Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Op-Ed in High Country News

Yesterday, my Op-Ed, about a ridiculous Idaho trespass law, published in High Country News.

Here's the text:

Woody Guthrie’s most famous song contains a stirring sentiment in its refrain — “This land was made for you and me.” Unfortunately, that sort of thinking could get you shot in Idaho.

Idaho’s new trespass law went into effect July 1. Combined with a new “stand your ground” law, it could make it easier for landowners to get away with shooting trespassers.

“Trespassers will be deemed to have nefarious intent upon entry into real property,” wrote Kristina Schindele, then Idaho’s deputy attorney general, in an email to the public. “Such presumed intent would permit unreasonable uses of force against such trespassers by landowners while limiting the landowners’ civil and criminal liability.”

The law, written without any consultation with sportsmen and recreationists, raises the trespassing fine to $500 and makes civil trespass a strict liability offense. Kahle Becker, former deputy attorney general for Idaho, says that trespassers who challenge the law and then lose in court will be responsible for the plaintiff’s attorney fees. This could cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000.

“You could bankrupt someone for innocently stepping on some undelineated sagebrush,” says Becker. The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association and the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association noted that the bill was vague and contradictory and difficult to enforce. But it easily passed in a Republican-dominated Legislature, and the governor opted to neither sign nor veto, which meant that the bill, as a quirk of Idaho law, automatically became law.

The bill was sponsored by House Republican Rep. Judy Boyle, a Bundy family supporter who made two trips to the illegal Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation in Oregon. The bill was supported by a coalition of agricultural groups and big landowners, including lobbyists for the Wilks brothers, Texas billionaires whose combined holdings make them the 13th largest landowners in America. They own 702,000 acres and pay private security guards to patrol their property boundaries. In 2016, they bought and closed off 172,000 acres of land in Idaho, parts of which had been open under the previous owners.

This new Idaho law makes me think of Georgian England as I’ve just finished researching and writing a book about land-access rights and how we’re losing them today. In the 18th and 19th centuries, English aristocrats got Parliament to pass laws to make the land their own — a process known as “enclosure.” Aristocrats pushed people off the land and hired armed gamekeepers. They excluded whomever they wished and enjoyed exclusive access to deer and grouse. What were once common lands that supported the livelihoods of many people became personal playgrounds and new sources of wealth for the already rich.

This sounds like the West in 21st century America: billionaire landowners who get what they want from legislatures. Vast areas of land closed off. Privatized wildlife. Armed security guards. This trend extends well beyond Idaho; in Montana and New Mexico, wealthy outsiders can close off access to streams.

Today, frustrated sportsmen and recreationists don’t really challenge the status quo. They advocate for amendments, such as the freedom to cross checkerboard corners of public land or for the privilege to retrieve a downed animal on private land. These do little more than loosen the handcuffs.
We should be looking at the bigger picture. We should be arguing for a full-on right to roam.

The English began to reverse centuries of aristocratic rule in 2000, when Parliament passed the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, which opened up privately owned mountains and unimproved grasslands for responsible public recreation.

There is no reason why the people of Idaho can’t have a similar right to roam. For hunters, anglers and hikers, this would mean being able to legally cross private lands to get to public lands and waters. For landowners, it would mean privacy in and around your home, immunity from frivolous lawsuits, and the right to sue for damages. But it also would mean no more unnecessary “no trespassing” signs, no more hoarding game, no more draconian trespass laws.

When Europeans are freer than Americans, when the moors of England are more open than the plains of Wyoming, and when our laws are crafted for the sole benefit of the landed gentry, we Americans have clearly lost our way. So let’s stop putting up with enclosure for the few and reclaim our old rights, the rights of the many. It’s not their right to exclude, fine and shoot us. It’s our right to roam.

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Co-presenting with Bill McKibben

In May of this year, I had the honor of co-presenting with one of my environmental heroes, Bill McKibben, the author/editor of seventeen books, the founder of, and arguably the principal figure in the worldwide climate justice movement. Bill was an altogether kind and down-to-earth guy.

