The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-29-2004, 11:28 AM   #16
marichiko
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Here's a quote by Bush from the second Bush/Kerry debate this fall that is worthy of Dan Quayle at his finest:

"We proposed and passed a healthy forest bill which was essential to working with -- particularly in Western states -- to make sure that our forests were protected. What happens in those forests, because of lousy federal policy, is they grow to be -- they are not -- they're not harvested. They're not taken care of. And as a result, they're like tinderboxes."

Unharvested forests cause forest fires. Well, that's true - if there were no trees to burn, there would be no fires. Solution: get rid of trees. Bush happens to own a lumber mill company, BTW.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2004, 01:02 PM   #17
wolf
lobber of scimitars
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phila Burbs
Posts: 20,774
Forest fires are part of the lifecycle of the forest, however, because of development in or near forest lands, more than just the forest is threatened, and we have to do something about it ... proactively managing the forest lands to try to reduce the likelihood of major forest fires makes more sense. This includes clearing underbrush which provides fuel for the fires as well as cutting down some trees to make firelanes and firebreaks in the event that a major fire does start.

It's not just about getting rid of trees. It's about removing them in the right places and the right ways ... and also replanting to avoid problems caused by soil erosion, runoff, and mudslides.
__________________
wolf eht htiw og

"Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island

High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis
wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2004, 01:48 PM   #18
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
If you wish to prevent forest fires, what needs to be removed are dead trees, fallen branches, and underbrush. Thinning out some younger trees may sometimes help as well, since smaller trees are more flammable. Lumber companies do not want dead wood, broken branches, underbrush, or immature trees. In fact, harvested forest is much more likely to have dead wood and branches laying around, underbrush grows quickly in harvested areas, and replanting consists (of course) of immature trees.

Of course, you can't make much money dragging dead wood out of a forest.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2004, 04:10 PM   #19
lookout123
changed his status to single
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Right behind you. No, the other side.
Posts: 10,308
One of my colleagues who has been in the business for a very signicant period of time is possibly the absolutely worst public speaker imagineable. he can't give a 5 minute presentation without making me cringe and yet he is one of the most intelligent men i have ever met and prospective clients wait in line to get a chance to speak with him. it seems likely that these people understand that the person with the smoothest delivery isn't always the most qualified or the best choice to hire, while the person with less than admireable speaking skills is sometimes perfect for the job.
__________________
Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin
lookout123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2004, 04:22 PM   #20
jaguar
whig
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,075
There is a growing school of thought at least in Australia (lets face it, they get a lot of big fires) that *any* forest management is stupid. Before we came along forests somehow managed to manage themselves and do a pretty good job of it, some things we do, like not having regular fires only creates problems and 'clearing' has been shown to utterly fuck the forest ecosystem by removing the habitat of hundreds of species.

In australia regular fires are *needed* for germination of some plants for crying out loud and the reason the really destructive fires, crown fires start is because there isn't enough regular smaller firest coming though cleaning things up a bit, these forests have been around longer than us, hundreds of species have developed to live in an ecosystem in which fire is an essential part, in short, leave the fucking forests alone.
__________________
Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.
- Twain

Last edited by jaguar; 11-29-2004 at 04:24 PM.
jaguar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2004, 04:39 PM   #21
ladysycamore
"I may not always be perfect, but I'm always me."
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In Sycamore's boxers
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by marichiko
Here's a quote by Bush from the second Bush/Kerry debate this fall that is worthy of Dan Quayle at his finest:

"We proposed and passed a healthy forest bill which was essential to working with -- particularly in Western states -- to make sure that our forests were protected. What happens in those forests, because of lousy federal policy, is they grow to be -- they are not -- they're not harvested. They're not taken care of. And as a result, they're like tinderboxes."

Unharvested forests cause forest fires. Well, that's true - if there were no trees to burn, there would be no fires. Solution: get rid of trees. Bush happens to own a lumber mill company, BTW.
Whew..glad you put what he said in "english", b/c I was sitting here like "WTF???"

