bushwhacked

[AlpineK]

Fuck thinning BURN IT ALL

[Peter_Puget]

Why no thave almost immediate posting of donations indicating quantity and donor posted to a web site. Let the people decide!!

[allthumbs]

I say quit fighting forest fires. Let nature have it's way. And quit trying to save every fucking plant and animal and bird and tree and shit. Remember...it's not nice to screw with Mother Nature.

[MtnGoat]

interesting points, I'll bite!

 

"In a system where there are no limitations on donations to political candidates/incumbents, it is impossible to tell what is bribery and what isn't."

 

I'd make the case that's true now, and always *will* be true. all campaign "reform" does is allow whoever is currently in power to place whatever barriers they can get away with into the path of those they don't want to have to deal with.

 

Campaign "reform" *injects* politics even more deeply into campaigns. If one wants *less* politickin', how is that acheived by allowing those who *already* admit they cannot be trusted with campaign finances to write the laws?

 

"Just say, oh, hypothetically, that some company called Enron gave millions of dollars to the Bush campaign."

 

That is an interesting hypothetical, given that Enron contributed the largest amount they ever donated, to our old pal Mr Bill....

 

"Is this bribery, or just the way the system works? Hard to say."

 

Very hard to say, yup. I'd say they are *entirely* justified in supporting someone who favors their views because who in the heck is going to support someone who is working against them?

 

If we cannot trust our people, trusting these same people (who claim they can't be trusted without laws to help them be trustworthy), to figure out ways to make themselves trustworthy, is simply nuts, by first principle IMO.

 

Since politicians must account for their votes to those that elect them, *US*, whatever stances they take will come out in the wash. They cannot vote on things no one knows about, it's all in the congressional record and such. Who donates is irrelevant to the *reasons* they put forth for their votes. Should we not evaluate votes by what is voted on and *it's* specifics? Who cares about the other stuff, the *ideas* contained in a bill are what is important, not who pushes it for what reason. The laws that will be enacted are codified in the bills for all to see, after all.

 

Quid pro quo bribery is already illegal, as it should be. But supporting someone you want to win because you don't want someone else to win, is so close to "paying for influence" in some minds, it's inseparable. If I have a million dollars and I do not want someone to win and I can spare that cash, I'd do it.

 

I cannot buy the votes of the people voting, and I cannot buy that they will not ask the senator or whoever why he took my million dollars. All donations should be public knowledge, by the way. That is the only way an open system can work.

 

Rather than trying to separate the inseparable, (support from influence), only to use those determinations to further apply laws written by those who we already distrust, shows multiple levels of flawed reasoning IMO. Which are based on a distinction so subtle that *anybody* can argue one way or another!

 

IMO This inevitably leads to *more* politicking trying to again codify something as slippery as an eel, and is merely an opportunity for one more layer of contradiction underlaid by still more political deals over who gets nailed for what, by whom, and which party or individual it will help, or hurt. And in each round, someone loses more liberties, piece by piece, as those we don't trust now, gain more say in who can donate and who can't with each "reform".

 

You can see this progression evident in every "reform" bill since they passed the first one a few decades ago. Every successive one maintains it will be the fix, isn't, and then another emerges, rife with *more* restrictions and fine tuning of distinctions that are in the eye of the beholder anyway!

 

Trying to stop campaign contributions from finding their way is like trying to stop drug money, it's elastic and fluid and no matter how hard you try, it will find a way because the *restrictions* on it are elemental in creating the conditions that make it valuable.

 

The smart thing IMO is to rework the system so *everything* is in the open, so you do not work with so many value judgement intangibles, leading to their implementation by a body with an innate, irresolveable conflict of interest.

 

Open it all. Make all donations from any source legal and public. All the griping about special interests is likewise poppycock IMO. We are *all* special interests. When I donate to the Mises institute, the Cato foundation, and the NRA, I expect that money to be combined with other money to gain leverage. Contributions to what we believe in or want, is a good thing, not a bad one.

 

[ 08-22-2002, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[sk]

I think poloticians should be chosen lottery style, some what like jurry duty, and all government money should be collected in donation boxes outside government buildings

 

[allthumbs]

"but, but Aunt Em, I really did talk to the Madd Hatter"

[Geek_the_Greek]

Damn - finally a topic I actually care about, and I'm three pages behind (fire/thinning, not campaign finances).

 

As with everything in ecology, "proper" management practices totally depend on the particular forest type, as well as your objectives.