[Note: It may sound like the audience was being rude by talking in the background (they weren't); that's just people in the lobby of the movie theatre, close to where our talk was held.] Special thanks to the Vermont Book Shop in Middlebury, VT, for organizing everything.

Monday, August 6, 2018

Book review from Adventure Journal

Roaming in Scotland near town of North Berwick.
Some book-review love for This Land Is Our Land from Adventure Journal:
"My dad, a law-abiding rural county detective, always surprised me with his frequent humming of ‘Signs’ by Five Man Electrical Band: ‘Hey! What gives you the right? To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep Mother Nature in.’ The urge to roam freely might be universal, but the U.S. is veering sharply toward a fenced-in future. Ken Ilgunas earned a following with his 2013 Walden on Wheels, and thank goodness he's back with This Land Is Our Land: part polemic, part American travelogue, and part primer on the history of land use laws. The Swedes call it allemansr├Ątten and in Great Britain it’s the ‘right to roam’—an average citizen’s license to wander on publicly or privately owned land. How often do you encounter ‘No Trespassing’ signs while camping, hiking, or just walking around the block? Before Americans need a membership card to get outside, everyone who moves should read this book.”

Thursday, July 19, 2018

What I’m consuming #2


Esther Perel’s Where Should We Begin? Seasons 1 & 2 - This podcast is full of good, practical relationship advice. (One helpful tip from Perel: When discussing a problem with your partner, put your partner’s complaint into your own words and ask her if you got it right. This way, everyone stays on the same page.) Also, her intimate therapy sessions with couples are extremely entertaining.

WBEZ Chicago, Making Obama - This series — about Obama’s meteoric rise — is riveting. If I have any criticism, it’s that the show should have followed Obama all the way to 2008, when he gets elected. Instead, it ends somewhat anticlimactically when he announces his candidacy for the presidency. (It was so good, I wanted more, so this is hardly a criticism.)

The young Obama is someone with great ambition. He was always thinking big. He was thinking years ahead. He was thinking of how he could apply his unique talents to the world. He was brilliant and tactical, but he was also lucky. In different circumstances he could have just been a successful lawyer, professor, or state politician in Illinois. What if he never met Michelle? What if Carol Moseley Braun had blocked his path to the Senate? A few unlucky events could have made the Obama story unfold in a different way. But ultimately his gifts, tactics, and luck worked together, and he got to live life as optimally as a human could.

I sometimes wonder if I’ll ever live a more optimal life. Is this the most I'll ever be—a modestly successful and never-exactly-satisfied writer? I wonder: If I was raised somewhere else, was better educated, was born in a different century, or was just really lucky here and there, could I be something bigger, something that suits me more? Perhaps a colonel in a war, a revolutionary, a politician, a business leader, a South Pole adventurer? I don’t know who I might be under different circumstances, but I do sense that, right now, my qualities as a human being aren’t being optimally utilized, perhaps because nothing is calling for them to be properly drawn out and put into action. Obama likely would have been perpetually dissatisfied if he sensed his qualities weren't being fully utilized, but he lucked out and made it happen.

This podcast made me think of other historic figures who were lousy in ordinary life but amazing in a specific set of circumstances. I thought of Ernest Shackleton and how many people thought that he, in ordinary life in the British Isles, was immature and irresponsible. But Shackleton’s journey to the South Pole provided him with a task that was so enormous and demanding that it became “a touchstone for his monstrous ego and implacable drive,” writes biographer Alfred Lansing. Suddenly Shackleton’s qualities — his ego, his drive, his physical stamina, his leadership — had opportunities to fully express themselves. And Shackleton thrived. We see the same thing with Ulysses S. Grant—an amazing human being who probably would have led an unexceptional life if it wasn’t for the Civil War. 

What is your Civil War? What is my South Pole? I speak of the circumstances that would ask the most of you, that would make you the most necessary and useful and effective human being you could possibly be.

