 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Alert to help our forests - USA
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: katlaughing Date: 26 Aug 02 - 05:00 PM FROM THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY - yes, it is a rant of sorts, but one I feel is important and worth a read. Thanks, kat The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children. -Dietrich Bonhoeffer, German theologian In a callous response to a summer of human suffering and property loss across the Western United States, President Bush yesterday announced his proposed changes to federal wildfire policy. His plan will pay off the timber industry, disembowel environmental protections and do precious little to protect our forests, those who live near them and those men and women who risk their lives fighting wildfire. Please tell President Bush that you reject his fire plan for what it is: a shameless willingness to trade on human fear and suffering just to fulfill the timber industry's wildest anti-environmental dreams. We urge you to not only call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 yourself, but to get your family and friends involved by forwarding this Wild Alert to them and asking them to respond. The threat to our forests from this initiative is that serious! You can also take action from our website at: Wilderness Society One of the Worst Summers on Record Wildfire charred more than six million acres of forest this summer and some fires continue to burn. The fires also damaged hundreds of homes and caused entire communities to be evacuated. The reasons are generally understood and generally agreed upon: -This summer caps four years of serious drought across the West. Standing timber has less moisture in it than kiln-dried lumberyard two-by-fours. -The nation has systematically extinguished every blaze, of every size, in our forests for over a century. The result is fuel-many more trees per acre than occurred historically, and a huge increase of low, weedy, flammable growth those natural fires cyclically consumed. -People are moving into forest environments in growing numbers and are reluctant to remove the very trees that attracted them in the first place and where local zoning often neither prohibits such building nor imposes sensible fire-protection requirements on it. When reasons are so well understood, solutions should be correspondingly clear. And they are. A VERY DANGEROUS BLAME GAME The timber industry, now speaking through a compliant president eager to press an election advantage, says environmental regulations are to blame-that conservationists have tied the Forest Service up in knots and prevented the removal of all this built-up fuel. The facts and the General Accounting Office (GAO) say otherwise. The GAO reports that only 1 percent of fuel reduction projects was appealed last year. Environmental laws are NOT the problem. The problem is the Forest Service's steadfast refusal to address the problem where it exists-and where so many Americans paid so dearly this summer. That place is where the forest meets homes and communities. The timber industry, and thus today's Forest Service, would rather cut large, old trees in remote areas than confront the deadly problem that this summer damaged so many homes and lives. TAKE ACTION NOW! Founded in 1935, The Wilderness Society works to protect America's wilderness and to develop a nation-wide network of wild lands through public education, scientific analysis and advocacy. Our goal is to ensure that future generations will enjoy the clean air and water, wildlife, beauty and opportunities for recreation and renewal that pristine forests, rivers, deserts and mountains provide. To take action on behalf of wildlands today, visit our website at http://www.wilderness.org |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: artbrooks Date: 26 Aug 02 - 05:09 PM Thanks, Kat, and I found that only 1% of fire reduction projects were appealed to be especially interesting. Usually data is much more important than emotions in addressing these issues. And we have 2 new (so far small) fires in the Santa Fe National Forest near here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 26 Aug 02 - 07:52 PM Yep, better to let 'em burn up, eh, kat? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Ebbie Date: 26 Aug 02 - 10:28 PM Put the poking stick down, Dougie. I'm sure you're aware that frequent fires on small brush burn quick and hot and tend to die before they attack the big stuff. Try it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 26 Aug 02 - 10:59 PM Kat - I CANNOT believe you are Westerner!
The western U.S. is a "fire-chapperal." Nature INTENDED it to be burned through every 20-30-50 years....it is part of the ecological process. Some seeds don't even germinate until after they have been "toasted."
The archaic "Smokey the Bear" mentality which you are espousing is what gave birth to the horrificly devastating forest fires we have seen this season.
Forests are a sustainable and renewable resource. (Just like corn, tomatoes, and (the lettuce/brocholi you should right now))
You need a basic course in earth-science QUICK!
Sincerely,
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 26 Aug 02 - 11:29 PM Dear Babbling Bodcat - Contrary to your belief, forests are dynamic, not static. Historically, low intensity fires occurred frequently in low elevation forests and did not kill the larger trees.
Unless trees are cut and removed, most will eventually burn.
Many residential areas are adjacent to forests at high risk for catastrophic wildfires.
Thinning unnaturally dense forests should be our first priority on national forest lands. Timber harvesting can reduce fire severity, but not the number of fires.
The Lumber industry provides:
EMPLOYMENT - Forestry provides good jobs in the woods and mills. These jobs are very important to the rural areas where alternative employment opportunities are limited. Jobs keep people living in and support our small towns.
INCOME FOR LAND OWNERS - Without a market for forest products, small landowners will seek alternatives for generating income from their land. Some lands would be subdivided for home sites, other lands consolidated into large holdings. IMPROVED NATURAL RESOURCES - Americans use lots of wood each year - 75 cubic feet of wood per year per person. Our population is projected to increase. Wood consumption is expected to increase even as the recycling trend continues. Using wood is much more environmentally friendly and energy efficient than substitute products like steel or aluminum.
America's forests are productive and renewable. Logging is planned, supervised and monitored by professionals - foresters, biologists and loggers. Stringent guidelines are followed to ensure environmental protection. It is common sense to responsibly harvest our forests.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 26 Aug 02 - 11:54 PM Bless you, Garg. Someone has the cajones to counter the arguments of those who would see our forests destroyed by fires. The failed policies forced on the forest service by the extreme environmentalists have certainly contributed to the damage caused by all of the wild fires we have experienced out west this summer. Anyone who doubts it should try to convince the owners of the 400 homes lost in the fires in Arizona. A similar number have been lost in Colorado, and Oregon as well as thousands of acres of forest land. No one wants to over cut the timber in the forests, but it has to be harvested regularly so there is nothing to feed the fires when they do start. You are right. There will always be forest fires, but they need not be as devestating as those we have had this year. From reports I've heard, kat, your state is experiencing a pretty serious fire problem at the moment. And Ebbie, if you would like, come out here and I'll be glad to drive you to areas in Arizona where you can witness the grand old trees consumed in the Rodeo fire on the Apache Indian Reservation. It's not all little brush that burns in the forest fires. That's part of the problem. Too much felled timber and small stuff growing laying on the forest floor that serves as tender to the fires. I was in Washington state earlier this month and saw areas in the wilderness areas near Mount Rainer that are so over grown it is a disaster just waiting to happen. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 27 Aug 02 - 12:16 AM Thank you Doug!!...for another voice of reason, crying in the wilderness.
Just one tiny clarification in your posting. Re:so there is nothing to feed the fires when they do start.
There will be something because ALL is not removed...and there should be fires...but they will not be the type of holocaust we experience when 100 years of accumulated fuel piles on-top of pile on-top of pile.
I KNOW your intent...I just wanted to jump on it before one of the "lunatic-fringe" twisted it into "reducio ad-absurum."
