Class, Please Come To Order

Welcome to "Greg's Blog 101". If you're looking for "Sensitivity Training", it's across the hall in the H.R. Department. Today we will begin with the entry about the cabin #78 fire (or "Area 78" if you prefer). I want to jump right in with the most controversial topic first (future topics will include "How the CIA killed John F. Kennedy", "How the U.S. government staged the Moon landing to win the space race" and "The technologies learned from the crash at Roswell, and why they're being kept secret"). But, before we can move on, we need to discuss what we have read. And since that little item titled A Note to Canyon Folk is being dissected and poured over as if it were a Homeric epic, I thought I would break it down for you. Not to the quark level, as some of you would have it, but hopefully enough to calm the hand-wringers amongst you.

First things first. Why did I write about the incident at all? Because it would have been weird if I hadn't. If I am to maintain this blog as more than just a collection of goofy musings, I had to write about such a traumatic event. As I wrote in the introduction, the intent here is to record Canyon history. Not as a mere sequence of occurrences, but as a glimpse back in time; hence the personal touch. I'm sorry if I embarrassed those of you who would rather go around whispering...well, actually, no I'm not.

So why did it take me several days to post the entry? I waited to collect my thoughts. The whole affair was physically and emotionally exhausting and left a lot to sort out in one's head. I think I came to a fair and reasonable state of mind.

Now, why did I start so bluntly in the first paragraph? The answer is in what at first seems to be a change of subject for the second paragraph. Those things had to be said and had to be said at the beginning. They were what I and a lot of other people were thinking; but it's not what I wanted to leave you with in the end. I could have down-played the cause of the fire, but it would have been a disservice; and obvious.

So the second paragraph was a set-up for the third, which was an attempt to disband the lynch mob. It was a reminder that we all need to stick together. The Forest Service in general may not care about you as an individual, but it does value the cabin tract on the whole. This includes the Pack Station, Sturtevant's Camp and the phone system. Public interest, and consequently that of the press, is in the community and how it functions. The allegiance of "Cabintown" ought always be maintained, lest "they" divide and conquer. These are just pragmatic reasons to get along, aside from the Humanity of it all (Yes, I know that h is capitalized. It shows reverence to the concept). I also point out that you, even you in the back of the class, especially you in the back, may one day benefit from a communal attitude.

Paragraph four recognizes that ultimately it is the Forest Service that decides whether the cabin may be rebuilt (or whether it can be "restored", to get technical), but that the decisions are made by real people, and their own opinions could distort their interpretation of the rules. This paragraph contains the words "Daniel, fault, deny, prevent, doubt and charity". I think some people only read those words. What part of "I don't want to see the Forest Service deny Daniel a permit because he is blind" led you to believe that I was picking on him? Is it because I said he is blind? It's OK, Daniel knows he's blind. I used to joke with him that it is dangerous to hike at night and he found it humorous. One look at his website (World Access for the Blind) should tell you that he doesn't want you feeling sorry for him, and if anyone else would be denied "restoration" permission, so should he. Then I use Glen Owens and Dr. White as examples of folks who have extended a neighborly hand.

Next paragraph: Here I address the feelings many people had that Daniel seemed to show no remorse, and I offered some possible explanations to which we all can relate. Personal correspondence with him has since revealed that he is quite reclusive. I go on to say that "it is my opinion that he needs to admit that blindness has its handicaps...". It seems to me he would be out of a job were that statement not true. But really, all I was saying is that even though Daniel has a "No Limits" mantra (Oops, I forgot. Choose every word carefully. Mantra sounds too fanatical. Motto? No, too frivolous. Apothegm!)...even though Daniel has a "No Limits" apothegm, the proper public relations policy would be to work with the rest of the community that both sides might better understand each other, and in return I expect the others to be supportive.

The sixth paragraph was meant to defend Dan Ames against any undue scrutiny. He's a good guy, and his possible role in the fire is between Daniel and him. He may hold a professional responsibility, but he was absolved from any personal responsibility the moment Daniel became aware of the hazard.

The meaning of the last paragraph seemed to me as plain as the words that form it, but I will explain it anyway. What I meant by "That's not right. Who wants a new cabin in here?" is that what makes the Big Santa Anita special is the fact that 83 Special Use Permits have survived the wrath of Mother Nature and Uncle Sam, and remains mostly how it was 100 years ago. Then I meant to describe how, over time, rebuilt cabins and room additions have a tendency to blend in (note that I did not mention cabin #12). Cabin #130 in particular was refurbished quite tastefully, so read slowly: cabin #130 is a fine example of appropriate restoration. Got it? Then I say that a "restored" cabin #78 needn't be a plywood palace; and if Dan Ames' woodworking skills are employed, you can rest assured that it will be an accurate replica (look at the front deck on cabin #106, by the bridge, for an example of his work). I end by saying that regardless of any mixed emotions at the time, later on I would lament the passing of another cabin. I was honestly on the side of giving someone another chance, and the very controversy that resulted from that blog entry is what I hoped it would squelch. In case any of you stopped reading one sentence short of the final period, it was "I am now in favor of rebuilding [restoring] cabin #78 and would love for Daniel to stay here with us". I don't know how to expatiate on that simply stated position, but I will say this: Never did I suggest that the "stupid" thing Daniel did was to live his cabin life as would a sighted person. The stupid, and stubborn, thing he did was to light the stove when he knew it was dangerous. That statement alone ought not negatively affect blind/sighted relations ("ought not", that means I can't help it if people are dense), and the added responsibility to protect Daniel's public image is his own. Class dismissed.

As always, there is a link here at the end for any comments. Go ahead, make your opinion known. I can't be the only one