Many of us may never get our South Pole, or even imagine our South Pole. I’m guessing most people never get a chance to realize their full potential. They never get to live the life they were ideally born to live. Instead, they get stuck in a cubicle when they should be a colonel, or they’re gathering nuts with their forest tribe when they should be computer programming. This is the Grant who never gets to fight his war and ends up living an undemanding family life. This is the Shackleton who never gets the funding for his expedition and rots away, resentful, in his rocking chair. Think about all the would-be presidents and doctors and writers and architects who never had the chance to achieve because they died young in wars. Or all the women, who, up until recently, weren't allowed to study alongside men in colleges. Or think about the millions who grow up in poverty, who get a lousy education, who never meet the right people, or who don’t get the right breaks. 

I have a vague, and perhaps mistaken, sense that I could be uniquely useful for something more, but I’m just not sure exactly what, and I have no idea if I’ll ever happen upon my own “South Pole.” Obama found his South Pole in the presidency. Ideally, I’ll find mine (as I am visited with strong callings here and there), but given the good chances of never hearing another clear calling, I think it’s okay to set up for yourself a good secondary life — the life Obama might have had if he’d never risen above a respectable professor or state politician — centered on family, community, and respectable work.


Netflix, Mindhunter - I enjoyed the first few episodes, but I gradually lost interest and quit. The fun was in the psychology. The serial killers oftentimes had illuminating things to say. And I suppose I liked how the overall story was about the creation of an academic discipline. I quit because of all the window dressing—the boring romance, the sterile setting, the so-so dialogue, the not-so-great chemistry between the two leads.

Annihilation - I gave up about halfway through. Perhaps I’m missing out, but I like sci-fi that grapples with big questions and makes me think (Ex Machina, Black Mirror, Arrival, Interstellar) or that at least thrills (Gravity). Annihilation seemed like a cheaply made, poorly acted, and badly conceived B-movie that did neither.


Hunter S. Thompson’s The Great Shark Hunt - Even though this book of essays is set in the ’70s and even though it's largely about out-of-date Nixonian politics, the writing, surprisingly, retains its readability and humor. It’s just rough and raw. His prose has an aggressive nature—it’s as if his words are bullets flying out of the barrel. Thompson does not dither or play word games—he is always on the attack, and it’s hard to look away.

The Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates, “The Case for Reparations - I just finished The Best American Essays and Travel Writing series for 2016, and Coates’s piece was one of my favorites. I love big, radical, progressive ideas of any sort, and I admired Coates’s approach, which was more history than Op-Ed. By the end, I felt pretty convinced that the idea of issuing reparations to those affected by the legacies of slavery and systemic racism is actually quite reasonable. But I’m also reading Ramp Hollow, about how the Scotch-Irish were run out of their countries, and then their homes in America, and then their jobs in West Virginian coal country, and many are still suffering from generations of poverty today, and it makes me wonder: Don’t they deserve reparations too? The same could be said for any number of groups (regardless of race) who’ve experienced generations of inequality and injustice, even if their struggles were comparatively less severe than African Americans’. 

Practically speaking, I wonder how reparations would go over with the angry white percentage of the population. Will reparations end in more equality, or will it end in more racism, more anger, and more Trumps that will spark a blowback that will lead to even more inequality? Whites already (wrongly) claim that blacks are getting the bulk of the social benefits. What happens to the state of race relations when blacks do indeed get more when the reparation checks are cashed? Overall, I sense that reparations wouldn't help the country, even if reparations are indeed right and just. I suppose that probably means I lean conservative on the issue, though I’m all for pouring resources into disadvantaged communities, which is a vague, though weaker, form of reparation. These, though, are just initial thoughts to a big idea. I’m still openminded on the issue and could be talked into it with the right facts and nuances.

Monday, July 2, 2018

What I’m consuming #1

If I can find the self-discipline, I’m hoping this will become a regular blog series that'll give me a place to record, reflect on, and digest the various media I’m consuming, whether it be in the form of podcasts, TV, film, or reading material.


This American Life: It’s my party and I’ll try if I want to - Fine show that shows the rift between the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic party, and that gives a behind-the-scenes look at the inner workings of modern politics.