In dry forest types, (ponderosa pine, sagebrush, etc.) or where there has always been a lot of lightning (florida and much of the SE), fire suppression for 50-100 years, along with grazing and other land-use changes has led to huge buildups in fuels, and big changes to the ecosystem in many cases. In these places you can thin (take out small trees), which is very expensive, or do prescribed burning under relatively controlled conditions, which is slightly cheaper, but has less certain outcomes.

 

The 'let-burn' idea is appropriate for forests that naturally only get fires every 50 years or so (or less often) - subalpine forests, west-side old-growth, Canadian boreal etc. This is because these forests will not have unnatural fuel buildups from fire suppression. Bear in mind, though, that these tend to be "stand-replacement", or "high-severity" fires - that is, if you let them burn, you will tend to end up with the classic newspaper image of blackened toothpicks. This is completely natural, but may not be desirable. With the current reduced levels of old-growth in the PNW, for instance, there are plenty of good arguments to keep putting out these fires to save certain species, eg. salmon habitat, certain birds I won't mention, etc....

 

If you just let dry (eg ponderosa pine) forests burn in their current state, you will also tend to end up with blackened toothpicks, rather than the low-severity "cleansing" fires of old. That's why some treatment (prescribed fire, under controlled conditions) or thinning is generally needed in these forests before doing the let-burn thing.

 

Thinning would work fine if you just took out the small trees (much better than prescribed fire, actually). But as someone previously said, to make it cost-effective, you have to give up some bigger trees to the thinners, which gets you into the political game of how much is too much, and are you actually still accomplishing your objective. Thinning is a word that is being used for too many things these days, and needs to be further defined to be useful.

 

Ok, I'm done working for the day, so I shouldn't be thinking about this stuff any more....

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattp:

Greg-

Didn't Thomas Jefferson or somebody write that "all men are created equal?"

The "players" may not have been the same ones that we are talking about today, but the concept of a level playing field is not new.

---

Equal in the eyes of God and the Law. You cannot argue that all men are intellectually or physically equal. What each man does with what he has been given at creation is an entirely different matter. A level playing field makes takes everyone down to the level of the simplest and stupidest individual.

 

Greg W

[Off_White]

Money tilts the playing field. This is how we've wound up with the simplest and stupidest individual in the highest elected office. Yeah yeah, I know, its not nice to laugh at the handicapped, but did you hear that guy try and talk about forest protection? I dunno, maybe he was only drunk...

 

Anyway, we don't live in a meritocracy that rewards intelligence, virtue, and ideals with money, so why should money decide who has influence? Campaign donations buy access, pure and simple. If you doubt it, try it on a smaller local level. Give $2000 to someone running for Seattle City Council, and see just how seriously someone is willing to listen to you and advocate for concerns.

 

As republicrats and demicans come to resemble each other more and more, I think the real disease is the two party system that really offers no viable choice, so people just don't care. If we had proportional representation, where the Greens might hold 5% of the seats, the Libertarians with 4%, Socialists with 2%, and the Trad Climbers 1%, you'd have a political map that would grant more influence to a wider range of viewpoints, and lead to more compromise and fluctutating alliances, and we all might find a party that actually represents what we think. Mnt Goat, I'm sure Bush and his trade tariffs must chap your Cato-Institute ass, and I know for damn sure that Clinton and his faux environmentalism pissed me off no end. Isn't everyone here, on every side, tired of making candidate choices based on a lesser of two evils, however you define evil?

 

At this early point in my candidacy, a $2000 donation will definitely gain you some access if I win.

 

(Hey, page top to boot. With omens like that, the Wiccans are sure to back me...)

 

[ 08-22-2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Off White ]

[allthumbs]

I think you hit it on the head. Lots of folks just don't care anymore. I know I don't.

[MtnGoat]

"Money tilts the playing field."

 

True. But that's what it's for. I work to get money so I can tilt the field my direction with better housing, food, medicine, etc.

 

"Anyway, we don't live in a meritocracy that rewards intelligence, virtue, and ideals with money, so why should money decide who has influence?"

 

No we don't, but we live in a place where it's as close as it's ever going to get, IMO. But on the whole, with intelligence, virtue, and ideals, combined with actual work and drive, you'll do better than someone who doesn't have these things.

 

All the money in the world can't make people vote for people they don't like, millionaires spending their own money on local races lose all the time.

 

And money can't make people ignore what their representatives vote for while not giving sufficient reasons for doing what they are doing. If they cannot suppport their actions, vote them out.

 

no matter how you try to stamp out "influence", it will *still* be there. By concentrating so much power in one place, you unavoidably attract those who want to use it. The best that can be done is open it up wide so all influence is *visible*.

 

"Campaign donations buy access, pure and simple."

