by mouse on Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:50 pm
well, yeah.
it's an adroit commentary on the role of governmental agencies in carrying out "good" (albeit economically or emotionally difficult) activities, and the risk to both that which the governmental agency is attempting to preserve and the ordinary citizen, should those agencies lose sight of the true, underlying, goal in a drive to maintain absolute compliance with the activities mandated to acheive that goal - a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, as it were (particularly apt in this instance, as it is the forestry department mindlessly carrying out destructive activities in their zeal for preservation). while ordinary citizens may acquiece to the governmental juggernaut, pursuaded by the high ideals espoused by their leaders, an enlightened and activist citizen may force a clear-eyed view of the situation, and stop the unwitting harm done by those who merely go along in a good cause. thus, like so many things, it can be appreciated on many levels - not only in the surface situation of preserving our forest heritage and the ecosystem it supports, but in darker scenarios, such as wars fought for "good" causes, and even the failure of the ordinary citizen to demand accountablility from the government for its abrogation of our constitutionally-derived rights in an effort to save us from "terrorists". it is, indeed, all of us, all who go along without question, all who accept the surface assurance of an unexamined bureaucracy that the immediate evil done is necessary for the long-term good, who are at fault for the destruction these entities wreak, not only to that which they pretend to save, but to ourselves, the boobeoisie, who accept an unexamined assurance that "it's the law".
that, or another one where everyone else drops bup in the $#!%.
and your new av still disturbs me.