Bush you cockswizzle!
What the fuck?
Theres a slim chance it may burn down, so instead lets chop it all down now!
I don’t know where I am politically, both sides tend to piss me off, but I gotta ask…
What the fuck is this man doing to our country?
**
**
and
**
**
Great logic here, lets chop them all down, brcause all these trees may possibly one day in a galaxy far far away catch fire.
**
**
:eek:
This country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Guess what kind.
I don’t see him stating that all trees should be chopped down, only some trees in forests with a higher liklihood of a fire breaking out. To my understanding complete fire supression (immediately trying to put out any forest fire that comes along) has been practiced for so many decades that it has allowed the forests in this country to become so dense and loaded with underbrush that they’re now all giant tinderboxes, hence the record number of forest fires and their gigantic sizes the last few years. The occasional forest fire is mother nature’s way of thinning the herd as it were and we messed up her game plan. Nor do I, from what I can tell from the article, think that they’re going to be targeting any forest with a “slim chance” of a forest fire, but they’re going to be going after those wooded areas where there is a high chance.
Although I like to stew on issues a little before I make a final conclusion I have to say that on this one I’m definitely leaning towards siding with Bush on the issue. With the exception of his proposal to make it more difficult for environmental groups to appeal logging decisions: if it’s important enough that trees be felled in a given area I trust the judges will see that and quite frankly I’d like a little oversight from a group outside the govt. and logging interests.
Somehow I think those ‘good intentions’ are going to fly out the window real fast. I’m sure theres a better solution to this then razing the land.
Meh. Trees are nice and all, they make for scenic driving. Do we really need all these forests though? Couldn’t we just have forests, like, up to 100 yards from the roadside to keep the scenic benefit, and then just cut all the rest down? Sure, trees are pretty, but what’s the point conserving a resource that grows back, I mean what the heck are we saving it for? I guess it gives deer a better place to hang out than being plastered on the front of my truck.
So having said that, aren’t you glad I’m not the President?? I don’t give a hoot about trees. At least Bush is trying to do what he thinks is right to preserve the bulk of the forests. He can thin it out or the loggers can. At least if the loggers are thinning it out, loggers’ wives and children are getting food on their plates.
Oops, I meant to say that fire can thin the forest or else the loggers can. Sorry.
George W. Bush has an IQ of 27. Get over it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush does have logging interests in mind and environmental concerns are slightly farther down the list, but I think it’s safe to say that forest fires are currently doing far more damage to our environment, and far more quickly, than loggers are doing. Maybe “good intentions” will fly out the window real quick if Bush gets his proposal off the ground but it still seems better than our current situation.
GWB got over 1400 on his SATs. You get over it. Your remark is a total non sequitur, another cheap shot at Bush, the type people make when they don’t really have anything to say on topic. Don’t just jump into a thread with “Bush is an idiot”, since it’s neither true nor relevant.
Sounds like a good idea to me, not to mention, from a firefighting point of view thinning out the trees could do wonders for slowing the psread and intensity of wildland fires. I don’t know much about logging operations but it probably wouldnt be hard to log a pattern that would create a series of natural firebreaks while still leaving much of the forest intact and reducing fire hazards all at once.
Yeah, I started a Great Debate about this. Suffice it to say, for now, that I just don’t get it.
Not to get Seinfeld here but “if we can put a man on the moon…”, can’t there be a better way to do this?
Cutting large chucks of forest down with specific intent of preventing forest fires seems like using a shotgun to kill a fly.
At least I’ve filled my cliche quota for the day.
Are we to assume then that you are also not partial to breathing?
In parts of Kakadu National Park in Australia, there are annual controlled burns, in order to thin out the underbrush. Dried underbrush fuels forest fires. Fortunately these trees are relatively small and they don’t let years of underbrush collect, so these controlled burns are safe (or so I was told.) It’s eerie to drive down a road with a fire burning in the woods right next to you.
Controlled burns are impractical in many American forests. The fire would be too big and it might get out of control. There are homes and other structures nearby that would be endangered. We need to find another way to clear out the dried underbrush. The most practical answer is to have loggers do it. That’s just the way it is.
I posted the meat and potatoes of my response in the GD thread. Basically, thinning good; crown fires bad.
Of course, the OP may not like who ends up with the wood (those…those…loggers!), but that sounds like a knee jerking too hard.
Oh, and Anaximenes; you forgot to add "And Bush stole the election!!! Got to keep up the party line and all that.
Liar, liar, pants on fire. Cecil himself says he scored 1206. That doesn’t make Bush stupid, but it certainly doesn’t make him, say Al Gore (1355). It does, however, make you full of shit.
A fly? I suppose that’s really easy to say while sitting in “Brooklyn, USA!” but I would bet the 141 families in Colorado whose homes were destroyed by 200,000 acres of fire. Or the 8,000 people in Arizona evacuated in the face of 128,000 acre blaze.
A properly regulated, regenerative commercial logging industry is extremely beneficial to the economy and not detrimental to the environment. Georgia, for example, had had an enourmous logging economy for 200+ years, and still maintains some of the biggest forests in the US. Georgia alone has over 300 million acres of forest, probably more than exists in all of Europe. And that doesn’t include Alabama and Oregon, also huge logging states.
Allright, ya caught me…ooooooooh, I’m shakin’ in my pants, I really am. I’m full of sh*t because I misremember an SAT score? Point’s the same, 1200+ is good enough for most universities, and 1000 is calibrated as the average score, so he’s still above average. All I did was point out that the idiot remark “Bush has an IQ of 27” was incorrect and irrelevant. You don’t have to take it out on me, okay?
Well, I don’t know about the legitimacy of your .org webite citation. Perhaps it’s true. I don’t play the “I’m a google dork, let’s hunt citations” game myself, I leave that to others. Probably coz I really don’t care that much about it, I don’t want to hunt the figures now. And it’s the Pit, so “cite please” affects me not! I did two googles and found no statistics, and since that exceeds my usual effort by far I decided to just say “screw it” and give up. So here’s my own lame biased .org citation to provide some vague, mostly useless information:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/tp30.htm
And Cecil doesn’t seem too concerned about oxygen shortages:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a941007.html
I’m under the impression that some number over 80% of the earth’s oxygen is produced by algae in the ocean. Maybe the trees are still important…but consider that we’ve deforested a huge chunk of the United States already, and the world’s population has grown sixfold or so in that time, and I’m still breathing. So maybe the trees are good oxygen producers, but they don’t seem to be statistically significant. We’re not talking about the Amazon Basin here, we’re talking about Oregon.
<<Point’s the same, 1200+ is good enough for most universities, and 1000 is calibrated as the average score, so he’s still above average. >>
And, that was 1200+ on the old scale, before they dumbed it down for you whippersnappers.
Jeez, I’d like to be able to “misremember” my SAT scores by an extra 200 points. But if you’re going to respond to somebody else’s political hyperbole with an assertion of fact, Rex, do take the time to verify your assertion. All I had to do was google “George Bush SAT score” and Cecil’s column popped right up, along with any number of other sites saying the same thing.