 

Course they do. Candidates are free individuals who can see who they choose. Does anybody think a big donor is going to be ignored? Ever? I don't.

 

Eliminate donations, some other form of bait will be devised, and that powerful person will *still* be there in your reps office. By allowing control of others to be vested in one place, you've created a centralized target for power seekers, and they will never, ever go away.

 

Thousands of years of human history is on display on the net or any library. Read in any time period, in any form of govt, and from the bottom to the top you have influence and access determined by people with money or favors gravitating to the center of power. This situation is inevitable, opening the process up gets it all visible.

 

Outside access does not matter if the candidate is asked to explain why he supports what he supports and made to give answers others can judge. And all contacts and donations are visible.

 

I don't care if the association of satanists, the pigf*ckers of S Jersey, and the Art Bell fan club give money to someone I support too, and I don't care what their reasons are one damned bit, *if* my rep can make cogent arguments I agree with. I am not supporting him based on who he sees or who he talks with, but on their ideas and actions and how the two coincide.

 

"I think the real disease is the two party system that really offers no viable choice, so people just don't care."

 

Why do you assume caring means looking at govt the way you do? As a libertarian, I don't measure caring by how many people turn out to make their fellow citizens do what they want, by law. I measure caring by *individual* activity, where it shows the person *really* cares, personally cares, and sticks their time, money, and effort where there mouth is.

 

I care about a lot of things, but I do not support people who think caring means more laws and more interference with personal choices and freedoms. So I'm often told I don't care because I don't express my caring by attempting to make free individuals serve my ends. I'm not ragging on you, it's just that this assumption that we're not functional because not everyone runs to the polls is one I've always had a beef with.

 

"If we had proportional representation, where the Greens might hold 5% of the seats, the Libertarians with 4%, Socialists with 2%, and the Trad Climbers 1%, you'd have a political map that would grant more influence to a wider range of viewpoints, and lead to more compromise and fluctutating alliances, and we all might find a party that actually represents what we think."

 

What a zoo that would be, I'm glad it's not a reality and never will be.

 

"Mnt Goat, I'm sure Bush and his trade tariffs must chap your Cato-Institute ass,"

 

Yes they do. Let the steel industry take it's lumps. The farm subsidies really ticked me off as well. Remove subsidies from rail, oil, airlines, and everything else that gets one.

 

"Isn't everyone here, on every side, tired of making candidate choices based on a lesser of two evils, however you define evil?"

 

This will never change either.

 

"They say being an Atheist means not having the courage of someone else's convictions"

 

Not basing ones morals on a diety doesn't remove those morals from the playground of subjectivity, any christian fundie has just as much proof of the legimacy of their ideas as anyone else. The courage of someone elses convictions can come from any source, not only religion.

 

Thanks for the fun!

[ILuvAliens]

MTNGOAT

 

There is a big difference between public vs private trees. Most environmental pollution to date has occurred because governments have allowed industries to pollute government property rivers, streams, lakes, roads, and lands. Most clear-cutting and strip-mining occur on government property because the offenders have no stake in the future value of the land. Pollution seldom occurs on private property, because property owners are concerned about the future value of their property.

[not_a_climber]

"I think the real disease is the two party system that really offers no viable choice, so people just don't care."

 

Aren't the parties just a reflection of their constituents and ultimately the average American? I suspect the average American has just become more average and so the parties have drifted closer together. Would a third part of any size really offer anything different? If there is no demand, then there will be no supply. For better or worse, there is less polarization in public opinion.

 

I want my, I want my, I want my MTV.

[ILuvAliens]

So after this CFR, how long till the next and the next and on and on. That's how it goes. Government does this all the time. Oh this law is not working lets amend it. Not enough money for education, social security, medicare, medicade, we need more. How about rethinking all of it.

 

I should be able to give whoever whatever I want. That is freedom.

[Geek_the_Greek]

quote:

---

Most clear-cutting and strip-mining occur on government property because the offenders have no stake in the future value of the land.

---

At least for clearcutting, this is patently untrue. Most timber in the US (like, 80%) currently comes from private land, the vast majority of which is clearcut. At its logging peak in the late '80's, public land only supplied 40% of the US-grown timber. Industrial logging is a business of clearcuts on private land. Weyerhaeuser tree farms all over the PNW are a prime example, but the most glaring examples are in the southeast. Douglas-fir plantations grow just fine (brilliantly, actually) in clear-cuts. It's the other forest values (wildlife, water quality, etc.) that may be compromised by clearcutting, not the crop trees.

 

The jury's still out on whether soil productivity decreases after several rotations (yes in some places, no in others), but this matters less with intensive fertilization.

