🚀 go-pugleaf

SP Cook wrote:

> Dino Hill <Galvatron3@acd.net> wrote in message
> > Maybe by planting trees and landscaping in metro and rural areas would
> > slightly ease the "environmentalist concerns" on interstates????  LIke
> > Atlanta!  Does anyone know of any similiar projects that have happened in
> > metro areas to "beautify our interstates".
> >
> My state came up with a "Naturalized Area" program.  Under it the DOH puts
> up brown "Naturalized Area" signs and doesn't cut the grass or clip the
> trees and such.  Looks like what it is, an undermaintained ROW overgrown
> with weeds.

It may be trendy, but I don't mind the "naturalized area" phenom--and to simply
dismiss it as weedy disarray seems to me like dismissing abstract art as
paint-roller junk.  OTOH, to impose "naturalized areas" upon places where a
certain "grooming" has always been part of the aesthetic--say, a few Moses-era
parkways--is definitely taking a good thing too far.

> I disagree with premise for 2 reason.
>
> 1) what could be more beautiful than a interstate in the first place?

You've *got* to be ironic with that statement.  Or an Italian Futurist.  Or
something...

> 2) the idea that environmental extremists can (or should) be appeased is
> just wrong.  If all government wanted to do was A there will always be an
> extremist saying do A - 1.  If they wanted to do A -1 the extremist would be
> for A - 2.

Sometimes, "extremist" policy is just that--extreme.  Other times, it can
trickle down to the mainstream (as with "naturalized areas").  And we're not
necessarily the worse off for the fact.  Leftward "extremism" or rightward
"extremism" alike...