No matter how anyone "dresses" it up, the man can't speak worth a damn and as far as being "one of us"...well, don't include me in that mess.
__________________
"Freedom is not given. It is our right at birth. But there are some moments when it must be taken." ~Tagline from the movie "Amistad"~

"The Akan concept of Sankofa: In order to move forward we first have to take a step back. In other words, before we can be prepared for the future, we must comprehend the past." From "We Did It, They Hid It"
ladysycamore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2004, 05:00 PM   #22
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by marichiko
Bush happens to own a lumber mill company, BTW.
Not really - he has a small stake in a lumber company, and recieved a small amount of money from it, and one year his accountant put that down as small business income. Kerry's point was that even that tiny (especially compared with Bush's other finances) transaction was enough to count Bush as a small business when using the Republicans' inflated numbers.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2004, 05:25 PM   #23
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
The central point not lost that W's statement was essentially a correct summary and not a Quayle-ish dunderheadism. The irony not lost that it was a dunderheaded interpretation that got it wrong in the name of being smart and communicating clearly.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2004, 05:39 PM   #24
marichiko
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf
Forest fires are part of the lifecycle of the forest, however, because of development in or near forest lands, more than just the forest is threatened, and we have to do something about it ... proactively managing the forest lands to try to reduce the likelihood of major forest fires makes more sense. This includes clearing underbrush which provides fuel for the fires as well as cutting down some trees to make firelanes and firebreaks in the event that a major fire does start.

It's not just about getting rid of trees. It's about removing them in the right places and the right ways ... and also replanting to avoid problems caused by soil erosion, runoff, and mudslides.
Wolf, you are quite correct in your statements. Forest fires which threaten nearby structures need to be agressively contained (although a Conservative might make a statement to the effect that if people chose to build homes near national forests, they should accept the consequences of any subsequent forest fire and not expect the government to bail them out for their lack of foresight ).

Many species of western trees have evolved with fire as a part of the ecosystem. Jeffrey and yellowbark pines, among others, can withstand a small brush fire on the forest floor and be unharmed. Fire even causes the cones of some pines to open up and allow the new seeds to germinate in the cleared spaces after a fire has been through. Aspen have evolved root systems which lie dormant beneath the forest floor and spring to life once a fire makes an opening for them.

Forest fires have become a major problem only since we started "managing" forests by suppressing fire. Fire suppression has caused the build up of undergrowth and logging companies are notorious for leaving piles of "slash" on the forest floor in the wake of their operations. This all leads to an enormous build up of fuel on the forest floor. When fires went through the forests on a regular basis they burned the small amount of fuel lying on the ground that had accumulated since the last fire and seldom developed into the destructive crown fires which rage through a forest destroying all in their path and killing fire fighters.

Bushes cause fires, not trees. Yet, the current administration's policy is to harvest timber under the guise of fire suppression. Over zealous timber harvesting is a disaster in the Rocky Mountain West. Trees here simply do not regenerate fast enough because our climate is too arid. Take out too many trees and the result is soil erosion, loss of habitat, and permanent loss of hundreds of acres of forest. Seedlings can't survive in clear cuts here. Without the protection of shade from standing trees, the young seedlings dry up and die. It's that simple. If you were to come out here I could show you areas of Colorado that were clear cut a hundred years ago and STILL have not come back.

Bush's policies show a lack of understanding of the basics of forest ecology and shameless pandering to the big lumber companies all in the name of "fire suppression." What a joke!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2004, 12:32 PM   #25
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace_NoOne
Hello there,

being a non-U.S. citizen, news coverage of the recent presidential election was of a rather general nature over here. However, I need to know which of George W. Bush's campaign speeches were considered pivotal, or at least important enough to deserve further (linguistic) analysis.
I'd be very grateful if anyone could help me on this. (Maybe some of you even know of some articles analyzing George W. Bush's speeches from a linguistic point of view?)
His State of the Union address in January 2002. It defined how America would attack without provocation. It defined the concept on which American foreign policy would change - to act more like Hilter and Tojo rather than like Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis or Eisenhower during the Suez Crisis.

Most interesting is the paragraph where he associates Saddam with the WTC attack. In short, he lies by implication - also known as propaganda. As a result, 70% of Americans believed that Saddam and Iraq were involved with the WTC attack. Clearly anyone with basic news sources back then knew it was a lie. But most Americans only know of the world in terms of Rush Limbaugh sound bytes. People will listen to Rush Limbaugh every day for hours, but never read or listen to a single responsbile news source. The speech said what right wing extremist radio propagandists only amplified. Most Ameircans believed lie after lie - ie the alumunim tubes to make nuclear bombs - because Americans are being bombarded by right wing extremists pretending to be news sources (Fox News) and religion broadcasts that are mostly political interpretation of current events from "god's perspective". IOW lies and propaganda no different that the information used to put the Nazi party in power.

Yet, information sources in much of the US have changed that much.

