Friday July 1, 2016
Jump to content
I've seen pictures of Buckhead Mesa at the turn of the century and it was all tall grass. Today it is cedar and juniper. I have little doubt that the policy of putting out every single fire as quickly as possible has led to this change in the regional landscape. Now perhaps we've learned our lesson and can get back to the reality that "nature knows best" and let the natural cycle run it's course. Certainly life and property STILL need the number one priority, but as we are seeing currently with the new approach the Forest Service is taking, we can do both at the same time. Of course there could be Managed burns that for whatever reason become unmanaged and do damage to property, Los Alamos, New Mexico comes to mind. But in light of all the decades of taking the wrong approach, I look forward to the results of this new approach. Now if we could just get the environmentalists out of Tucson to go along with the necessity of this new approach, I believe the final result will satisfy most everyone. Most agree there are simply too many trees for a healthy forest. It is how we get those forests back to their more natural condition that is the rub. I expect the fight to continue.
Uranium mining has a very bad track record. As much as I would not want to see that type of operation in the Grand Canyon watershed, I also do not want this POTUS circumventing Congress and the public by acting unilaterally as he has done on so many occasions. Grijalva seems to be afraid of "the People" and it appears he simply cannot make a good case for his legislation, so he does the backdoor approach. That approach should earn him scorn and derision as if he doesn't already have enough of that already. The Grand Canyon is already a National Park and has very strict limits on ANYTHING that takes place within it's boundaries. And since the tribes are all sovereign nations, how is it that they themselves cannot stop such activities within their reservations? As good as the intentions may be here, the smell emanating from the approach being taken look eerily similar to pretty much everything this president has bypassed Congress to do for HIS special interests, not "the People" as the Constitution intended.
All the facts as stated in the article ring true. But if there is anyone who actually moves into the Urban/Forest Interface and does NOT have an appreciation of the inherent fire risks involved in living in such an environment, then shame on them. Fire has been with us for longer than anyone here has been alive and it has it's benefits and it's risks. I see little purpose in the alarmist reporting that the Roundup has become noted for as regards the fire danger when living in proximity to the very forest that brought most of us here. Having people sitting on the edge of their seats, biting their nails, awaiting the "catastrophe" that is always just moments away may garner the Roundup more readership, but I see little else benefit in this alarmist type of reporting. A simple "Be aware of where you live" should suffice. I sense the elected leadership of this region is more than aware of the potential for disaster in their area of governance. But in all my years enforcing the Wildland Urban Interface Code in SoCalifornia, I can't recall a single year that the fires we had were in anyway ameliorated by that code enforcement. They came like clockwork every year and we always did our best to save as much as we could given the magnitude of such events and our limited resources, but at some point one has to accept the reality of their individual choices. Pass all the codes you want, that threat will NOT go away unless the forest goes away. One of the largest fires I experienced in my career was right in the middle of suburbia and not a forest around. I AM NOT inferring that such protective approaches (codes, FireWise efforts,etc) are useless. They can have a positive effect under the right circumstances. But if the worst case scenario plays out, it will all be for naught.
I appreciate your position. But the way I see it, this type of political "buying" has been going on for decades, and a large amount of it behind closed doors. I believe the only thing Citizens United did was broaden the playing field. I think we can both appreciate that a person cannot ascend to politics at the Federal level unless they are bought and paid for by SOMEONE. Now it may make you feel better knowing just who that someone is, but in the end, ALL politicians owe somebody for all the money provided them to get elected. It certainly is NOT the preferred approach, but I see little change in business as usual when it comes to political elections. Once again I believe "We the People" have effectively been cut out of the process and short of some real drastic action, I see little we can do to regain control over those that are supposed to represent our wishes, not those of some special interest group that actually purchased them, ie George Soros, the Koch Brothers, the AFL/CIO, Teamsters, DuPont, etc. I know you and many others still have a belief that we can fix all this at the ballot box. I think Bernie Sanders and others are clearly demonstrating that the system is fixed in favor of those already in power. Pick your poison, as they are all equally corrupt, regardless of whether or not we know every single person or entity financially supporting their election. Citizens United did not bring all this on, it only shined a light on just how corrupt the "system" is, and has been for quite some time.
In today's society there is little to no accountability for individual responsibility. Sure, there are lawsuits being filed, but the motives there has nothing to do with "Justice" but everything to do with money. Period!! I've seen my share of "ambulance chasers" that will assure victims of some wrong that if they just hire THEM, they (victims) will be on easy street for the rest of their lives. When and if we can ever return to a system where justice is the primary goal and leave the monetary aspects in a far distant second place, then perhaps I would support such pursuits as you point out based upon seeking "justice". Currently, it's a waste of time and only makes attorneys rich. Especially when it comes to public officials conduct. Seen what is going on at the VA recently?
Saw the report on your loss. Would have sent my condolences earlier but felt you needed your private, family time, so held off. You know we are keeping you in our prayers as you deal with the loss.
And this from a site that is hardly a conservative bastion:
Let me know when you've had enough.
If there were some way we could remove ALL the money from "special interests" groups from the political arena, I'd be for it in a heartbeat. I'm not that naive. Remember the statement"I'll have the most transparent administration, EVER!" Top to bottom they ALL lie and are worthy of being sent to Syria right this moment. Every crooked one of them. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Truer words were never spoken, in my view.
Can you name me one "special interest" group that does not fund and then expect favors from political electees? SEIU? ACORN? IAFF? Any? I simply do not see a bit of difference between these "special interest" groups and those nasty corporations, made up of shareholders. All cut from the same bolt of cloth as far as I can tell.
I think you know what my career was. I was forced to join a union , CWA (Communication Workers of America)when I first got out of the service. Then public safety unionized (IAFF) and I was compelled to accept it or give up my career. Both unions took money from me in the form of mandatory dues and supported the very people I went into the voting booth and voted against. To say that unions have literally bought and paid for politicians, mostly Democrats, is not a joke, it's a fact. Although that may be changing due to those very unions realizing that they have been thrown under the bus by their Democrat allies in favor of cheap foreign labor, legal and illegal. The big outcry over this "dark money" has elicited such a backlash as it seems because it has gone part ways in leveling the playing field as regards "special interest" groups. And I would imagine that Democrats are just as involved as are their opponents.https://capitalresearch.org/2015/09/the-democrats-mystery-man-fred-eychaner/ A pox on all of them.
And you are being hypocritical in you have the gall to allude to " partisan hackles". You don't like/approve those the citizens of Arizona have elected to represent them, you are cordially invited to find a place more to your liking. There, Robert. The response you wished for?
"The next step is to vote in people who are not bought and paid for by special interests."
Mel, you aren't talking about those politicians bought and paid for by unions are you?
Last login: Monday, June 27, 2016