Posted on 12/20/2017 12:16:24 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
The US Left’s “Anti-Racist” crusade resembles Soviet groupthink more with every day. The Bolsheviks politicized everything - whether it was science or music or sports or gardening or going for a walk in the woods - it had to be presented as a “Revolutionary” or “Proletarian” activity, as opposed to “Reactionary” or “Bourgeois” activity. Similarly, the Antifa ideologues see everything in the world (even trees now, apparently) through the filter of “Diversity and Multiculturalism” vs. “Bigotry and Racism.” The content is slightly different, but it’s based on the same totalitarian mentality.
President Trump should declare the trees a National Monument!!
I’m wondering if tamarack and tamarisk trees are the same. When I was younger rows of tamarack trees were planted all over the county as wind breaks. Apparently they were very good at being wind breaks.
We had a row of them all the way down our street as a wind break for the field across the street from us. They’re ugly trees and were always full of praying mantis. Not sure why the mantis seem to really like them.
I still see what remains of the rows and rows of them that were planted.
Tamarack is a fir-type tree native to North America. Tamarisk is native to Asia and notably flowers.
Thought their list of complaints would be they were planted for hangings.
They also make good windbreaks.
What I really took from this story is the utter lack of moderation. That is, trees: all stay or all go.
Why? If they just removed every other tree, or two out of three trees, it would achieve the same end, that is, a view of the golf course. And the same idea applies to the fence. Why eliminate it, if just by shortening it, it would still keep out most animals, but could readily be overcome by people?
Thank you!
What causes even more confusion is the fact that the common name for Tamarisks is "salt cedars," even though they aren't a cedar (as you say, they're flowering plants, not conifers). Tamarisks a nuisance in a lot of areas where they're introduced because they're much more effective at soaking up water than most native plants.
They’re saying the trees are hurting their property values?
Wait’ll that big net goes up to protect their homes from golf balls.
Mostly the trees planted in such locations were for wind breaks.
I read the other day the entire of the new Palm Springs City Council is comprised of alternative lifestyle sorts. This article causes me to reflect upon the sanity of the lot.
After reading the article I agree the trees must go. They are an invasive species of Tamarisk trees also known as SALT CEDARS.
They will suck the last bit of moisture out of the ground and have been the cause of drying out of river beds all over the Southwestern states.
Good luck killing them out. They are tenacious and will resprout as bad as Johnson grass.
Just call them “Robert E. Lee Trees.”
“escape from LA” was a documentary?
They are planted mainly to protect property and people who live and work near the golf course. These people are stupid.
White birch trees?
And those defending the trees are Birchers?
And the offspring trees today that cause such a ruckus are sons of birches?
This is SO stupid! Date palms were planted everywhere back then, and salt cedars were planted as windbreaks. You can see the trees around the Desert Palms Inn in the movie ‘Palm Springs Weekend’ from 1963. This is like those idiots who insist that the La Plaza Hotel was a brothel: the story is more important than the truth.
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.