Sincerely,
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Ebbie Date: 27 Aug 02 - 12:27 AM I'm sure you guys read quite well- possibly even English. Take another look: "-The nation has systematically extinguished every blaze, of every size, in our forests for over a century. The result is fuel-many more trees per acre than occurred historically, and a huge increase of low, weedy, flammable growth those natural fires cyclically consumed. The timber industry, now speaking through a compliant president eager to press an election advantage, says environmental regulations are to blame-that conservationists have tied the Forest Service up in knots and prevented the removal of all this built-up fuel. The facts and the General Accounting Office (GAO) say otherwise. The GAO reports that only 1 percent of fuel reduction projects was appealed last year. " Now what was it you were saying, again?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: katlaughing Date: 27 Aug 02 - 12:36 AM Go ahead, Doug and Greg, take potshots at me all you want...maybe they can use some of your hot air to start some more fires. Fercrisake, did either of you do anything besides jerk your knees because it was posted by me AND had something to do with our environment? Did you read the following: -The nation has systematically extinguished every blaze, of every size, in our forests for over a century. The result is fuel-many more trees per acre than occurred historically, and a huge increase of low, weedy, flammable growth those natural fires cyclically consumed. Does that sound like advocacy of no fires? Is it possible to have a reasoned discussion of this? I should have known with you two, probably not. That's alright, those who care can go register their concern, while you two have at it. There are many, many OLD-TIME WESTERNERS, born and bred, who feel the same way I do. You two have fun with your mutual admiration...I'm gonna go hug a tree...maybe the postman will report that suspicious activity! kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 27 Aug 02 - 12:52 AM Kat Laughing -
Please restate - in your own personal words - the precise reason you made this "Mud-Cat Call-To-Arms" for us to write the President of the United States about your "urgent matter.
WHAT is YOUR issue - and why should it become ours?
Communicate / don't reverberate.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Ebbie Date: 27 Aug 02 - 01:08 AM gargoyle, is this a 'bait and switch' game? :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 27 Aug 02 - 01:28 AM Fire has always been a part of the forest cycle, but the natural clearing has been disrupted, first by loggers interested only in short-term profit (erosional scars from before and after 1900 can still be seen in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado and I am sure, many other areas) and secondly, later, by the extreme preservationists. There is no clear policy on forest management, taking into consideration local conditions. This is needed immediately but I have little hope of the current administration taking effective action. ArtBrooks, I just got back from Santa Fe; the watershed looks to me like a disaster waiting to happen. There was a scare at Los Alamos; the fire was bad but it could have been much worse. I expect problems in the Reno area in Nevada-California before long. Massive clearing without regulation in the boreal forest of northern Alberta has disrupted wildlife and created large areas that will take several lifetimes to recover, if they ever come back as boreal forest. Good management could have prevented this and still permitted a healthy harvest of the boreal timber. We long ago lost the white pine and oak forests of the east. The Appalachian Trail will never see again the massive hardwood trees that our ancestors found. The coast cedar and redwoods are mostly gone, and policies on them are still inadequate. Will the Ponderosa and spruce forests of the west follow into history? Even the lowly (but important) piñon has been the victim of moronic policies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 27 Aug 02 - 01:37 AM Dicho....I agree...whole heartedly....with thee. Thank You!
Another one takes a stand against the LaughCat.
Count is 3 to 3.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Ebbie Date: 27 Aug 02 - 01:42 AM Nope. I was wrong- the gargoyle does not read English. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 27 Aug 02 - 01:48 AM Thanks, Garg, you're right of course. I was typing a bit fast I guess. Dicho: Hear, hear. It's not a personal think with me kat. I just believe those of you who embrace everything the environmentalist extremists proclaim are wrong. Unfortunately thousands of acres of forest land had to be lost before a president recognized that we must have saner forest management than we had had in the past. And that includes allowing timber companies back into the forest to harvest trees, even if the owls have to find other places to nest. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 27 Aug 02 - 01:49 AM Ebbie -
As the second orifice for the Klattering Kitty....
Perhaps, YOU could state the urgent presidential issue....succinctly? What DO you want done?
Sincerely,
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 27 Aug 02 - 01:53 AM This thread reminds me of the old routine "Did ja ever get the feeling...." Nobody listening, just talking past one another. Just like our congressional representatives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Ebbie Date: 27 Aug 02 - 02:31 AM What I want done? I want the brush and other small stuff to be burnt regularly so the forest itself can survive. It's the natural way. Rushing to put out all little fires so that over time the whole forest is in danger of a BIG fire is a recipe for disaster. I have seen the results of BIG fires- like the Tillamook Burn in Oregon. The major fire occurred in the early 30's; it took decades for it to come close to resembling a green land; the last time I flew over it it still looked like a war zone. I imagine it will require a lot of brush clearing before we can go back to Nature's way. We have a lot of bad management to make up for. (Have you seen logged off lands? It isn't only brush that is a problem, by any means; the loggers leave a huge amount of felled timber.) That, by the way, is what the article above recommends. But don't take out the forests in order to save them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 27 Aug 02 - 03:01 AM Dicho - well said...You, myself and President Bush are in agreement...score is now 4-2...
A Summary of the President's Plan condenced by Gargoyle from: 1. Improve fuel treatments and restoration projects.
2.Exempt some fuel reduction and restoration projects nationwide from judicial review reducing appeals and lawsuits of salvage timber sales.
3. Establish long-term "stewardship contracts.
It focuses almost exclusively on reducing "needless red tape and lawsuits" lawsuits sponsored by a few self-proclaimed "environmentalist groups."
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 27 Aug 02 - 03:04 AM You're with us too Ebbie!!!! ....score rests 5-1....
Debate over and won.... curl tight tonight, my little cuddle-cat
Sincerly, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 27 Aug 02 - 03:08 AM Cripes its morning - wrong admonition.
