Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

‘Healthy Forests Initiative’


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Hefex78

Hefex78

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 36 posts

Posted 22 August 2003 - 06:22 PM

I was driving south through Oregon yesterday from Washington, listening to a horrible local conservative talk-radio show, they patched Bush through from a live speech he just happened to be making within the state. Most of it was bull shit, but he talked about a bill that he wanted to have passed, something about "The Healthy Forests Initiative" I think, where he basically said the only way our national forests will be able to thrive and survive will be if we as humans assist them in "thinning" out the forests. Doing so will supposedly prevent the forests from "harmful diseases" and wild fires.

This speech blew my mind. How could he be any more right: If you cut down the forests, you definitely don't have to worry about them burning or causing wild fires? What a genius.

I'm not 100% or even 50% sure of what exactly he was proposing beside the above point, but is this fucking real?

Sounds to me allowing the forests to be "thinned" for the sake of the environment is a very convenient way of making a boat load of cutter for big logging business.

I guess this makes sense though considering he was there in an effort to encourage the Oregon people who have been experiencing the highest unemployment rate out of any other state in the US (this past fiscal year).

Oh, I almost forgot. He also said that "thinning" the forests would inadvertently save the endangered species and "allow them to finally exist." ....<dumbass!

Does anyone know anything more about this?
Speech
I also found this link: http://www.montanafo...ts-op.php?nnn=5 … interesting….

Posted Image

#2 micah

micah

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 10 posts

Posted 22 August 2003 - 06:53 PM

I feel your ragePosted Image
Not only on this topic but other topics as well(especially the Patriot Act which is a disgrace).
I can only dream that Howard Dean will have Bush's ass on a platter when it comes to debate time, assuming he gets the Dem. nomination.
Our day will come.
Until then, happy shroominPosted Image

#3 Guest_jesse_*

Guest_jesse_*
  • Guest

Posted 22 August 2003 - 07:07 PM

He is right, over logging hurts the forest, but thinning allows for new growth, it also helps to stop a forest fire from spreading and burning a whole forest down.

A long time ago there were no humans around to stop naturally occurring events like forest fires that would thin out the land by removing all the dead and dry waste. This allows for new growth. Now that humans are here we try to contain and preserve everything such that nature doesn't run its natural course. Then some forests overgrow with fast growing trees, and these large trees prevent slower and new ones from growing up. Also the dense forests have a better chance of thoroughly burning down because of the proximity of the trees, where a thinned out one won't burn down as easily.

I am curious as to who decides which trees go and which ones stay, the logging companies Posted Image or the conservationists Posted Image, or maybe conservationists paid by the logging companies Posted Image.

#4 Guest_psycho_*

Guest_psycho_*
  • Guest

Posted 22 August 2003 - 07:11 PM

I saw this report on national geo.about australian aboriganees who started fires to help them gather certain animals for hunting them.something that they had been doing for a long time.but when less aboriganees hunted in that manner envirementalist in australia realized that a specific animal(i forgot but i think it was a field mouse or something small)used the left over burned grasses as its major source of food,and with no fires the animal couldn't consume the full grass which resulted in a chain reaction diminishing animals and less food for prey.I found it really intersting.fires should happen once in a while to allow for certain things that we might not fully understand.I love the forest and hate the site of clearcutting, but I guess people have to eat too.cutting lumber makes people money but I'm not sure that cutting down the forest is the best solution.though I might be wrong.

#5 Guest_hippie3_*

Guest_hippie3_*
  • Guest

Posted 23 August 2003 - 09:07 AM

the best lies always contain elements of truth.
there is some merit to the idea that selective cutting and removal of dead/dying timber lowers the rate of forest fires. years of 'hands-off' policy has made several wildfires worse than they would have been if underbrush had been cleared.
of course, letting the logging companies come in isn't going to help much as they won't want the stuff that really needs to be removed.
i think instead of logging we should just emulate nature and do controlled burns of areas on a regular basis.
and keep the loggers out.

