Come on, admit it. You were one of those kids who watched Superman reruns every Saturday morning. You'd sneak downstairs before your parents woke up and position yourself directly in front of the TV screen. Maybe you'd even have a little snack. Your heart raced week after week as Clark Kent transformed into Superman just in the nick of time and you couldn't help but feel a sense of pride in him as he saved the day. As soon as he heard people's cries he was quickly in his spiffy leotard and on his way. In every episode, Superman was always someone's last hope.

If you knew you were the only person left to care, would you take the time?

Well guess what -- you are the only people left to care. Only in your scenario, the victims can't scream your name to get your attention. In fact, no one is really screaming much about it at all.

This summer, Congress approved the Bush administration's Healthy Forests Initiative, allowing big timber companies to tap into tree reserves they previously only dreamed about under the guise of preventing forest fires.

Using the name "Healthy Forests Initiative," the Bush camp hoped to play off of your stupidity. They're banking on the fact that you don't care about the destruction of the beautiful natural forests in this country. They're counting on you rolling your eyes and turning your back on their blatant nod to the big timber companies. The plan arose out of the necessity to protect nearby neighborhoods from the intense flames and was furthered President Bush's desire to manage our forests "in a better, more common-sensical way."

Shielding homes from danger is one thing, but when cutting is taking place in thick secluded areas of forest, intentions must be questioned.

During an August visit to Oregon to speak on behalf of his new plan, President Bush attempted to describe these catastrophic fires to the audience by likening them to the holocaust. If a naturally occurring forest fire is equivalent to the genocide of millions of people, what would the purposeful and elaborate destruction of trees by timber companies be considered?

As devastating as forest fires can seem, they are a healthy and natural occurrence for forests. They renew the immediate environment in many ways and were a common occurrence before we began suppressing 99.7 percent of them.

In doing so, we've elevated the intensity of the blazes significantly by allowing decades and decades of underbrush, dry timber and small sickly trees to build up.

Bush's plan includes the removal of this underbrush, and as an incentive for the big timber companies contracted for the job, the plan also allows the removal of perfectly healthy trees for profit as well. This would be the equivalent of going into a city recently a victim of natural disaster, burning the remaining buildings and killing the survivors.

The incentive for the timber companies seems more than fair to George W., who also saw it fit to attempt to drill in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge earlier in his term. With an environmental record like his, what's not to trust when it comes to the fate of our forests?

Even Clinton rolled back restrictions to allow big timber companies more logging rights. The last plan to cut trees to help forest health was in 1995 -- attached to a bill to appropriate money to the victims if the Oklahoma City bombing.

The "salvage rider" was intended to clear forests of their thick underbrush and density of trees by allowing lumber companies to clear out sick, diseased, dying and dead specimens and "associated" trees.

The lack of description of associated trees led to the inevitable logging of perfectly healthy old growths, as one day they'll all be sick, diseased or dying. Bush's Healthy Forest Initiative removes all need for these associations. They're allowed to cut wherever they want in the name of safer, healthier forests.

Half of the forests that once covered 46 percent of the earth's surface are already gone and they're fading more each year. The precedent being set by this legislation is dangerous.

The more we allow government to roll back environmental standards, the less park and forest space we'll have to enjoy. Envision Penn State without Mount Nittany's trails and wildlife. Picture Sequoia National Park as one lone tree remaining surrounded by protective fences. Imagine your grandchildren only experiencing the beauty of a forest through a painting.

There are experiences that you can't rebuild for any amount of money and habitats that you can't simply replace by planting seedlings.

So while we all want less fire-caused destruction, we should also demand more natural preservation. A good place to start would be at the polls next November.