Don't yawn
My little guffawing gingham
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 27 Aug 02 - 03:12 AM I know kids.... lets sing a song -
SMOKEY THE BEAR
If you've ever seen the forest when a fire is running wild,
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: katlaughing Date: 27 Aug 02 - 03:54 AM Doug said I just believe those of you who embrace everything the environmentalist extremists proclaim are wrong...you don't know me well enough to know what I embrace of whomever's ideas, Doug, so let's not lump everything into blanket statements...also one person's extreme is another's center...it's all relative Dicho and Ebbie, thanks, I agree with you, as does the Wilderness Society, from what I read of the above statement. Here's some food for thoughts, from various sources: ...the link between clear-cut logging and landslides has been known for decades. Government studies over the past 30 years have found a much higher frequency of landslides in clear-cut areas than in uncut forests. Studies also show that slides in cut areas tend to be more intense - like the "debris torrent" that roared down Rock Creek.(OR) One U.S. Forest Service study concluded that landslides were up to five times more frequent in clear-cuts and roaded areas. An Oregon State University study found landslide frequency ranging from 24 to 253 times bigger in logged areas. In the mid-1980s, a federal judge used a similar study of the Coast Range to bait all logging in the Siuslaw National Forest's Mapleton Ranger District. Slides create sediment that can get into streams, lowering water quality, destroying fish habitat and choking eggs from salmon and other at-risk fish. Even the Oregon Department of Forestry recognizes the increased risk of erosion and landslides when steep ground is clear-cut. A 1995 agency report says, "Clear-cut harvest and/or slash burning on steep slopes may increase failure rates two to 40 times over rates on undisturbed sites." An agency geotechnical engineer, Keith Mills, said in a recent report that ground surveys of the Coast Range in the 1970s showed that landslide activity in clear-cuts was up to four times higher than in unlogged areas. Study ties landslides to road building, clear cuts Forest management article Developing world countries and clear cutting was written about 1998, might as easily be about this summer when over 1,000 people have died of flooding in China, some of it a result of clear cutting. What do I want, Greg? I want a non-extremist person focussing on policies which are balanced instead of a daddy's puppet who would sell the last tree standing if they told him to. I want the Shrub and his cronies to know that not ALL citizens want to give him carte blanche when it comes to our forests, hell, when it comes to sending our sons to war, for that is clearly what he's been looking for since coming to office. If you'd ever paid attention, you'd know that I've got some experience. Manys the time I stomped out small grassfires when my family cleared dangerous undergrowth. I have no problem with controlled burns, esp. after this summer. Just received a photo from an old family ranch friend. The ranch is in the foreground, with the fire not a mile away. BTW, gargly-wargly, you can keep up with the sweet-nothings, it's kind a cute in a twisted way, but I will never be your kat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,Boab Date: 27 Aug 02 - 04:31 AM Can somebody tell me----if fire is such a good thing for the health and "viability" of the forests, why the hell don't they spend less time, money and effort trying to thwart the progress of such beneficial and natural events? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 27 Aug 02 - 06:22 AM There is a world conference underway right now in Jo'burg on sustainable development. One of the projects showcased was sustainable forest management/harvesting in the Amazon. It's a pity Bush is one of the few leaders to stay away. First: he might have learnt something about forest management. Second: he would be reminded what the world thinks about the pathetic short-term, me now, self-interest mentaility that drives American politics. Third: the US media would be giving as much coverage as media everywhere else to issues on the conference agenda, such as the shameful inequalities caused by the richest country on earth refusing fair-trade terms to the poorest. Doug, I trust you're grateful to gargoyle rescuing you from your spluttering and providing some real bile to latch on to. Looks like you've found a real kindred spirit. (When I read gargoyle's posts, it could be Junior speaking. Could they be one and the same? I knew Junior liked to spend time on the pewter, but I thought it was only to play solitaire.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Hrothgar Date: 27 Aug 02 - 06:23 AM "Improve fuel treatments and restoration projects" I can just imagine that Dubya thinks that "fuel treatment" means removing all those trees, because they catck fire, and "restoration projects" means leaving the resultant desert to re-grow (if it's lucky). "Exempt some fuel reduction and restoration projects nationwide from judicial review" Does ths mean "Don't stop people clear felling if the vote Republican?" "Establish long-term stewardship contracts" - give the forests to the people who can make the most money out of them - even if only in the short term?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: EBarnacle1 Date: 27 Aug 02 - 12:33 PM A couple of minor points: Replanting a clear cut with seedlings [which is not done as often as the timber industry claims] is not a viable preservation technique. You need all sizes of trees to make a forest viable. Clearcutting and replanting often results in a less diverse silviculture than what was there before. Enjoy you fulmination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 27 Aug 02 - 04:28 PM Fionn: The U. S. is represented, just not by the president. An Assistant Secretary of State lead our delegation. The president has more important things on his mind at the moment ...like preserving our forests, and a small country in the middle east, led by a mad man. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Ebbie Date: 27 Aug 02 - 04:38 PM Thread Drift: The thought occurs to me to wonder why we didn't 'take out' the USSR when we could have. Surely the official thinking was that a number of US cities could be wiped out by judiciously placed nuclear blasts. And certainly relations between the countries were harsh and mistrustful. 'Pre-emptive strikes' evidently are a new thought for the US. Wonder how it is that they became a moral right. Back to the forests... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 27 Aug 02 - 05:28 PM Gargoyle, I ain't with Bush. I don't believe the man. I think he just wants to increase the take by the loggers but can't say it honestly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 27 Aug 02 - 08:14 PM Geeze, Dicho, if I didn't know better, I'd think you are a cynic! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Bobert Date: 27 Aug 02 - 08:45 PM My apologies fir nor bringing a little Wes Ginny thinkin' into the fray but Iz been too bust playing cajun music with greg stephens *but*: Okay, the foresters say they just want to protect the forests and then the other side says it just wants to protect the forests. Hmmmmmmm? What am I missing? Well, because of Junior Bush Laden's poor track record on serving the interests of the rich over the working folks, I too have my suspicions, *but*: Okay, Doug, you might want to sit down here, my friend. What if, the land that the woodies (no jokes here, please...) say, if cleared, would subsatntially protect the forests, were to have to be sold at *cost*? And this wood go toward building low cost housing? Yeah, no profit! Just the satisfaction that a woodie gets when he serves the forests and mankind. Hmmmmmm? And none of that Enron/Haliburton crap or it's off to the pokie! Yeah, just call the woodie's hand and guess what? I think he's gonna fold. But if he don't, then I think America has moved one step closer towards a counrty that values right over wrong. Okay, fire away (no pun intended...). Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,Butch Date: 27 Aug 02 - 09:53 PM Sorry but I lost my cookie and I'm too lazy to get it back right now. I am with the Prez. on this one. I have been fighting fires all summer. I have been confronted by so called environmentalists who have cursed me for trying to save homes. Some of them want to save every tree! If we would do a better job of logging and thinning (ie get the forests to look more like old growth/ low desity fire loads) we could save more land, more money and have fires that would do the job God inteded them to without all the large scale damage. I love trees, my livelyhood as a luthier depends on sustainable harvesting and continued growth. BUT, we need to log better, clear the forest floors and allow the fires to do the job they were inteded to do by nature. Just my opinion though. Butch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 27 Aug 02 - 11:12 PM Butch: I have often wondered where the folks that love guitars, fiddles, and such are going to get the material to make them if we can't cut down trees. Plastic just isn't as good. Bobert: 'Tis my understanding that the lumber companies who harvest the trees approved for cutting pay the forest service which, in turn, helps finance the cost of forest management. Is there anyone out there better versed about this than I am? I really don't think Uncle Sam invites the logging companies in to cut down trees and keep all the profit from the sale of them. Do they? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Peg Date: 27 Aug 02 - 11:23 PM In the Northeast, the red maple is just about taking over and the oaks are starting to be scarcer and scarcer; why? because there are fewer forest fires, and oaks are the main survivors of fires. So lesser, faster-growing trees are filling in the forests. We have bigger botanical problems: specifically thug plants brought from overseas that are clogging up wetlands (purple loosestrife) and snagging root systems of forest trees (a species of bamboo). Controlled burning would be a welcome suggestion if it were not for the fact that humans have encroached too far onto woodlands; areas not meant for such dense residential habitation. It's also why we city dwellers have skunks and raccoons eating our trash and yearly rabies vaccines required for indoor pets. It's all connected. Stop blaming environmental activists, goddamit. At least we want the insane exploitation and poisoning of our country to be stopped. It's not even worth mentioning how freaking ironic and stupid it is that these days a cry to preserve species and clean up the environment, in the midst of enormous increases in environmentally-based diseases (including rare cancers), is met with ridicule. Our children are suffering a vast and devastating occurrence of asthma, much of it life-threatening. Drinking water is practically a mob-governed commodity. We are so saturated with pesticides that our genes are irrevocably fucked. We can't kill the pests eating our crops anymore because we have been using such strong pesticides for too long, so now we have to resort to genetic manipulation of crops and this, no doubt, friends, will spell the slow and ugly demise of the human race and the gradual deteriortaion of life as we know it. Ya think West Nile virus and bovine spongiform encephalopathy are bad? Wait until you start seeing the wild mutations that will overrun us in two or three generations' time (if we even last that long). Sounds like panic-mongering, eh? Gosh why can't I just go and live my cushy little urban life and forget about it? Don't worry, be happy. Eat a Big Mac and take some mood-stabilizers. Don't rock the boat. For god's sake, don't do anything so unpatriotic as suggesting that loggers (whose industry, no fault of theirs, has razed more old growth forest that will ever be replaced in our lifetimes, and thus irretrievably altered our biological fabric and contributed further to the weakening and disappearance of many species, not to mention the ozone layer) think about (gasp!) a CAREER CHANGE. Miners have had to do it. Fishermen, too. Farmers. Ways of life vanish when the stuff you dig, fish or hunt runs out, whether from overpopulation, poison or just plain it's all gone now. And any poor slob who has been downsized out of a job as a banker, editor, website manager, pastry chef or portfolio analyst is in the same boat, really, even if they wear cleaner clothes to work. Life is about change. Hard fuckin' times, folks. Adapt or get left behind. MOVE ON. Don't stagnate. Everything these days is all about greed and no one cares about anything outside his own backyard or wallet. My house, my job, my money, my car. Mine mine mine. Don't you dare take it away, even if I hate my life and these things are tying me down. And don't you tell me what to do in my own town/city/neighborhood. I can make a big mess and kill everyone around me if I want to. So there. I had a long discussion today about the reasons why the streets of Boston are so full of garbage. Because NO ONE CARES. No one wants to take responsibility. WE CREATED THIS FOREST FIRE PROBLEM. WE ARE DECIMATING OUR LANDSCAPE. IT MUST BE ADDRESSED IN A SANE AND CAUTIOUS MANNER, AND WITH THE COMPLEXITY AND FORTHRIGHTNESS OF THOUGHT IT DESERVES--NOT AS IF THE WORLD IS OURS TO CASUALLY USE UP FOR THE NEXT TWENTY OR SO YEARS. You want cojones? Come get 'em.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: katlaughing Date: 27 Aug 02 - 11:28 PM Brava, Peg!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 27 Aug 02 - 11:56 PM Ah...you little giggling gato
Another one lines up in favor of Bush's proposal.
