Thursday, February 26, 2009

Trees

So well said:
The high point of Jindal’s address came when he laced into “wasteful spending” in the stimulus bill, and used as an example a $140 million appropriation for keeping an eye on the volcanoes in places like Alaska, where one is currently rumbling.

“Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.,” Jindal claimed.

I don’t know about you, but my reaction was: Wow, what a great stimulus plan. The most wasteful thing in it is volcano monitoring.

Louisiana has gotten $130 billion in post-Katrina aid. How is it that the stars of the Republican austerity movement come from the states that suck up the most federal money? Taxpayers in New York send way more to Washington than they get back so more can go to places like Alaska and Louisiana. Which is fine, as long as we don’t have to hear their governors bragging about how the folks who elected them want to keep their tax money to themselves. Of course they do! That’s because they’re living off ours...

The waste argument is a perpetual winner because there will always be some. Years ago, when I was a reporter, I remember getting a call from a woman in the Bronx who was screaming: “They’re over on Moshulu Parkway planting dead trees!” Sure enough, a city work crew was digging holes along the side of the street and carefully sticking in brown and dried-up pieces of foliage. The men claimed the trees had simply lost their leaves for the winter — an explanation somewhat undermined by the fact that they were evergreens.

I’m telling you this because on Tuesday I was talking with a high-ranking Obama administration official about the stimulus plan. “There will be a dead tree planted, figuratively speaking,” he said somberly. “That will happen.”

How could it not? Much of the stimulus money is being channeled through state and local governments, through tens of thousands of governors, mayors, county executives, transportation commissioners, parks superintendents and so on. Try to imagine the person in that pyramid with the lowest I.Q., and you’ll understand that there’s a dead-tree planter hidden in there somewhere.


And I appreciate this because my mom and her friends will hold up the dead trees as microcosms of the whole thing-- and I find dead trees as infuriating or more so than the next person-- but there's a point where you have to accept a level of dead trees. I have planted a number of figurative dead trees, especially during my move; even my mom does it from time to time. If you're going to do just about anything, there will be things that you do in error.

***
Speaking of dead trees, soft toilet paper is bad for the planet.

In other news, Mexico's drug war is increasingly f*ed up; and there's some hope for Sudan.

2 comments:

Ernessa T. Carter said...

Oh man, I am not willing to give up soft toilet paper or even really soft Kleenex. I'm usually a staunch environmentalist, but I loathe rough toilet paper, just can't bear it. I drive a hybrid and I carry totes everywhere, so I don't have to use plastic or paper. I used to be a radio writer and I spearheaded making our writing, producing and editing process 90% green. But I seriously don't care how many trees it kills, I will never give up soft toilet paper. I mean like never ever.

Ernessa T. Carter said...

I also use my Kindle, the internet, and the library almost exclusively for all of my reading, and I've let all of my magazine subscriptions lapse. I'm that serious about not using as much paper-paper. But let me say this again. I will NEVER give up soft toilet paper.