We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I disagree with the tone of that post. Fire is nature's way of rejuvenating, not man's. Fire suppression in national forests is no more than a subsidy to logging. Thanks to Bambi and Smokey the Bear, forest fire has gotten a bum rap.
It is time for a new way, a way in which Muslims will no longer have to learn about America and Americans will no longer have to learn about Islam, where we will give up on winning each other's hearts and minds, and stick to watching each other's property lines. That is the argument that needs to be advanced in the face of Obama's catastrophic Arab Spring failures and the alternative to it is four more years of terror and appeasement.
RE: Palestinians - Well, their charter says "we'll drive the Jews into the sea", their chairmen have given messages proclaiming this, speeches, press reports, etc., send missiles\rockets and semi-guided bombs into Israel, committed numerous attacks in, around, and upon Israeli citizens abroad, and ally themselves with other like-minded Jew haters.
In a word, to comment on Mr. Romney's statement - "duh!"
I disagree with the tone of that post. Fire is nature's way of rejuvenating, not man's. Fire suppression in national forests is no more than a subsidy to logging. Thanks to Bambi and Smokey the Bear, forest fire has gotten a bum rap."
I read that differently. The firefighter is saying the "environmentalists" prefer the forest to burn than to have it thinned and brush to be cleared. So I say you, BD, are wrong in your comment, or perhaps I misinterpret. Loggers aren't allowed to log for fire suppression, or for any other reason. Enviros looooooove lawfare.
I did not read Sam L's comment as "no logging takes place in national forests", but as "there are some places where loggers aren't allowed in even for fire suppression.
Forests are always changing, and fire is one of the mechanisms of that change. If fires are frequent, then the fuel supply for any fire will necessarily be limited. And "controlled burns" are one of the many forest management practices used in the national forests.
The article was explicit that there have been cases where environmentalists have blocked even "controlled burns" on the grounds of air quality and destruction of habitat. This resulted in accumulated fuel that made the resulting fire uncontrollable (i.e., couldn't be restricted in area to burn itself out). Not quite as explicit was that thus the entire regional habitat for the animal in question was destroyed, and the stored carbon was all released into the atmosphere along with volatiles and soot. Also neighboring private properties were destroyed, and people died.
I don't disagree that there is a subsidy to logging -- that the stumpage fees do not reflect either the value of the resource they are extracting nor the loss to other uses during the cutting and aftermath. But the solution is to raise the stumpage fees, not to stop efforts to make such wildfires as there are controllable in area. We all know that the biggest variety of natural life is on the margins between types of vegetative cover, so letting the trees all grow uniformly to maturity and letting the fuel build up under them will not in the long run protect the forest, protect the habitat, or protect the recreational uses of the public. It also creates tremendous hazards and costs for the human neighbors and the services that try to protect them, as was so tragically illustrated in the Australian wildfires a few years ago.