[ILuvAliens]

However these private land owners still take better care of their land after it is cut. Weyerhauser is a good example of this. They know they need to do this to preserve their investments.

[ILuvAliens]

Also a big reason 80% of the timber is coming from private land is because of the land that is allowed to be logged, 72% of that is privatley owned.

 

Again, Weyerhaeuser, is good they have a recycle company and work hard to develop land.

 

Also private companies have to follow rules and regulations. Yet nobody can hold the government responsible. They can blame us. Use our money to fix problems.

[To_The_Top]

Riots in the streets of Portland over Bush being there. Looks like WTO a few years ago. DFA seen on the hood of a police car.

[ILuvAliens]

Sure doesn't take much to get Orgonians excited.

[sk]

I think my skull just cracked open and my brains are now seeping onto the floor. This argument is about as solvable as trad vs. sporto. the war on drugs and the problem of poverty.

 

what sk thinks she know:

they keep cutting old growth because 2nd and 3rd growth trees are only good for making paper and press board.

 

what sk wants to believe:

again I will go out on one of my favorite limbs... leagalize hemp...canibis etc. in all forms and the pnw will be saved. nice cash crop... and you can make paper and press board rom the material. Still does not solve the problem of good quality wood to build things with, but it is a start.

[erik]

i was talking with my dad about similar subject a couple daze ago.....

 

and i think all lobbying wheter it be from enviro or industry is a sick fucking joke....lobbyiests serve one thing, their deisre for power....power equals money.....we as individuals are near powerless in situations such as this...our voice is muffled by industry/special interests dollars....democrats and repubs make me sick.....and the whole political system in general is weak and poisend.....these (our) elected officials do not listen to the layman constituant no matter what political party you belong too....both repubs and demos are whores.

they listen to what gets thier attention most, power. until we the people can come up with a way to stop this whoring of our elected officals, things like this and fee demo will continue. obviously our elected officals are not too interested in doiong this on their own(hard to pull your hand from the candy basket).

 

i say we should thin the congress and the senate!

[sk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by erik:

i was talking with my dad about similar subject a couple daze ago.....

 

and i think all lobbying wheter it be from enviro or industry is a sick fucking joke....lobbyiests serve one thing, their deisre for power....power equals money.....we as individuals are near powerless in situations such as this...our voice is muffled by industry/special interests dollars....democrats and repubs make me sick.....and the whole political system in general is weak and poisend.....these (our) elected officials do not listen to the layman constituant no matter what political party you belong too....both repubs and demos are whores.

they listen to what gets thier attention most, power. until we the people can come up with a way to stop this whoring of our elected officals, things like this and fee demo will continue. obviously our elected officals are not too interested in doiong this on their own(hard to pull your hand from the candy basket).

 

i say we should thin the congress and the senate!

---

Amen

[iain]

quote:

---

Originally posted by erik:

i say we should thin the congress and the senate!

---

Environmentalists would complain. There's too much old growth over there.

[Rick_Sharpless]

SK and Erik have one thing right - this is about money. But it's also about communities and people.

 

Old growth, especially when you can mine it off public land, is a quick way to a lot of $ for the timber company.

 

Second growth makes dandy lumber, though less money. In the southeast pines are grown on a 40 year (to sawtimber) cycle with intermediate pulpwood thinning. It's hot here, and usually (not this year) it rains a lot. A pine plantation is not a true "forest" but it sure grows a lot of wood as a crop.

 

I have good hearsay that the CEO of Georgia PAcific, about 12 years ago, said "off the record" that he hoped they'd find spotted owls everywhere from California to Canada, because every time a timber sale was canceled on public land in the PNW, southeastern timber cbecame more valuable. So whether or not one more stick of old growth or public land is cut, there will be plenty of timber and fiber. Just a question of where it comes from. Right now, the folks north of 49th parallel seem content to cut down their forests and send the sawtimber south. Bad for them, bad for producers here, but good for wood users here. Aren't the Bushies threatening Canada with some sort of politically motivated duties on wood products?

 

But if you live in a PNW community surrounded by public land and supported by logging,to say "no more cut" is telling a lot of people to give up their jobs and communities and move. So it's not a real surprise that those affected feel passionately about it. The enviros ignore this, which is easy if you don't live there.

 

Cannabis could work - sure replaced moonshine as the export crop of choice in the southern appalachains.

 

[ 08-22-2002, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: erik ]

[sk]

I don't know about anywhere else but there are verry few running mills here anymore. The Majority of the loggers that were still logging in the small comunity that I grew up in have not been logging since the mid 80's. frankly I don't know what else people would have to give up. Let them become FARMERS!!!