We MUST Stop the Forest Fires!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Messages
55
Location
America's Best Christian
Everyone! We must take action!

That is why, I, Whortense Wiffin, XI Comtess d'Enron, have decided to organize action!

All of these forest fires...what do they have in common?

(Yes...most of them had arsonists)

(Yes...it is the worst drought since the 1930s)

Give up? It is TREES. So we MUST make a preemptive strike against this clear and present danger so kindly called "trees" and strike them down in our "War on Trees." Yes...with no trees, there are NO forest fires! And the good news is that my friends in the logging industry can single handedly prop up our economy, where I can invest in wood, and, with a bit of insider trading, make a killing before my friends embezzle all the profits and bankrupt the companies. The American dream!

Now who is all with me in the "War on Trees?"
 
hugatree.gif


PC240371.JPG


:shifty:

sq-celine-tree-hug-son.jpg
 
What Whortense appears to be mocking is the idea of some politicians to allow limited logging to prevent forest fires, that allowing the cutting down of some trees will better preserve other trees within our nation's great forests.

Problems with his criticism?

First, the abundance of scrub and deadwood that HAS made the current bout forest fires MUCH worse than it could have been.

Second, the idea is valid on a smaller scale: it's not "killing a patient to cure him," it's like pruning a tree. And, done correctly, pruning DOES help the tree grow and remain healthy.

Finally, I'm not sure why GOP Whortense would bring this up since this isn't strictly a Republican idea.

In a supplemental spending bill, a Senator from South Dakota simply declared the forests of the Black Hills open to logging to prevent the forest fires.

This Senator? Senate Majority Leader TOM DASCHLE.
 
A joke? From the same person that suggested the U.S. has become "an Axis of Medieval"? The same person that called Bush a "55 year old simpleton"?

This person has also said, in a post that is interesting in its own right, "We have gratuitously destroyed so much of nature that the Taliban's smashing up of Buddhist statues, as comparative vandalism, will someday seem quite minuscule." But he was joking here?

If you insist, but I believe it's clear that it could go either way.

Bubba
 
Achtung Bubba said:
Is this a request of me alone?

Or do you also request this of Hi Bias, who reminds us (source, anyone?) that "Reagan said trees poison the air."

Just wondering.

Bubba

Bubba,

Here are some quotes, Reagan DID say these things.

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." Reagan '81

"A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?"
Reagan '66, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park

"I have flown twice over Mt St Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." Reagan '80. Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.

With a little effort you can find the sources.

btw, I voted for Reagan.
 
I'm not posting in this forum anymore.. have fun kids

Ok whatever you say!
 
Bubba,
I actually just took whoretense' post as a joke.

On the case of High Bias, I agree with you and would just add her to your IGNORE list as did I. That way you won't have to deal with the shit(e) since you can't see it!
 
So Hi Bias' comment wasn't a joke. Wow, looks who's right. :mac:

I'm not sure what President Reagan meant by trees causing more pollution than do cars: barring context or evidence, I'd assume he misspoke.

The Redwood comment may irk environmentalists, but there's nothing inherently wrong about its suggestion that there must be a balance between preservation and commerce.


Now, to the comment about Mount St. Helens.

Here's the comment:

"I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving."

Here are the stats you give:

"Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars."

Let's run the numbers, shall we?


Cars emit 81,000 tons of sulpher dioxide per day.

81,000 tons/day * 365 days/year * 10 years = 295,650,000 tons

300 million tons.


The 2,000 tons/day is the volcano's peak activity rate, so let's use a conservative estimate of 50 tons/day, averaged over its entire eruptive lifetime (2.5% of its peak rate).

Mount St. Helens's "eruptive history" spans 40,000 years.

50 tons/day * 365 days/year * 40,000 years = 730,000,000 tons

700 million tons, over twice as much.


It could very well be the case that Ronaldus Magnus is right.


(But if we want to treat this thread as a joke, be my guest.)
 
Last edited:
Why are you always so serious?

Jezus, sorry you are not right, again. :)

It is a joke. This thread was started by Whortense for fun .

Because Reagan made these statements, does not mean they are not funny!

It is not necessary to try and validate them.

I lived through the 80s, I remember the news stories.

You don?t need to defend the Gipper. He?s ok in my book.
 
GOP-Controlled Whortense said:
A public service announcement:

"Don't take this thread seriously. Laughter at oneself is often the best medicine."

I find this public service announcement rather disingenuous. The initial post seems to say this:

"I'm going to slag off on (the logging proposal, the war on terrorism, politicians who have ties with Enron), but because this is a joke, nobody is allowed to post a rebuttal."
 
Last edited:
As do I, speedracer, particularly since the "GOP Whortense" moniker was used to start this thread.

Hi Bias, I'm not saying the statements aren't funny because of who said it. I'm saying the "Mount St. Helens" comment isn't funny because it may be well be accurate.

But if you guys want to insist these comments are jokes and, being jokes, are immune from criticism, go right ahead.

As I've said tonight, I'll be limiting myself to mostly religious threads anyway.
 
hey, i'm replying here, what happened

Bubba, I am sorry, I disagree with you. Since the inception of this country citizens have been free to criticize elected officials. It began with George Washington and continued with every president, thereafter. I could use the search and find things posted about Democrats as bad or worse, but who cares.

It is called free speech. That thread (5 things) was poorly conceived, Clinton had eight years with time enough to have real accomplishments. W has less to show because he has only had 18 months.

The mods do a fine job in here. I know the conservatives are outnumbered. That is the nature of the U2 fan base. The answer is not to kill free speech. The answer is to make reasonable, unemotional arguments, like U2Alabama.

Just my thoughts here.
 
My God...get a sense of humor!