This wasn't one of your most shining topics.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,mg Date: 28 Aug 02 - 12:53 AM I am from Timbertown Washington. I am for managed forests and I doubt that once stuff has been allowed to pile up as underbrush that it is all that safe to do controlled burns...there will have to be a lot of just plain old clearing and brush removal and thinning. That doesn't mean cutting down the biggest and best trees..although it does before they die. I am for giving loggers jobs in forest management. I believe that houses in danger areas should be made out of cement block or stone or whatever but not anything burnable and certainly no shake roofs. I want more and more houses built out of rock of some sort and I want paper made out of hemp and trees saved for furniture, lutes etc. I also think we should have reforestation of our cities and suburbs with a lot of it going to fruit trees to actually feed people. The biggest problem is overpopulation and hopefully that is being realized and reversed in many places. I also believe in cows, sheep, goats etc. eating a lot of this underbrush..saw cows going at it today in a thick brushy area..eating the leaves off trees..never saw them do that....then turn the brush into meat, milk, cheese...it all fits together. We don't need to live on soybeans. We can clean up messes and we can regrow trees and we can probably most of us get by with less. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Ebbie Date: 28 Aug 02 - 01:03 AM Hey, I am damn proud of women. A few more of them like the above- Peg, katlaughing and mg- and we'll start to get a handle on the problem. And, NO. I am not interested in cojones as evinced by the two men who would rather sit and jeer. Have you ever heard the phrase: Wake up and smell the coffee? Grow up, fellas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 28 Aug 02 - 01:18 AM Ebbie - calm down!!!
I don't know what YOU think they are...but I trust YOU have COJONES also.
The word is Spanish for SHORTS!!!!
LMAO
Sincerely |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Ebbie Date: 28 Aug 02 - 01:20 AM gargoyle- since when? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 28 Aug 02 - 01:52 AM Cojones is a very useful word it is very commonly used.
Let us see some of the uses:
Cojones! .- Shit!
Qué cojones! .- What a brave one!
Esto es cojonudo! .- This is fucking great! Cojones, on the contrary to that of Coño, usually has positive meanings.
No me toques los cojones! .- Leave me alone! Get lost! Here it has been used as a warning to an annoying person, but with a strong threat warning included.
There are hundreds of uses for Cojones and depending on its shape/colour/weight/size this word could mean a lot of different things....including.... SHORTS
Oy, Veyh! Gingos!!!
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: katlaughing Date: 28 Aug 02 - 02:48 AM Thanks, Ebbie, include yerself in that, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Hrothgar Date: 28 Aug 02 - 05:03 AM Real estate agent speak translated: Idyllic bushland setting = fire trap. Same in America as here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Bobert Date: 28 Aug 02 - 09:58 AM Cojones aside, right on Peg and GUEST, mg! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: mooman Date: 28 Aug 02 - 10:44 AM As usual Peg, I'm with you 100% in your comments. And if anyone wants to argue the science of it, I'm happy to do so... mooman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Peg Date: 28 Aug 02 - 11:09 AM thanks for the comment, mg, about cows, sheep and goats taking care of the brush problem. This solution has been tried in a number of areas (mostly California I believe) where roadside foliage is an expensive and huge problem. Using goats to graze, instead of manpower and equipment to mow, is an ingenious and cost-effective, not to mention environmentally-friendly, solution. The goats get to eat, their wool is a precious commodity (especially if cashmere or alpaca goats are acquired for this purpose), the comunity loves the site of these animals doing their work, and the grass and brush is kept under control. I also agree the logging industry and its workers could easily be retrained for forest management, in cases where there is valuable knowledge and experience to be shared. This is not always the case and unfortunately the ideological differences between environmentalists and loggers straddle a wide chasm. Maybe this will change. And corporate interests don;t care aymore about the working man than they do about the environment, even though their rhetoric speaks otherwise (remember the "family farm" campaigns of a few years ago? Amazing what a well-chosen public relations firm can do to make your motivation seem noble. How many family farms do we have left?). People who make a joke out of the plight of the snowy owl or the redwoods, who can't see why the preservation of species is more important than industry, any industry, are hard to convince otherwise. And yes, I am right about this.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Don Firth Date: 28 Aug 02 - 02:03 PM The forests got along perfectly well for millions of years before we got here, with and without forest fires. And they will get along for millions of years after we're gone—provided we don't mow them all down and pave them over while we're here. I've seen, out on the Olympic Peninsula and in other places in Washington and Oregon, what the timber companies do when given free rein. It's enough to make you sick. Large areas of the Olympic Peninsula, once covered by lush rain forest, look as if they have been attacked by some monumental form of mange. Mile after square mile of tree stumps and slash. And all that debris left on the ground (limbs stripped off and left there, because all the timber companies want are the trunks for logs) is dead and dry—and that, folks, rather that reducing the probability of forest fires, makes very good kindling, which can and does ignite and move into the as yet uncut forest—and towns and resorts. That is the timber companies' idea of "forest management!" Bush talks about allowing the timber companies to "manage the forests" by "clearing the underbrush and taking out a few selected trees." I know the trees the timber companies want. The huge old-growth giants that stand in the few patches of preserved forest that, so far, have been protected by all that "needless red tape and lawsuits" sponsored by a few self-proclaimed "environmentalist groups." that gargoyle hates so much. The timber companies have their own tree farms on their own land, but they're not satisfied with that. The most valuable (profitable) trees—the ones with the densest wood and straightest grain—are the few remaining old-growth trees that, so far, stand unmolested in the National Parks. And as far as creating jobs is concerned, within recent years many sawmills out on the Olympic Peninsula have had to close, laying off their employees, because the timber harvested in the area is not being sent to the mills that have traditionally done the work, it's being sold overseas, to Japan. And now, I believe, to China. More profit for the timber companies. So much for our forest products needs! Very American, don't you think, DougR? And commercial and sport fishing (commercial fishing was once a major industry in this area, and sport fishing used to be a major tourist attraction) has had to be sharply curtailed because the North Pacific salmon are dying off. Lots of people blame the fishermen for over-fishing; the fishermen blame the loggers. Both are to blame. Within my memory, at spawning time the rivers and creeks were teeming with salmon: so many that one would have thought that this resource could never possibly run out. Not so any longer. The run-off from the logged off and eroding hills and mountains has silted up the rivers and creeks, making it impossible for the salmon to spawn there. Just in sheer numbers, there's no way hatchery salmon and salmon farms can make up for the loss of the wild salmon. But then, who cares about a stupid fish? I do, and quite selfishly. A salmon steak, that used to be the center of an inexpensive but delicious meal, now costs mega-bucks. When you can get them. Lots of different kinds of food are getting more expensive. And salmon is only one of the species affected. It has been said that "a politician thinks of the next election. A statesman thinks of the next generation." Who, I wonder, thinks of the generations beyond that? The end of humankind will come, not by nuclear holocaust, nor by some astronomical cataclysm, nor by some naturally occurring plague. We will starve because we have squandered our natural resources, we will strangle on our own pollution, we will sicken with plagues of our own manufacture, and we will drown in our own offal. Why? Because we manage to keep elect (by hook or by crook) politicians who have the mentality of a weasel and who pander to that coterie of rapacious businessmen whose only concern is the Almighty Quarterly Report. