a tribe that worshipped watermelons but would not eat them as they were sacred. An outsider came, told them this was silly, cut open the watermelon and began to eat it. The tribes people immediately attacked and killed him.
A second outsider came and saw the tribe's watermelon worship. Believing that it would be helpful to the tribe to be able to eat watermelon the outsider devised a plan. He told the tribe that one could eat watermelon but the proper religious ceremonies had to be performed. He showed them the ceremonies and they performed them together. Following this the tribe would have great religious ceremonies in which they would eat watermelon. They called the second outsider a great teacher.
Somehow, to me, this story demonstrates that we need to approach the problem of Islamic terrorists from a different angle. Probably one that incorporates more religion.
I do agree with your "Red Scare" analogy. If they were serious about security, our borders wouldn't be so porous, for one thing. But without illegal aliens there wouldn't be the source of cheap labor that the corporate benefactors of the politicians wish. Reminds me of Orwells' "1984". He was just off by a few years.
Mercurior - you make an excellent point when you say, the "greatest threat to security is the security services themselves." Indeed, I believe the greatest threat to our freedom is from our own government. Conservative and liberal politicians are attacking our freemdoms from different sides.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
