This mudge, like the previous one Lost In Space, is about picking apart the fussy little knots folks tie themselves into which prevent them from saying sensible things. The new candidate insight to explain this malfunction is that the self-disabled speaker can't see the problem and doesn't realize they are uttering nonsense. Consider this brief rant of Dave Iverson at Forest Policy - Forest Practice.

My local paper ran this FrontPage headline Friday, "And now here's the Grand Canyon, thanks to…" The article was subtitled "National parks seeking corporate sponsorship." No doubt supporters believe they are just looking to honor those they refer to affectionately as 'corporate partners.'

But many, including me, think this is yet-another nightmare brought to us by those who have no vision of or desire for 'public use.' This is the same bunch who have no idea of the good that comes from holding some public space apart from the constant drumbeat of corporatism—pounded incessantly into our heads by TV, radio, and newer forms of web advertising. Darker thoughts loom over possibilities that this is also linked to neoCon notions of 'Starve the Beast' (whittling down the federal government by whatever means—to the size if can be drowned in a bathtub) highlighted well in Paul Krugman's The Great Unraveling.

Imagine, if you will a future with Minnie and Mickey Mouse greeting you at Old Faithful Lodge. Imagine Budweiser or Coors or ??? being the 'official beer' of the Grand Canyon (or of all the national parks). Imagine … whatever you can imagine that reeks of corporatized, commodified Nature.

Reading Krugman can do serious and lasting mental damage, but I think that in this case the damage had already been done. I'm assuming that the news article referred to is this one linked from Iverson's post.

You'll likely never see a sign in Yellowstone National Park proclaiming "Old Faithful geyser brought to you by the makers of Viagra."

But you may soon find plaques and banners there and in other U.S. national parks to recognize corporate contributions to what long have been called the country's "crown jewels."

According to a National Park Service proposal, the overseer of the system that includes Rocky Mountain, Everglades, Great Smoky Mountains and 55 other national parks wants to tangibly credit companies that donate money or other support to the parks.

To do so, commemorative plaques, markers or other signs bearing the names or logos of the companies would be displayed. In some cases, particular parts of park facilities would even be named after the commercial sponsors.

"We are looking to find ways to appropriately recognize the time and dollars contributed" by companies, said Al Nash, a National Park Service spokesman.

It is dead common to see commemorative plaques, markers or other signs bearing the names of donors in parks. Wealthy philanthropists have made donations and been rewarded with recognition for a long time. Walk up to a grove of sequoia trees and see a brass plaque on a stone plinth proclaiming this to be the such-and-such grove. How is it worse to have a plaque naming the grove after a company than a wealthy individual, perhaps a major stockholder in companies?

There's no difference. The reason Iverson and the hysterics quoted in the news article can't see this is that their hatred of capitalism and corporations blinds them. Their unthinking acceptance of the status-quo is part of it too. I don't see being greeted by Minnie and Mickey Mouse as being worse than being greeted by uniformed government minions or even rent-a-cops. It's quite a bit better in a way since there is no implied threat of force or authority to dampen spirits and clash with the natural setting.

But none of those uniformed greeters are nice. They all unambiguously announce that you are entering an official zone devoid of inhabitants. No one lives there and you aren't greeted by the inhabitants as would be most welcoming and comforting. It's an open air zoo, a prison of sorts where life is segregated and monitored. Animals here, people there, don't feed the primates. Keep off the grass. But of the two I find the wheedling commercial uniforms and logos less offensive than the authoritarian uniforms and logos. They are both offensive, but one threatens force and has an unlovely martial quality that chills. I'd rather see Goofy and Mickey any day.

These places reek of history. They weren't discovered, they were stolen from people who did live there. The continued presence of uniformed minions is a stark reminder than these are conquered and occupied areas ethnically cleansed of the native inhabitants. In my neighborhood, Sequoia National Park, the local land marks keep the history vivid. Over there is Battle Mountain, the place where the Indians made their last stand among a field of huge boulders while they were pounded by artillery laboriously dragged up the mountain by the troops. The uniformed minions are a sinister reminder for those of us who know and care.

If we tried to undo that old wrong, locate the descendants of survivors and give it back, what would they do? I suspect they'd be crassly commercial in some places and totally closed in others. There'd be casinos and brothels at the gate and no access to the interior except by residents and their friends. This is just how it is now in "public" parks. There's all sorts of places that the uniformed minions won't let you go, though they and their friends go there when they wish, but there are public areas crowded with tourists.

Of the possible ways to manage these "crown jewels" I prefer that there be residents who own and operate them. Since that isn't a realistic option - we stole it fair and square and we ain't giving it back - I would prefer to see a transition away from the authoritarian style to the commercial style. There's nothing at all charming about uniformed guards, some even armed, and it clashes with natural settings in a way that sets my teeth on edge. I just avoid such places.