If you haven't read "George" below, you won't get this post. About 10 months ago I put my e-mail address on this site, an email account which has remained relatively without any action. Today I received an e-mail from some anonymous source who took issue with my assessment of George's golf course comments and my subsequent comment about how only a misinformed environmentalist would view a golf course as an "eye-sore and an affront to humanity".
The e-mail said in part, "you have no idea how golf courses upset the delicate balance of nature by taking away habitat's from all manner of creatures. Golf courses are evil, and Carlin was correct".
Ok. Let's talk. First of all, golf courses are NOT evil, because they are not human in nature, and therefore do not possess feelings or emotion (not so for the golfers playing them, but that's another story). Secondly, golf courses actually provide a quality environment for "all manner of creature" as you put it, who lost their previous environment to malls, highways, and building projects. The grasses and trees on a golf course are not only pleasant to look at, they introduce oxygen and nitrogen to the environment (try that with a K-Mart). Ponds - both natural and man-made - provide a wonderful habitat for all manner of water-born species, as well as drinking water for above ground creatures. In the past 20 years, golf courses being built new (as well as over 50% of golf courses already in place) are using reclaimed water to irrigate their properties, and both chemicals and pesticides used have been approved by the EPA, therefore causing no destruction through there use. The reclaimed water process is fascinating in that they use a series of regulated ponds with screening and filtering machinery, putting the water back onto the course in better shape than it was when it first fell out of the sky.
If soft rolling hills of green grasses interspersed with trees of all variety, and well preserved water areas are an eye-sore, then I suggest the anonymous e-mailer has unrealistic standards.
P.S. By the way, unless they are 80 years old or on the PGA Tour and from Sweden, no one wears pink checked pants with a purple shirt on the golf course any more...and they haven't for 20 years or so. Can we finally kill that stupid stereotype?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I'm gonna tell it like it is, and I may use some profanity. Soooo, if the word "Fuck" fucking bothers you, it might be better to leave.
About Me
.jpg)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(258)
-
▼
June
(18)
- Joe
- Dear Lawgirl
- I didn't want to rant, but they made me...they mad...
- George...redux
- George
- Robber tries to rob convenience store with a palm ...
- Linguistically speaking
- True news of the untrue variety
- I wish I wrote this, but alas, I did not
- New vs Old
- Why
- Objection! Objection!
- Words, damn words, superficial words, and the dumb...
- Ahhhh...the terrible 13's
- Infomercials
- Thoughts 6/5/08
- Fin
- Class is in session.
-
▼
June
(18)
2 comments:
Well, I want to chime in and say that it was a bit too strong of you to imply that anyone who cares about the environment is misguided. I just watched a show last night about the Apollo astronauts, highly respected military men all around, and at the end of the program each and every one of them expressed some concern about the state of the environment. I guess traveling to the most barren plance imaginable will impress a certain reverence for what one of them called "The Garden of Eden" on Earth. Knowing your loyalty to persons with that sort of background I doubt you would call any of their sentiments "misguided."
That said, golf courses are the least of the problems, really. At least they're green and have trees and grass and, in many cases, actually improve the scenery. They're well cared-for by people who have degrees in botany and the like and I know for a fact that those people have a great respect for the land that they work with. It's better than a parking lot or a highway or a stack of condos, just remember that.
Also, we all need to learn that it's okay to disagree. Sending an anonymous letter does a disservice to your cause, if you ask me. Just stand up and say "this is who I am and this is what I think." If you're prepared to have an intelligent, objective, and reasonable discussion about whatever it is you beleive in then there is no need to hide behind a veil of anonymity. But I do understand why you might be nervous about going toe-to-toe with someone as...um...let's say strident as JL4. It's daunting. Trust me. :)
JL4 doesn't seem the type to "imply" things. If you thought environmentalists were misguided, you'd just come right out and say it wouldn't you?
And is that gorgeous creature your daughter? I'm with her. Anonymous is for wimps!
Post a Comment