Being overseas, you probably have little appreciation with the 'veins hanging from teeth' mentality that existed in America in 2002. The Project for a New American Century listed unilateral attacks, if necessary, on Russia, Germany, or India. In 1996, that seemed rediculous. But with militaristic mentalities as in 1960s VietNam, the possibility of America attacking these other nations has increased.

Look. No one in their wildest dreams ever thought America would attack another nation for no reason AND do so when most every close friend (France, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Mexico, Chile, etc) were opposed. No one thought any member of the UN Security Council could do that anymore.

That Jan 2002 speech defined what we will do. Now that Iraq has been invaded (98,000 Iraqi citizens dead as a result), now nations like Iran and North Korea know that no other nation will help them to defend themselves even in the realms of international law ie UN). Americans have now decided that other nations - even Canada - are misguided and should be ignored.

What has changed? First Iran and N Korea must build as nany nuclear weapons and other WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) as they can. Second, the attitude of that Jan 2002 speech resulted even in the approval of torture as a legitamate tool of warfare. This is how extremist Americans have become. Oncde the world's leaders in morality, instead we have made immorality as 'situation normal'. Terrorism is now justified because even America approves of and executes torture. Right wing extremists now have reinterpreted the law to make torture legal - redefining toture only as something that leaves an organ permenently destroyed. A partially damaged liver is not torture.

So the world changed suddenly everywhere. Even UN or Red Cross convoys in Central Africa - once safe everywhere in those countries - are now routinely attacked. For the first in many world hot spots, the Red Cross has had to remove its logo from trucks and bases. It is now good and acceptable to even attack, torture, and murder the NGOs.

This is what has changed. Standards of morality throughout the world have changed for the worse - to reflect Americas attitudes - including all Germans and Frenchmen are dumb idiots. This is the attitude of those who do vote - the religious right extremists - who also advocate a Middle East war to create Armagedon - the second coming of Christ and the conversion of remaining Jews to Christianity is the ultimate objective. And yet a major group of Americans with generations of work in international politics and military signed a joint statement that said George Jr has literally destroyed 40 years of work. That is the agenda of some politically powerful Americans.

Cancer does not appear big and obvious. It first appears in the little details. Same reason why most every American under 30 did drugs during the VietNam era. After all, the president was a liar and a crook. He even lied on national TV by saying, "I am not a crook". Therefore drug use increased. Distrust of all authority skyrocketed. Stagflation was inevitable (since under Nixon, budgets did not matter just like today).

Crime increased significantly. It is what happens when top management is corrupt - has no morals - imposes religious beliefs on others. No body expected the Spanish Inquisition. It happens when religion rather than basic human knowledge is real to rule and people forget how evil religion can become if it is the government. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition - or that America would authorize torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraid. But that is how both America and Americans have changed. That began with the president's Jan 2002 speech that really said Americans must fear all other people - and here are the top countries on that list: the Axis of Evil.

The US is moving for an attack on Iran that will occur on or after 2006. Iran is the next country on the list of nations that America will attack. It is why two heavy American divisions are being removed from NATO - countries who cannot be trusted. Just like in Hitler's Mein Kampf, first promote the propaganda - the hate. Last week, the propaganda to justify the invasion of Iran started. Then the nation will want to attack anyone as, for example, evil Checkoslavakians were attacked by benevolent Nazi Germans.

It started with the January 2002 State of the Union address that should be available at http://www.whitehouse/gov .
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004, 12:31 PM   #26
OnyxCougar
Junior Master Dwellar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Kingdom of Atlantia
Posts: 2,979
Instead of Bush's address, I really really enjoyed Tony Blair's address...

here
__________________

Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt.

"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
~Franklin D. Roosevelt
OnyxCougar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004, 01:07 PM   #27
jaguar
whig
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,075
Pity it was full of lies and omissions.
__________________
Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.
- Twain
jaguar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004, 01:13 PM   #28
OnyxCougar
Junior Master Dwellar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Kingdom of Atlantia
Posts: 2,979
well, omissions I dont doubt, but lies? Cite, please.
__________________

Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt.

"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
~Franklin D. Roosevelt
OnyxCougar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004, 01:35 PM   #29
jaguar
whig
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,075
Quote:
We are now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd.
Quote:
the 8 December declaration is false.
Quote:
Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.
.
__________________
Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.
- Twain
jaguar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004, 01:43 PM   #30
lookout123
changed his status to single
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Right behind you. No, the other side.
Posts: 10,308
what serious intelligence service believed that they had no WMD - at THAT time?
__________________
Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin
lookout123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:29 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.