Joe Rogan Podcast: Interview with Adam Frank - In a talk largely about climate change, one of Frank’s most fascinating reminders is that things that we commonly deem “unnatural” — cities, fossil fuel emissions, trash — is in fact the biosphere. From his recent NYT column: “What, for example is nature? From the biosphere’s perspective, a city is fundamentally no different from a forest. Both are the result of life’s endless evolutionary experiments. And forests, like grasslands, insects and oxygen-producing microbes, were once a evolutionary innovation. In that sense we, and our project of civilization, are not a plague on the planet. We are just what the biosphere is doing now.”

Bundyville - I’m currently on episode six (of seven) of Bundyville, a podcast about the Bundy family, who are known for their occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in 2016. I wrote about the Bundys in my book This Land Is Our Land, and I feared that an in-depth portrait of their family might provoke me to reverse my opinion of people for whom I have a strong and long-established dislike. (Enlightenment is never a bad thing, but no one likes to undergo the emotional gymnastics of softening a firm opinion.) 
Will I feel a measure of sympathy for the Bundys? Might there be something legitimate behind their views to seize public land? 

The town of Bunkerville, Nevada — where Cliven Bundy grew up — received fallout from a nearby atomic bomb test, causing widespread illness for the townspeople. That's certainly good reason to be upset with the government. Also, Cliven and his sons are Mormon, and perhaps some anti-government mistrust is baked into the fringes of that religion, which can be expected since the Mormons were so ill treated in the early stages of the religion. These helped me understand where Bundy's anti-government ideology came from 
— and I might have followed a similar ideological path if the government had given me a radiation shower  but my sympathy ends there. Cliven and his family seem corrupted by rotten religion, harebrained ideologies, and asinine conspiracy theories. The Bundys recruit angry riff-raff by telling cherry-picked sob stories about how the government is ruining their lives, giving their recruits grand “hero’s journey” narratives to live out, where they get to slay oppressors or sacrifice themselves as martyrs for a cause that would benefit no one apart from a few ranchers who want unrestricted use of sensitive and mostly unproductive land. 

Host Leah Sottile approaches her subject with an open mind, but she fact-checks the Bundys and doesn’t hold back from delivering clear-eyed, pull-no-punches denunciations when they’re needed. This is exactly the approach we need from journalists when subjects think their version of the truth is good enough.

Long Now Seminar: “Has the West Lost It? Can Asia Save It?: - Kishore Mahbubani, a Singaporean diplomat and author, is a marvelous speaker who looks at Western values from an easterner’s perspective. He speaks mostly glowingly about the West’s impact on the rest of the world, but worries we’ve begun to screw it all up.


The Staircase, a 13-part Netflix murder mystery documentary series - (Spoilers) I basically went from 1). Michael definitely did it because he's kind of a creep (and so are his lawyers). 2). I sort of like him and his lawyers, but I still think he’s guilty. 3). Whoa, lots of malfeasance on the part of the prosecutors—maybe he didn't do it? 4). Michael’s actually a really likable guy—the show ends. 5). I google for conspiracy theories, read about the “owl theory,” and everything makes sense. The owl did it.

Showtime: Just Another Immigrant - Very funny show. Romesh Ranganathan reminds me of Karl Pilkington from Idiot Abroad. Like Karl, Romesh is a grumpy, insightful, and deeply funny guy. My only criticism might be that some of the scenarios seem a bit too set up for a "documentary" (like the Navy Seal training or the graffiti scenes), but I’m willing to suspend disbelief.


Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the Value of Work - One of the best books I’ve read in the past few years. I thought this was merely a call to reclaim the manual arts, but it was so much more: a polemic against consumerist culture, against planned obsolesce and the need for “esoteric screwdrivers,” and against how office work creates “vague feelings of unreality, diminished autonomy, and a fragmented sense of self that [are] especially acute among the professional classes.”

Into the Woods blog - My friend David’s blog is the only blog I regularly read. His last three are a good taste of his style and typical content: one a prose-poem of a browsing deer, another a review of a book about the Scottish Enlightenment, and another with some lovely philosophy on the topic of purity and chaos.