Posted on 06/15/2004 3:25:12 PM PDT by UnklGene
Lying about Yosemite - Thomas Sowell
June 15, 2004
Yosemite National Park is one of the beauties of nature that has brought me back every year for more than 20 consecutive years. But, in recent years especially, there seem to be two Yosemites -- the one discussed in the media and the one I see with my own eyes.
On the first day of my visit this year -- June 6th -- there appeared one of the standard propaganda pieces on Yosemite in the San Francisco Chronicle, illustrated with the standard propaganda photographs.
They say the camera doesn't lie but it can do some serious misleading. A standard lie of the environmental extremists is that Yosemite is "over-crowded" and choked with bumper-to-bumper traffic. True to form, the San Francisco Chronicle shows a line of cars and a couple of pedestrians scooting between them.
The pedestrians ought to give a clue as to what is wrong with this picture. The cars are not moving along a street or highway. They are stopped and lining up. Cars get stopped at the entrance to the park to pay a fee to get in and they get stopped by road construction delays inside the park.
My wife and I were among those stopped for about 15 minutes at a road repair site. When traffic is stopped dead in its tracks for 15 minutes, you can collect quite a backup almost anywhere. In Yosemite, you can also collect misleading photographs to be used to advance the political agendas of environmental extremists.
Once past the construction site, the traffic in Yosemite flowed far more smoothly than it does in San Francisco and parking spaces were far easier to find. For three days in a row, we had lunch at the popular Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite Valley and each time we had our choice of parking spaces in the main parking lot.
If anything, the traffic was somewhat lighter than it has been in some past years. We also had no trouble finding parking spaces at Glacier Point, Curry Village or any other place in the park where we decided to stop.
Why then the campaign of lies?
Groups like the Sierra Club and other environmental zealots have for years been trying to reduce the number of people visiting our national parks. They seem to think that our national parks are their own private property, and that it would be best if the unwashed masses are kept out as much as possible, leaving the backpackers to enjoy these parks in seclusion.
Like other special interest groups, the environmental extremists have a disproportionate influence on government officials, including in this case those who run the National Park Service. One of their coups has been to get the gas station in Yosemite Valley removed. The next nearest gas station is 13 miles outside the park and it charges more than $3 a gallon.
Was the gas station in Yosemite Valley spoiling some natural scenery? Far from it. It was part of a built-up area that included motel buildings, restaurants, and a gigantic parking lot. That parking lot remains, with something like a hundred cars on it and next to it is a very unattractive tent city.
Esthetics had nothing to do with removing the gas station. The environmental zealots know that the automobile is the key to ordinary people having access to the national parks. The more hassles are created for people driving automobiles, the more people will be discouraged from coming, advancing the goal of reserving the national parks for environmentalists and for those who live the lifestyle that the environmentalists approve of.
The essence of bigotry is denying other people the same free choices you have. Many of those who call themselves environmentalists could more accurately be called green bigots.
The automobile allows people to see Yosemite in their own ways and at their own pace, which is especially important for the elderly and for families with small children. But the park bureaucrats and the green bigots want to force people out of their cars and regiment them into busses, to be taken when, where and how the bureaucrats decide.
The restrictionists love to talk about the "fragile" environment and "saving" it for "future generations." No definition of "fragile" is offered. What this amounts to is saying that future generations of green bigots can keep out future generations of ordinary citizens and taxpayers.
Amen, to the GREEN BIGOT tag...
Semper Fi
My wife and I were in Yosemite National Park two winters ago. It was extraordinarily beautiful and not a car to be found. The "lines of cars" is truly a myth.
Sowell bump.
I'm not sure where they got this attitude, but maybe from how they despise folks who don't backpack.
ping
June 15, 2004
In 1984, President Ronald Reagan boldly withdrew the United States from
the United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) to the "glee of conservatives and despair of liberals," as
long-time Reagan advisor Lyn Nofziger recalls in his 1992 book. Mr. Nofziger
continues, "UNESCO is one of those international organizations that
always had one hand dipped in Uncle Sam's pocket while the other was
shaking a fist in his face. America's withdrawal was one of those little
victories conservatives won during the Reagan years...."
Unfortunately, in 2003, Congress approved more than $60 million to undo
President Reagan's work and began paying "dues" to rejoin UNESCO. The
U.S. will continue to pay $60 million annually -- which is a whopping
25% of UNESCO's entire yearly budget -- and leave the other 190 "member
states" to divide up the remainder.
UNESCO seeks to levy an unconstitutional "global tax" for Internet use
on U.S. citizens.
UNESCO has already laid claim to 47 "United Nations biosphere
preserves" in the U.S. (more than 70 million acres) and bypasses congressional
authority to tell us how we must manage our own land.
UNESCO further undermines U.S. sovereignty by forcing the U.S. to
adhere to U.N. global policies and may even force unconstitutional
restraints on U.S. freedom of the press.
UNESCO supports the "hate-America" global "cultural diversity"
convention and interferes in the education policies of its member countries to
control school curriculum and create "global citizens."
Even though Congress eventually approved the $60 million in annual dues
to UNESCO, 145 members of the U.S. House voted on July 22, 2003 to
withhold those funds. So there is still a sizeable block of opposition to
UNESCO in the U.S. House.
To build on that opposition, Congressmen Ron Paul, Donald Manzullo,
Steve King and Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis, on June 3, 2004, introduced H.
Con. Res. 443 declaring that the U.S. should withdraw from UNESCO.
Immediately, Representatives Roscoe Bartlett, Sam Johnson, Jeff Flake and
John Culberson signed on as cosponsors. But we must have more.
Ask your U.S. representative to stand up for U.S. independence and send
a strong signal to the promoters of global governance. Please urge
your representative to become a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 443 by going to
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=5994861
Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org
An emergency gasoline service would make a killing there.
Interesting. All my life I've avoided Yosemite because I assumed the crowds there would rival those of Disney World. Next time I'm in the area I'll have to(finally) pay a visit.
You're more correct than you know.
The eco-fascists desperately want to keep the handicapped out. They are terrified that a judge will rule that the handicapped must have access to ALL federal property, including national parks, national forests and wilderness areas. What does that mean? Roads. And roads mean cars, motorcycles and (shudder) SUVs, the bane to all human-hating, nutcase, nature worshipping cultists.
Now allow me to develop this further. Handicapped, when considering the outdoors, does not mean just folks in wheelchairs getting wheeled to some lookout point. No, enjoying the wilderness equally, under the American With Disabilities Act, would mean opening federal property to the handicapped for all manner of enjoyment, including hunting, fishing, bird watching, surveying plant and animal populations and more. And the handicapped does not mean just folks in wheelchairs.
The meaning could be expanded to include a World War II vet who wants to go fishing. He can't hump a pack 5 miles to get to the stream, so a judge could rule that he must be accomodated under the disability act. This might also apply to a pregnant woman on a day trip with her kids. And to kids themselves. After all, a three year old youngster can't walk 5 miles to a lake.
Again, a judge could rule that federal land must be opened to all these folks who are handicapped by age or a temporary infirmity - pregnancy.
You can bet your last dime the eco-fascists fear and hate the handicapped who will soon be demanding access to their federal holdings.
In New York the eco-fascists tried to keep the handicapped out of the state lands. A judge told the eco-fascists to take a flying leap.
Stay tuned, There's big change coming on the socialist federal lands.
Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.