#6 Guest_xylem_*

Guest_xylem_*
  • Guest

Posted 24 August 2003 - 06:27 PM

clean air iniitative= the same bullshit our pResident pushes with the "no child left behind" yet he cuts fed spending on education 18% and cuts aid to states so that they have to reduce education spending= the same bullshit as his "renewable energy policy" but he cuts taxes on SUV purchases and has almost completely cut all cash spending on research and developement of renewable energy sources= the same bullshit as WMD's= the same bullshit as "Support Our Troops" when our troops are being murdered slowly by the use of depleted uranium munitions.

this man and his chronies are pathological liars, i even feel that they believe thier own bullshit, how else can bush and his chronies look at themselves in the mirror every morning.

thieves, murderers, liars, and whores

i say give them some M-16's and let them all go over there and take care of Iraq the way they think it needs to be taken care of- but we already know every one but Powell stayed far, far away from any combat in 'Nam or any other campaign.


Bush Misuses Science, Report Says
Democrats Say Data Are Distorted to Boost Conservative Policies
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post

Friday 08 August 2003

The Bush administration has repeatedly mischaracterized scientific facts to bolster its political agenda in areas ranging from abstinence education and condom use to missile defense, according to a detailed report released yesterday by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

The White House quickly dismissed the report as partisan sniping.

The 40-page document, "Politics and Science in the Bush Administration," was compiled by the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee's special investigations division. It marks the launch of a new effort by Waxman and others in Congress to highlight simmering anger among scientists and others who believe that President Bush -- much more than his predecessors -- has been spiking science with politics to justify conservative policies in areas such as reproductive rights, embryo research, energy policy and environmental health.

"The Administration's political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists," according to the report, posted yesterday at www.politicsandscience.org. "The subjects involved span a broad range, but they share a common attribute: the beneficiaries of the scientific distortions are important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups."

White House spokesman Adam Levine said it would take time for the administration to address the specifics of the report. However, he said, "I'm hard-pressed to believe anyone would consider Congressman Waxman an objective arbiter of scientific fact."

Several prestigious scientific journals have editorialized about the Bush administration's dealings in science in recent months, including Science, Nature and the New England Journal of Medicine.

An editor at Science, for example, recently said in print that the administration was injecting politics into arenas of science "once immune to this kind of manipulation."

And the editors of the Lancet noted "growing evidence of explicit vetting of appointees to influential [scientific] panels on the basis of their political or religious opinions" and warned against "any further right-wing incursions" on those panels.

The General Accounting Office has been investigating such allegations since some in Congress asked the agency to do so in September, but it has not released any findings.

Among the purported abuses documented in the report:

• "Performance measures" used to determine the effectiveness of federally funded "abstinence only" sex education programs were altered by the administration in ways that made it easier to say the programs were effective. And information about how to use a condom -- along with scientific data showing that sex education does not lead to earlier or increased sexual activity in young people -- was removed from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site.

• In testimony before Congress, Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton omitted -- and in at least one case misstated -- federal scientists' findings that Arctic oil drilling could harm wildlife.

• The administration altered a National Cancer Institute Web site in a way that wrongly implied there was good evidence linking abortions to breast cancer.

• The Education Department circulated a memo instructing employees to remove materials from the department's Web site not "consistent with the Administration's philosophy," prompting complaints about censorship from national educational organizations.

• Bush has appointed to key scientific advisory committees numerous people with political, rather than scientific, credentials. For example, his appointee to a presidential AIDS advisory committee, marketing consultant Jerry Thacker, has described homosexuality as a "deathstyle" and referred to AIDS as the "gay plague."

A spokesman for Waxman said the report will be updated on the Web as new examples arise.


--------------------------------------------------

#7 Guest_hippie3_*

Guest_hippie3_*
  • Guest

Posted 25 August 2003 - 10:37 AM

i'd have to agree.
kinda like how we've already 'won' the wars in afghanistan and iraq,
when in truth, both wars are still in their infancy.
it took the afghanis 10 years to drive out the soviets, i bet we don't even last that long.




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!