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Ebbie Date: 28 Aug 02 - 02:08 PM I love a thinking man! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Peg Date: 28 Aug 02 - 02:13 PM hear hear Don! Many of these ideas were discussed (although less eloquently and less orderly than in your words) by my pal and I as we looked at the trash on historic Newbury Street in Boston yesterday. He believes one major problem with our city is the horribly bad leadership. If our leaders can't find a way to keep our streets clean and safe from garbage and drivers who blatantly break the law (a most basic civic necessity), there isn't much hope, in my opinion... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 28 Aug 02 - 02:22 PM Wow, Don, you paint an awfully bleak picture of the future. There sure are a lot of half-empty glass folks posting to this thread, aren't there? Peg: you're right. I will never be convinced that the preservation of an owl is more important than the opportunity for employment lost by the loggers when logging was stopped to preserve the habitat of the Spotted Owl. Don and others: No one is proposing the raping and pillaging of the forests by the logging companies. I don't doubt that there were abuses in the past, but strict rules enforced by the forest service could control that. But, as Peg pointed out in her illustration of the owl, one will never be able to convince people who view making a profit as sinful, that sensible logging operations could benefit the forests. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: katlaughing Date: 28 Aug 02 - 02:22 PM Keep that man up there on the soapbox! Nay, give him a podium...in the White House!! Hear, hear, Don!! Well said!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Bobert Date: 28 Aug 02 - 02:47 PM Well said, Don. Your point about the exportation of the forests should have my friend, DougR, at least questioning the party line on this issue. Hmmmmmm? Nah, I'm afraid he thinks if he questions one part of the party line then his cozy little world would come crashing in on him.... And I know that what you say about leaving the branches. Around these parts it's that paper industry. They come in. cut down acres and acres of trees and haul off the trunks leaving a major fire hazard. Yeah, we're starting to see a patern here with Junior. He tends to let the industies write their own regulations and policies. Same with his energy policy which was written exclusively by Chaeney's oil and gas buddies. Hmmmmmm? Heck, if thats the kind of government we want, we ought to quit wasting time with elections and just turn the joint over to the CEO's. I hear Ken Lay is lookin' for a job... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Ebbie Date: 28 Aug 02 - 04:09 PM DougR, part of the problem is that we CAN'T trust them. In Alaska, the cruise industry, the mining industry, the logging industry- you name it- keeps saying that they *will* do so and so- and then we keep finding out that when our backs were turned, they did NOT. We had another instance just last week. How can you trust their word? Unless the day comes that they actively and consistently and without the feds or other powers breathing down their necks train and police themselves- and REPORT- themselves, it is worse than naive to trust them. It is criminal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: artbrooks Date: 28 Aug 02 - 04:33 PM Well, I was going to try to come up with an intelligent, erudite, comment on all of this, but Peg and Don Firth have beaten me to it. The fire that started late last week 75 miles north of here is up to 3,000 acres. Shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Don Firth Date: 28 Aug 02 - 05:39 PM Bleak picture of the future? Well, it certainly doesn't need to be. And whether the glass is half-empty or half-full is not the problem. It's the contents of the glass that I wonder about. BEWARE!! Here followeth a mighty screed!! I have no quarrel with making a profit, Doug. Lord knows, I'm as selfish and greedy as the next person, but I, at least, realize that no matter how much wealth I may have at my disposal, I can only spend so much money before I run out of places to park my BMWs, yachts, and Lear jets (and even though I have four very nice guitars, I have yet to master the art of playing more than one at a time). And I am cursed with a conscience when it comes to piling up my own surplus by screwing other people. I truly believe that the vast majority of businessmen are honest, ethical people with fully active consciences. But all you need to do is look at the 6:00 o'clock news to know that there is a substantial number who can't be trusted to occupy a position of responsibility without attempting to use it to feather their own nests by ripping off hundreds of thousands of people who can ill afford it. The Enron and WorldCom felons didn't steal people's investments and pensions to increase the profits of the company (which certainly would have been evil enough), they did it for personal profit—to the tune of multi-billions of dollars. While the SEC (charged with overseeing this sort of thing) and the government in general sat around with their thumbs up their butts! There is nothing wrong with making a profit. A business has to make a profit or it won't continue to exist to provide the goods and services that people want and need. But when the only motive that drives an endeavor is profit, it leads to some pretty sick consequences. And for those with eyes to see, there is plenty of it out there. A few examples for your consideration (I'll use my observations of Seattle, but Seattle is in no way unique in these matters. These manifestations of "profit is all that matters" are country-wide):— Air pollution, especially in the cities, is getting worse. I live in a city that used to have just about the freshest air in the country, cleansed by North Pacific breezes. But within recent years, all Seattle needs is a week or two of warm weather, fairly calm wind, and a temperature inversion (which is a common meteorological phenomenon in this area), and the air gets brown and hazy, smells stale and slightly tinged with exhaust fumes, and people start coughing a lot. Asthma and respiratory problems are on the increase. So don't try to tell me it's not getting worse, or that it's "controversial." Automobile manufacturers could build small automobiles that use less gasoline, or they could manufacture electric cars or cars powered by fuel cells. The technology exists. Some of Seattle's buses run on natural gas. And this would reduce America's need for foreign oil, which, in turn, would have an amazing effect on our current foreign policy. But gas-guzzling SUVs are more profitable, for both the auto manufacturers and the oil companies. I lived the first nine years of my life in the Los Angeles area. Look into the history of the excellent light-rail system that Greater Los Angeles had back in the Thirties. You could get from LA to Pasadena or Long Beach or anywhere else quickly and inexpensively on the interurban rail system, and once there, the light-rail "streetcars" made it easy to get anywhere you wanted to go. My dad commuted to work that way. But the automobile manufacturers and the oil companies got together and talked the local legislature into ripping up the tracks and building freeways instead, because the automobile and high-speed freeways were "the wave of the future." The Interurban was low-maintenance, cheap transportation for everyone. But tearing it up in favor of a freeway system was highly profitable for the auto manufacturers and the oil companies. Long ago Seattle recognized the need for a good mass-transit system, especially when the freeways got so clogged you sometimes spent most of your commuting time sitting immobile and staring at the rear bumper in front of you (while breathing exhaust fumes). A battle between monorail and light-rail has been going on for decades while people sit immobile on the freeways. Monorail, which is relatively inexpensive, doesn't require vast amounts of property to be condemned to make room for it, can climb steeper grades than ground rail (Seattle is fairly hilly), will travel above the existing streets, and can be moved if the routes prove ill-chosen. The ground light-rail alternative, which, among other things, requires a tunnel 200 feet under the Capitol Hill district complete with stations with elevators to get to the trains (because light-rail can't climb the grade), would eventually cost many billions of taxpayers' money if implemented, has already run into budget-overruns (while they're still in the study phase), and once it's there, it can't be moved somewhere else. In a couple of initiatives now, the voters have voted for a monorail system. But the Powers That Be are still screwing with ground light-rail. Because it would be far more profitable for the construction companies and their political lap-dogs than the monorail would. Last I heard, there is an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 homeless in Seattle. They live in their cars, they sleep in shelters when they