Do I REALLY think that Bush is going to cut down all the trees? NO. I am a writer, you silly people, and I was imagining a SNL-type sketch.

Let me get this straight--ANYTIME I post as ANY of the Whortenses, IT IS NOT SERIOUS! Apparently, several people here cannot accept a joke against their politicians. It is NOT like I'm insulting someone's nationality or ethnicity.

How many Clinton blow job jokes did I have to endure? MANY. I often complained, because they were thrown in with otherwise serious political threads. THIS, however, is a joke. It was MEANT to be a joke. Rebut it all the hell you want, but you aren't going to get a serious rebuttal from me, because IT IS A JOKE.

Geez...
 
GOP-Controlled Whortense said:
My God...get a sense of humor!

Do I REALLY think that Bush is going to cut down all the trees? NO. I am a writer, you silly people, and I was imagining a SNL-type sketch.

Let me get this straight--ANYTIME I post as ANY of the Whortenses, IT IS NOT SERIOUS! Apparently, several people here cannot accept a joke against their politicians. It is NOT like I'm insulting someone's nationality or ethnicity.

How many Clinton blow job jokes did I have to endure? MANY. I often complained, because they were thrown in with otherwise serious political threads. THIS, however, is a joke. It was MEANT to be a joke. Rebut it all the hell you want, but you aren't going to get a serious rebuttal from me, because IT IS A JOKE.

Geez...

Thank you. This is what I wanted to hear, because the argument that you present as a joke here is one that I think your evil twin (the one whose name is the same as the name of a collection of U2 remixes distributed for free to Propaganda members) might have presented for real.
 
Achtung Bubba said:


Let's run the numbers, shall we?

50 tons/day * 365 days/year * 40,000 years = 730,000,000 tons


So you are saying it has erupted every day for the last 40,000 years??? I know you used a figure of 2.5% the maximum value but i think that is likely to be way to high. Just curious as to where you got the value from i guess... you might want to divide your total by a reasonably large number to take into account the dormant periods of the volcanoes lifespan and the non-pyroclastic erruptions that have occured where the emissions will be far less.

Just doing the numbers...!

And as for cars, well if we play around with the figures, and ignore the volatile organics, the noxious particulates, the carcinogenic emissions such as benzene, the heavy metals and the heavier hydrocarbons, then yes, american cars are no worse for the air we breathe than your average american volcano.
 
Last edited:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 27, 2002
Bush on Fire
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Round up the usual suspects! George W. Bush's new "Healthy Forests" plan reads like a parody of his administration's standard operating procedure. You see, environmentalists cause forest fires, and those nice corporations will solve the problem if we get out of their way.

Am I being too harsh? No, actually it's even worse than it seems. "Healthy Forests" isn't just about scrapping environmental protection; it's also about expanding corporate welfare.

Everyone agrees that the forests' prime evil is a well-meaning but counterproductive bear named Smokey. Generations of fire suppression have led to a dangerous accumulation of highly flammable small trees and underbrush. And in some ? not all ? of the national forests it's too late simply to reverse the policy; thanks to growing population and urban sprawl, some forests are too close to built-up areas to be allowed to burn.

Clearly, some of the excess fuel in some of the nation's forests should be removed. But how? Mr. Bush asserts that there is a free lunch: allowing more logging that thins out the national forests will both yield valuable resources and reduce fire risks.

But it turns out that the stuff that needs to be removed ? small trees and bushes, in areas close to habitation ? is of little commercial value. The good stuff, from the industry's point of view, consists of large, mature trees ? the kind of trees that usually survive forest fires ? which are often far from inhabited areas.

So the administration proposes to make deals with logging companies: in return for clearing out the stuff that should be removed, they will be granted the right to take out other stuff that probably shouldn't be removed. Notice that this means that there isn't a free lunch after all. And there are at least three severe further problems with this plan.

First, will the quid pro quo really be enforced, or will loggers simply make off with the quid and forget about the quo? The Forest Service, which would be in charge of enforcement, has repeatedly been cited by Congress's General Accounting Office for poor management and lack of accountability. And the agency, true to Bush administration form, is now run by a former industry lobbyist. (In the 2000 election cycle, the forest products industry gave 82 percent of its contributions to Republicans.) You don't have to be much of a cynic to question whether loggers will really be held to their promises.

Second, linking logging of mature trees to clearing of underbrush is a policy non sequitur. Suppose Mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that Waste Management Inc. would pick up Manhattan's trash free, in return for the right to dump toxic waste on Staten Island. Staten Island residents would protest, correctly, that if Manhattan wants its garbage picked up, it should pay for the service; if the city wants to sell companies the right to dump elsewhere, that should be treated as a separate issue. Similarly, if the federal government wants to clear underbrush near populated areas, it should pay for it; if it wants to sell the right to log mature trees elsewhere, that should be a separate decision.

And this gets us to the last point: In fact, the government doesn't make money when it sells timber rights to loggers. According to the General Accounting Office, the Forest Service consistently spends more money arranging timber sales than it actually gets from the sales. How much money? Funny you should ask: last year the Bush administration stopped releasing that information. In any case, the measured costs of timber sales capture only a fraction of the true budgetary costs of logging in the national forests, which is supported by hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies, especially for road-building. This means that, environmental issues aside, inducing logging companies to clear underbrush by letting them log elsewhere would probably end up costing taxpayers more, not less, than dealing with the problem directly.

So as in the case of the administration's energy policy, beneath the free-market rhetoric is a plan for increased subsidies to favored corporations. Surprise.

A final thought: Wouldn't it be nice if just once, on some issue, the Bush administration came up with a plan that didn't involve weakened environmental protection, financial breaks for wealthy individuals and corporations and reduced public oversight?
 
Back
Top Bottom