Just when I think we have hit the bottom, someone tosses us a shovel. Did you see the news yesterday? I think it was something to the tunre of "George W. Bush proposes massive logging in our national forests to help prevent forest fires." Following the headlines was images of that dim-witted bastard (sorry about language) strolling through the charred remains of a fire caused by an irresponsible human, saying things like "I would like any people who oppose this plan to come and see this terrible wreckage" and "the timber industry provides jobs. There is nothing wrong with people having jobs." Well, mr president, there is nothing wrong with jobs, but there IS something wrong with your plan. This filthy scumbag has been looking for a reason to serve corporate interests and allow logging, and now he found it. But what an imbecile! He is using the reasoning that "if there is not more forests, there will be no forest fires." That is like saying "If we kill all of the children, there will be no child abuse." Those forests are a part of our american heritage. They provide vital habitat for wildlife and flora. They give us clean air to breathe. They provide recreation to the american people. Forest fire is not caused by trees, it is caused by people. And the ashes left behind are a fertile breeding ground for new ecosystems, unlike clear cutting, which leads to soil erosion and desertification. THESE ARE OUR FORESTS as citizens of the USA. We must let it be known that we want these places preserved for furture generations, and we will not allow the radical assault on our environment to continue. Please take action today. Write, email, or call the bush administration. Write actively, write angrily, and write often. Let these corporate swine know that we will not stand idle while our earth is raped of its beauty. Thankyou
Underneath her message, someone else wrote:
I agree.
Bush is a son of a b****.
I wrote this reply:
Guess it's too late to change your opinions about the "demonized Conservatives" but here goes: To make it short, we NEED to log national parks, and that doesn't have anything to do with corporate greed. We have lost 150,000 acres of Sequoia National Forest this year because of the strong, well-intentioned but misinformed anti-logging interests, which tell us "DON'T remove brush & old trees, or thin underbrush." This, along with putting out every single fire, sets up the massive fuel-pile, so that one minor fire can become a conflagration like the many we've seen this year in California. In nature, occasional burns clear dead brush & logs, but burn out before threatening the thousand year old Redwood giants (or even big centuries-old oaks.) Burn suppression + no clearing = holocaust. Part of the solution? Let campers gather & burn dead wood. In most of the places I've camped, this has NOT been permitted. In Lassen National Forest, it is. The manzanita scraps burn smelly & smokey, but it's one way to reduce the amount of fuel on the ground.
(But, I guess it's always easier to put devil horns on the Republican...after all, we all *KNOW* they are immoral, unethical, want to pave the whole country, love only money & want to bring back slavery, RIGHT?)
And received this response from the original poster:
I am not anti-republican, thankyou. I simply realize that Bush always seems to put corporations before the environment. I know that some times there is no choice, but this is ridiculous. The fires thsi year are not because of forests NOT being logged. These fires started both naturally and because of ignorant individuals not reporting fires that got out of control. Fires are a part of nature. The ashes left behind help new plant life to grow. Logging would lead to soil erosion and desertification. Logging does not imply controlling "dangerous underbrush," it means clear cutting our national forests. If Bush is SOOOOO concerned abbout forest fires, why does he not hire people to moniter camp grounds, put out fires when they are first getting started, stand on outposts to spot fires before they get out of hand, and to clear this "dangerous" underbrush that is the culprit of all of these fires? He DID say that there is nothing wrong with people having jobs, so why not make some related to fire management? So no, I do not demonize conservatives, I am simply pointing out that Bush is acting too rashly and is not considering non-logging, more effective, more environmentally sound alternatives.
To which I responded:
Nowhere does Bush suggest that national forests be clearcut. Incidentally...if you have a fuel pile like that in CA right now, no amount of "monitering" (sic) will prevent conflagrations. When he suggests "logging" within the forests, don't leap to that conclusion. It's thinning and clearing. Bunnies, deer, fish in lakes, bugs, even mankind: We don't systematically allow these unlimited expansion while removing natural controls. When you remove a control (burn) you need to put another in place (thinning.) And there's no morality one way or the other with fire: sometimes people set fires, accidentally or deliberately, and sometimes they occur by combustion or lightening. It's the impact & extent of the fires that ALL Americans need to be concerned about. My own point of view is conservationist, not environmentalist. I'm looking at the forest, not any one tree.
What I find rather frustrating in this little discussion is that I feel *sure* that you & I are essentially on the same side in this matter! Both of us want the forests preserved for future generations. I would rather see some trees removed & used rather than have the whole forest going up in flames.
People of all political pursuasions enjoy visiting our forests. The idea that greedy Republicans are chaffing their hands together just *drooling* over the prospect of clearcutting national forests is a bizarre notion. That's what I mean by demonization in this case.
Another poster, who is trying to see both sides of the issue:
Like most arguments this is a hard one to decide on because like all arguments it has it's pros and cons....
PROS
1.) it will stop forest fires, obviously, that destroy the nature and fauna anyway and cause people to evacuate homes and fire services to spend money on dropping water into the forest
2.) cutting the trees down may let new plants to grow, if we don't go nuts and cut down every tree in sight and only cut down old or decaying ones then other trees can grow.
CONS
1.) there might not be much forest left after everyone's finished logging it
2.) many people are going to oppose this....
This remark was also left. (You try to figure it out!!)
"Man had dominated man to his injury."
Ecclesiastes 8:9
"You can please some of the people part of the time, you can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." ~Old saying
A message more charitable, but not any more logical....
Don't worry about him destroying the forests. No matter what you saw on TV, its impossible. Without Trees to make oxygen, we would die. And we all know how bent on Animal preservation the President is. I am positive G. Bush will not destroy the forests. besides, that would cause less jobs, after the tree were all gone (which would be a task Id like to see them pull off) Then they would all LOSE their jobs.
Dont worry, nothing's not going to happen.
G. Bush wasn't born yesterday, He's pretty samrt, and he wouldnt do a dumb@$$ thing like that.
And did you know you could be arrested if someone in the Gov found that messege you wrote and calling him those names. And I dont appriciate it either. Youve got alot of nerve calling him a bastard. He had just gottan into office when 911 happened, And I think he dealt with it in a good manner, even though I dont agree with EVERYTHING he's done, hes done alot more to help then you could know.
And the response to that one:
Did you seriously just say George Bush is smart??? ahahahahahaha thats the funniest thing I've heard all day!Ok, thinning the underbrush and all that is fine, but you know how people lie, so what it'll end up being is that he'll wipe out as many forests as possible, and then people will be complaining about animals in their backyards because they have no place to go. And I certainly wouldn't say hes "bent" on animal preservation, honestly I think he couldn't care less. Bill Clinton (even though he was gross and blah blah blah) was a smart person and was great with all the foreign affairs, however- Bush is not. *There is a reason "saturday night live" always makes skits about how dumb he is, now they didnt do THAT with Clinton did they???
(*At this point in the discussion, I for once, actually "LOL'd!!" Nooooooo......"Saturday Night Live" NEVER made fun of Bill Clinton!!!!)