can, they sleep in parks, they sleep in back alleys, and on a couple of occasions, they have gathered together in what is uncomfortably reminiscent of the Hoovervilles of the depression of the Thirties until the authorities came and bulldozed them, forcing those who camped there in relative safety to disperse through the city. Some ingenious ones rent a storage locker for $30 to $50 a month, store their possessions there, and when unguarded, sneak in an sleep there at night (this gives "self-storage" a whole new dimension). Many eat at local churches, many of which sponsor "feeding programs." Most of these people are not indigent. They are the working poor. They earn whatever they can, wherever they can. Flipping burgers. Swabbing toilets. Whatever. Some lost their houses because they lost their jobs and couldn't meet the mortgage; some can no longer afford to rent even a small apartment. Small apartments, even in the cheaper areas, go for $700, $800, or $1,000 a month. Some of them used to work for Boeing, but Boeing is laying a lot of people off and moving much of their manufacturing overseas. More profitable. Some used to work for Microsoft, but Billy is hiring programmers from overseas. Many programmers from India are very good, and they work cheap. Much more profitable. Well, then, as far as using all that wood we're going to "thin out" of the forests (provided it isn't all shipped to Asia), how about building some low-cost housing for these folks? Over east of Lake Washington, there are many housing projects, but they're anything but "ticky-tacky." Two and three stories, four or five bedrooms, two or three bathrooms, dens, recreation rooms, and three-car garages. They go for $350,000 to $500,000 apiece. Many of them stand idle and unpurchased because there are not that many people around who can afford them. Yet, developers and contractors keep building them because they're potentially far more profitable than smaller, low cost houses closer in (they also build some of these mini-mansions on flood-plains, but that's another story). Older buildings that could easily be converted to low-income housing are being demolished to make room for high-rise condominiums, selling for only a little less than the houses on the east side of the lake. More profitable. Seattle has two shiny new, multi-millio-dollar sports stadiums. The Mariners and Sea Hawks pissed and moaned until the local politicos gouged the taxpayers for the necessary funds to build them. But they can't bring themselves to ante up nickel one to do something for the people who have to sleep in back alleys because they can't afford to sleep anywhere else. But then, the Mariners and the Sea Hawks are highly profitable (incidentally, the Mariners may go on strike because some of the players can't seem to struggle by on their million-dollar salaries). And don't get me started on things like irradiating food. Irradiation may actually not be harmful, but I'd rather they'd clean up the filth in slaughterhouses and food processing plants. But then, that wouldn't increase the profits. And then, there are the pharmaceutical companies. . . . When these sorts of things are not just allowed to exist in the richest country in the world, but actively encouraged by the government, it strikes me that something is morally very wrong. Okay, I'm through. For now. Don Firth — (Actually, I'm really quite cheerful most of the time.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 31 Aug 02 - 03:00 AM I'm glad you got that off your chest, Don. Not doubt you feel better. You covered a lot of ground in that one post. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Don Firth Date: 31 Aug 02 - 12:45 PM That sounds a little patronizing, Doug. No, I don't feel better, because I could rant all day and it still wouldn't change things. It would be pretty difficult for someone to refute what I have said above because I chose things from my own experience or observations, and should someone try to say I've got it wrong, I could easily bury them in facts. And I only scratched the surface on a few things I could rant about. Doug, folk singer or not, I used to be a conservative. I voted Republican. A lot! Among other things, I soaked up a lot of the writings of Ayn Rand—Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and all that sort of thing, conservative economists, et al, and I was a real advocate of the unregulated free market. Let it do its thing and it will solve all of the worlds problems. Then, I took a good, long look at the real world and saw some things that just didn't look right. I started asking questions. I started asking "why?" And I didn't get satisfactory answers. Instead of corporations headed by people like Hank Reardon and John Galt, ethical, able, starry-eyed idealists, I saw people getting laid off right and left because the profits had either slipped a bit or didn't quite reach the level of anticipated increase. I saw people having to sleep in back alleys while the politicos said we couldn't afford low-cost housing, in the meantime campaigning for building big sports stadiums. I saw that the hated politicians who supposedly were inhibiting the free-market by saddling it with capricious regulations were not actually regulating, they were doing the bidding of the CEOs. I saw people lose their pension plans because some high-level white collar crook stole their investments to by himself another mansion. I saw lots of questionable domestic policies slid through quietly because people were distracted by some crisis overseas. I saw oil and timber companies given permission to devastate the few remaining wilderness areas so they could increase their "bottom line." I saw that America has some of the best politicians that money can buy. I saw— Well, it looks like I've started off on another rant, so rather than bore people and eat up a lot of bandwidth, I'll wrap it up here. I don't really consider myself a liberal, because I think I lack a lot of the credentials that many of my liberal friends and acquaintances have. But there's nothing like a good look at the real world to shake a conservative's beliefs, especially if it's someone who's willing to ask "why?" And I still ask the question: why can't we do something—even if it turns out to be unprofitable—even if it turns out to cost us something—for no reason other than that it's the right thing to do? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 31 Aug 02 - 12:57 PM Don, I should have included a smiley face in that post. I did not intend for it to sound patronizing. I certainly respect your views, and think that you state them clearly, and very well. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Bobert Date: 31 Aug 02 - 02:46 PM Don: Hey, nice rants! Gotta agree wqith you on every thing except the part where you used to vote for the repubs. I didn't but must confess to voting for a few folks in the other fraternity. I've dropped out of frat voting all together these days becuase they have joined forces to supress democracy and keep America's worker's working harded and longer than workers in any country in the western world and.... for less and les and less... But taht's okay. What we have needed all along was a Junior Bush Laden. You know, someone who has never had to work a day in his life, has had everything, including the White House handed to him. Someone who so repulsively represents the total evil of the rulinbg class. Yes a man who puts his father's fragile little ego ahead of the future of America by lighting up one war after another. Yeah, this is the guy who before its over will unite the working class into a force that's had enough repression, oppression and any other 'ssion word one to use other than pregression. Yeah, the revolution began offidcially when Junior's daddy's Supreme Court called off Democracy and it is building. And Junior is playing his greedy, anithumanistic and evil part to the tee. And of bobert's mini-rant. Now, Doug. You are going to have to expressing some ideas here rather than one liners. Junior is counting on you, buddy. You gotta do your part for the cause. I mean, get Don and me really worked up. Heck, we're just warmin' up, right Don. Nicole: Sorry to have left you out but when I read your stuff I'm just thinkin', "Right on, Nicloe". Man, I'm glad to have yopu on our side. You are a force! Democracy Now! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 31 Aug 02 - 07:57 PM I am a man of few words, Bobert. No rants (well, rarely), no raves (rarely), no lambasting (usually)and it will come as no surprise to you at all that I think the best part of Don's message is he once was on the right track. Too bad he strayed from the right path on to the left. I'm confident, since he has been there before, though, he will find his way back to the proper path. Heck, he's just too smart not to! He said he didn't always agree with you lefties, didn't he? That's the first step back. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: toadfrog Date: 31 Aug 02 - 08:17 PM Doug, very few of us have anything against the idea of having somebody go thin out the woods, take out slash, remove small trees, etc. It may also be possible that somebody might be able to do that and make a profit. What bothers me, and I think most others, is the idea of paying people in the timber industry for their services by removing restrictions, which we regard as necessary, to compensate them for their trouble. And I would think that as a believer in low taxation, you would agree. Because logging in this country has become just another form of subsidized corporate welfare. The royalties paid to the government for logging on federal lands are insufficient to compensate the taxpayer for roadbuilding and other services provided by the BLM. It that really what conservative principles require? I think I might become a conservative, if I thought there were actually conservative principles. But it is my impression that the term "conservative" has come to mean only that rich people should have more money, and poor people should have less. Am I wrong? Is there anything more to it than that? If so, what is it? And yes, I have voted Republican. I voted for a Mr. Bagley once, for Controller! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Bobert Date: 31 Aug 02 - 09:05 PM What toadfrog said, Doug. How come it's been so fashionable under this administartion to let various industiries regulate themselves and write the rules. I thought Clinton was bad, but this guy has foxes guarding most of America's henhouses. And how come the timber industry has been alloweds to leave debri after they log? This debris is much more flamible than the forests themselves? And how's about all the idea of using the wood that the timber industry says is the problem going directly into low cost housing *at cost* since the industry wants us to believe that the reason they want to harvest the timber is their unquestionable love of the forests? And how come we're not haering the salaries of the CEO's of some of these timber companies? Just wonderin'... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: katlaughing Date: 01 Sep 02 - 01:08 AM Don said, And I still ask the question: why can't we do something—even if it turns out to be unprofitable—even if it turns out to cost us something—for no reason other than that it's the right thing to do? Best damn thing I've read about the way our entire society has become, ever. I'd be honoured if I could get your permission to use it in my signatures in email with a proper cite. In fact, I think we should start a whole campaign asking that simple, yet profound question! Thank you, kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: The Shambles Date: 01 Sep 02 - 06:18 AM This is less about the head than it is the heart. Losing ones head is not too good but losing ones heart is always terminal.
Last year my wife and I travelled a very long way to admire and touch beings that had been alive for over three thousand years. During that time, these beings had seen many humans come and go and lived through many natural events. Their birth was entirely due to one of these natural events.
Many proud human civilisations, with their dependent industries and economies, have risen and fallen in this period.
The current human custodians of the wonderful land, in which these beings survive, have the survival of this system in their hands.
Please don't waste the short human lifetime that we are given, in personal arguments, party politics and detail. The scientific knowledge and the wisdom in hearts of many people is available and can make a difference. It would be wise to listen to them. ....And to one's own heart. It is clear on this thread, where the strong heartwood can be found. And where the combustable deadwood can be found also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Peg Date: 01 Sep 02 - 09:14 AM In England, a great many place names come from trees that stood for many many years. It is speculated (in this great book I found on English place-names) that much commerce and community activity took place in the days of antiquity that were centered around such grand old trees, and the forests near them...being great landmarks, and probably sources of food, shade, etc. Festivals and rituals and handfastings and other events were held there. And we know very little about the druids but we do know their places of worship were in groves of trees. This is a part of our history we have forgotten and think we can do without, this connectivity with the land. I have been singing this tune for years, as have others, but apparently not loudly enough.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 01 Sep 02 - 01:30 PM Toad: good thoughts. I am not proposing that we support failed policies. I propose that we adopt policies for the forest service that favor the people (taxpayers)yet provide a reasonable enough profit to loggers so that they will do the job. That might include the proviso that loggers clean up after themselves, build and maintain roads required, etc. The main purpose would be to reduce the number of devestating and costly fires that we have had this summer. For a good book to read about conservatism and conservative policis, I can't think of a better one to recommend than the one written by Senator Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. "Conscience of a Conservative." DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Ebbie Date: 01 Sep 02 - 01:46 PM DougR, I'm curious. Which part(s) of Don Firth's posts do you not agree with? Is it his facts or his conclusions? I would like to find you credible, but you make it difficult, since you tend not to say what you actually believe and what your thought processes are. As Bobert said above, you tend to offer one liners. And yes, I too started out Republican (I thought. Or didn't think. My father was a loud conservative.) Voted for Nixon, didn't vote for Kennedy. It was not until Robert Kennedy started asking telling questions that I started doing a bit of thinking. Then of course, he died. I'm still not registered Democrat, but Non-Partisan, and in theory still vote for an occasional Republican. In actual practice, it's been a long time.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Don Firth Date: 01 Sep 02 - 01:56 PM Thank you, kat! Feel free to use it any way you want! I did read Goldwater's book, Doug. It's very good and very persuasive. The pity of it, though, is that it isn't the way things actually work. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: toadfrog Date: 02 Sep 02 - 01:03 AM Doug: I browsed through Goldwater's book. I did not read it through. My impression of Goldwater was that he was an honorable, but misguided man. A person very like your Sentator, Mr. McCain. I believe that if Goldwater were alive today, he would be called a "Rino" and hooted right out of the Party. Just my opinion, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 02 Sep 02 - 01:05 PM Don: They don't work, because we don't make them work. The river that divides the conservative from the liberal is too wide at the moment. A few more Goldwaters in the Senate would certainly go a long way toward achieving the conservative's goals. Ebbie: Sorry my posts are not clear enough to you. I see no point in writing copious posts in a forum so obviously left leaning. What I write will sway no one. I do like to jab a few of my liberal friends, though, from time to time, and Bobert is one of my favorites. Toad: it pains me to see you lump Senator McCain in with Barry Goldwater. McCain is no conservative. I don't know what he is. I guess the best word that describes MacCain is ambitious. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Don Firth Date: 02 Sep 02 - 03:14 PM Doug, rather than being that widely divided, I see "liberal" and "conservative" as a very muddled and confused spectrum—a pretty sloppy continuum. To call someone a "liberal" or a "conservative" assumes that person holds a particular body of beliefs. When someone puts forth an opinion, if you can label that person one or the other, it makes it too easy to 1) simply dismiss what they're saying; 2) assume that you know everything else they're going to say (and believe); and, quite possibly, 3) ignore them when they're telling you something that you really should think about independently, without trying to make it fit "party principles". I don't regard myself as either liberal or conservative. I find that both camps tend to agree with me on some things and disagree on others. Believe me, I have a lot of liberal friends and acquaintances who can get pretty outraged by some of my opinions And don't like it much when I bring up certain uncomfortable facts. But facts are neither liberal nor conservative. They're facts. Out in the realm of real American politics, the supposedly tidy divisions between liberal and conservative simply don't apply. As a matter of fact, I see a nearly complete flip-flop. For example, why is it that it's the "liberals" who are so adamant about defending the Bill of Rights while the "conservatives" are the ones who want to set it aside in the name of national security? Wanting to undercut the Constitution doesn't seem very "conservative" (or patriotic) to me. It's the "conservatives" who want to turn the country's natural resources over to the business so it can be exploited for profit. The "liberals" (often called "wild-eyed" radicals) are the ones who want leave it as it is, to be preserved (conserved) for future generations. According to the traditional beliefs usually ascribed to these labels, I would have thought it would be the other way around. And there are lots of examples of this kind of reversal. I leave it to you as an exercise to root out other such philosophical inconsistencies. Plenty out there. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 02 Sep 02 - 05:54 PM Don: I suppose it is possible to be a middle of the roader. Frankly, as I have stated in several threads, I don't know what that means. I suppose it would be one who believes in some liberal causes and some conservative causes. If that is the case, I, myself, probably lean in that direction. I believe in a woman's right to choose, which certainly puts me at odds with the majority of my party. I do agree with my party on energy issues, management of natural resources, fiscal policy, a need for a strong defense, and promotion of self-determination for people. I believe social services can be provided more efficiently to those who require them by the private sector rather than the government. I do not believe my party wants to rape the Bill of Rights, or scuttle the Constitution. I do believe that a segment of our population (and a majority of the Mudcat community) have not yet grasped that we are in a war. A war like we have never been in before, with no troops in uniform to attack, no particular country to invade, and where our neighbors might be our enemy. This type war, I believe, requires different ground rules for the population than previous wars did. Some rights that we take for granted, might have to be altered. My view is, if one does nothing wrong, he/she will not lose any rights. We might be inconvienced (as we currently are at airports)but the rights will not be lost. If I have lost any, I certainly am not aware of them. If suspected terrorists have lost them, right on, I say. They would like nothing better than to use our rights to destroy this nation. And we are not in this alone. Though, at present, identifying our friends becomes increasingly harder to do. Were those same "friends" to feel as threatened as we do at the present time, I wonder who they would turn to for help? I have about reached the point where I think we should just drop the whole thing, and let everyone fend for himself. Were we to do that, I predict we would find a lot of friends out there. Sudden, instantaneous friends. As I said in the Bush thread, I realize I am not going to sway anyone to my point of view. Bobert, Kendall, and my other liberal friends are just as convinced they are right, as I am convinced I am right. So there is no winning in these theads, just sparring, and discussing. I think George Bush is doing a fine job, as well as his whole administration. I do hope that he goes to the U. N. and asks for a resolution that would enable inspectors to go back into Iraq before we invade it. I don't think for a minute Saddam will agree unfettered access to his arsenal, and that is why I think there will be an invasion. It likely will have to be done without allies, but when we win, we will have allies running out our kazoo. Ebbie: If you read this thread, it might give you a better idea where I am coming from than you could gather from my one-liners. Now I'm all out of breath and I'm gonna drink a beer and relax before the finest baseball team on earth begins it's game against San Francisco. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: katlaughing Date: 02 Sep 02 - 07:26 PM Barry Goldwater changed over the years. He and my grandma are what I think of as the old-type of Republican-conservative, and Goldwater put it very nicely in a speech to the AZ GOP about the military ban on gays being lifted: The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays. The New GOP can't stand to stay out of people's private lives and Bush et alia are using the so-called war, this thing, this amorphous entity as an excuse to take away rights of some. It bears close watching and possibly some action. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Peg Date: 02 Sep 02 - 07:26 PM George Bush is doing a fine job? Why, then, is our economy in a shambles, our privacy shot to hell, our environment a cauldron of poison, and our beleaguered country about to go to war?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Bobert Date: 02 Sep 02 - 08:09 PM Well, Doug, my friend, Iz as proud of you as I can possibly be. After weeks of Kendall-ish one liners you've stepped to the plate. Speaking of which, your Kandall-ish one liners have not quite had quite the punch as Kendalls... but, hey, there aren't too many folks I know that have Kendall's gift of non-gab. But that's a different story. First of all, I thought we had a deal on not calling names? Here you go and cal me a liberal. Humphhh! Disgusting! I don't even like Volvo's or earth shoes. Okay, I may grow an organic garden but that ain't no reason to go calling my poor ol' butt a "liberal", is it? Now, Don has made some real interesting points about conservatives and liberals. One that has always got ne is that "Prolife" folks, who are generally considered conservative are for capital punishemnt and those who are against capital punishment are the liberals and more pro-choice. Just seems strange that both sides can justify taking a life, given circumstances to their liking... Now Dougie, this is the part that pains me but... ahhh, your guy ain't doing as well as you might think. Lets examine just what he's done in the last couple of years. First, he hired a bunch of lawyers and goons to steal the White House. Then he came into town like some kind of John Wayne, with this mandate, telling folks there was a new sheriff in town and to watch your step. Then he got 43 of his closest oilmen together to write our energy policy. And he tunrned his back on the Middle East and then acted suprised when the joint blew up. "You kids paly nice, now, or we'll blow some folks up!" And then his cousin Osoma strikes on 9-11 and we later find out that there was prior evidnece that this was going to occur, but occur we all know it did. Then he bombs the heck out of Afganistan, long after the Taliban was gone. Heck, he even allows a wedding to be bombed. And then, he looks around and things are looking like they might settle down long enoough for the truth about the election to come our so he has Tom Rich go out and come up with this color coded scare system to keep folks all scared. Ane then, when that dies down, still scared that the real story might surface about his stealing the election he turns Saddam into King Kong and Frankenstien combined. And then we learn that one of his other retreds, Hohn Ashcroft is locking up Anericans without due process of law and then, and then and then... No, Bush isn't interested in saving forests, saving America or saving anything but his butt. And if it takes jailing Americans who he doesn't like, then so be it. If it takes going to war and sacrificing poeple lives to dave his butt, then so be it. Heck, if it takes burning the Bill of Rights in the name of security, so be it... This ain't about Repubs and Dems. It's about a man with no feel for what America is and a amazing ability to let others run the show for their own personal fortune... But don't believe me. Time will get around to exposing him for what he is and isn't... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 02 Sep 02 - 09:25 PM Bobert, I'm sure you're right. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Bobert Date: 02 Sep 02 - 10:15 PM Danged, Doug.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 03 Sep 02 - 12:43 AM Bobert: Gotcha! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: Peg Date: 03 Sep 02 - 02:16 AM A well-reasoned rant, Bobert. Scary, too. (The truth often is) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 03 Sep 02 - 11:45 PM Bobert: I am truly sorry I referred to you as a liberal. Sorry, sorry, sorry. I can't believe somebody hasn't dumped on me because of my statement about the "best baseball team in the world." San Francisco clobbered the DBacks last night 19 to 1. Peg: I can't help but believe that you were so approving of Bobert's rant, because he agrees with you. Yes? To me it was just a rant. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: GUEST Date: 05 Sep 02 - 01:03 AM More of them continue to burn this week.
Please write Mr. Bush and urge his to PLEASE remove the logging restrictions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Alert to help our forests - USA From: DougR Date: 05 Sep 02 - 01:38 PM I don't believe letters to Mr. Bush will do much good, Guest. They should be directed to the Democratic leadership: Tom Daschle and Dick Gebhardt. I doubt the letters would have much impact on them either though. DougR |