The Biden administration does something right, changing the approach to vast wildfires in a way that may actually save human lives. Right Angle is a production of our Members.
Video above hosted at Rumble.
Categories
BREAKING: Biden Does Something Right!
The Biden administration does something right, changing the approach to vast wildfires in a way that may actually save human lives.
18 replies on “BREAKING: Biden Does Something Right!”
But… but… the Fairy Shrimp!
Forest management would cut into their pension, union and bribery funds. Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath.
What a politician says and what he does after two different things. I’ll believe it when I see it. But as far as I can tell, this is merely an opportunity for them to pass large spending bills intended to address these things, and they misdirect funding as always and enrich themselves and the new organizations created to receive and disappear/ misappropriate all these tax payer dollars. Sweet words once again, but don’t believe it until the problem is solved.
Scott, my ears perked up when you said that your proposed metric for measuring the need for social services was to calculate the number of people who DIDN’T need those services in comparison to before. I’m gobsmacked, Scott. BRILLIANT of you. Which probably explains why you’re no longer at that Board of County Commissionersd, unfortunately.
The odds are the new targeted fire policy was a Trump era policy that the bureaucrats held up until he was out of office. There are reportedly dozens of things Trump worked out that Biden is taking credit for with delayed implementation.
Dang it guys, I tune out of politics for the weekend every Friday morning & was only checking for a new TSL.
Great show as always, though
If the loons go full steam into the notion that fire is good, we may face a nuclear winter.
It was during the Clinton administration that forest maintenance such as strategic logging and brush clearing was stopped. Additionally, all of the maintenance roads were closed and off-limits. This was all at the behest of environmentalists.
This may have been at the behest of SOME of the “environmentalists”, but it was not at my behest – speaking as a local Montana Sierra Club leader back in the 80’s. The build up of undergrowth was primarily due to the US Forest Service adopting the no-fires-at-any-time philosophy (which predated WW2). USFS’s only remedy was clearcuts everywhere (maximize logs for lumber industry). The political push for lumber jobs was immense, over-riding any environmentalist (like me) pushing for forest management. Even the USFS’s own range and forest scientists agreed that forest policy had to change (I worked for one of them, who had left USFS in disgust when his rational, science-based forest plans were trashed by Washington due to insufficient logs produced). I’m not sure why Biden has changed, and frankly, I’ll believe it when I see it in action. But if true, it would be a good thing, welcomed by true environmentalists like me and my friends.
You’re not a “true environmentalist” you’re a conservationist. This isn’t just quibbling over semantics. They’re not the same thing and the clue is in the name itself.
Environmentalism puts the environment first above all else related to the topic. As such “environmental” action and policy is dependent on who is defining “environment” and what their agenda is for improving it. There are people who deny nature and define “environmentalism” as anything not influenced in any way by human beings.
Conservationism is the science of human husbandry of natural resources in the wisest, most sustainable manner. While not immune from personality issues and individual mores, it’s a position that is much less susceptible to them. If environmentalism isn’t allowed to creep in to conservationism that is.
I’ve been a conservationist my whole life. I would never dream of applying the moniker “environmentalist” to myself. I don’t think, from what you said, that it applies to you either.
Funny too that “conservation” and “conservative” both stem from the same root etymology and mean similar things.
LIke I said, this isn’t a semantic quibble. It’s vital for conservatives to say exactly what they mean and mean exactly what they say. The Left are not “liberals”, they’re Social Marxist post-modernists and there’s nothing in the liberal philosophy applies to them. Using Leftist phraseology is losing the argument just through word choice.
Conservationism is not environmentalism in the same sense that being a parent isn’t the same as being a buddy. Being parent to your child is better than being his buddy and being a conservationist for your planet is better than being an environmentalist friend of Earth of any stripe.
Your claim to a “more true environmentalist” status would only be taken by the Left as a virtue signal. Which they would have to top by being even more pure than you and on it goes to destruction.
Whereas if you walk up to some unbathed, reeking eco-freak who thinks he’s superior to you by virtue of his more pure environmentalism and tell him he’s nuts not to be a conservationist, and why, you cut his legs out from under him. He can’t claim to be a better conservationist than you, he probably doesn’t even know what conservationism is.
Because he’s adhering to what amounts to a religious belief and if you claim to be of the same sect, you’re no longer even talking about the same things. He knows he’s an apostle of environmentalism, he worships the god Gaia whether he knows or will admit it or not. All he has to do is prove he’s a better apostle than you are and the people who will judge that have already made up their minds. They’re apostles too.
I highly recommend Firewise.org for communities in the rural areas. Our community has yearly mitigation events. That, along with the controlled burns of the forest service, help a lot.
Please remember.Democrats TALKING about “…doing something!”
And Democrats ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING…are two totally different things.
Democrats = Promise the Moon…but Deliver a Boot on the throat and hand in your pocket.
I think most of the Democrat promises are more results than solutions. They promise to end hunger or poverty or systemic racism, but don’t actually suggest any ways for doing so. When they do suggest ways, they are not seriious (when the plan fails all they claim are “we meant well”).
I think Vilsak does mean well and since he did suggest things that should be done (especially when they are things others have already suggested) that means he isn’t really a Democrat, and isn’t long for their team either.
A few things: 1) Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every so often. 2) A broken clock is right twice a day. (Which is more then the Democrats get it right, but I digress.)
.I’m glad to see common sense here. If only there was more of it in politics. Of course, there is less power in this case, so it is going against the flow. Here’s hoping
The problem Democrats have is they keep changing the hands on the clock, trying to make themselves right more than twice a day, but since they are incompetent, they botch that up as well. 😛
Well, sheer random chance would mean they would get something right given enough time. I think this is their “once in a century” time. And it’s early in the century.
To play devil’s advocate, yes they should get something right by random chance, but this isn’t random or chance. They aren’t flipping a coin without trying to influence the outcome but to continue the analogy, trying to do something to make heads more likely, and just end up making it always come up tails.
I suppose roulette would be a better example, where if they just bet on black, or evens, or even just put down on the same number every single time they should, by chance, hit a winner at some point. Instead I picture them betting on 12, then 25, then 2, then something else, working a system to “beat the odds”.
In this situation, I see the person responsible being not quite dumb enough to be a Democrat and giving up the New Age hand waving and just going with a common sense solution. It won’t be flashy, have a great acronym for a name but as a plus does give his office power to do things and control things, which bureaucrats do like. For Glenn Reynolds “insufficient means for graft” reasons on why things do not happen, they will get to pick who does the clearing, just which property lines get messed up, who get the renewable contract for doing the burns and all sorts of kickback enabled things like that.
I feel like in 5 plus decades I have heard this version of forest mgmt plan many times over the years. I went to a eng / ag school in the SE USA and I can recall people actually talking about this a bars (engineers are not always the liveliest conversationalists). I recall no one arguing for the fight all the fires immediately side. Everyone agreed that letting the small fires burn out the fuel and maintaining the areas around homes was best. This was in the 80s. The federal ship of state needs a bigger freaking rudder!
Now we need to take Scott’s thinking to such issues as reducing homelessness.